For your better reading and interactive experience, in order for you to see more content in time, click "Follow", we will update you with wonderful information every day!
Editor: Let's talk about it
In a hail of bullets, a group of India Army soldiers is in a desperate struggle with a group of unidentified militants. It was an evenly matched encounter, with the firepower of both sides colliding like two torrents.
Just as the light of dawn pierced through the dark clouds, the shocking outcome was revealed: while killing six militants, the Indian army also paid a heavy price for two precious lives.
The 1-to-3 battle loss ratio is more brilliant than the numbers, but it can't hide the cruel nature behind it. This army of industry, defending peace in the mountains and rivers of its homeland, needs to be exchanged for victory in such a bloody way?
Immediately afterward, the gears of fate turned fiercely again, and just two days later, the India Army suffered another heavy blow in the same area. A group of masked militants ambushed a truck full of soldiers, grenades mixed with gunfire slammed into the unsuspecting team. When the smoke cleared, five warriors fell between the dirt, and six were wounded and bruised. And the unscrupulous attackers fled and fled. This time, the 11 officers and soldiers had a bad fate, but the results in exchange for the battle were a pity.
Two tragic events loom over the mountains of Kashmir, whispering like ominous signs. They questioned the strength of the India military's high-profile stride, and undermined the Asian giant's determination to make a name for itself on the international stage.
At a time when India's high-level voices for "normalization" are endless, the tragedy in Kashmir is like a slap in the face, reminding them to look directly at the problem of their own military strength. India aspires to become a permanent member of the Security Council and has its own ambitions. But to wear this laurel wreath with a clear conscience, national self-esteem alone is not enough.
We might as well look to the other powers that are already firmly seated on the throne of the P5. Although United Kingdom is considered the weakest militarily, it can still build aircraft carriers and strategic nuclear submarines with considerable national strength. In contrast, India's only aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, took 23 years from design to service, and there was a series of ironic farces in between, and its "splendid" construction process was too hasty compared with United Kingdom.
Taking a step back, India does have a certain military strength, and it is inevitable that their military will suffer heavy losses in the event of a conflict with its neighbors. We still remember that in 2020, France sent troops to Africa to fight terrorists, killing more than 120 people in just one month without casualties, such a result is undoubtedly unattainable for the active Indian army.
In the face of Kashmir's "twists and turns", India needs to reflect not only on the tactical command of the army, but also on building a modern army that matches the status of a great power. Blood alone is meaningless, and without the support of elite combat capabilities, it will not be able to make a weighty voice in international affairs. In order to ascend to the hall of the "five permanent members," it is not enough to rely on political demands alone, but must use real military force to defend one's own interests and status.
The gears of fate never stopped, and only two days later, the Indian army suffered another heavy defeat in the same area. This time, masked militants plotted a convoy of trucks full of soldiers, and grenades were mixed with gunfire to smash into the unsuspecting team. When the smoke cleared, five warriors fell between the dirt, and six were wounded and bruised. And the unscrupulous attackers fled and fled. This time, the 11 officers and soldiers had a bad fate, but the result in exchange was only a regrettable 0.
Two tragic events loom over the mountains of Kashmir, whispering like ominous signs. They questioned the strength of the India military's high-profile stride, and undermined the Asian giant's determination to make a name for itself on the international stage.
A group of India Army soldiers walking on a mountain road was ambushed, and bullets rained down. The soldiers quickly found cover and launched an attack and counterattack. In the rain of bullets, the two sides launched a desperate struggle, and the firepower attacked each other as if two torrents collided. Just as a ray of dawn broke through the dark clouds, the encounter ended: the Indian side killed six militants, but also lost two precious comrades. Although the 1-3 battle loss ratio seems brilliant, paying such a heavy price for victory undoubtedly shows the severity of this battle.
Just two days later, in the early morning, a group of masked militants ambushed a convoy of trucks transporting India troops. They threw grenades, and the gunshots rang out. The convoy was completely defenseless and was indiscriminately bombarded by the attackers. When the gunfire subsided, five Indian soldiers lay in pools of blood and six others were wounded. The attackers fled in full. In this battle, the Indian army suffered as many as 11 casualties, but it was a far-reaching and impartial analysis of the viewpoint
Two tragic incidents in Kashmir have raised questions about the strength of the India military. As an ambitious power aspiring to play an important role in international affairs, national pride and political aspirations alone are far from enough. India's ambitions to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council are clear.
To truly deserve this crown, it must have a strong military strength commensurate with the status of national strength.
Let us turn our attention to the other powers that already sit on the throne of the P5. Take United Kingdom, for example, although it is considered the weakest militarily, but it can still build aircraft carriers and strategic nuclear submarines with considerable national strength.
In contrast, India's only aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, took 23 years from design to service, and there was a series of ironic farces in between, and its "splendid" construction process was indeed too hasty and hasty compared with United Kingdom.
(Disclaimer) The process and pictures described in the article are from the Internet, and this article aims to advocate positive social energy and no vulgar and other bad guidance. If it involves copyright or character infringement issues, please contact us in time, and we will delete the content as soon as possible! If there is any doubt about the incident, it will be deleted or changed immediately after contact.