
Why did USSR and US Fail in Afghanistan?
USSR and US in Afghanistan
The story of the two superpower invasions of Afghanistan (by the US and USSR) is entirely about the parallels that ultimately obscure the obvious distinctions.
Even though Moscow was aware that requests for more weapons were frequently rapacious and based on greatly exaggerated numbers of Afghan personnel, the Soviet Union increased its economic and military assistance to the Mohammad Najibullah administration as it prepared to depart Afghanistan in 1988. Mikhail Gorbachev and his Politburo sought to make amends to Najibullah and his people for abandoning them to face the wrath of the American-trained, -armed, and -funded opposition because they felt sorry over the retreat.
Gorbachev was also aware of a certain matter of dignity. His foreign policy adviser Anatoly Chernyaev recalled in 2009 that “he said multiple times that we cannot just pull up our pants and make a dash for it, like Americans in Vietnam.”
After the decision was reached, it took the Soviets more than three years to go. The transfer of garrisons and military hardware involved complex procedures, with the new local owners receiving spruced-up barracks and recently tested weapons in addition to signed receipts. In his 2019 book, “The Limited Contingent,” General Boris Gromov, who oversaw the retreat, recalls how the Jalalabad garrison left their barracks:
The beds were tucked in neatly. There were slippers under the lockers, and even the bedside floor mats were in their proper places. The barracks were outfitted with all the tools required. The water supply functioned flawlessly.
The United States withdrew in 2021 with the goal of completing the withdrawal within a few months after President Joe Biden made the decision to do so. It destroyed certain equipment because it seemed more worried than the Soviets about its weapons ending up in the hands of Afghanistan’s potential new rulers. Even the things that American troops did leave behind, including keyless automobiles and trucks, were sometimes inoperable. Neither does the United States seem to believe in lengthy farewells, at least based on their surprise overnight departure from the Bagram Air Base. The Americans turned off the electricity, which cut off the water supply, and then they vanished.
And yet, whatever how different something may appear, it actually remains the same. Hours after the Russians left Jalalabad, the clean Soviet garrison town was pillaged, and Gromov reported that “all the more or less valuable property — televisions, audio equipment, air conditioners, furniture, even army mattresses — was sold through the city’s market booths.” The same incident occurred in Bagram shortly after the Americans left; thieves broke in and took whatever they could find of value.
In support of a Communist-led coup in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union invaded the country as part of a Cold War expansionist policy. After 9/11, the U.S. attempted to destroy al-Qaeda, which is maybe a more honourable justification. In less than ten years, the Soviet Union lost about 15,000 personnel, while Americans (the Pentagon and private military organisations combined) lost less than half that number over two times as long. The US, which spent an astounding $2.26 trillion on the war, can live with that; at least they managed to break al-back Qaeda and kill Osama bin Laden, even if not in Afghanistan itself. The USSR achieved nothing by entering its Afghan war; pouring resources into the conflict’s bottomless pit only hastened the end of the Communist superpower.
But once more, it’s challenging to concentrate on these distinctions when the parallels are even more striking. According to Gromov, “207 out of 290 districts” were under the control of the “opposition” in early 1989, a collective term for numerous Islamist organisations and self-serving warlords. Afghanistan has 421 districts, though the exact number is always changing. The Taliban are reportedly in charge of around a third of those districts and district centres. So both superpowers purposefully abandoned weak governments and a sense of impending doom in the areas these governments still ruled. When the Taliban arose as a just movement promising to put an end to warlord rivalry and took over Kabul in 1996, they hung Najibullah, who had by that time long since lost power; Afghan officials who worked with the U.S. may certainly suffer the same fate if they do not depart.
And in all instances, Pakistan was crucial in foiling the superpowers’ attempts to restrain Islamist militancy. As long as Pakistan offers the Taliban protection, safety, training, equipment, and funding, the battle against the Taliban will be impossible to win. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation with the fifth-largest population in the world, is impossible for us to defeat.
The accords on Afghan national reconciliation, which formed the basis for the Soviet withdrawal, were violated in 1989 by Pakistan. The Afghan rebels had outposts in Pakistan and recruited Afghans in nearby refugee camps, including fighters who would later join the Taliban. Like the U.S. today, the Soviet Union was unprepared to confront Pakistan militarily, so the U.S. and its Western allies helped enable the flow of weapons and money into the conflict zones from the neighbouring nation.
In other words, no matter your morals, no matter how much time you spend or how many soldiers you lose, no matter whether you’re on the winning or losing side in geopolitical battles, what you’ll leave behind in Afghanistan will be scenes of looting, a weak regime that depends too much on your support and is unlikely to last for very long, tough local fighters who feel justified for years of adversity and gloating Pakistani generals across the border. Another constant was the country’s thriving opium trade, which neither the Soviets nor the Americans were able to stifle.
As much as the Soviets of the 1980s and the Americans of the first two decades of this century differ from one another, both stepped into Afghanistan with too little planning and too much arrogance and confidence — and knew from the start that they couldn’t stay. This persisting situation has less to do with the stubborn magic of the place than it does with the straightforward fact that. Both parties were confident in their greater military prowess and moral superiority. Both discovered evidence that some people accepted what they brought—each their distinct brand of secular progressivism—and believed this indicated that those ideals might spread. However, neither could last forever because colonisation is no longer acceptable, and neither Gorbachev nor Joe Biden was willing to discuss the idea. Given the high human and financial costs, neither of them has found Afghanistan to be worthwhile.
But just like the several Afghan insurgent groups that came before them, the Taliban saw their entire purpose and significance in remaining there forever. Local fighters still believe they are defending their nation and way of life in 2021 as they did in 1989. The Taliban can be very persuasive in this regard. You can outlive superpowers if you’re not going anywhere, regardless of what occurs, the cost, or the length of time you must pay. As Afghanistan’s example demonstrates, attachment to a location and a way of life is a potent constant that generates additional constants.
Why Afghan Colonisation was Destined to Fail
It has been said that nation-building is a fool’s errand and, in the case of a nation already known as the “graveyard of empires,” overly ambitious if not downright naive, as evidenced by the creation of a façade of a state in Afghanistan that melted away the moment international support was withdrawn.
There are intrinsic challenges to rebuilding Afghanistan, the most significant of which is geographic. Afghanistan is a landlocked country that shares borders with Pakistan, the Taliban’s biggest supporter, and Iran, whose authorities prioritise the chance to humiliate the US over any desire for regional security. International efforts to convince the region that stability is preferable to chaos failed because Afghanistan is essentially a secondary concern to other foreign policy priorities, especially the Iranian conflict with the US, the Pakistani conflict with India, and its ongoing apprehension over a pro-Indian government in Kabul. An uphill battle was unavoidable when two of your closest neighbours were determined to undermine nation-building.
A significant contributing aspect is economics because, other than a natural richness that has mostly gone unexplored due to security concerns, Afghanistan has no comparative advantage in any legal trade. The main sources of income are illegal mining, forestry, and narcotics like opium and more recently methamphetamine. Building a legitimate state in a society where most economic activity is illegal is more difficult since so many economically significant players oppose the expansion of the state’s authority into areas where they are operating. Additionally, the absence of obvious viable alternatives continues to be a challenge because many people within the state apparatus were also profiting from criminal activity.
Afghanistan is not a unified, monolingual nation-state, but rather contains a number of ethnic groupings, each of which crosses boundaries, adding to the complexity of Afghan society. The entry of extremely well-armed international forces trying to settle disputes by claiming long-standing foes were actually allies simply prolonged warfare. Managing these complicated dynamics and internal feuds amongst clans are challenging.
Several military leaders made the observation that democratic systems resulted in the government changing every four to five years, despite the fact that nation-building takes several decades. In recent years, a standoff had developed because the Taliban was aware of its inability to retain urban Afghanistan, where a small number of western troops and more contractors were deployed. This arrangement might have continued indefinitely, but the US presence was no longer popular, especially in the US. The Taliban believed they could just wait it out after it was announced that US troops would be leaving.
The fact that the invasion involved overthrowing a group of violent, tyrannical thugs rather than a popular administration may have been the US-led coalition’s best benefit. The issue was that, following the liberation, Iraq was subjected to lessons learnt about how easily less powerful adversaries may be overthrown. The nation-building project wasn’t started for a few years, giving the Taliban time to reorganise in safe havens in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and Afghans didn’t see much direct advantage until then.
Tolerance of corruption, which served as the Taliban’s rallying cry and highlighted the most difficult issue of nation-building in the conditions Afghanistan found itself in, served as the foundation for all of this. Not just the Taliban, but the majority of Afghans, questioned early assertions that the multinational presence would last forever. Families were strongly motivated to take steps to secure their future because there was always a chance that the state would fail. As a result, fewer resources were available to create new states, which decreased their likelihood because the more resources there were, the easier it would be to commit corruption. Smaller sums may have been distributed to more local administrative entities, improving service delivery and the legitimacy of the administration.
Even if the devolution of financial control, though not political power, a more assertive stance against Pakistan, and some early examples of the advantages of a post-Taliban government could have changed things, fundamental problems would still have existed. An alternate strategy would have simply allowed the current transfer of power to take place over the course of months or years as opposed to only a few hours.
Defence
When a Chinese Spy Balloon Made UFOs, a Matter of Grave Concern

A year back, if someone told you that they spotted a “mysterious looking, white, balloon-shaped object” in the sky…you would have probably rubbished it, right? But what about today…how would you react to a news of ‘mysterious balloons in the sky’? With a lot of concern, I presume…and rightly so! In this article we have discussed the incident of Chinese Spy Balloon aka Unidentified Flying Object.
From January 28 to February 4 this year, a giant white balloon was sighted across various parts of the North American airspace. This balloon, that was said to have traveled across South Korea, Japan, Alaska, Canada, and the contiguous United States, was later accepted by the Chinese government to be one of theirs – a Chinese ‘Meteorological’ Balloon that had drifted off-course due to the westerlies.
“The airship is from China. It is a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes. Affected by the Westerlies and with limited self-steering capability, the airship deviated far from its planned course.”
– Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Remarks on the Spy Balloon on 03 Feb 2023
But the American and Canadian intelligence services had different opinions – they claimed that the balloon was an instrument of surveillance which were endangering peace and security of these nations. On February 3, USA’s Department of Defense reported that a second Chinese balloon was flying over Latin America, which China also claimed as its own. Following orders from U.S. President Joe Biden, the US Air Force shot down the balloon on February 4 in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of South Carolina.
But peace was not restored. The spy balloon incident has opened the pandora’s box and the intelligence agencies now find themselves thinking on many fronts.
Before we dive into this, let’s talk about China’s “Civil-Military Fusion” program, under with such emerging technology is being developed.
China’s National Strategy of Civil-Military Fusion (CMF)
“China encourages joint building and utilization of military and civilian infrastructure, joint exploration of the sea, outer space and air, and shared use of such resources as surveying and mapping, navigation, meteorology and frequency spectra. Accordingly, military and civilian resources can be more compatible, complementary and mutually accessible.”
– China’s Military Strategy, May 2015
To fulfill the Chinese goal of becoming a “world class military” by 2049, the Chinese government accelerated its program of CMF in 2015. Under this program, advanced technologies like Quantum Computing, AI, Big Data, nuclear, space and near-space technologies would be developed by exploiting both civilian and military capabilities. The importance of this Military Civilian Development Program can be identified by the fact that the President of the country, Xi Jinping, himself controls and oversees its progress.
But why has the CCP government opted for this civilian-owned militarily empowered program? The reason is quite simple –
If Caught – The government has the option to claim innocence by citing civilian–error and proving that there is no relation to the government or military.
If Successful – The government successfully has access to the sensitive data of adversary and may weaponize this information as and when required for their benefit.
Now let’s take another look at the Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Remarks on the Spy Balloon –
“The airship is from China. It is a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes.”
There should be no doubt that China’s recent ‘meteorological’ balloons are a by-product of it’s Civilian-Military Fusion program. The claim that the balloon’s purpose was to spy on military installations in the Pacific region, cannot and should not be swiftly rejected.
In the past few weeks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command has shot down four objects, and there are rumors of another balloon floating over the Middle East. What was once claimed to be a “civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes”, is now recognized as a component of a vast surveillance program.
Regardless of the quantity or caliber of the balloon’s data gathered while flying over the United States, the controversy surrounding it has grown into an international incident, with multiple claims of similar “UFO” sightings all over the world – Japan, India, Taiwan, Colombia and list goes on.
What damage could the China’s Spy Balloon inflict on the countries? Should we be bothered?
Let’s answer the 2nd question first, should the spying balloon matter to us?
YES, it definitely should.
It is no surprise that most members of Generation Z are unconcerned about data privacy, since they are so accustomed to being watched. In fact, a prevailing thought during a discussion about the balloon was, “Oh, the U.S. probably has comparable programs in China.” The idea of a foreign competitor power gathering surveillance data on them therefore doesn’t seem that terrifying to young people since.
But, let’s not forget this balloon was flying over the country’s military areas, significant bases and important sites.
Now let’s come to the first question, what is the extent of damage that this balloon could cause? – Well, for this we leave you with two opinions to deliberate and make your own judgement.
Opinion 1
First, the chances of electronic surveillance to identify and possibly disrupt sensitive military communications cannot be ruled out at all. Second, is the possibility of cyber espionage or sabotage. With the cyber-skills and hacker army available with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), it is a possible that this ‘balloon-voyage’ was a mere precursor to a full-fledged hybrid war. Third, the spy balloon could be a test, aimed to establish the reaction ability and potential of intelligence agencies worldwide.
Opinion 2
Human brain is wired in a way to look at a shocking event with fear and assume that worst has happened. Therefore, had the Chinese diplomat in USA immediately met POTUS to explain China’s position and taken strict (and public) against the civilian owners of this balloon, the matter would have been resolved peacefully without USAF interference. Diplomatic dialogue, should have been China’s response, and not escalating the situation with threats – let’s be clear ‘cold-war’ scenario, does more damage than good.
What’s Next For China & USA Relations?
Chinese spy balloon illegal intrusion into USA’s airspace has further deteriorated relations between the two countries. With Secretary of State Antony Blinken indefinitely postponing his trip to China, all prospects for a detente between the two superpowers seems to be eliminated.
The incident has also heightened tensions and has accelerated alliance formation, not very different from the pre-Cold war era of USA and USSR!
“I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
-Isaac Asimov
Defence
The Story of Operation Vijay: India’s Triumph in Kargil

In the summer of 1999, oxygen-starved heights of the Srinagar – Kargil – Leh highway, echoed with the sound of gunfire as India and Pakistan engaged in one of their most significant military confrontations. After militants and the Pakistan army infiltrated Kashmir, the Indian army launched Operation Vijay to retake its territory, which is how the ‘Kargil War’ came to be known.
Indo-Pak Relations in the Late 90s and Development From Pakistan
During the late 1990s, the relationship between India and Pakistan was moving towards a belligerent atmosphere due to the separatist activities in Kashmir, backed by Pakistan and the nuclear testing of both countries in 1998. Then the late Indian PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee signed the Lahore Doctrine in February 1999 with Pak PM Nawaz Sharif, hoping it will usher in an era of peace and tranquillity.
However, in the Army HQ at Rawalpindi, Gen Pervez Musharaff with General Ehsan Ul Haq, General Aziz Khan, Mahmood Ahmad and Shahid Aziz were planning to stealthily capture the NH 1A in Kargil, chocking the communication to Leh and Siachin and break them apart from mainland India, in an operation named as Operation Badr.
On the Indian front due to extreme weather and in line with the directives of the Shimla Agreement, Indian troops were forced to vacate their post. And that’s exactly what Pakistan army was waiting for!!
Unbeknown to the Indian Army, the General Musharaff’s Army had made plans to violate the Shimla Agreement and unilaterally break the momentary peace that had been established by diplomacy. Musharraf had ensured that his professional soldiers and sponsored mercenaries were ready for a sly attack on India.
Retaliation by the Indian Army: Operation Vijay
On 3rd May a local shepherd witnessed suspicious activities and reported them to the authorities. On further reconnaissance, the suspicion was confirmed and several rangers were sent to look into the matter. On the 5th of May, five of the army rangers were captured by the enemy. They were tortured, mutilated and later killed by the Pak army subsequently breaking the Geneva rules for war prisoners. Heavy shelling by the Pakistani army on 9th May destroyed the ammunition depots in Kargil, resulting in the loss of estimated 173 crores on a single day. The enemies captured and established a stronghold on four prominent stations of the Kargil district, i.e., Mushkoh, Dras, Kaksar and Batalik sub-sector. From then on Indian Army moved its troop from Kashmir and other places to the Kargil district and officially started ‘Operation Vijay’ on 19th May. This operation was assisted by ‘Operation Safed Sagar’ from the Indian Air force and ‘Operation Talwar’ Indian Navy.
On June 1 Pakistani Army began heavy shelling operations on the NH 1 of Srinagar to Leh. This was also the day when USA and France declared Pakistan responsible for the military conflict in India. On the 5th of June India released a dossier revealing the Pakistan army’s involvement backed by documents recovered from the captured and dead soldiers. On June 6 the Indian army began offensive ground operations. On 9th June Indian Army recaptured a key position in the Batalik sector.
India released intercepts of conversations between Gen. Pervez Musharraf (on a visit to China) and Aziz Khan (in Rawalpindi) as proof of the Pakistan Army’s involvement in the infiltrations on June 11. After two days on the 13th Indian PM, Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Kargil. On the same day, the army secured Tololing in Dras after a fierce battle with Mujahedeen militias. US President Bill Clinton urged then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif to immediately pull all Pakistani troops and irregulars out from Kargil on 15th June. Two days later on the 17th of June the task of capturing Point 5140, a strategically important mountain peak in the Dras sector, was assigned to 13 JAK Rifle.
After a fierce 3 days battle on the early morning of 20th Point 5140 was recaptured by Lieutenant Colonel Yogesh Kumar Joshi with Bravo Company, under the command of Lieutenant Sanjeev Singh Jamwal, and Delta Company, under the command of Lieutenant Vikram Batra. The Delta company was tasked with taking control of Point 4700 in the Drass sector on June 28, which could only be accomplished if the enemy observation post on the cliff could be destroyed. Captain Sumeet Roy, the second in command, led a section out during the night via a covered approach. He arrived just below the observation station and continued to track enemy activities until 2:00 am on June 29. Then, with complete disregard for his safety, he got into a violent hand-to-hand fight with the enemy and took control of the observatory, taking control of Point 4700.
On 4th July three Indian regiments (Sikh, Grenadiers and Naga) engaged elements of the remaining Pakistani Northern Light Infantry regiment in the Battle of Tiger Hill. The Indian forces used unexpected, and therefore difficult, avenues of approach, maintaining the element of surprise and recaptured the region after more than 12 hours of fighting.
By this time the Pakistani side which had already suffered huge losses under the might of Indian military , now also had to face a massive loss and growing international pressure. On 5th July after the Indian Army had taken control of the Dras sector, Pakistan’s PM Nawaz Shariff announced the withdrawal of forces from Indian regions. However, some rouge forces along with several militants were still engaging in the war and atrocities against locals….and so the war continued.
‘Operation Vijay’ was a great success.
The Aftermath of the Kargil War
The official death toll of the war on the Indian side was 527. Meanwhile, the casualty figure on the Pakistani side is said to be 453. Pakistan refused to claim the dead bodies of its soldiers, which were later buried as per rituals respectfully by the Indian Army.
Pakistan was heavily criticised by other countries as well as its allies. Ex President of USA Clinton wrote in his biography that “Sharif’s moves were perplexing” since the Indian Prime Minister had travelled to Lahore to promote bilateral talks aimed at resolving the Kashmir problem and “by crossing the Line of Control, Pakistan had wrecked the [bilateral] talks”. Pakistan also tried to internationalise the Kashmir issue by linking it to Kargil conflict, however it found few backer in global stages in later years. The Indian Army was given a political directive that the line of control will not be crossed. The G8 nations supported India due to this and condemned Pakistan for crossing the LoC.
On the 14th of July Indian PM Vajpayee finally declared ‘Operation Vijay’ a success and conditions for talk with Pakistan were set by Indian Government. The Kargil war saw the most contribution from the young soldiers. And therefore to commemorate the ones who lost their lives in this war, every year India celebrates 26th July as Kargil Vijay Divas.
Defence
VR in Military Training – The future of Military is here!

A brand-new field of transdisciplinary research known as virtual reality (VR) is quickly taking shape. Its application has expanded beyond academic study in recent years, and the industry is now making large expenditures in this area for research and producing numerous VR-based goods. Many different industrial sectors, including information technology, biomedical engineering, structural design, and training aids technology, are investing in this technology. The military industry, constantly searching for innovative ideas, is slowly but surely becoming one of the most prominent investors in VR. Read more to know the advantages of VR in military training.
The Concept of Virtual Reality
Virtual reality (VR) has its roots in science fiction books and essays, just like many other scientific discoveries. With the development of a device called Sensorama, which essentially was a game providing the player a sense of riding a motorcycle on the streets, the first VR experience occurred in 1962. Morton Heilig, a professional cameraman, devised this. He wanted to create a virtual experience that would include all five senses. Since then, VR has primarily established itself in the entertainment industry, especially for creating video games and films. The virtual reality field is expanding significantly outside the entertainment sector and encompasses a wide range of concepts in the general technology realm. It may take more work to explain VR in precise words because of how involved this technology is.
Also Read: The Rise of the Metaverse
Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Military
It is common knowledge that technology is crucial to any nation’s military effectiveness. The adoption of new and emerging technology promises to create a military force that is qualitatively superior and capable of combating both conventional and asymmetrical threats. The main uses of VR in defense and security are to enhance officer and soldier training and to simulate military missions and operations
Advantages of Using VR in Military Training
1. Despite reductions in the national defense budget, it is a workable, affordable alternative. Indeed, unlike live training, virtual training doesn’t call for using actual weapons and supplies. The introduction of technological and doctrinal changes in the armed forces is addressed by military concepts like the revolution in military affairs (RMA), which are dynamic. Numerous new RMA technologies have been introduced in the armies due to a recent transformation in the information and communication technology (ITC) industry. Incorporating the byproducts of various technological advances like nanotechnology, biotechnology, robotics, cognitive sciences, and a few others into military strategy is a practice of modern militaries. Military technologies use various computer simulations of systems to perform operations on the simulated system and demonstrate the impacts in real-time.
2. Military personnel can engage in various simulations with VR without incurring related costs, drastically cutting training budgets. Virtual reality (VR) may immerse a learner in multiple settings, circumstances, or scenarios. It can impart knowledge, develop skills, and offer a priceless experience that will be helpful in the real world. Without incurring the related real world flight fees, trainees might use virtual reality to simulate a parachute drop and become more conscious of the sensation and disorientation of jumping from an airplane. They can be put in fighter jets, submarines, tanks, or armored vehicles to feel confined spaces. To learn how to recognise enemy soldiers or search for IEDs, they can be thrown into the middle of a real battle zone or taken on a patrol through a risky area.
3. It is helpful to gain context and locational awareness of scenarios that are challenging to duplicate without incurring a considerable cost when engaging in novel places and activities for the first time, such as a jungle boat invasion or an ice expedition. Additionally, VR can be used more passively to treat PTSD or provide recruits with a virtual “boot camp” experience to help them settle into military life more swiftly and with less fear.
4. Military educators can tailor the information presented to learners by using VR headsets to create a variety of training scenarios. Using straightforward web browser controls, trainers may build unique content from real-world footage and offer it to individuals or groups using the VR portal, which allows the upload and transmission of any 360-degree image or video. The technology enables headsets to be standalone devices that don’t need to be physically connected to PCs, allowing the wearer to walk around without restriction negating the need for a network or wireless connection.
5. VR can be used in the recovery process for post-traumatic stress disorder. It is feasible to create the traumatizing incident while maintaining the subject’s utmost safety, allowing him to relive the event in virtual reality and conquer his phobias (ibid). Virtual reality simulation is a crucial component of military training applied across many military domains. For instance, it may replicate any vehicle, simulating modern ground vehicles to give soldiers a sense of how they move and look. Additionally, it allows soldiers to practice playing any position they would have on that vehicle, such as a driver or gunner.
Conclusion
Although VR won’t replace live training, virtual training will play a more significant part in the military training industry. It can aid warriors in developing experience and situational awareness while decreasing training costs and raising training safety.
Defence
World Must Fear India’s INS Vikrant version 2.0 – Here’s Why

The year 2022 has been quite eventful for Indian Navy – however among the various accomplishments of Navy this year, one stands out as the most significant – commissioning of INS Vikrant. This addition to the naval fleet signals not only the growing prowess of Indian shipbuilding and manufacturing industry, but most importantly it adds a layer of strategic-security. But as is true with all things of significance, INS Vikrant’s induction too comes with some very animated discussions.
INS Vikrant, the Original Beast
For any Indian with even a remote interest in defence and security, it’s impossible to not be familiar with India’s first aircraft carrier, a Majestic-class ship purchased from the British and christened INS Vikrant.
The aircraft carrier saw major action during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War where it ensured successful blockade of East Pakistan, thereby preventing the mass escape of Pakistan army and a successful capture of 93000 POWs. Proving its worth as an outstanding asset that wasn’t only effective in a combined tri-service campaign but was significant in providing mobility and access, the original INS Vikrant sealed India’s position as a mighty naval power of the Indian Ocean Region.
India’s First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier – INS Vikrant version 2.0
As a tribute to the previous/original INS Vikrant, the Indian Navy commissioned the country’s first ever indigenous aircraft carrier with the same name and motto as the predecessor. The new INS Vikrant will strengthen the country’s standing as a ‘Blue Water Navy’ — a maritime force with global reach and capability to operate over deep seas…She will be the proverbial spear, whose shining tip is her package of fighter aircraft that operate from its deck for various offensive missions.
The induction and reincarnation of Vikrant is not only another step towards strengthening our defence preparedness, but also our humble tribute to the sacrifices made by our freedom fighters for the Independence of the nation and our brave soldiers during the 1971 war.
– Indian Navy
As is the case in any democracy, the entry of Vikrant into active service has been accompanied by some debates. One such vigorous discussions is about which fighter will India and her Navy select as an interim arrangement to fly from the deck of INS Vikrant – the French Rafale or the American F18 E/F Hornets. And while the discussions are part of a healthy democracy, one thing is for certain – the Indian Navy urgently requires fighter aircraft to operate from INS Vikrant.
Quest for an Indigenous Fighter Aircraft
The Indian Navy’s quest for an indigenous fighter aircraft goes back to 1986 when the Navy had sought concurrent development of a naval fighter aircraft along with the IAF programme as a replacement for the Sea Harriers by 2005. This has a precedence. If we see all successful deck-based aircraft around the world such as F-4, F-14, F-18, Rafale and F-35, they were first designed for the Navy and then modified for shore-based operations and not vice-versa. (MiG 29K is the only aircraft converted from a shore-based MiG 29B.) However, since feasibility to develop a fighter aircraft exclusively for the Navy was ruled out due to the small numbers, the Navy agreed to consider the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which were originally being developed for the Air Force.
With an understanding that the LCA would meet Navy’s qualitative requirements – like the wing design, identifying a suitable engine etc., the Navy has been actively supporting the N-LCA programme (Naval LCA programme) and has contributed not just a lion’s share of the cost but also provided specialised pilots for the programme. These mandatory customisations will need thorough research and development, but they promise successful and effective sorties and will also ensure the safety of naval personnel onboard.
But unfortunately, this comes at a cost – the necessary customisations were not able to meet the Indian Navy’s immediate requirement within the envisaged time frames. The Navy is left with no choice but to look for foreign procurement to meet the immediate threat from our adversaries.
Also Read: INS Vikrant – All You Need to Know
Foreign Procurement – Interim Answer to Navy’s Aircraft Shortage
Amidst the growing security challenges from China, who are now the largest and most rapidly expanding navy in the world, INS Vikrant gives a much-needed boost to our defense ecosystem.
After commissioning in September this year, the carrier is expected to shortly commence air operations. However, with the LCA under customization, the Navy was left with two choices – either wait for the N-LCA to be inducted by 2032 and let Vikrant sail without fighter aircraft or induct few foreign aircrafts till the LCA’s are in operation.
The Indian Navy chose the smart option – to fill the gap, Navy has decided to procure 26 foreign aircrafts to keep Vikrant combat ready. As per reports these will be either Boeing-manufactured F/A-18 Super Hornets or the Dassault-manufactured Rafale M fighter aircraft, both of which have been shortlisted after years of technical evaluation and operational demonstration for suitability of operating on our indigenous carrier.
Either way, this decision gives adequate time for development of the indigenous LCA (Navy) while ensures that Vikrant is ready and trained for combat.
It is often debated but widely agreed that an aircraft carrier is a military tool of tremendous operational capabilities, which can provide a country with military and diplomatic edge. While expensive to buy, it is ultimately less expensive and far more flexible (both militarily and politically) than deploying and sustaining land-based air assets to an available friendly host nation, and therefore well worth the investment. For a maritime country like like India, INS Vikrant when fully operational will not only be a proof of India’s technological proficiency but like its predecessor it will be a lethal weapon that every adversary would fear.
Defence
“Let people eat cake” says Pakistan Navy

In 1789 during yet another famine in France, the princess Marie Antoinette upon being told that the peasants had no bread, is said to have replied with frivolous disregard for the starving peasants with the words “Let them eat cake”. Today, the condition of the Pakistani citizens is quite similar to the French peasants of 1789.
The desperate economic conditions in Pakistan and the impact of floods has led the Finance Ministry to issue directives for implementing strict austerity measures for year 2022 – 2023. These measures aim to curtail operating expenditure and reduce the economic burden of the people.
However, it seems that these directives never reached their Navy.
Very recently, Pakistan Navy Ships Shamsheer and Nasr visited Yokosuka Port in Japan with an aim to participate in the International Fleet Review. In much contrast to the government verdict of “no unnecessary expenditure”, the visit was neither mandatory nor of importance. However much to the citizen’s dismay, neither the empty coffers nor the grave economic situation of the people seemed to deter the Navy from going on a tourism cum shopping spree.
Pakistan Navy Ships visit Yokosuka Port in Japan
In economically stable conditions, a Naval ship’s visit to a foreign port would have been welcomed by the citizens. However the economic burden posed by these activities have quadrupled the fear of a complete breakdown of society. While the cost of fuel for such a long voyage is in itself a huge deterrent, the fact that the ships will be stopping at almost five to seven countries during the futile passage, has made matters worse.
Monetary Implications of this cruise
Let’s look at the basic requirement of a naval voyage. The mandatory requirements include buying stores, fuel/lubricants, undertaking necessary repairs, paying the crew in international currency etc. But is this all? Definitely not. Each stop at a foreign port will require a mandatory interaction with the diplomats, exchange of gifts, parties with great pomp and show to announce the naval ships’ arrival, preparation of native cuisines etc.…The expenditure is definitely mind boggling.
Who is paying for this?
All this is paid through already depleting foreign reserves. Therefore understandably, if news of such frivolous expenditure, especially in these trying times were to reach the general public there would be a furore, and a well justified one. But Pakistan’s Navy has been clever, or at least it thinks it has been.
Where normally, all port visits are turned to a media circus by the Navy, this time not a single press release is available on the open media. Why? Because of a stringent gag order on issuing media bites by the government. The Navy has warned cruising ships to conduct events without the presence of press. The aim apparently is to prevent citizens from becoming aware of this trip to Japan. Pakistan’s naval commanders seem to be relying on their belief (definitely flawed and misguided) that – ordinary Pakistani citizen are like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand – what it cannot see, does not exist!
In today’s world where information travels faster than light – there are enough people who monitor everything. Which is why hiding the journey of two huge warships was definitely worthless. As soon as a local net-hawker identified the movement of the naval ships – the world and entire Pakistan was made aware of the secret journey. The Maverick could not outfox these people.
Frivolous Spending in Desperate Times
While one may still be able to find an excuse for Navy’s foreign visits, but what about the inflating expenditure on the procurement and projects, which are of no immediate importance? As pointed out by social media users a few days earlier, the Pakistan navy has been planning to procure four Frigates (each from Turkey and China), four to eight Corvettes (from the Netherlands), eight submarines (from China) and almost ten new aircraft for its maritime fleet.
Which brings a very interesting scenario to light – the huge lack of communication between the Pakistan’s government and its navy. On one hand the government has been insisting on cutting down operating costs and even travel/fuel usage by every ministry and service, but on the other, the Armed Forces are on a shopping spree. And whose money are these forces using? The question that the citizens of Pakistan need to ask is despite the mushrooming economic crisis, why is there a need to undertake such frivolous expenditure/cruises? And if they are really necessary, why the extra effort to hide it?
Many Pakistanis have already started asking such questions, a mass outcry is not far. And while the Pak armed forces especially its navy may pretend to be blissfully unaware of their countrymen’s plight, they must realize that secret voyages will not help the deplorable situation of their country and their fellow countrymen.
This article has been contributed by Commander Abhishek Rathi (Retd), Indian Naval Officer
Commander Abhishek Rathi (Retd) is a retired executive officer and holds an experience of commanding two naval warships. He has a keen interest in maritime history and technology. The officer is also an avid nature photographer and likes traveling all across India for it.
-
Technology1 year ago
Climate Crisis; Cries Asia
-
Archives2 years ago
Ramappa Temple: India’s 39th World Heritage Site
-
Defence9 months ago
The UAV Boom in India
-
Polity11 months ago
Is China Africa’s New Colonial Overlord
-
Defence8 months ago
Defense Cess – The Need or The Want of Need
-
Book Review1 year ago
A cruel birth of Bangladesh by Archer K Blood: Book Review
-
Archives2 years ago
5 reasons why Bollywood has a monopoly over the Indian Music Industry
-
Polity2 years ago
Spotify announces the launch of HiFi audio streaming feature in India: Here’s all you need to know