comment: >
  
  Oh really, now you understand when broke as f.
context: Never trust blindly after 3 betrayals as they have many internal supporters... >
  
  It doesn't matter what Pakistan's PM says , he virtually has no power. Most power lies with the military generals. For a fact : "In the whole history of Pakistan till date , no PM has competed its tenure , either assassinated , taken over by military dictator or by opposition party" Until and unless the Military higher ups of Pak talk about peace , India will never trust their words after numerous betrayals and terrorist attacks India has faced in past. >
  
  A military establishment talking about peace. That would be a first in human history. >
  
  Not really. There’s a common misconception on Reddit that the military drives conflicts and the politicians are usually the lesser party. In the vast majority of states (Russia is a great example) it is political objectives that drive military policy, not the other way around. Pakistan is really the extreme outlier here. 
  A great example of this is Italy under Benito Mussolini in the 1930’s. You’d think a hyper nationalist facist state would have a strong military advocating for imperialist military policy right?
  But in fact the military was one of the strongest advocates of Italy staying neutral in World War II. They knew their military was a disaster and was totally unprepared for any conflict. But Mussolini’s political objectives for a Mare Nostrum overruled any of their concerns.
  You can literally take this exact same scenario and apply it to Russia today. The vast majority of Russia’s upper echelon military establishment did not support this war, which is why they weren’t told by Putin until it was impossible for them to alter course. >
  
  Turns out the people who do the actualy dying, are less big fans of the whole idea. >
  
  Some geniuses in Pakistan had earlier wanted to have a a war of thousand cuts with India. 
  I'd not be surprised if there are hardline ideologues in the Indian establishment who want to give Pakistan precisely that. >
  
  they were holding the blade the wrong way >
  
  Every time there has been dialogue for peace between these two nations, Pakistan has always betrayed them. I believe in the 1999 Kargil war there was a treaty to abandon the high mountain posts during winter but Pakistan reneged on the treaty and instead during the winter sent militants and its army personnel to occupy Indian camps in their territory that resulted in the war breaking out. Doubt India will trust even 0.1% of what he says >
  
  This.
  I'm Indian. 
  To us, it's a bit like Putin saying he won't invade Ukraine on Feb 23, 2022. The moment someone in Pakistan says peace talks, our minds go to a border conflict in the next 2-3 months.
  It never turns nuclear (contrary to all hype built around the issue) because we have dozens of hotlines, private and inter-govt between the elite and powerful on both sides. But there is always a cost in terms of lives of soldiers on the border and civilians in Jammu & Kashmir or bordering states due to terror attacks.
  Also, Pakistan is not a strong united country, it has half a dozen centres of power, all in mutual disagreement on something on the other, which can cause violence and destruction in India - the Armed forces, the underworld, the fundamentalist Islamist nutjobs, the terrorists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, JeM, LeT, whatever else) and so on. So India can't trust what one of them says as being applicable to the others.
  Effectively this is just another day and another statement for some kind of optics to give an excuse of "we tried but India didn't respond" or some such bad argument in the future. >
  
  I think the thing about being disunited is the biggest issue, honestly. The Pakistani government doesn’t speak for Pakistan except coincidentally. You can’t trust what their government says, even if it’s completely sincere, because their ability to actually make good on their statements is so limited. >
  
  It’s easy to sue for peace when you are bankrupt, have no fuel or food, and are on the brink of losing control of half your provinces to your own Frankensteins. >
  
  He still made it conditional on Kashmir. Genuinely, once Modi removed Kashmir’s autonomy, Pakistan lost all negotiation power on solving Kashmir. Kashmir is now more an internal issue for India than it is a disputed territory issue. India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan and would probably not like to change the LOC >
  
  
  India has very little use for the Kashmir held by Pakistan 
  
  Kashmir's geopolitical position is invaluable. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is what connects them to China, and the route China wants to use in the long term to circumvent the Indian Ocean and South China Sea choke points. If by same miracle India gains back those territories, it will connect them to Central Asia and open up all the historical land based trade routes to the Stans. 
  The importance of that little patch of mostly inhospitable land cannot be understated. >
  
  That’s the typical nonsense that got Pakistan into this soup in the first place - produce nothing of value and just think the world would take care of you because you are located somewhere. In case of war, Gwadar port can be blockaded or outright destroyed by Indian navy even more easily than Karachi was blockaded in 1971. >
  
  That’s why it’s much more likely that this is about supply lines for Pakistan to increase its threat to India. If the transport routes are Chinese assets, India will be hesitant to attack them because that could broaden the war.
  It’s a similar strategy to what it does in North Korea and to Russia’s difficulty cutting off Western arms into Ukraine. >
  
  That's just the initial remark. Everything said after that is r/ChoosingBeggars material. Wants peace and dialogue on his terms. India doesn't need Pakistan. >
  
  The general consensus amongst redditors who comment about India is that india is an island. >
  
  I mean Bhutto literally said "we will eat grass but build nuclear bombs to counter India". Turns out that his prophecy came true. India must ignore these requests until and unless Pakistan is ready to handover Kashmir as a whole. >
  
  Word.
  This is nothing more than an attempt to get more support while they are going thru difficult times. It's only a matter of time before you see another 26/11 from them on no less than US dime. >
  
  Wow, someone in Pakistan has common sense.  War is seldom a solution because it will cause great loss of life.  War will suck away resources and money that can be better spent improving the lives of people.
  I personally feel anyone advocating war should be the first person to be sent front line along with troops. >
  
  Have seen peace attempts before, military and terrorists won't let there be peace. >
  
  From the article:
  
  Warning of catastrophic consequences after nuclear war, Sharif said that when both countries are armed with nuclear weapons and a war breaks out, no one would be left to tell the tale about what happened.
  
  Dude is literally threatening a nuclear war when talking about peace whilst his country is on the verge of economic breakdown. Talk about priorities. >
  
  Pakistan definitely can’t afford any wars. They can’t even afford to rebuild after the floods >
  
  So avoid another live war ? Don't have to adore your neighbors in reality but maybe peace (not shooting each others and coexisting alongside. Both india and pakistan can exist alongside you know.) would be a good step up. Plus pakistan has water, climate change and pak taliban internal violence issues etc they should want to work on too. >
  
  The last war with India was in 1971, wasn't it?
  The Kargil "war" was never admitted by Pakistan as an open war so what are they trying to admit to now? All the terrorists they have harboured, funded and supported? >
  
  Pretty sure Pakistan admitted in the end they were in Kargil >
  
  Pakistan was prospering. Was ahead of India till 2005 but then the govt resorted to invest time & money even more on their kashmir agenda by opting to attack India in which they failed miserably. Now India is investing heavily in J&K development as a part of nation building. Comstructing roads, railways & tunnels for better connectivity and developing quality of life so that we dont have to shut access to small towns for like 4-6 months a year during peak winters. Youth is being invested in heavily and people from mainland India are encouraged to invest in land & construction in J&K post Arc370 removal. >
  
  No, Pakistan wasn’t exactly prospering even then. West Pakistan inherited some of British India’s best irrigated and most fertile lands, and while they had optically higher per capita GDP than India (mostly because we in India followed stupid socialist economic models, not because they were doing some amazing shit) - they never had a green revolution and hence never had food sufficiency, something that India achieved by 1970s. >
  
  Didn't they also get tons of aid being allied with the USA? >
  
  Not once, but thrice … first was during Ayub Khan era in 1960s when USAF used Peshawar to fly blackbirds into USSR, second was during Zia era in 1980s to fund Mujahideen, third was during Musharraf era in 2000s for War on Terror.