Sorry, have so much to do this weekend, lack the time for ‘more comprehensive’ updates’ - whether about ‘Ukraine’ or about ‘India-Pakistan’.

That said, two readers have asked/commented about certain topics that are both ‘related’ and I find ‘easy’ to explain. Thus, here a ‘quick and dirty’ reply in this regards.

The readers in question wrote:

1.) What is the motivation for "The West" to prefer Pakistan over India with regards to arms sales? Surely India is a far more attractive partner to sell weapons to than Pakistan (larger economy, not likely to collaborate with China when it comes to intelligence and weapon sharing and not supporting jihadists globally)

2.) Nowhere do you seriously talk about the danger of nuclear escalation. India fights with one hand tied behind its back because of that.

Very good observations: thanks a lot!

***

Up front (because that’s the core essence of the following story): Pakistan is bankrupt.

It’s finanically bankrupt. It’s so bankrupt it’s actually a wonder it’s still around. And that for decades already. At earlier times - especially during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when Pakistan was about to conclude the development of its nuclear weapons - the country was ‘credited’ by Saudi Arabia (primarily in form of a free supply of crude oil; reportedly, this was worth US$1-2 billion a year, and aiming to ‘help create an Islamist Nuke’). Subsequently, People’s Republic of China and then Qatar took over… however, Islamabad is wasting so much money for corruption, sponsoring terror, and arms it can’t afford - and so much ignoring its economic development - that it’s surviving only thanks to extensive crediting.

Meanwhile, it can’t service its debt.

Therefore, about a year ago, it requested a US$1.4 loan from Beijing. When ‘even’ the PRC turned down, then Islamabad requested a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

After months of wrangling, and despite fierce (and well-supported) Indian argumentation, yesterday, the IMF granted a loan of US$ 1 billion to Islamabad.

…and that in the middle of a ‘war’, and after that loan was held back for months, primarily because everybody knows: Pakistan simply can’t pay it back (last year, its debts were ‘breaking all the records’).

The question is thus: why is the IMF as ‘stupid’ as to keep Pakistan financially afloat, considering the country is out of condition to service its debts - plus officially breeding jihadists and running ‘Jihad Import-Export’ business, all over the World?

And why is that ‘government’ in Islamabad still supported by ‘the West’?

And: is that related or not-related to India’s behaviour?

***

Me and my questions…

I am not going to say I 'know the answer/s’. Especially not I know them ‘1000% sure'. On the contrary.

But...

Well, it so happens that over the years I have seen at least 'excerpts' from several 'threat assessments' related to Pakistan (essentially, 'intelligence assessments about "what if"'). And the essence of these can be summarised with 'TBTF'.

TBTF stands for 'too big to fail'. Usually, it's used for major US corporations: those that are so big that if they fail, entire economy collapses - like back in 2008....

In the case of Pakistan, the TBTF-factor is that country's nukes: all the threat assessements for Pakistan I know say, many of these nukes are most likely non-operational (so much so: the first test of a Pakistani nuke actually failed, and China had to rush and send several of its own, so the Pakistanis could arrange ‘successful’ nuclear tests). However, these nukes exist and one can never be sure…

Pakistan’s Shahin III ballistic missile: assumed to be one of ‘delivery platforms’ for (bigger) of country’s nukes.

Foremost, all the same threat assessments also say that if Pakistan is not kept afloat (financially), it is near-certain to fall apart. That the country is going to be ripped apart by an internal struggle between different crooks making it establishment and jihadists they have created.

In Washington D.C., for example, this is causing such concerns that at least since sometimes in the early 2000s, the Pentagon developed a contingency plan for some sort of a military intervention: an assault on the Pakistan’s nuclear storage sites, aiming to secure these in the case the country starts falling apart.

To make sure: no, I’m not ‘working for Mossad, CIA, BND, MI6’ or whatever (or, if you still think so: well, who am I to try explaining you something else?). Actually, I’m far from being the only one to have seen or been informed about such assessments. A number of other, far better informed people have experienced exactly the same. If my memory is of any use, back in 2004-2010 ‘or so’, there were even several related studies made in the USA - one of which was (just for example) discussed in the article here.

More recent features are ‘just repeating’ the same conclusion.

***

Now ask yourself: if Pakistan falls apart, who's going to control Pakistan’s nukes?

ISI? ISI's jihadists? …and if the latter, then please: what jihadists exactly…?

Me thinks: nobody knows. Nobody knows what faction within the Pakistan’s ‘establishment’ (foremost: within the ISI) would side with what of jihadist gangs they’ve created, and thus nobody can say who would have his finger on the ‘button’, or if the ‘group’ in question would have or not have the ability to ‘just’ (mis)use the fissile material and make such stuff like dirty bombs… or whatever else.…

Therefore, the IMF had very few options left but, 'better we pay for the evil we know, than...'

It’s similar with India: yes, New Delhi must always keep in mind it’s confronted by a ‘mad dog’: a nation that’s self-destructing for the purpose of ‘fighting jihad’ (primarily against India, though in many other places around the Globe, too).

‍