India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) recently kicked off a nationwide 10-day patriotic victory campaign from May 13 to 23, aiming to trumpet the so-called successes of “Operation Sindoor” - India’s latest military strikes against Pakistan. But let’s take a closer look behind the headlines and hype.
“Operation Sindoor” was launched under the banner of counterterrorism, with India deploying its prized French-made Rafale fighter jets, hoping to showcase military might and curry favor with the United States. But as experts like Dr. Guo Zhengliang from Yale and Professor Shen Yi of Fudan University have pointed out, this costly campaign was never just about Pakistan. It was India’s bid to prove loyalty to the US, hoping to ease tough tariff barriers and gain economic concessions.
According to Dr Guo, here’s the twist: With the US unwilling to risk direct conflict with China, India volunteered to confront Pakistan，a nation heavily armed with Chinese-made weaponry. India’s strategy hinged on deploying its top-tier Rafale jets (its "ace in the hole") to swiftly neutralize Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied fighters, which were perceived as downgraded "export variants" compared to China’s domestically deployed advanced models. By dominating these engagements, India aimed to escalate regional tensions, effectively cornering China into a geopolitical pincer: simultaneously confronting US-led trade wars on the economic front and Indian military pressure along the Himalayan frontier.
Reality, however, had other plans. Pakistan’s Chinese J-10C fighter jets, upgraded and innovatively enhanced, proved their mettle by shooting down multiple Indian Rafales in one of the largest air battles since World War II.
Far from the expected Indian air superiority, the Rafales suffered humiliating defeats. The Indian Air Force lost six aircraft in the clash, while Pakistan reported zero losses. Pakistan’s use of Chinese technology, including advanced PL-15 missiles and electronic warfare systems, effectively neutralized India’s numerical and technological advantage.
India’s navy and army also found themselves immobilized, forced to accept ceasefire talks initiated by Pakistan and surprisingly mediated by Trump, who cynically reminded India of its high tariff barriers: “India is the highest — one of the highest tariff nations in the world. It’s very hard to sell into India”. This left India scrambling to negotiate trade talks with the US, losing face and bargaining power.
Professor Shen Yi analyzes that to maintain national image, Prime Minister Modi is pushing for a nationwide 10-day celebration. Meanwhile, France suffered heavy losses due to the Rafale’s poor performance, and the West is caught in confusion over whether there is a technological gap with China. If fate is so, the West will inevitably lose “air dominance,” marking the most critical reversal since 1840.
This is no surprise to those who have followed China’s warnings. In 2019, when Huawei faced US sanctions under Trump, Huawei’s founder Ren Zhengfei told France’s Le Point magazine that Europe was underestimating the significance of 5G technology. He explained that Europe’s earlier industrial development was largely due to its historical advantages in railways and maritime capabilities, while China’s transportation relied on slower horse-drawn carts, which delayed its industrial development. Ren emphasized that the increase in information transmission speed brought by 5G, being at least ten times faster than 4G, would drive immeasurable economic growth and promote rapid economic and cultural development. Today, Pakistan’s innovative technology that downed the Rafale is precisely in communications and data applications.
History once revolved around “strong ships and powerful cannons.” China endured under that old world order for centuries. Before 2025, the West monopolized air superiority. But now, with China’s rise and the East’s technological leap, do we still talk about “strong ships, powerful cannons, and Rafale jets” as symbols of dominance?
The cycle of history is clear: the East is rising, the West is declining, and this new normal is reshaping global power dynamics.
Deep Blue
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Responding to reporters at the White House, Donald Trump has made it crystal clear that if he deems the protests in Los Angeles an "insurrection," he won't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act to crush the L.A. "rebellion." He's even warned off any would-be demonstrators at the US Army's 250th-anniversary parade in Washington D.C., promising they "will be met with a very powerful force." The message couldn't be plainer.
Where’s the egg-and-wall metaphor now?
Upping the ante, Trump told soldiers at Fort Bragg that Los Angeles is being invaded by a "foreign enemy." After lambasting California Governor Gavin Newsom, he vowed he would not tolerate "this anarchy" or "allow federal personnel to be attacked," especially after seeing “rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion” in Los Angeles. In his view, this is an all-out assault on American sovereignty, and for that reason, he needs to "liberate" the city. It’s quite the rhetorical escalation, isn't it?
Trump Flips the Script
Make no mistake, the White House's move to rebrand this as a "June Riot" is a game-changer. Those on the streets are no longer mere "illegal immigrants"; they're now participants in a "foreign invasion." As The New York Times notes, the Insurrection Act gives the military carte blanche to "suppress an insurrection." Suddenly, the playbook used for decades in other countries is being read aloud in the heart of the empire.
To put it bluntly, Trump is done with half-measures. He's not the one who will be shedding any tears; he's leaving that for the rebels. Given the context, it’s highly likely we'll see bloodshed on American streets this weekend. This is a confrontation between the egg and the high wall, and it's never pretty. Let's call it what it is: the brink of civil war.
Of course, the usual suspects online are piling on Trump, claiming the protests were perfectly manageable until he decided to bring in the military. But that fundamentally misunderstands his strategy. Trump is a devotee of "maximum pressure." Anyone who wrote him off as a paper tiger and called him TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) is the real source of the trouble. Now the Democratic Party and the "anti-Trump" camp are forced into a high-stakes "Game of Chicken." The question is, are they willing to call his bluff?
Cutting Off the Head of the Snake
Here's the thing: Trump is holding a strong hand and has little to fear. While the United States is now bogged down in its very own "colour revolution," Trump had the foresight to dispatch Elon Musk to dismantle the "Global Colour Revolution Development Bureau"—what you and I know as USAID—the moment he took office. It's the ultimate irony.
As a result, while "rebellions" have flared up across American cities, there isn't a single US consulate on the ground to "pump in money," "coordinate" efforts, or "handle propaganda." Their impact has been severely blunted. The professional, black-clad activists on the front lines might be well-drilled, but once the Insurrection Act is triggered, the Marines won't be handing out flowers. The only outcome will be a panicked, disorderly retreat.
So long as the White House successfully quells this "rebellion," the so-called "civil war" everyone's panicking about will fizzle out. There's no role here for a latter-day Abraham Lincoln. So, relax. And here's another prediction: you'll see a lot of opportunists in America, much like Musk, rush to admit their mistakes and get back in line. I reckon America will be great again before you know it.
As for whether Sweden can bring itself to award Trump the Nobel Peace Prize this year – well, that’s story for another day.
The Politics of Eggs and Walls
On that note, have you ever wondered why the Japanese author Haruki Murakami seems destined never to win the Nobel Prize? My guess—and it's only a guess—is that the problem traces back to his 2009 speech in Jerusalem. With Gaza under relentless bombardment, he took a trip to Isreal, against the wish of many in Japan, to accept the Jerusalem Prize, a prestigious literary award. At the prize presentation ceremony, he gave his now-famous speech, declaring he would "always stand on the side of the egg" against the wall.
This is a lesson for the people of Hong Kong. Backed by our motherland, the city spent three years using its wisdom and courage to defeat a "colour revolution" of its own, moving from chaos to prosperity. But that's not enough to win a Nobel Peace Prize, because the primary currency for that award is a very specific brand of Western-approved "democracy and freedom." At the end of the day, both Murakami's egg and China's Hong Kong are standing on the wrong side of the wrong wall.
Perhaps the only sensible path forward for Hong Kong, then, is to simply double down on national and patriotic education.
