A few days ago, I found myself discussing the “India–Pakistan Air Battle” with a young acquaintance. To my surprise, he had no idea what I was talking about. It made me realize just how little coverage this textbook case of modern warfare has received. For the benefit of those who don’t follow military affairs, let’s break down why this event matters.
Earlier this year, India suffered a terrorist attack, which it swiftly attributed to a group operating out of Pakistan. In response, the Indian Air Force launched “Operation Sindoor” in the early hours of May 7, targeting what it called “terrorist facilities” inside Pakistan. India expected a swift, overwhelming victory—after all, it had the numbers and the hardware. Yet, the outcome was a resounding victory for Pakistan.
What unfolded was a beyond-visual-range(BVR) air battle—jets from both sides never even saw each other. India fielded over 70 fighters; Pakistan, just 30. Neither side crossed the border; missiles flew across invisible lines. Despite India’s numerical advantage, it got nothing for its trouble. On that day, Pakistan scored an astonishing 6–0: using Chinese-built J-10CE fighters and PL-15 long-range air-to-air missiles, it downed three of India’s latest French Rafale jets, two Russian Su-30s, a MiG-29, and even an Israeli drone. In over an hour of dogfighting, Pakistan’s J-10CEs emerged unscathed. In the days that followed, they also downed an older French Mirage 2000 and even neutralized a Russian S-400 air defense system.
So, what happened? Pakistan deployed a fully integrated Chinese aerial combat system. India threw its best jets into the fight (notably, the US refused to let Pakistan use its F-16s). Indian jets, shielded by early warning aircraft, tried to sneak in at ultra-low altitude to avoid Chinese-made HQ-series missiles. They stayed well inside Indian airspace, planning to hit-and-run. Yet, despite their careful planning, they were tracked and shot down 70–90 kilometers from the border—without ever crossing it.
How? Pakistan used Chinese ZDK-03A early warning planes, electronic warfare jets, and ground radars to monitor the whole airspace. They even intercepted the downed Indian pilots’ radio chatter. The attack model was “A shoots, B guides”: early warning aircraft locked onto Indian jets, relayed targeting data to the J-10CEs, which, without switching on their own radar, fired PL-15 missiles from extreme range. The Rafales didn’t even know they were being targeted.
The PL-15 is the world’s first air-to-air missile with a dual-pulse engine. It’s guided by external data links in its early phase—no need to use its own radar, so it flies “silent.” The Rafale’s sensors pick up nothing. Only when the missile is 20 kilometers from its target does it ignite again, sprint for the kill, and switch on its own radar for a terminal lock. By then, the pilot has only seconds to react—nowhere near enough time to evade or jam the missile.
The PL-15’s range is up to 300 kilometers; the export version Pakistan uses is rated for 145 kilometers. By comparison, India’s air-to-air missiles don’t exceed 100 kilometers. The Rafale’s MICA missiles, with an 80-kilometer range, were found still attached to the wreckage—never fired. The Indian pilots likely never even knew what hit them.
No other country in recent years has fought such a lengthy, large-scale air battle. This India–Pakistan clash is a case study for every air force—a 6–0 scoreline that shocked even seasoned observers. For years, claims about China’s advanced, affordable weapons were met with skepticism. But after this battle, with $50 million J-10CEs downing $250 million Rafales, the evidence is hard to ignore.
Many analysts have called this China’s “DeepSeek Moment”—a breakthrough as significant as the debut of its AI language models earlier this year. Even the usually skeptical US magazine The National Interest acknowledged the J-10CE’s performance, saying China’s air combat capabilities now have “undeniable credibility.” And remember, the J-10CE is only China’s fourth-ranked fighter.
What does this mean for international relations?
First: China understands what it means to be weak. Recently, a clip of US scholar John Mearsheimer resurfaced online. He said:
“The Chinese talk at great lengths about the “Century of National Humiliation,” which ran from the late 1840’s to the late 1940’s. The cause of that was that China was weak, of which the Great Powers in the system took advantage. So if you’re Chinese today, you understand full well that you don’t want to be weak, because you don’t want to suffer another Century of National Humiliation.”
Second: The US is a ruthless power. Mearsheimer also said:
“The United States, as many of you know and probably many of you don't know, is a ruthless great power. You never want to underestimate how ruthless the United States is. Despite all the liberal rhetoric that we use to cover up our ruthless behavior, we are tough customers, and the Chinese are finding that out now.”
The US is ruthless if anyone dares to challenge it's position
If China cannot develop the world’s most powerful military, how can it face America’s ruthlessness? Fortunately, China has now proven its capability—validated not in its own war, but in real combat elsewhere. In the 2020 China–India border clash, the PLA faced Indian troops with broadswords and spiked clubs, leaving the J-10C on the sidelines. That’s Chinese restraint.
One last point: Pakistan’s 6–0 air battle victory on May 7 proved the strength of Chinese weapons. Four days later, China and the US began tariff negotiations in Geneva. Trump, who bullies the weak but fears the strong, likely pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to reach a deal with China ASAP after seeing this show of strength.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
“He preaches water and drinks wine.” This Western proverb could not be more apt in describing those “honorable” members of the US Congress sitting atop Capitol Hill.
The US Senate and House just greenlit the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. Sure, it hikes defense spending. Buried in there are special provisions targeting China that would make any objective observer squirm.
The law mandates that the US Director of National Intelligence publish a public report disclosing the global financial status of Xi Jinping and other top Chinese leaders – plus their relatives. We're talking about all Politburo and Standing Committee members, their family members, including the so-called "white gloves" – financial agents managing assets on their behalf.
It’s specified that the report must be unclassified, available online for anyone with an internet connection to read. A similar clause appeared in the 2023 NDAA but got dismissed as superficial. However, this version is detailed, explicit, and loaded with congressional pressure to expose what the US lawmakers claim is hidden Chinese wealth.
Capitol Hill's Shameless Overreach
Watching these American legislators operate is infuriating. They slip targeted clauses against Chinese leaders into a domestic bill, essentially broadcasting to the world that China's leadership sits on vast private fortunes – corruption implied. Since the law requires public release, this isn't about genuine investigation. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
First question: what right does the US have to do this? If Congress passes a bill investigating American citizens' assets, nobody can object. But investigating foreign leaders' finances? That's a different story entirely.
Another country's leadership finances should be handled by that country's own institutions – not Washington's long arm. This arrogance stems from "American Exceptionalism," a concept that still drives US foreign policy today.
The term "American Exceptionalism" was coined back in 1831 by Alexis de Tocqueville. It expresses the notion that America is unique – founded on liberty, individualism, equality before the law, and laissez-faire capitalism. Through this lens, America stands stable, prosperous, and incomparable to any other nation – an ideal constitutional republic.
When Kitchens Became Battlegrounds
From this belief emerged a foreign policy where the US sees itself as a chosen nation entitled to impose its "perfect" system on others – even launching color revolutions to topple governments and force them to replicate American democracy. During the Cold War, Americans framed this ideological struggle as "freedom and democracy" versus "Communist tyranny." The famous "Kitchen Debate" perfectly captured this mindset.
In July 1959, at the American National Exhibition opening in Moscow, 46-year-old Vice President Richard Nixon sparred with 65-year-old Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev inside a model American kitchen on display. The exhibit showcased washing machines, refrigerators, and household appliances as symbols of capitalist prosperity.
Before the cameras, Khrushchev remarked that Soviets cared only for practicality, not luxury. Nixon shot back that under capitalism, Americans enjoyed the freedom to choose how they lived – to buy or not to buy. Most observers concluded Nixon won that round, largely because America's material abundance stood in stark contrast to Soviet austerity.
But today? Time has turned the tables. If Donald Trump visited China and rode a high-speed train, we might witness a new "High-Speed Rail Debate" – one where US capitalism would find itself at a distinct disadvantage.
Yet American politicians still cling to "American Exceptionalism," believing they hold the right to meddle everywhere. Now that America's strength has waned – its system corroded, its manufacturing hollowed out, its infrastructure decayed, its streets filled with drug-addled zombies – US lawmakers' persistence in policing the world reeks of dark comedy.
America's Fading Exceptionalism
Second question: what moral ground does the US stand on? Washington claims to expose corruption by investigating Chinese leaders' wealth, yet it ignores rampant corruption among its own politicians.
Take Trump. During his campaign, he enthusiastically championed cryptocurrency, promising to promote the sector once elected. Then, on the eve of taking office, he launched his own meme coin – "$Trump." By Chinese Mainland standards, that's textbook corruption: promoting a policy and, before assuming power, issuing a financial product that would benefit from that same policy. It's retail investor fleecing, plain and simple.
Here's the damage: $Trump launched before Trump's inauguration and peaked at USD 49.26. As of December 19? It's plunged to USD 5.07 – a brutal 90% collapse. Retail investors got ruthlessly fleeced, yet no one dares speak up.
The Stock Goddess Retires
Then there's Nancy Pelosi, former House Speaker – the real "Goddess of Stocks," outperforming even Warren Buffett. In 2023, Pelosi's family achieved an 84.3% investment return, crushing Buffett's numbers. Their fortune ballooned from USD 41 million in 2004 to USD 120 million in 2023, with some holdings soaring 96% in just a few years.
Market observers almost universally believe Pelosi trades on insider information – how else could anyone consistently outperform world-class fund managers? Her trades became so influential that investors created tracking tools and even an ETF fund mirroring her stock picks.
Pelosi denies any wrongdoing and dismisses accusations that lawmakers profit from nonpublic information. But she can't explain her uncanny market timing – a godlike ability that defies rational explanation.
Even some American progressives find this intolerable. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) proposed multiple bills to ban congressional stock trading. But as a minority voice, her proposals failed. No one can stop Capitol Hill's "Stock Goddess." Now that Pelosi announced plans to retire in 2027, investors mourn as if the market lost a guiding star – with no more Pelosi trades to follow for profit.
In the end, this is what "American democracy" has become – a system that openly permits abuse of power. Yet these very same legislators have the audacity to pass laws investigating the wealth of Chinese leaders. They preach water but drink wine – a hypocrisy so absurd it chills the spine.
Lo Wing-hung
