Table Stakes - May 12th

Good morning everyone,

I’m Daniel, and welcome to Table Stakes!

Here’s a look at today’s topics:

• India-Pakistan Ceasefire Announced

• Tariff Talks In Geneva

• US-Saudi Arabia Talks Lead To Possible Civil Nuclear Development Abroad

New merch in stock!
You can get it at our shop here.

India-Pakistan Ceasefire Announced

_{By: Daniel Murrah, Staff Writer for Atlas}

U.S. President Donald Trump said on May 10 that India and Pakistan have consented to a "full and immediate ceasefire." The deal followed three days of severe cross-border military fighting that had heightened concerns of a larger war between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Background

The crisis began with a deadly terrorist attack on April 22 in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people, mostly tourists. India quickly blamed Pakistan for supporting the militants responsible, an accusation that Islamabad firmly denied. The situation rapidly deteriorated when India launched "Operation Sindoor," conducting airstrikes on what it described as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Pakistan's own campaign, called "Operation Bunyan Marsoos," included missile, drone, and artillery strikes. It also claims to have downed other Indian planes. India contested these assertions. Within days, the two nations were involved in their most serious military escalation in a quarter-century, sending shockwaves across the world.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform, "India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire after a long night of talks." 48 hours of vigorous U.S. diplomacy preceded the announcement, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance engaging directly with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Competing Interests

For India, the main priorities in the negotiating process were to show determination in the face of what it sees as Pakistan-sponsored terrorism while preventing a drawn-out war that may damage its economy and standing abroad. New Delhi has downplayed the importance of U.S. mediation, seeking to present the truce as a bilateral success instead as the outcome of international involvement.

"India maintains its zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism," an Indian government statement warned, adding that trade suspensions and Indus Waters Treaty restrictions would stay in effect until Pakistan took "credible action" against cross-border terrorism.

On the other hand, Pakistan has adopted a different story. Islamabad has officially lauded U.S. diplomacy and offered the truce as a diplomatic victory showing its dedication to regional peace and security. The participation of the United States and other foreign entities internationalizes the Kashmir conflict for Pakistan, a long-standing strategic objective.

"Pakistan has shown responsibility and restraint throughout this crisis," a spokesman for the Pakistani foreign ministry said, stressing the country's readiness to participate in more general discussions on unresolved concerns.

The United States, for its part, has tried to bridge these different points of view. The State Department described the deal as comprising not just an immediate cessation of hostilities but also promises to restart military hotlines and reconvene operations directors to assess execution. Most controversially, U.S. officials say the deal calls for more diplomatic discussions at a neutral site—a notion India has openly contested.

Will It Last?

Both sides started charging one another with infractions while the ceasefire ink had hardly dried. Explosions and cross-border strikes were reported in Indian-administered Kashmir within hours of the announcement.

"Several ceasefire violations have been recorded since the agreement came into effect," an Indian military spokesman said. Pakistani officials responded with their own charges but urged caution and the use of communication tools to settle conflicts.

Particularly regarding Kashmir, the fragility of the truce reveals the deep-seated animosity between the two countries and the unresolved character of their fundamental problems. Foreign policy expert Michael Kugelman observed, "This ceasefire is likely to be fragile. It was established quickly amid extremely high tensions... it may lack the essential guarantees and assurances necessary in such a volatile climate.”

Experts say both nations required a ceasefire, but neither wanted to be the first to ask it because of national pride and domestic political concerns. The U.S. engagement gave both parties required diplomatic cover to retreat from escalation without seeming to surrender.

Although the truce has stopped the present catastrophe, it does not solve the underlying problems that have often pushed India and Pakistan to the edge of war. The Kashmir issue is still open, and the cycle of nationalist rhetoric, military building, and terrorism claims continues to taint relations between the South Asian neighbors. Former Pakistani ambassador Husain Haqqani said that "Both nations required a ceasefire, yet neither wanted to be perceived as the first to request it due to national pride and the egos of their leaders. The US provided necessary cover for that decision."

Subscribe to Table Stakes to read the rest.