Forever wars: A pause, not peace

George Orwell, in his novel1984, wrote, “the war is meant to be continuous; it is not meant to be won.” Though written in a work of a dystopian fiction, the quote represents the contemporary strategic environment. The current wars cannot be compared to the wars of the past, which would end in treaties, settlements of the territory or an evident victory of one side. Instead, they are stretched indefinitely and oscillate between violence and non-kinetic manoeuvres, which never lead to actual peace. These indefinite wars, termed as forever wars, are not about finding solutions to conflicts but about sustaining themselves, and structural antagonisms and political interests keep them alive.

Forever wars are not a hypothetical notion; they are being put into practice. Afghanistan is a clear example where 20 years of US intervention failed to bring peace and ultimately ended with the return of the Taliban. Similarly, Russia anticipated a swift victory over Ukraine, but has been dragged into its fourth year of war without a definite result. The same repeat cycle can be seen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where every pause in the violence is followed by a new spell of violence. These, along with several other recent conflicts, demonstrate that contemporary wars often go far beyond their original plans, with no clear difference between war and peace, acquiring the status of forever wars.

The question arises: why do modern conflicts drag on? An important cause is the constant miscalculations. States frequently overestimate their power and believe that the adversary will quickly falter, underestimating the resistance of their opponents. The collapse of initial objectives tends to drive the expansion of objectives, which in turn forms a vicious circle of war, short breaks, and a new outburst of violence. Forever wars also characterise a relentless pursuit of political objectives, rather than being mere contests of military prowess.

South Asia does not appear out of place in this context. Since the creation of Pakistan and India, there have been three major wars and other episodic conflicts primarily fuelled by Indian political agendas.  India repeatedly follows the same pattern: ignites the conflict on a false pretext, ignores Pakistan’s calls for a neutral probe into their casus belli, underestimates Pakistan’s military capability, and starts aggression against Pakistan, putting regional and global security at stake and ends up with a bleeding nose.

The May 2025 episode demonstrates that when one side continues to escalate, even definitive solutions are insufficient to ensure long-term stability in a political environment. As long as the objective is to consistently engage in hostile politics, the threat of war will never go away. True security in this age of forever wars is centred on being ready and working diligently to bring about lasting peace through constant diplomatic engagement, credible defence, and vigilance.

Just like the 2019 Balakot crisis, the May 2025 war was the latest edition of this hackneyed cliché, where a false flag attack in Indian-Occupied Kashmir followed the pattern described above and culminated with the launch of the ill-fated ‘Operation Sindoor’ by the Indian Air Force. However, a resolute and robust response by the Pakistan Air Force reestablished deterrence by inflicting heavy financial and strategic damage and deflated the Indian claims of being a regional hegemon.

After India pleaded for a ceasefire, the war ended, but the Indian government’s aggression persisted. The use of conflict by the BJP as a means of gaining domestic support, achieving political objectives, and supporting a narrative of regional supremacy has been discussed by scholars and experts worldwide. In addition, the recent developments also revealed the aggressive rhetoric of India and its increasing indications, such as threats of Operation Sindoor 2.0. This depicts the constant cycle of escalation and pause.

Moreover, a careful assessment of these patterns reveals the latent Indian aim of maintaining a constant state of war. Besides, structural impediments also add to an already difficult situation, making sustainable conflict resolution elusive. For instance, nuclear deterrence limits escalation, the lack of dialogue prevents settlement, and the existence of mistrust maintains hostility, trapping the region in forever wars. There is a need to acknowledge that, in the long term, hostility will not be in the best interest of either state.

Military preparedness and deterrence are not sufficient to break this vicious cycle. Despite its challenges, sustained diplomacy is the way forward. In such a scenario, even Track-II and backchannel diplomacy can be meaningful. Although, it may not end the conflict but can help prevent risks, add predictability, and avoid miscalculations. Without dialogue, pauses are tenuous phases, but with effective communication, the reasoning behind forever wars can be undermined, and avenues to stability can be opened. However, the political motives of the BJP regime make the conflict resolution through diplomacy a wishful thinking.

The May 2025 episode demonstrates that when one side continues to escalate, even definitive solutions are insufficient to ensure long-term stability in a political environment. As long as the objective is to consistently engage in hostile politics, the threat of war will never go away. True security in this age of forever wars is centred on being ready and working diligently to bring about lasting peace through constant diplomatic engagement, credible defence, and vigilance.