🇮🇳🇵🇰 - Pakistani retaliation underway, still contained to J&K for now.
🇵🇰🇮🇳 - Pakistan announced it is initiating a large-scale military operation codenamed "Operation Bunyan ul Marsoos" in response to "continuous provocations by India."
The Pakistani side said that "multiple strategic targets across India" are being engaged.
(GeoTV)
The Pakistani side said that "multiple strategic targets across India" are being engaged.
(GeoTV)
🇵🇰🇮🇳 - Pakistan’s military says it hit a BrahMos missile site in India - Reuters
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - Indian military source says air operations are currently underway in Pakistan - Reuters
At this moment, the international community's message should be clear if any country is serious about preserving basic nuclear peace: the world will not stand by as two nuclear powers march toward catastrophe. The current exchange of strategic strikes between India and Pakistan represents the gravest escalation between nuclear states since the Cold War. Should either side choose to deploy nuclear weapons—tactical or otherwise—the consequences will not be regional. They will be global, irreversible, and morally unforgivable.
Every government, especially those with economic and diplomatic leverage, must act now. This is not the time for neutrality, hedging, or procedural statements. If nuclear weapons are used, the responsible state must face immediate and total sanctions: exclusion from international financial systems, airspace closures, full diplomatic isolation, and embargoes on energy, medicine, migration and critical technology. The preservation of civilization demands nothing less.
Every government, especially those with economic and diplomatic leverage, must act now. This is not the time for neutrality, hedging, or procedural statements. If nuclear weapons are used, the responsible state must face immediate and total sanctions: exclusion from international financial systems, airspace closures, full diplomatic isolation, and embargoes on energy, medicine, migration and critical technology. The preservation of civilization demands nothing less.
The lack of response from the international community is truly astounding. We have two nuclear-armed nations essentially at war - and not even serious discussion of *potential* peace talks. I seriously hope that this doesn't escalate into a ground war.
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - BREAKING: Indian Deputy Commissioner Raj Kumar Thappa KIA during strikes.
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - "Srinagar under air raid by PAF fighters. Official statement shortly on big developments on aerial battle over the city." - NDTV
🇵🇰🇮🇳 - Swarm of Pakistani drones are in Delhi's airspace.
- Geo News, citing security sources
Pakistani version ofc.
- Geo News, citing security sources
Pakistani version ofc.
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - Prime Minister of Pakistan calls urgent meeting for National Command Authority, which is responsible for nukes.
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - India responding to Pakistani military action, Indian official says - CNN
Forwarded from Constantine's Notebook
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - India says Pakistan violated the ceasefire.
🇨🇦 - I’m not an electoral law expert. I’m just someone who still believes that democracy depends as much on perception as it does on procedures.
When a riding flips because of a single vote, following a judicial recount, and 840 ballots are rejected, I’m not questioning the legal result. But I can’t help asking a simple question:
Will people trust the process?
That matters, because a healthy democracy isn’t just about rules being followed — it’s about collective confidence in the legitimacy of outcomes.
Some will say these are rare edge cases. That everything was verified. I believe them. But I also think this kind of scenario raises a real optics issue: when margins are this tight, and several recounts all happen to swing in the same political direction — just a few seats short of a majority — it’s understandable if some citizens feel uneasy.
And that unease isn’t necessarily partisan. It stems from the sense that the process feels too opaque, too technical, too hard to follow from the outside, and therefore too vulnerable to public doubt.
This isn’t a hostile critique. It’s a call to do better. To make the process more transparent, more readable, more accessible.
Because democracy isn’t just about what’s legal. It’s about what people believe to be legitimate.
When a riding flips because of a single vote, following a judicial recount, and 840 ballots are rejected, I’m not questioning the legal result. But I can’t help asking a simple question:
Will people trust the process?
That matters, because a healthy democracy isn’t just about rules being followed — it’s about collective confidence in the legitimacy of outcomes.
Some will say these are rare edge cases. That everything was verified. I believe them. But I also think this kind of scenario raises a real optics issue: when margins are this tight, and several recounts all happen to swing in the same political direction — just a few seats short of a majority — it’s understandable if some citizens feel uneasy.
And that unease isn’t necessarily partisan. It stems from the sense that the process feels too opaque, too technical, too hard to follow from the outside, and therefore too vulnerable to public doubt.
This isn’t a hostile critique. It’s a call to do better. To make the process more transparent, more readable, more accessible.
Because democracy isn’t just about what’s legal. It’s about what people believe to be legitimate.