India’s strategy of escalation dominance, aimed at acquiring the ability to control the pace, intensity, and outcome of a conflict at each successive rung of the escalation ladder, as well as termination on its own terms, is underway. There are indications of development of such a strategy. Conventional superiority, strategic signaling, ready-to-use nuclear forces, and crisis management are all examples. Its strategy of escalation dominance, coupled with damage limitation, is supported by multilayered missile and air defense systems and canisterization of its nuclear-capable missile for a ready-to-use force, as well as cyber and space capabilities.

These capabilities are considered key to a state’s escalation dominance strategy. However, India’s escalation dominance in South Asia is not only accelerating the intensity of the security dilemma by increasing its own security but also deepening the threat perception of the adversary—weakening the strategic stability of South Asia.

In 2004, India revealed its Cold Start doctrine, a limited warfighting offensive plan to achieve conventional objectives within a limited time frame. Later, two more doctrines, known as the Joint Doctrine for Indian Armed Forces and the Land Warfare Doctrine, were issued in 2017 and 2018.

Recently, the Indian government announced a joint exercise by the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force, named Cold Start, in the first week of October 2025. The exercise aimed to test drones and counter-drone systems that officials labelled as the biggest such drill to be conducted since the May India-Pakistan conflict.

On September 25, 2025, the Indian Ministry of Defense announced that India had conducted a successful flight test of a rail-based Agni-Prime intermediate-range ballistic missile (MRBM). This is the first railway-based ballistic missile, which the minister called “under a full operational scenario.” A rail-based launcher is considered a significant development since the missile can move freely across the national rail network. This  increases the flexibility of the system in terms of its operational capability and survivability, as well as its ability to be deployed quickly.

The development is part of India’s ongoing military modernization program by fielding more types of weapon systems. A rail-based launcher, compared to fixed silos and road mobile launchers, has the advantage of quick deployment, maneuverability, and greater chances of survivability. With the test, India has joined a select group of nations with this capability.

India’s counterforce capability, followed by emerging trends in its nuclear posturing and technological developments, play into Pakistan’s fears. Indian ambitions for conventional counterforce capabilities only increases Pakistan’s fears. Reportedly, India is also pursuing a missile capable of carrying a bunker-buster. Its potential to cause massive destruction could cross Pakistan’s threshold for nuclear use, thereby leading to a serious crisis.

These ambitions require expansion of India’s nuclear arsenal in terms of more missiles, more warheads, and more fissile material to fulfill the requirements of its emerging nuclear posture, which is detrimental to regional peace and stability. India’s pursuit of an escalation dominance strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan could be perilous and lead to retaliation and war, as true escalation dominance is rarely attainable in any confrontation.

It is not something that is a feasible policy objective. Ending conflict on favorable terms remains a perilous policy objective. This is the capability of a state to dictate the endgame of a conflict, ensuring that peace is maintained on its own terms, not the opponent’s.

Nevertheless, India’s policy of escalation dominance in South Asia is escalatory, while remaining elusive. The recent four-day conflict is the latest example of India’s objectives to end the conflict on advantageous terms militarily, economically, and diplomatically. For instance, after its strike inside Pakistan, the Indian government immediately started to claim the success of Operation Sindoor, praising its military capabilities and technological strides.

On the diplomatic level, India anticipated the international community`s response to the attacks and support for the Indian stance to strengthen its regional and international standings. However, the failure of the Indian strategy was exposed at the military level when India faced tough retaliation from Pakistan, resulting in the reported loss of its six jets, besides damage to its key military installations, including its costly defense systems. At the diplomatic and economic levels, Trump’s repeated claims of credit for ending the conflict question its long-held stance of strategic autonomy and rejecting third parties’ role in resolving the Kashmir dispute. After the ceasefire, Trump claimed that to end the conflict between India and Pakistan, his threat of extremely high tariffs was instrumental in reaching a ceasefire agreement.

India has been unable to achieve the desired outcomes from the conflicts it has initiated many times over the past two decades. Latest statements from the Indian military leadership also show that India is unsatisfied with the outcomes of its strategy. It is more useful to treat escalation dominance as a philosophical aspiration than as a feasible policy objective, especially against a country that has a qualitative edge over the initiator of the crisis. Therefore, advanced technologies could be decisive in any future conflicts, but it could be that reciprocal development can offer a counter-capability in the same-domain deterrence and thus may challenge escalation dominance. Pakistan’s policy of full-spectrum deterrence is instrumental in countering Indian ambitions at every level of the escalation ladder. India’s pursuit of escalation dominance complicates the regional security dynamics, which already lack institutionalized Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), a nuclear risk-reduction mechanism, and an arms control framework aligned with the emerging technologies.

Sher Ali Kakar is an Associate Director of Research with a focus on Nuclear and Strategic Affairs at Balochistan Think Tank Network (BTTN), at BUITEMS Quetta. Atta Ullah is a Research Fellow with a focus on Nuclear and Strategic Affairs at Balochistan Think Tank Network (BTTN), at BUITEMS Quetta. Views express in this article are the Author’s own.

India’s Strategy of Escalation Dominance was originally published on Global Security Review.

Vance addressed the continents’ hostile stance on freedom of opinion. He suggested Europe is becoming the enemy they opposed during the Cold War, and with elections coming, challenged Europeans to step up and take charge of their own defense. Vance also argued that the most urgent issue shared by all nations at the conference was mass migration.

Europe is Not Unified

 Incidentally, in late 2024, Global Security Review (GSR) published an updated independent assessment of European political uncertainties. It shows that JD Vance’s statements made in February 2025 were factual and fully grounded, even if inconvenient.

The governments of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are fractured and dysfunctional. Another late 2024 GSR independent assessment of an endgame in Ukraine suggested an uncomfortable realpolitik-driven negotiated settlement, even before the Trump administration offered its plan after the Munich Security Conference.

That suggests two observations. First, the complete terms will never be made public but are already known to powerbrokers. Present neutrality of Russian forces in Transnistria and a lack of attacks on Ukrainian leadership suggests some form of agreed limitation of the conflict. Recently both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio remarked on Zelensky’s duplicitousness. Apparently, he would agree to terms in meetings and then lie to the media about them. The ostentatious way Zelensky ended up confronting both President Donald Trump and Vice President Vance in the Oval Office, despite the rather realistic and transactional path to settlement, only reinforces this assessment.

The indignation and moral outrage over the conflict is mostly performative for the media and the public. It gives governments cover to prolong the conflict by providing aid, winning elections, and increasing the size of their bureaucratic apparatus, along with the corrupt mechanisms endemic to Ukraine. What online outrage does not do is enable a negotiated settlement of hostilities.

After the White House debacle, President Macron arranged an emergency meeting. While President Macron again pushed for “strategic autonomy” for Europe, the emergency meeting again showed that other European countries are not getting on the France bandwagon just yet. Together with the UK, France is the most likely to send troops to Ukraine, an idea that both Germany and Poland loathe. Italy is attempting a pragmatic balancing act between Europe and the US. Regrettably, the Baltic and Nordic countries, who are the frontline against Russia and invest the most in their defense, were not represented in a meaningful way.

Second, the claims of America “abandoning” Kyiv are hyperbolic, counterfactual, and premature. This is an ongoing negotiation. The facts are clear. The US provided 0.6 percent of its 2021 GDP to Ukraine and more than $160,000,000,000 in financial assistance and munitions, just about half of all assistance Ukraine has received. This aid, unlike European aid, has no strings attached and no expectation of repayment. The US also secured billions in loans from various banks for the benefit of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the US is strategically overextended and incapable of matching the more immediate threat (China). The Trump administration understands this. Many Americans know this, too, which is why 72 percent of registered voters want a negotiated settlement. That does not mean President Trump is surrendering to Putin or “abandoning” Europe. Nor does it make him a tool of Putin.

The West is in a bad strategic and operational position. Even after three years of supporting the Ukrainian war effort, weapons production across all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states cannot meet demand, let alone stockpile in case of war in the Pacific. While many speculate that Russia is in bad shape and is showing indicators of economic decline, they are stronger than Ukraine and its immediate neighbors.

For the West there are only two alternatives to a brokered peace: a dramatic escalation led by American conventional forces and resources or continuing to feed the war of attrition. Neither is a good scenario for the Ukrainian people who are dying by the thousands. President Trump understands this fact.

The Future of NATO

How Europe responds to the US remains to be seen. There are deeper fractures within and between the UK, France, and Germany than mainstream observers realize. The only ones significantly expanding their militaries and cooperating with the US are Poland, the Baltic states, and the Nordic countries.

As for the United States’ participation in NATO, it should be scaled back over time and be contingent on shared values with partner nations, especially when it comes to freedom of conscience and speech. Countries like Denmark, who believe Russia will invade Europe in 5 years, should expand their militaries and demonstrate not only commitment to liberal values but self-defense. The United States cannot fund its welfare state and those of Europe. Americans are not that wealthy.

American involvement in NATO should be primarily limited to (1) logistics (air and sea transport to Europe); (2) support in the form of weaponry, materiel, and war support materiel; (3) maintaining freedom of the seas; and 4) developing missile defense systems that can serve American and, when purchased, NATO. The United States also has unmatched space capabilities.

There should be no expectation of American boots on the ground simply because Europe neglected its security obligations for nearly 30 years. While there is still immense value in joint training and cooperation, the US should be seen as a rear guard and a last resort force. American taxpayers should not be the primary funder and provider of military forces and capability for Europe.

It is difficult to expect any long-term peace to be possible so long as NATO serves primarily as an anti-Russia platform funded by the United States. Europeans need to solve their own problems without vilifying the United States for solving American problems first. This means Eastern Europe needs to secure the buy-in of countries like Italy and Spain, who do not feel the Russian threat. As Vice President Vance suggested in Munich, Europeans must reflect on what they are defending and not just what they are against.

Europe is their continent and their home. It is their responsibility and duty to be the primary protectors of their individual nations and European society. Unfortunately, Europe does not appear to be ready to make a unified effort. Nonetheless, the proposal by the newly elected German chancellor, which calls for France and the United Kingdom to share their nuclear deterrent, might be a first concrete step in the right direction.

Michael Fincher is a Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Christophe Bosquillon is a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. He has over 30 years of international experience in general management, foreign direct investment, and private equity and fund management across various industries in Europe and the Pacific Basin. The views expressed are the authors’ own.

The US and Europe: A Reality Check was originally published on Global Security Review.

The perception of adversaries that western democracies are increasingly dependent on space for joint and integrated military operations gives them an incentive to threaten access to the assets that enable this capability prior to beginning of a conflict. The United States and its allies, including Australia, are now responding to this changing strategic dynamic, with a much greater focus on the challenges of undertaking space control as an important new task, along with the potential opportunities of establishing dedicated space forces.

The Policy Path to Space Control

In 2020, the then Morrison-led Coalition government sought for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to play a more ambitious role in space. The release of the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and the accompanying Force Structure Plan represented the first significant formal policy recognition of the importance of space control and the importance of space as an operational domain. The 2020 Force Structure Plan stated that:

Defence will need capabilities that directly contribute to war fighting outcomes in the space domain using terrestrial and/or space-based systems. The Government’s plans include the development of options to enhance ADF space control through capabilities to counter emerging space threats to Australia’s free use of the space domain and that assure our continued access to space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

It also aligned with the establishment of the Australian Space Agency in 2018 and the rapid growth of an Australian commercial space sector. This marked a truly fundamental shift from Australia’s previous approach of passive dependency on foreign states and commercial providers for space capabilities. Australia sought to become an active participant in a rapidly growing global space market, but also recognized that space access must be assured and protected in a contested and congested space domain.

The establishment of Australia’s Space Command (known initially as Defence Space Command) on January 18, 2022, also saw the release of the Defence Space Strategy which lists space control capabilities as a key objective towards “enhancing Defence’s space capability to assure joint force access in a congested, contested and competitive space environment.” The Space Command document states that “Defence will continue to identify space control gaps and opportunities to develop a credible Space Control capability, and space capability developers will actively seek to improve resilience of the space capabilities.” That would align with the decision by the following Albanese Labor government.

The Albanese government, which came to power in May 2022, largely sustained the previous coalition government’s approach to the ADF’s role in space. The 2023 Defence Strategic Review (DSR) sought to highlight the importance of the space domain, “re-posturing” Space Command into Joint Capabilities Group. The subsequent 2024 National Defence Strategy (NDS) and Integrated Investment Program (IIP) lifted planned government investment for the ADF in the space domain from about $7 billion (Australian dollars) under the previous Morrison-led coalition government to between $9 billion and $12 billion, though the vast bulk of this extra funding would not appear until late in the current decade. On space control, the Albanese government largely followed the lead of the previous Morrison liberal-national coalition, with the 2024 IIP stating planned spending will include “measures to enhance Defence’s space control capability to deny attempts to interfere with, or attack, Australia’s use of the space domain. These will help ensure the ADF is able to continue using the space capabilities it needs to support its operations.”

Capability Options for ADF Space Control

If Australia is to acquire a space control capability, it is certain to be a
“soft kill” system that disables or denies rather than physically destroys a target. The Albanese government signed a ban on destructive testing of direct-ascent ASAT systems on October 27, 2022, and any acquisition of a “kinetic kill direct-ascent ASAT would violate such a ban.” A kinetic kill ASAT capability is not consistent with Australia’s policy of sustainable use of space.

In 2021 the Morrison government announced a new defence project (DEF-9358) that would explore options for a ground-based space electronic warfare capability. Such an approach would be consistent with a preference for reversible or scalable effects that disable or deny rather than destroy.

Space-based “co-orbital” space control could conceivably include space electronic warfare technologies such as on-orbit jamming or even high-power microwave weapons for electronic attack in orbit. It is also conceivable that a ground-based electro-optical laser dazzling capability could be considered, with Australian commercial space companies demonstrating capability expertise in such a system. Finally, ground-based cyber capabilities could be exploited in space control operations against both satellites in orbit and ground facilities undertaking satellite telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C).

Such soft-kill defensive, and potentially offensive, space control capabilities would contribute to assuring ADF space access by denying an adversary the ability to attack critical space support capabilities, such as ADF satellites for communications and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. This is consistent with the military strategy of deterrence by denial as laid out in the 2024 NDS. Other measures could be taken that include hardening key space support capabilities and potentially “silent spares” deployed in orbit.

To significantly strengthen ADF space resilience, the opportunity for the ADF to exploit emerging Australian commercial space launch capabilities is important. Embracing space lift as a means to assure sovereign space access makes eminent sense, given Australia’s geographic advantages for launch. By developing a responsive sovereign launch capability that can deliver small satellites into orbit, Australia can augment space support for the ADF and its allies in a crisis, or, if necessary, reconstitute lost capability in the aftermath of a counterspace attack.

Next Steps

Looking forward, the 2024 NDS established a biennial defence policy process, and the 2026 NDS and IIP represent the next best opportunity for Defence to more clearly conceptualize its approach to space control. Doctrinal documents within Space Command already suggest a role for space control, but greater detail is needed. Most importantly, there needs to be a public and unclassified policy explaining how the ADF will undertake this important task alongside allies and partners. Space control, like space domain awareness, represents an opportunity for the ADF to undertake a next step in its use of the space domain, beyond simply capability assurance and satellite communications, which was the perceived role of space in the 2023 DSR. In a contested space domain, Australia must burden share to a much greater degree in orbit and in acquiring the means to undertake space control tasks. This represents an important next step towards that outcome.

Malcolm Davis is a Senior Analyst in Defence Strategy and Capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Views expressed are the author’s own. 

The Case for Space Control: An Australian Perspective was originally published on Global Security Review.