【Text by Observer Net Columnist Qin Bo, Li Jie】
Recently, Indian media has frequently hyped up the so-called "Pak-China secret leak" issue, referring to Pakistan as the "leaker of Chinese secrets," and wildly spreading the risk of "technical leaks" in Sino-Pakistani military cooperation.
This is not new. Every time Sino-Pakistani relations deepen, such as when news about China possibly exporting new fighter jets (such as the rumored J-35 stealth fighter) to Pakistan or advancing the expansion of Gwadar Port circulates, India starts to jump around, hyping up topics like "technology leakage" and "equipment outflow," trying to shift pressure on itself and interfere with Sino-Pakistani cooperation: depicting China's cooperation with Pakistan as a threat to India, inciting domestic nationalism, while spreading false information to undermine Sino-Pakistani trust, making China doubt its "friendship" with Pakistan.
Indian media's speculative and exaggerated interpretations are not uncommon. The recent rumor that "Pakistan dismantled the JF-17 Thunder fighter production line to give it to Turkey" is a typical example. This absurd rumor lacks any military knowledge or logic, and there is no official report to confirm it; it is simply a farce created by some Indian media and domestic self-media outlets. The only result of this farce is to defame Sino-Pakistani relations, and the only beneficiary is India. The likes of "Pak-China secret leaks" are essentially India's usual public opinion tactics, aimed at dividing Sino-Pakistani ties and weakening China's influence in South Asia.
One, Western countries incite, "China threat" is old rhetoric
The cooperation between China and Pakistan is normal strategic cooperation between sovereign states, but in the eyes of Western powers such as the United States, it is seen as a challenge and threat to their regional dominance. Every time there is a slight move in Sino-Pakistani military cooperation, Western media quickly resorts to the old script, wildly hyping up the so-called "Chinese military leakage threat" and "Sino-Pakistani axis disrupting regional stability."
For example, when China exports advanced fighter jets or air defense missiles to Pakistan, some voices in the West will come forward to comment, implying that Pakistan may "gift" Chinese technology to a third country, endangering a larger scope of security. They even use this as an excuse to threaten possible weapon embargoes against Pakistan, or to increase military aid to other countries in South Asia, in an attempt to curb the expansion of Chinese influence. All of these are nothing more than using the "China threat theory" to fan the flames, creating public opinion to justify interference in South Asian affairs.
The US's hype is just a repetition of an old script. Washington uses public opinion tools to exaggerate the "China threat," portraying itself as a concerned party and mediator for "regional stability," but in reality, it uses this to justify its own expanded arms sales and involvement in regional strategies. In 2022, the United States announced a $450 million maintenance plan for F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, claiming this would help Pakistan strengthen its "counter-terrorism" capabilities. However, this claim was not accepted by countries like India. Indian Foreign Minister openly stated that the US explanation "cannot fool anyone," pointing out that the actual deployment of these planes targets India.
The US's so-called "helping Pakistan counter-terrorism and promote stability" is merely a cover-up for its own geopolitical calculations: once questioned, it claims to "separate and discuss" India-Pakistan relations, trying to play the role of a balance to conceal its real intentions.
In fact, the US has been increasingly strengthening its military ties with India in recent years, viewing New Delhi as a key partner in the Indo-Pacific strategy, deepening joint efforts against China through mechanisms such as the Quad. The US Congress even emphasized in the defense authorization bill that it should support India to cope with the pressure from the People's Liberation Army and help it get rid of reliance on Russian weapons. Washington is tightening the India-US relationship to counter China, while also keeping limited military aid to maintain influence over Pakistan, revealing its cunning intention clearly.
On May 3, 1950, President Truman (left) met with Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan (middle).
The Western bloc led by the United States has long had a pattern of using provocation and favoritism to serve its hegemony, as evidenced by the Cold War era.
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan suddenly became a frontline ally of the United States in containing the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration launched a six-year $3.2 billion aid plan (about $7.6 billion today) in 1981, which included providing 40 U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to the Pakistani Air Force. With sufficient military aid, the United States successfully guided Pakistan to cultivate and arm Afghan resistance forces.
However, once the Soviet threat receded, the United States immediately turned its back: In 1990, after the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan, President George H.W. Bush refused to endorse Pakistan's non-nuclear commitment, halted almost all military and economic aid to Pakistan, and even withheld the F-16 fighter jets paid for by Pakistan.
The timing of the U.S. sanctions against Pakistan's nuclear development was so precise, indicating that the U.S. aid to Pakistan was more of a pragmatic transaction based on its own geostrategic needs. This experience of being used and then discarded has left a long-term shadow on Pakistan-U.S. relations, with Pakistan viewing it as a reflection of the utilitarian nature of U.S.-Pakistan relations.
During the Cold War, Western aid to Pakistan often came with "anti-Chinese" conditions - the implicit understanding for Pakistan to obtain large-scale Western military aid was not to be too close to China. This can be seen from the ebb and flow of Pakistan-U.S. relations: In the mid-1960s, the U.S. cut off supplies to Pakistan due to the South Asian war, prompting Pakistan to turn to Beijing for military aid; while in the 1980s, when the U.S. re-embraced Pakistan, the topic of Sino-Pakistani cooperation was deliberately downplayed, and the game of "aid for distance" is not a new historical precedent.
Entering the 21st century, especially after the dramatic changes in Afghanistan in 2021, the United States has been cultivating two fronts in South Asia: vigorously courting India to build an anti-China "united front"; while at the same time mending relations with Pakistan to prevent Pakistan from completely turning to China's embrace.
In 2022, the United States loudly announced the resumption of military sales support to Pakistan, boasting of maintaining regional stability and counter-terrorism cooperation. But in the eyes of various parties in South Asia, this seems more like a temporary measure by Washington to balance the chessboard amidst the rising Sino-India and U.S.-India relations. The U.S. actual intention is to stabilize Pakistan through limited concessions, preventing it from becoming a strategic base for China, while using the "China threat" as an excuse to enhance strategic investment in India, thus exerting pressure on China's influence in South Asia from both sides.
Historically, Western assistance and weapons to Pakistan have often been conditional on the Pakistan government's compliance with its strategy, and now Washington is resorting to the same trick again, hyping up the "China threat" to provoke Sino-Pakistani relations, with the intention of weakening China's influence in Pakistan. These actions by the U.S. can be seen from recent sanction measures:
Since 2023, the United States has repeatedly sanctioned Chinese companies involved in Pakistan's missile projects, claiming to prevent "missile technology proliferation," actually targeting Sino-Pakistani defense cooperation. In September 2024, the U.S. went further, placing several Chinese companies and research institutions assisting in Pakistan's missile development on a blacklist. China's response was clear opposition to the U.S. unilateral sanctions and "long-arm jurisdiction," exposing the U.S. arrogance of interfering in other countries' cooperation without UN authorization.
The U.S. chose this moment to act, obviously with its own strategic calculations: one, to delay Pakistan's progress in enhancing its military strength with Chinese technology, indirectly maintaining India's security advantage; two, to warn regional countries not to rely too much on China militarily. The U.S.'s intention to divide Sino-Pakistani relations is clear: it wants to weaken Pakistan's reliance on Chinese military equipment, and at the same time, by hyping up the "China threat" to bring Pakistan back into its influence circle, to rebuild a favorable situation for itself in South Asia.
Throughout these series of operations, the European allies of the United States have always been helping. Countries like the UK and France have followed Washington's steps in recent years, aligning their positions with the U.S. on the strategic approach towards China and South Asian issues.
In terms of public opinion, major European countries have echoed and amplified the "China threat" narrative, occasionally commenting on China's cooperation projects in South Asia. Through their own regional policies and arms sales, they work together with the U.S. to exert influence. The UK released an "Indo-Pacific tilt" strategy, actively increasing its presence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region, to demonstrate its support for the U.S. Indo-Pacific layout.
Militarily, France has continuously strengthened its defense cooperation with India, becoming India's main arms supplier after Russia. In recent years, India has spent a huge amount of money to purchase "Rafale" fighter jets and submarines from France to enhance its military projection in both the China-India and India-Pakistan fronts.
European countries' actions, although seemingly based on their own interests, actually align with the U.S. strategy of containing China and supporting India. The involvement of European powers adds to the U.S.-led containment of China: in the diplomatic sphere, Europe and the U.S. jointly spread the negative impact of the "China-Pakistan axis" on regional stability; in the military sphere, Western allies collectively enhance the military strength of countries like India to contain Sino-Pakistani strategic cooperation.
In this process, the "China threat theory" is not just the view of the United States alone, but rather a common tool of discourse used by the entire Western camp in geopolitical games. It appears to be justified on the grounds of "maintaining stability" and "non-proliferation," but in reality, it follows the old path of serving its own hegemonic logic and suppressing other countries. By provoking Sino-Pakistani relations and rallying other countries to oppose China, the U.S. practices a typical "divide and rule" strategy. This tactic worked well during the Cold War, and today it is just a different script.
Two, China's military industry will not let secrets leak? Technical control has an "iron jacket"
Facing the accusations of "leaked Chinese weapon technology" by India and the West, we need not be alarmed. China's military exports have always implemented a strict classification control mechanism, and core secrets will never be easily exposed. The most advanced technologies - such as the avionics systems of advanced fighter jets or the guidance algorithms of missiles - are always firmly controlled by China, and what is provided to partners are only versions that have been performance-degraded or black-box encapsulated.
Allies like Pakistan usually only have the right to use or assemble weapons, not full control over their core technologies. The equipment we export to "Pak-China friendship" still retains all the "keys." As early as the beginning of military trade cooperation, we have already added "security locks" to the exported equipment. Some key components are embedded with special chips and dynamic encryption programs, and if unauthorized disassembly occurs, the device will automatically lock or even trigger self-destruction. The strict protective mechanisms, combined with positioning tracking technology, make it impossible for anyone who tries to reverse-engineer Chinese weapons to do anything.
Recently, the Indian Air Force recovered the remnants of our "PL-15E" air-to-air missile, but since the core components were destroyed after hitting, the Indians got only a shell, unable to restore the algorithm and craftsmanship inside. Moreover, the international military trade sector generally adopts the technical protection strategy of "performance degradation + black-box encapsulation," and China's export models are similarly stripped and locked, making it difficult for enemies to discover their true secrets even if they dismantle the export equipment.
Furthermore, for joint R&D projects between China and Pakistan or cases where Pakistan plans to transfer weapon technology to a third country, China also implements full supervision and strict restrictions. Recently, the rumor that "Pakistan transferred the JF-17 Thunder fighter production line to Turkey" caused a stir, but the facts have proven that it is pure nonsense. In fact, what Pakistan exports to other countries are mostly conventional weapons or its own produced models, and these transactions are almost all conducted under the approval and supervision of China, with no possibility of secretly transferring Chinese core technologies. It can be certain that China's military industry's core secrets and vital points have not been exposed due to external cooperation, and others' attempts to steal our secrets through Pakistan are nothing more than dreams.
A French Rafale fighter jet shot down in the conflict between India and Pakistan this May.
Three, Border clashes between Pakistan and Afghanistan, India benefits?
The current South Asian situation is chaotic, with Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all experiencing problems. This wave of conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not just an accidental border friction, but has a background of Indian and Western incitement, making the current situation in South Asia more complex and dangerous than it appears.
Early October, Pakistan and the Taliban of Afghanistan clashed fiercely at multiple border checkpoints. The Pakistani military reportedly deployed aircraft to conduct cross-border airstrikes on targets in Kabul, leading the Taliban to retaliate with cross-border night attacks, causing the border situation between the two countries to escalate abruptly. On the surface, the trigger for this clash is the Taliban's long-standing tolerance and protection of the anti-government armed group "Taliban of Pakistan" (TTP) within Pakistan. Pakistan is dissatisfied with the Taliban allowing TTP to launch cross-border attacks from Afghan territory, and therefore launched a "last straw" aerial strike on relevant targets near Kabul to eliminate the threat and warn the Taliban authorities. The Taliban responded quickly with force, claiming successful retaliation against Pakistan's "multiple violations" of Afghan airspace. Within a few days, both sides suffered casualties, and even claimed to have captured each other's outposts.
This border clash is far from being a simple case of accidental border friction. First, the role of India is worth noting. After the Taliban regained power in Afghanistan in 2021, although India did not officially recognize the regime on the surface, it secretly adjusted its policy toward Afghanistan, trying to turn Afghanistan into a new lever to counter Pakistan.
On October 10, 2025, Indian Foreign Minister Sujan Singh met with Muttaki, announcing that India and Afghanistan had agreed to restore diplomatic relations. Sujan Singh's social media account
Recently, signs of improved India-Afghanistan relations are evident: In October 2025, Afghan Foreign Minister Muttaki made a high-profile visit to New Delhi, and Indian Foreign Minister Sujan Singh announced that India and Afghanistan "restored comprehensive diplomatic relations," upgrading the previous "technical team" in Kabul to an official embassy. Muttaki even called India a "close friend," stating that this visit would improve bilateral relations. India tried to court the Taliban regime and hinted at willingness to provide economic aid and diplomatic recognition, thereby regaining influence in Kabul.
For this, the Indian strategic community does not hesitate to admit that the intersection of interests between India and the Taliban lies in the common opposition to Pakistan. After all, historically, there have been territorial disputes and ethnic tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan (such as the Durand Line and the Pashtun issue), and India has deeper cultural and economic ties with Afghanistan, making Afghanistan seem sandwiched between India and Pakistan, naturally giving New Delhi an opportunity.
Now, India is sending flattery to the Taliban, secretly courting them, while at the same time being pleased to see them fall out with Pakistan or even engage in warfare - if Pakistan is caught in a two-front war, it is exactly what India wants. Hence, the reason why the Pakistani military attacked the Taliban targets this time, besides the "last straw" counter-terrorism, was largely a strategic warning to the Taliban authorities: applying military pressure on the Taliban not to side with the Indian camp.
Therefore, the Pakistani military directly accused the Taliban of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, blaming them for being "agents of India," and accused the Taliban regime of harboring TTP militants against Pakistan under India's support. New Delhi obviously denies these allegations, and the Taliban also claimed that they would not allow the use of Afghan territory against other countries. However, India's recent actions have fully exposed its dishonorable identity as a "provocateur": pretending to court the Taliban, but in reality, attempting to separate Pakistan and Afghanistan, and reap benefits. India is trying to use its relationship with the Taliban to exert new influence on Pakistan, and may even use the resources of the Taliban's holy warriors to instigate destabilizing activities within Pakistan.
The calculation of the U.S. and other Western forces is obvious. Since the U.S. hastily withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, its strategic demand for Pakistan declined for a time. However, when it saw that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) could potentially extend to benefit Afghanistan, how could it be willing to hand over this regional leadership?
In May of this year, China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan held a foreign ministers' dialogue in Islamabad, and the joint statement clearly reaffirmed the promotion of trilateral cooperation under the "Belt and Road" framework, supporting the extension of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan. For the Taliban, this was a significant diplomatic achievement to enhance legitimacy; however, for the U.S. and Western countries, this is equivalent to expanding Chinese and Pakistani influence in their own backyard.
A former Afghan prime minister, Hekmatyar, warned that the Taliban joining the CPEC project might provoke strong opposition from the U.S., India, and Iran. He emphasized that this development goes against Washington's expectations - the U.S. originally thought the Taliban regime would not easily cooperate with its rivals China and Russia. Now, the Taliban not only participates in building the "Belt and Road" initiative, but also agrees to China's exploitation of energy minerals in Afghanistan and the expansion of trade, which the U.S. cannot ignore as its own geographical vacuum is being filled by its rivals.
It is conceivable that some Western intelligence agencies have secretly encouraged the Taliban to take a stronger stance against Pakistan. The more the Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict escalates and the more turbulent the South Asian situation becomes, the more it serves the interest of the U.S. and Western countries to profit from chaos: it can slow down the progress of the China-Pakistan project in Afghanistan, weaken the achievements of the "Belt and Road" in the region, and create opportunities for the U.S. and Western countries to intervene in South Asian affairs under the guise of counter-terrorism and mediation. The situation in Afghanistan will become a new stage for great power rivalry - on the surface, it is the clash between the Taliban and the "Pak-China friendship," but behind it, there are the hands of the U.S. and Western countries fanning the flames. For this, China must not be complacent.
On October 7, 2025, the seventh meeting of the Moscow format consultation on the Afghanistan issue was held in Moscow, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Yue Xiaoyong, participating.
Four, China's strategic interests and response strategies
For China, "Pak-China friendship" is reliable, but we should also see that behind the close relationship between China and Pakistan, there are some structural contradictions and trust deficits. Facing the collusion of India and the West to incite division, as well as the complex and changing situation in South Asia, we need to remain calm and practical, both to firmly maintain the direction of friendly cooperation between China and Pakistan, and to skillfully respond to various undercurrent challenges.
Firstly, rumors end with the wise, actively speaking out to dispel rumors. For false rumors like "Pak-China secret leaks," the media and official channels should promptly clarify the truth and refute the rumors with factual evidence. At the same time, strengthen online regulation to prevent domestic self-media from spreading unverified information, avoiding the spread of rumors in our own public opinion field. When necessary, point out and criticize the malicious hype of Indian media to set the record straight. In the public opinion battlefield, we cannot allow the opponent to set the pace, we must be brave to confront and shatter the conspiracy theories with the truth.
Secondly, deepen Sino-Pakistani cooperation, friendship must not forget principles. Pakistan's strategic value to China is self-evident, we should continue to support its maintenance of national stability and development, including in the fields of security and economy, giving as much assistance as possible. This is not only to consolidate friendship, but also to maintain our own interests in South Asia. Continue to upgrade technology and joint production to strengthen Pakistan's military modernization, but at the same time ensure that China has control over key aspects, preventing third parties from interfering. If Pakistan has any overstepping behavior, such as擅自 sharing Chinese technology with a third country or being indecisive on issues involving China's interests, China should take measures to correct it decisively. Friendship is friendship, but principles must not be compromised.
Thirdly, actively mediate the Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict, prevent the situation from getting out of control. Continued conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not beneficial to either China and Pakistan, and may also affect the safety of our personnel and projects in the region. China has the conditions to play the role of a mediator. We can use the channels of contact with the Taliban authorities to work with them to draw clear lines with India and manage the anti-Pakistan armed groups within their territory; at the same time, coordinate with multilateral frameworks such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to promote enhanced intelligence exchange and border management between Pakistan and Afghanistan, avoiding misunderstandings from escalating. China's "Belt and Road" initiative has significant interests in the region, and we need to actively invest in mediation, preventing actors like India from interfering. As long as the tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan is eased, India's plans to encircle Pakistan from both sides will be thwarted.
Finally, maintain strategic composure, clearly state the determination to uphold the bottom line. Regarding India's provocations and the West's containment, we must maintain strategic composure and clearly state the determination to uphold the bottom line. If India dares to cause trouble on the Sino-Pakistani border or further incite division, we should let it see the power of a fist. Whether it is exposing its conspiracy in diplomacy or strengthening military deployments on the border when necessary, we should make New Delhi understand the heavy cost of provoking China's interests. For the U.S. and other幕后 masters, we must resolutely fight and never retreat, letting them know our determination and will to safeguard core interests. The more they incite the "China threat," the more we should deepen cooperation with friendly countries including Pakistan, making the rumors fall apart on their own.
Domestically, we should improve the risk prevention plan for foreign strategic cooperation. For example, enhance the ability to assess the strategic moves of all parties, prevent certain forces from making sudden policy reversals under special circumstances; establish a more sound military technology cooperation regulatory mechanism, and if there are signs of sensitive technology leaks, we can quickly trace, stop in time, or even initiate sanctions and compensation procedures, ensuring that no one has an opportunity. In short, stay calm and keep the initiative in our own hands.
There is no alliance that cannot be broken, but there can be an impregnable interest community. India and the West hyping up "Pak-China secret leaks" and inciting regional conflicts shows that Sino-Pakistani cooperation makes them uneasy. All these tricks ultimately aim to disrupt China's strategic chess in South Asia. China is not scared, and Sino-Pakistani friendship is not paper-thin. Whether it's the "Pak-China friendship" or Afghanistan, they are important parts of China's neighboring diplomacy. We will surely distinguish right from wrong and grasp the balance. Under the premise of ensuring the safety of core interests, China can certainly guard against potential risks and challenges. For sinister plots, we must respond accordingly and defeat them with wisdom. As long as we hold firm to our position and handle things properly, rumors will eventually cease, and conspiracies will eventually fail. The strategic goal of Sino-Pakistani cooperation to achieve regional prosperity and stability will not be shaken by mere rumors and small acts.
This article is an exclusive piece by Observer Net. The content is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer Net on WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles daily.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7561229115811136051/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.