Title: Global Reactions to the Pulwama Terror Attack – A Test of True Diplomacy
When tragedy strikes, when the pain is real, that is the time you learn who your real friends are—who stands by you and who chooses neutrality. In geopolitics, no nation is a permanent friend, but certain moments reveal who truly supports you during times of crisis.
The recent brutal terrorist attack in Pulwama has once again tested global alliances and moral stands. The way unarmed civilians were targeted, reportedly after religious profiling, has shaken the conscience of India. Many are comparing this attack to Israel’s October 7, 2023, when Hamas brutally murdered civilians. A similar wave of anger, demand for justice, and calls for strong retaliation have emerged across India.
Let’s examine how the world has reacted and which countries have stood with India without hesitation—and which have chosen ambiguity.
1. United States: Clear and Strong Support
Former President Donald Trump reacted swiftly, calling the incident “deeply disturbing” and labeled it a terrorist attack—not just an “incident” or “militancy,” which many Western media outlets like BBC or The Economist have attempted to do. Trump’s words were clear:
“The United States stands strong with India against terrorism. Our hearts are with the victims, Prime Minister Modi, and the incredible people of India.”
This is significant. The U.S. supplies and maintains Pakistan’s F-16 fighter jets—a strategic military asset. If India chooses a military response in the near future, it would want the U.S. to exert pressure on Pakistan to prevent retaliation. Given Trump’s previous support during the 2019 Balakot airstrike, his stance is reassuring for India.
2. Russia: Direct and Unambiguous
Russian President Vladimir Putin also condemned the attack unequivocally. His official communication called it a “terrorist attack” and a “brutal crime with no justification.” He expressed condolences directly to the President and Prime Minister of India, saying:
“This brutal crime has no justification whatsoever. The victims were civilians from various countries.”
While there were unconfirmed reports that some victims might have been foreign nationals, possibly Israeli, no confirmation has come yet. Regardless, Russia’s response is a strong signal of continued support to India—even as it has tried improving ties with Pakistan in recent years.
3. China: A Strategic Silence
China’s reaction has been measured and vague. No direct statement from President Xi Jinping or the central Chinese government has been issued. Only the Chinese Ambassador to India expressed being “shocked” by the attack and extended “deep condolences”. Notably, the statement avoided using the term “terrorist attack.”
This kind of language, where clear terminology is deliberately avoided, signals China’s intent to remain neutral or indirectly supportive of Pakistan. Compare this to China’s sharp and emotional condemnations when attacks happen on its own nationals abroad.
4. Israel: Solidarity Without Doubt
Israel, as expected, gave a strong and emotional response, calling it a “heinous terrorist attack on tourists.” Its foreign ministry stated:
“Israel stands united with India in the fight against terror.”
This reflects the growing strategic bond between the two nations and Israel’s uncompromising stand against terrorism globally.
5. Other Nations: Mixed Signals
- Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran have all condemned the attack, calling it terrorism.
- Canada, on the other hand, has not issued any clear condemnation. Canadian media outlets are still referring to the attackers as “gunmen” or “militants,” and even suggest that responsibility claims are “unverified.” This lukewarm response highlights Canada’s continued geopolitical tensions with India.
Strategic Implications for India
India is at a critical juncture. With the world largely showing moral support, the possibility of a measured military response remains open. Historically, after attacks like 26/11, India explored options like choking Pakistan’s trade routes via the Arabian Sea. Such strategies may again be considered.
Crucially, the United States’ stance will shape global perception and response. If India acts against terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, U.S. pressure may ensure that the situation does not escalate into full-scale war—something neither country wants.
U.S. think tanks had earlier predicted the possibility of an India-Pakistan war between 2025–26. While war is undesirable, India’s hand may be forced if such terrorist attacks continue.