India’s covert military offensive, known as “Operation Sindoor,” caused discernible damage to Pakistani military installations and gave New Delhi a tactical advantage during a brief but intense four-day conflict with Pakistan, according to a report by The New York Times, which cited satellite imagery to support its claims.
The report, based on high-resolution before-and-after satellite images, highlighted that Indian airstrikes had indeed damaged key Pakistani military sites. “The four-day military clash between India and Pakistan was the most expansive fighting in half a century between the two nuclear-armed countries. As both sides used drones and missiles to test each other’s air defences and hit military facilities, they claimed to inflict severe damage,” the NYT article noted.
While both nations engaged in a series of drone strikes and missile exchanges aimed at testing each other’s air defense systems, the report suggested India emerged with a stronger hand, having struck critical Pakistani military targets with precision. The assessment indicated that although the fighting saw numerous attacks from both sides, India appeared to have done the most tangible damage.
According to the New York Times, the visuals from satellite images confirmed that India had indeed inflicted “clear damage” on Pakistani sites. Although both countries engaged in what was described as precisely targeted strikes, the results on the ground seemed to favor India’s strategic execution.
The report stated, “Where India appears to have had a clear edge is in its targeting of Pakistan’s military facilities and airfields, as the latter stretch of fighting shifted from symbolic strikes and shows of force to attacks on each other’s defence capabilities.” This indicates that India’s offensive tactics transitioned from demonstrative force to operationally significant assaults on military infrastructure.
One of the central targets in India’s campaign was the Bholari air base. Indian defense officials claimed they struck an aircraft hangar at this facility with a pinpoint strike. The NYT analysis supported this, stating, “The visuals showed clear damage to what looks like a hangar,” validating India’s account of the operation.
Perhaps the most notable strike came at the Nur Khan air base, situated near the Pakistani Army’s central headquarters and the office of the Pakistani Prime Minister. The New York Times emphasized the sensitivity of this target, describing it as “perhaps the most sensitive military target that India struck.” This base is also in proximity to a critical Pakistani military division tasked with managing the country’s nuclear command and control structure, underlining the potential gravity of India’s move.
The satellite evidence reviewed by the NYT showed signs of damage to various infrastructure elements, including runways and other vital components at multiple locations. One such instance was Pakistan’s Rahim Yar Khan air base. Following India’s strikes, Pakistan issued a notice on May 10, designating one of the runways as non-operational, which the NYT cited as further evidence corroborating India’s claim of having successfully targeted that location.
At the Sargodha air base in Pakistan’s Punjab Province, the Indian military reportedly struck two distinct sections of the runway using precision-guided weaponry. These claims were again supported by corresponding satellite images, further reinforcing the narrative that India’s attacks were both deliberate and impactful.
In addition to runways, India also targeted radar installations, vital for air defense and military surveillance. Radar sites at Pasrur and the Sialkot aviation base came under attack, with India deploying precision munitions to disable them. The NYT stated that these strikes “caused massive damage,” suggesting a significant degradation in Pakistan’s air surveillance capability during the conflict.
While India’s strikes were backed by visual and satellite data, Pakistan’s retaliatory claims did not appear to hold up under similar scrutiny. According to the report, “Satellite images of the sites Pakistan claimed to have hit are limited, and so far do not clearly show damage caused by Pakistani strikes even at bases where there was corroborating evidence of some military action.” This line cast doubt on the extent or even the occurrence of successful strikes by Pakistani forces on Indian soil.
Among Pakistan’s key claims was the alleged destruction of India’s Udhampur air base. However, the New York Times disputed this assertion. “An image from May 12 does not appear to show damage,” the report said, refuting Pakistan’s statement and implying that the counterstrike might have either missed its intended target or was far less effective than suggested by Islamabad.
Overall, while both nations engaged in rapid military escalation over four days, the satellite evidence reviewed by the NYT leaned strongly in favor of India having executed more effective and damaging strikes. The report did not downplay the risks involved in such confrontations between two nuclear powers but highlighted the strategic and precise nature of India’s operations.
India’s use of precision weapons and targeting of key Pakistani defense facilities not only demonstrated its military capabilities but also appeared to set the tone for the brief conflict. With sensitive sites like Nur Khan air base and radar installations in Sialkot and Pasrur visibly damaged, India’s actions were viewed as bold and well-coordinated.
On the other hand, the absence of verifiable evidence supporting Pakistan’s claims of having struck Indian targets undermined its narrative. The limited imagery and lack of observable damage at the sites it claimed to have hit raised questions about the efficacy of its retaliatory actions.
In summary, the NYT report paints a picture of a conflict in which India held the tactical upper hand, both in terms of military execution and target selection. By focusing its efforts on degrading Pakistan’s defense infrastructure rather than just engaging in symbolic strikes, India appeared to have adopted a strategy aimed at longer-term deterrence rather than short-term retaliation.
The brief conflict, while not escalating into a full-scale war, demonstrated the volatility of relations between the two neighbors and the potential consequences of any future confrontations. The NYT’s satellite imagery-based analysis adds an objective layer to the evaluation of the military actions, offering rare insight into the real outcomes of what both countries initially portrayed as tit-for-tat military exchanges.