On May 10, US President Donald Trump announced on social media that “after a long night of talks mediated by the United States,” India and Pakistan had agreed to a *“FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.” He congratulated both nations for using “common sense” and avoiding further carnage. This followed behind-the-scenes efforts by Washington and other intermediaries (notably Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and China) to de-escalate the conflict. The timeline was extraordinarily rapid: India’s Operation Sindoor strikes began May 7; Pakistan retaliated with cross-border artillery and drone incursions on May 8-9; and by May 10, a ceasefire was declared.
The United States claimed to have facilitated direct contacts between Indian and Pakistani officials in those days, offering proposals to address each side’s concerns. Initial implementation of the ceasefire was shaky: within hours, explosions and artillery fire were reported in border areas, each side accusing the other of “violations” of the truce. However, by the next morning (May 11), calm largely prevailed and power was restored in frontline towns where blackouts had been implemented during the fighting. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other diplomats claim to have worked the phones to solidify the ceasefire’s terms, and by May 12, senior Indian and Pakistani military officers were said to be directly communicating to prevent flare-ups.
President Trump unabashedly took credit, and Pakistani leaders publicly thanked Washington–and the ceasefire went into effect after four days of high-intensity conflict.
Pakistan’s Role in the Pahalgam Attack: Challenging India's Narrative
While most international actors condemned the violence and praised efforts to de-escalate, no country or multilateral institution publicly assigned explicit blame to Pakistan. The absence of direct attribution marked a consistent feature of global responses.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the ceasefire and “all efforts to de-escalate the conflict,” expressing hope that both sides would use it to deal with a lot of “outstanding issues” between them. His spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, also hoped that the ceasefire would continue.
The UN Security Council issued a unanimous statement condemning the attack “in the strongest terms” and called for the perpetrators to be held accountable. However, unlike previous UNSC responses to similar incidents, the Council avoided naming any group or country.
UK, France, and Russia:
British leaders balanced solidarity with India and calls for de-escalation. Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the April 22 Pahalgam massacre as “utterly devastating.” “My thoughts are with those affected, their loved ones, and the people of India,” Starmer wrote, vowing that the UK “stands with India” against such terror. At the height of the crisis, Starmer told Parliament that “rising tensions between India and Pakistan will be of serious concern for many across Britain.” He revealed that the UK was engaging urgently with both countries and international partners to encourage dialogue and de-escalation, and emphasised the need to protect civilians in the conflict zone.
David Lammy, the UK Foreign Secretary, issued a formal statement expressing “serious concern” and urging “maximum restraint” by both India and Pakistan. “The UK government is urging India and Pakistan to…find a swift, diplomatic path forward,” Lammy said. France also echoed the UK’s calls for de-escalation. An Elysée official noted that avoiding an all-out war was “a great relief”. President Emmanuel Macron stated that terrorists would have “no sanctuary,” and simultaneously joined other UN Security Council powers in pressing for a quick ceasefire. He also took to social media to post in solidarity with India after the Pahalgam attacks in April: “Dozens of innocent lives were taken in this heinous attack…France, together with its allies, will continue the fight against terrorism wherever necessary.” During the military crisis, France maintained a balanced tone.
As a longstanding strategic partner of India (and also a friend to Pakistan), Russia’s position was closely watched. On May 5, President Vladimir Putin “strongly condemned the Pahalgam terrorist attack.” He conveyed “full support” to India in “its fight against terrorism”. At the same time, Moscow urged both countries to avoid uncontrolled escalation. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement condemned “all forms of terrorism” and expressed deep concern about the India-Pakistan clashes, calling for restraint on both sides.
Israel, South Asia, and China:
From Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the attack, calling it a “Islamic terrorist attack in Kashmir.” Ambassador Reuven Azar added, “Israel supports India’s right to self-defence. Terrorists should know there’s no place to hide from their heinous crimes against the innocent. #OperationSindoor.” Netanyahu was among the only international leaders to attribute the attacks to ‘Islamic terrorists.” He is also currently facing multiple charges from the International Criminal Court on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Among India's South Asian neighbours, Bangladesh’s Interim President Muhammad Yunus said, “I… commend Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi of India and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan for agreeing to a ceasefire with immediate effect.” Sri Lanka's Foreign Ministry issued a statement “strongly condemning the heinous terrorist attack… in Pahalgam” and affirmed support for India. Nepal’s Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli said, “Nepal stands firmly with India & strongly condemns [s] any & all acts of terrorism.”
China walked a careful line. Beijing did express condolences to India after the Pahalgam massacre–a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said China “mourns the victims” and “strongly condemns this attack.” President Xi Jinping sent a message to President Droupadi Murmu of India conveying sympathy, and Chinese state media termed the targeting of tourists “an appalling act of terror.” However, when India’s Operation Sindoor was launched, China’s tone shifted to one of concern towards Pakistan. On May 7, China’s Foreign Ministry said it found India’s missile strikes “regrettable.” “We are concerned about the ongoing situation… India and Pakistan will always be neighbours,” Beijing noted, urging both to remain calm and exercise restraint. China warned India against “actions that may further complicate the situation.” At the same time, the Chinese statement reiterated opposition to all forms of terrorism, giving a nod to India’s underlying grievance. Diplomatically, China backed Pakistan’s call for an investigation into the attack. After the ceasefire, China welcomed the agreement and offered to facilitate further India-Pakistan dialogue.
Japan, Gulf States, and Turkey:
Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi stated, “For the peace and stability of South Asia, we strongly urge both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and stabilise the situation through dialogue.” Saudi Arabia and the UAE also welcomed the ceasefire. In a statement, the Saudi Foreign Ministry expressed hope that the ceasefire would help restore peace and security in the region. “The Kingdom commends both parties for prioritising wisdom and self-restraint and reaffirms its support for resolving disputes through dialogue and peaceful means,” the Ministry said.
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expressed continued support for Pakistan, calling Shehbaz Sharif his “dear brother.” Indian officials later claimed Turkish-manufactured drones were used in cross-border fire during the May 8–9 exchange. “A forensic examination of the drone debris is currently underway. Preliminary reports indicate that the drones are Turkish-made Asisguard Songar models,” said Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh at a briefing.
