A neighbourhood around Lukianivska square in Kyiv has become a visible example of the damage caused by the continuing air war between Russia and Ukraine, with residents and local businesses attempting to continue daily routines among damaged buildings and reminders of repeated attacks.

The area, once known for busy streets, restaurants and commercial activity, has seen many buildings damaged by strikes. A nearby station and restaurant remain among the active parts of the neighbourhood, while a small market selling flowers and vegetables continues operating beneath damaged structures.

For some residents, the repeated attacks have added to fears already carried from other parts of Ukraine. Anastasiia Prymak, a 23-year-old product manager, moved to Kyiv from Nikopol two years ago after experiencing frequent bombardment there. She said recent attacks on Kyiv had brought back the same sense of insecurity.

Prymak described a drone strike on a nearby apartment building on 28 April. She said she initially thought she heard aircraft but realised that was unlikely because of the war. Looking outside, she saw an explosion on the roof of a building.She said the attacks had affected her mental health and that she had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder.

She described experiencing persistent anxiety and panic attacks.Prymak showed images from her apartment window showing a damaged building with flames coming from windows after a strike. She said that during one major attack her boyfriend took her to a shelter, where she prayed despite not being religious.

Following further strikes, she said she had considered leaving Kyiv for Lviv in western Ukraine. She described the damage around her neighbourhood as increasingly similar to scenes from destroyed areas of Ukraine and said she feared being seriously injured in an attack.The destruction in the area comes amid a broader escalation in long-range strikes between Russia and Ukraine.

Ukrainian officials have warned that Russia is increasing attacks on urban areas, while Russian officials have indicated plans for more extensive strikes.The intensifying missile threat has raised concerns about Ukraine’s air defence capabilities.

Ukrainian officials have sought additional missile interceptors, including systems such as Patriot air defence units, as the country continues attempts to protect major cities from aerial attacks.President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called for increased support from European partners, including stronger air defence systems and long-range capabilities.

During meetings with leaders in London, he highlighted what he described as an urgent need to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to respond to missile and drone attacks.Despite the risks, some local businesses have returned.

Faina Polishchuk, who operates a flower stall near Lukianivska square, said many traders had come back, although customer numbers had declined.She said the latest major strike left many stallholders frightened and unwilling to return immediately. However, she added that selling flowers was her source of income and that she needed to continue working.Polishchuk said she watched the strike from her apartment window and felt the building shake.

She later went to a shelter, where another resident showed her images of the damage on a phone and told her that buildings were burning.She said she intended to remain in Kyiv despite the danger, though she acknowledged that worsening conditions could force her to leave for Vinnytsia, her original home city.

The neighbourhood’s damaged buildings and disrupted businesses reflect the wider challenge facing civilians in Kyiv as the war enters another phase of intensified aerial attacks. Residents continue adapting to air raid alarms, shelter routines and the uncertainty of whether another strike may follow.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine.

In a rare public commentary from a senior U.S. military scholar, John Spencer—executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute and coauthor of Understanding Urban Warfare—has described India’s four-day military campaign, Operation Sindoor, as “a decisive victory in modern warfare.” Writing on Wednesday, Spencer called the operation “a model of limited war with clearly defined ends,” asserting that it could redefine how nations respond to state-sponsored terrorism in the nuclear age.

Operation Sindoor was launched by India on May 7, 2025, in response to a deadly terror attack in the tourist town of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22. The massacre, which killed 26 Indian civilians, mostly Hindu pilgrims, was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a group widely recognized as a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and backed by Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Unlike previous Indian responses, this time there was no diplomatic wait-and-see. India struck back with calibrated military action, marking a major departure from its historically cautious approach.

“This was not merely a symbolic gesture,” Spencer wrote. “It was decisive power, clearly applied.”

A New Doctrine Revealed

What makes Operation Sindoor unique, Spencer argued, is the strategic doctrine that underpinned it. While India has not formally declared the operation over, military activity has halted in what officials are calling a “stoppage of firing”—a careful semantic choice that avoids the term “ceasefire” and underscores India’s desire to retain initiative and control.

“The halt in operations is not the end,” Spencer emphasized. “It is a pause. India holds the initiative. If provoked again, it will strike again.”

According to Spencer’s analysis, India achieved four major strategic objectives:

Destroying Terror Infrastructure: Precision strikes targeted key terrorist hubs in Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, and Muridke—well beyond the Line of Control.

Demonstrating Military Superiority: India’s ability to launch and defend against retaliatory strikes—including a massive Pakistani drone swarm—highlighted the growing prowess of its domestically developed and internationally supported air defense systems.

Restoring Deterrence: By responding forcefully yet limiting escalation, India signaled to both adversaries and the international community that terror attacks would no longer go unanswered.

Asserting Strategic Independence: India acted without seeking Western mediation or U.N. intervention, a move that signaled its readiness to set and enforce its own red lines.

Four Days That Changed the Region

The timeline of Operation Sindoor was rapid and deliberate:

• May 7: Indian Air Force conducted nine high-precision strikes deep inside Pakistani territory.
• May 8: Pakistan retaliated with a massive swarm drone attack, largely intercepted by Indian air defenses.
• May 9: India escalated with attacks on six Pakistani military airbases and UAV coordination hubs.
• May 10: India declared a halt in operations, maintaining the ability to resume at any moment.

This sequence, Spencer notes, was textbook execution of limited warfare—a campaign designed to achieve political and strategic goals without sliding into open-ended conflict.

“This wasn’t just tactical success,” he wrote. “It was doctrinal execution under live fire.”

Modi Doctrine: “No More Nuclear Blackmail”

The boldness of India’s response also lay in its public messaging. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements during the operation signaled a sharp turn from the past.

“India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail,” Modi declared. “India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.”

Spencer interprets this as India laying down a new strategic doctrine—one that separates nuclear deterrence from proxy terrorism, and no longer allows the threat of nuclear escalation to paralyze its counter-terror responses.

Critics of the operation—both domestic and foreign—have raised concerns about potential escalation or destabilization. However, Spencer counters that these critiques overlook the deliberate restraint India displayed.

“India retaliated forcefully but stopped short of full war,” he wrote. “That’s not recklessness—that’s control. It’s the foundation of modern deterrence.”

A Model for Limited War?

Spencer’s praise is significant not just for its content but for its source. As a leading expert on urban warfare and military doctrine, his words will likely be studied in military academies worldwide.

“In an era defined by ‘forever wars’ and cycles of violence without strategic direction, Sindoor stands apart,” Spencer wrote. “It offers a model of limited war with clearly defined ends, matched ways and means, and a state that never relinquished the initiative.”

This could have broader implications for global counter-terrorism strategy. If the international community accepts India’s precedent—that terror attacks emanating from a neighboring state will be treated as acts of war—it could signal a seismic shift in the rules of engagement for statecraft under the nuclear umbrella.

The Next Phase

What happens next remains uncertain. India has not demobilized its forces and retains a high alert status across its western front. Pakistan’s public response has been muted, likely due to the scale of its internal damage and lack of international support. Both countries have avoided crossing nuclear red lines, but the threat of further conflict remains.

Spencer ends his essay with a stark warning—and a call to attention for other democracies facing state-sponsored terrorism:

“India didn’t just respond to an attack. It changed the strategic equation.”

Operation Sindoor, he argues, will not just shape India’s national security policy—it may well influence global strategic thinking about limited war, deterrence, and the role of conventional force in a nuclear world.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine. And for Pakistan, it’s a reminder that the old playbook may no longer offer protection.

This is not just India’s victory, Spencer concludes. “This is deterrence restored. This is a doctrine revealed. And it should be studied by all nations confronting the scourge of state-sponsored terrorism.”