“If this ceasefire holds, then coming weeks will see a new battle: of narratives.”

This is what international security correspondent Jason Burke wrote in an analysis for Guardian, just a few hours after a ceasefire — brokered by the US — was reached between India and Pakistan.

As the nuclear-armed neighbours announced the breaking news, international media sifted through a swirl of disinformation and conflicting government statements.

The escalation between the nuclear-armed neighbours began following the April 22 attack in Indian-occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam, which killed 26 people. India, without investigation or evidence, implied “cross-border linkages” of the att­a­­­c­kers. Pakistan firmly rejected the claim and called for a neutral probe. Following the allegations, India launched a series of drone strikes on Pakistan, resulting in civilian casualties.

Both sides then launched missiles at each other, which stretched over the week before US President Trump announced yesterday that a “full and immediate ceasefire” was reached between the two countries. There were reports from both sides that the ceasefire had been violated; however, both sides reaffirmed their commitment to adhere to the truce.

Here, Dawn.com looks at some of the reporting and analysis from across the globe on ceasefire, and what comes after it.

The Guardian — If India and Pakistan’s ceasefire holds, the coming weeks will see a new battle: of narratives

“Twenty years ago, a combination of Indian military success and US pressure brought about a shaky peace that survived a round of skirmishes a decade later until being broken again.

“In this new confrontation too, Washington’s influence appears to have been key in bringing about de-escalation. This will not please Russia and China, both manoeuvring for greater influence in the region, even if the reported involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia is a useful reminder that the unipolar days of the late 1990s are long gone.

“Casualties this time around have been mercifully low, and economic damage limited. The latter rather than the former may have weighed most heavily in the decision to call a halt to hostilities. Neither nation can afford the kind of destruction and disruption that moving to the next level of war might have entailed. There are ties that bind, as well as much that divides.”

Al Jazeera — India tried to project strength but ended up showing weakness

“The ceasefire announcement by the US president appears to have been perceived by some in India as a sign of the Modi government’s retreat under US pressure while his offer to mediate on Kashmir is being seen as an indication that India’s longstanding rejection of third-party intervention is being undermined.

“In South Asian geopolitics, perception often outpaces reality – until reality bites. India has long projected regional dominance, bolstered by economic growth and nuclear might.”

The Wire — Decisions, Hotlines and Mediators: The US-Led Diplomacy That Led to the India-Pakistan Ceasefire

“While there is no doubt that the technical mechanics of the ceasefire were indeed worked out by the two DGMOs without external mediation, the fact that they spoke and entered into negotiations was clearly the product of a larger diplomatic and political process pushed by Washington — a process in which the leaders of India and Pakistan agreed to set aside the wider military goals they had from the continuing conflict and settle for a truce.

Sky News — India and Pakistan were close to miscalculation either side couldn’t afford

“The [ceasefire] deal doesn’t undo the events of the past two weeks, which will continue to weigh heavily on the minds of many here. The military action has been the most significant between the countries in decades and dozens have died on both sides.

“But their enmity has been enduring, and even with the agreement in place, it feels a bit complacent to assume India and Pakistan will just walk back from the brink.”

Time magazine — Why Gulf States, More Than the US, Are Key to Prevent War Between India and Pakistan

“[…] it is interests, rather than values or ideology, that are ultimately driving all regional actors marks a distinct departure from orthodoxy. For a long time, Pakistan clung to the idea that as a Muslim state, it had a higher claim of loyalty from the Gulf compared to India. Today, however, despite religious differences and divergent value systems, India has emerged as a very significant actor in the Gulf.”

The Washington Post — The US helped deliver an India-Pakistan ceasefire. But can it hold?

“The comments largely express scepticism about the US role in mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, with many doubting the Trump administration’s involvement or effectiveness. Several comments highlight that both India and Pakistan have denied US mediation.”

The Economist — A nerve-racking ceasefire holds between India and Pakistan— for now

“Both sides may conclude that it is better to de-escalate at this point, especially if they can suppress public information about their losses. The risk is that their next military confrontation could be more dangerous. India has now set a precedent of retaliating harder and deeper into Pakistan in response to terrorist attacks, a strategy it is now likely to maintain. Pakistan, meanwhile, will be determined to match whatever military action India takes. The latest crisis may also have reinforced Pakistan’s faith in nuclear signalling.”