While that is certainly true that many US sources did try to push the rhetoric of Pakistanis winning the war because they denied India to capture their capital (and that to with ceasefire lol) and completely omiting anything about operation Gibraltar, there were many western based articles that wrote the truth too. It is the bad habit of majority porkies selectively choosing shit that makes them feel superior about themselves.
Though credit where credit is due. I said majority because a lonely Pakistani while arguing with other delusional Pakistanis was the one who linked these neutral sources:
Note: Though he is a bit more sane than his delusional brethren, even he believes it was a stalemate while linking and quoting articles that shows the complete opposite lol. But this is the best one can find, I am quoting his full argument:
"It was officially a stalemate because it resulted in no exchange of territory. Unofficially plenty of Pakistani and Neutral academics have pointed out that Pakistan gained territory in Kashmir but India gained territory in Punjab and was within firing distance of Lahore. FFS they had tanks in Dograi is less than 10 kilometers from Allama Iqbal International airport. If a ceasefire had not been signed, street-by-street fighting in Lahore was a real possibility.
U.S. Federal Research Division (mind you they were aligned with Pakistan during the 1965 war) wrote
The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.
Former New York Times reporter Arif Jamal wrote in his book Shadow War (I think this guy is a western Chamcha tbh but his credentials are amazing. He was born and raised in Pakistan, graduated from Quaid E azam university and was offered a fellowship at Harvard)
This time, India's victory was nearly total: India accepted cease-fire only after it had occupied 740 square miles [1,900 km2], though Pakistan had made marginal gains of 210 square miles [540 km2] of territory. Despite the obvious strength of the Indian wins, both countries claim to have been victorious.
Stanley Wolpert, an American historian who wrote one of the best books on Jinnah and seemed quite in awe of Jinnah wrote
In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin
Don't try to revise history. If you accept that Indian soldiers had captured Dograi (Which the Pakistani military never denied) then open up google maps and look at where Dograi is. The war was "officially" a stalemate but ask any general and they'd have preferred the territory India captured in Pakistan over the gains Pakistan had in Kashmir. Revising history results in two things
1. Some idiots will falsely believe that another war is a viable solution to India-Pak relations.
2. The country doesn't learn from its mistakes in the 1965/1971 wars."
(@TheAvenger82) Tweeted:
