India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5972
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Peregrine » 17 Aug 2018 05:07

US-China trade war could give India Iran boost - Sanjay Dutta

NEW DELHI: The trade war between the US and China is expected to deflect some of the heat from Washington’s Iran sanctions away from India and[b] provide New Delhi the opening to keep some Iranian oil flowing even after the curbs take effect on November 4. China’s main oil importer, Unipec, the trading arm of the world’s largest refiner by capacity Sinopec, earlier this month suspended US shipments.[/b]

This triggered a buzz that Beijing intended to slap duty on US crude in retaliation to Washington’s tariffs on Chinese exports, prompting refiners to keep off American oil. This is unlikely to change even after even after US crude was left out of Beijing’s list of retaliatory tariffs on US goods worth $16 billion last week. Open opinion says this was done to avoid affecting shipments already on way or committed by Chinese refiners. The second is that Beijing wants to keep US oil as a bargaining chip to be used later.

Industry players say either way the situation works well for India. Executives of state-run refining companies involved in oil sourcing operations said due to the cloud of uncertainty, Chinese refiners were unlikely to resume buying US oil anytime soon. “It takes two months for tankers to reach China from the US. Shipments would be fraught with the risk of being hit by tariffs if they are imposed in between,” an executive said. China is the largest buyer of US crude in Asia. It is also the largest customer of Iranian oil.

India is the second largest buyer of Iran’s oil. It is also looking at increasing US crude. “If China is not buying US crude then that leaves India, with 5-6% annual demand growth and ability to process a wide variety of crudes, as the only major Asian buyer with capacity to absorb the supplies shunned by the Chinese. Other Asian buyers — South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand — may not be able to accommodate much extra US oil,” he said. These facts give India bargaining room for securing favourable terms for US oil and a sanctions waiver.

“By making US crude a bargaining chip, China has also indicated its intention to keep buying Iranian oil, though there are reports Beijing will not ramp up shipments from Iran. This means Iranian oil will be in the market, which will help keep oil prices range-bound,” he said. The presence of Iranian oil in the market will publicly blunt the sanctions impact and give India the leverage for either a waiver or keep importing Iranian shipments under the rupee trading arrangement practiced during the previous sanctions put by the Obama administration.

Iran displaced Saudi Arabia as India’s second-largest crude supplier in the first quarter of current fiscal, regaining a position it lost seven years ago, as refiners rushed to take advantage of Teheran’s favourable terms. Iran was India’s second largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia till 2010-11.

But it dropped to seventh position after India reduced import of Iranian oil to meet conditions of waiver granted by the Barack Obama administration when it imposed sanctions to curb Iran’s nuclear programme.

Cheers Image

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 23 Aug 2018 16:31

Washington outlines agenda for inaugural 2 + 2 meeting with India next month - Ajai shukla
“What we're looking for at the upcoming 2+2 ministerial is to discuss how do we operationalize India's status as a major defence partner

For a long time, the meaning of the term major defence partner was obscure for indians. It first originated during the MMRCA competition and people thought that it was a marketing gimmick aimed at selling US military products to india. When india was included in the STA-I category, many news outlets rejoiced because they didn't understood what it meant.

The actual meaning of the term was understood clearly just in these last 3 months only. It literally means what it says - major defence partner. It means india is the major candidate of the US to counter-balance china - major defence partner.

discuss how do we operationalize India's status as a major defence partner
In the indo-pak balance - pakistan was the american dog
In indo-china balance - india is being pushed to be the american dog

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby V_Raman » 23 Aug 2018 16:42

I don’t think this is about India-China directly. IMO . Operationalizaton means Indian boots in AFG.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 965
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby yensoy » 23 Aug 2018 19:23

V_Raman wrote:I don’t think this is about India-China directly. IMO . Operationalizaton means Indian boots in AFG.


We participated on the American side in the Korean war with a medical team, and yes the US remembers that we "fought" on their side. It's entirely possible to "operationalize" with Medical, Infra, Training and Logistics support, and avoid Combat.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 23 Aug 2018 23:21

The great game has only two real players - US and Russia. Everyone else is just a pawn on a board for those two.

Pakistan and afg is a launchpad for the Americans to open a front against Russia(when shit hits the fan). As per stratfor articles on imran khans Pakistan, the policy will be to get him to act against the haqqani network which is in aggressive terms with the US presence in afg. The US will try to control haqqani(good taliban) or try to neutralize it.

Afgs role in American geopolitics is for it be a buffer zone. Afghanistan is expendable in the great game. It will never get a stable govt.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50579
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 23 Aug 2018 23:51

What is the objective of the Great Game?

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 24 Aug 2018 00:00

ramana wrote:What is the objective of the Great Game?

To get the lion share of the resources

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6515
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby disha » 25 Aug 2018 02:11

ramana wrote:What is the objective of the Great Game?


To control energy, trade, finance, information and knowledge routes. OBOR is for example is one battle-front in the Great Game.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6515
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby disha » 25 Aug 2018 02:14

nvishal wrote:The great game has only two real players - US and Russia. Everyone else is just a pawn on a board for those two.

Pakistan and afg is a launchpad for the Americans to open a front against Russia(when shit hits the fan). As per stratfor articles on imran khans Pakistan, the policy will be to get him to act against the haqqani network which is in aggressive terms with the US presence in afg. The US will try to control haqqani(good taliban) or try to neutralize it.

Afgs role in American geopolitics is for it be a buffer zone. Afghanistan is expendable in the great game. It will never get a stable govt.


Disagree. Great Game is currently muddled where the pawns (Bakis) think that they are the king makers and the wannabe think (Communist China) that they are the kings. And Great Game is more like Mahabharata where every body including Shikandin has a role and Bharat acts like Hanuman in Ramayana.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63341
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Singha » 25 Aug 2018 08:29

+108

and some of the shadow players sitting in london, zurich, geneve do not even reveal their hands, letting pawns and foot soldiers do the dirty work.

everyone has a dark soul but wears a well polished dharmic mask and speaks of peace and plogless onlee.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6963
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Mort Walker » 25 Aug 2018 12:04

The following may be of interest to US based rakshaks, so I ask mods to please let this story stand:

U.S. Treasury, IRS move to block states dodging tax deduction cap

New York, which has a top state income tax rate of 8.82 percent and where the average SALT deduction was more than $22,000 in 2015, according to the Tax Policy Center, established a fund supporting public services.

Taxpayers who contribute receive an 85 percent credit on their New York tax bill. The idea was that taxpayers could then fully deduct the contribution as a charitable donation on their federal tax return.

Under the proposed rule, however, a New York taxpayer could not receive a federal charitable deduction for the portion of their donation to the fund for which they received a state tax credit, unless the credit was for 15 percent or less.

“If you make a donation of $100 and you get a big chunk of that back in state tax credits, say $85, you can’t go to the IRS and say I gave $100, I should be able to get a $100 deduction,” said Carl Davis, research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan think tank.

“You can only deduct the amount you actually sacrificed, that $15 that wasn’t already reimbursed,” Davis added.
.
.
.
Legal experts said the proposed rule did not differentiate between new funds set up by high-tax states and dozens of pre-existing programs, including in Republican-led states.

In Alabama, for example, taxpayers are eligible for a state tax credit for contributions to nonprofits that grant private-school scholarships.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 26 Aug 2018 12:59

Stalled Negotiations for MH-60R Helicopters Over Price Restarted Again with the US`
Before the [...] '2+2' strategic dialogue [...] on September 6, the [...] government [...] has reopened negotiations for procurement of 24 MH-60R helicopters from Lockheed Martin for the Indian Navy

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Philip » 26 Aug 2018 14:39

The " Great Game"? Global dominance. The last great empire was that of the British, upon which "the sun never set".It fell because it was highly class-structured.
The nobility nobbled the plums of fortune, leaving only the crumbx for the masses to fight for.
Colonial peoples were slaves and vassals and unlike the French never given full Brit. citizenship .The economic profits of the energy of empire, where the proletariat slaved was not shared commensurately.The Ocober Revolution in Russia spelt the beginning of the end of the monarchies of Europe , buried after WW1.

Today, the post WW2 pretender to the British Empire, the US of A , is in rapid decline because it lacks the centuries of experience of ruling colonies as did the Brits, the US itself not too long ago by history's timescale, an English colony itself!

500 years of European colonisation of Asia and Africa came to its close with the Hong Konv handover.Apartheid
collapsed in S.Africa- the " White man's last stand"!
The US is desperately trying to preserve its hold on the remnants of the Raj and Eiro- colonials , but is in full retreat.Asian nations will inevitably gravitate towards each other if there is an Indo- Sino rapproachment.China first has to shed itz superiofity complex.Revolt against the debt trap of Chin loans is taking placd even in Malaysia and Pak.Imran has states that hd does not want Pak to be Uncle Sam's " hired gun"!

There is absolutely no reason for India to rush to take up the post of "rent- boy" of Asia and acquiesce to becoming Chin cannon-fodder for a few pieces of military hardware.
India must carve its own destiny and draw Asian nations into its sphere of influence through a triad of eco-dpl-mil effort. The embrace with the US, which has the worst record of betraying its ( non- white) allies , reminds one of Ganchi's famous statement about British promises- " a post-dated cheque on a failing bank"!

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10620
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Aug 2018 10:29

India not guaranteed US sanctions waiver for Russian missiles: Top Pentagon official
The United States has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia, under which any country engaged with its defence and intelligence sectors could face secondary US sanctions
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/EiKsL ... ssile.html

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9266
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Aug 2018 11:17

Trying to put pressure before 2+2 meeting.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 30 Aug 2018 13:10

The US, china and india - A reality check

China is not responding proportionately or enough to India’s military build-up, even along the disputed border. For eg, India has increased the number of mountain troops in its order of battle since 1996, adding two additional mountain infantry divisions to the Eastern Command responsible for defense of the Sino-Indian border in 2009 and announcing the formation of a 90,000-strong mountain strike corps in 2013. In 2015, nine of the Indian army’s 36 divisions were oriented toward the borders with China, Bangladesh, and Burma, compared with 18 divisions stationed in the states bordering Pakistan.

In contrast, according to PLA expert Dennis Blasko, the PLA, the largest ground force in the world, dedicates about six border defense regiments and five battalions in Tibet and a few less in southern Xinjiang for an estimated 40,000 border personnel. But PLA troops are widely dispersed along the 2,520 miles Sino-Indian border, manning static positions near the border and usually patrolling between guard points on foot, on horseback, or in vehicles in groups of ten men or fewer. Farther from the border are the “mobile operational units,” but those are still relatively few in number for such a large area, especially compared to the Indian border forces. Even Chinese commentators note that India has many more troops along the border than China does; India also has the world’s largest mountain forces, which are particularly useful along such a mountainous disputed border. Moreover, even though the Western Theater Command covers almost half of China’s total land area, contains some of the most difficult terrain, and has the important mission of protecting the disputed Sino-Indian border, China dedicates less than 25 percent of the PLA to that region.

Terrain limitation forcing the chinese to open a front through the sea

It also means that tibet and xinjiang are left at the mercy of air defence

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 30 Aug 2018 14:28

From str@t for
Evaluating the India-China Reset. Despite deep-seated tensions, India and China are showing tangible progress in managing their competition in the borderlands. Bharatiya Janata Party general secretary Ram Madhav was in Beijing to lay the groundwork for seemingly advancing border talks and to discuss a trade route proposal linking northeastern India with Bangladesh's Chittagong port. This raises the question of whether India is warming up to the idea of participating in China's Belt and Road initiative. We expected a tactical recalibration between the two Asian giants following the border flare-up over Doklam, but now we're wondering whether Beijing and New Delhi can make the leap from de-escalation to strategic cooperation in selective areas. This could pose a challenge to efforts by the United States to balance more effectively against Beijing in the region

worldview.stratfor.com/article/weekly-rundown-more-turkish-turbulence-russia-pitches-europe-and-us-and-india-china-reset

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17635
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 30 Aug 2018 14:36

Yagnasri wrote:Trying to put pressure before 2+2 meeting.


we should look for an alternate for the Naval helicopter deal too.

These guys are now needlessly beginning to ride roughshod over us, mistaking us for the pakis, perhaps??

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50579
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2018 21:01

ramana wrote:What is the objective of the Great Game?



Objective of the Great Game is geopolitical.
It is to prevent the emergence of the world island comprising of Eastern Europe and Russia as a single entity.
During British Empire days that meant prevent Russia control of Indian sub-continent. So its viewed as Indian is the Great Game prize. Prize for what?
To create world island.

US which is following British strategy of ocean control to box in the world island as it emerges.

However as Philip says US doesn't understand the key to the world island is India while wasting 60 years to divide and breakup India which is still going on.

And wants India as neo-Gungadin.


So once the World Island emerges it will lead to island systems: Eurasia and Americas.
The rabbit and two peepul leaves.
So bringing the Mahabharat is right in one way.

Australia will swing towards Eurasia.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50579
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2018 21:07

The US, china and india - A reality check

China is not responding proportionately or enough to India’s military build-up, even along the disputed border. For eg, India has increased the number of mountain troops in its order of battle since 1996, adding two additional mountain infantry divisions to the Eastern Command responsible for defense of the Sino-Indian border in 2009 and announcing the formation of a 90,000-strong mountain strike corps in 2013. In 2015, nine of the Indian army’s 36 divisions were oriented toward the borders with China, Bangladesh, and Burma, compared with 18 divisions stationed in the states bordering Pakistan.

In contrast, according to PLA expert Dennis Blasko, the PLA, the largest ground force in the world, dedicates about six border defense regiments and five battalions in Tibet and a few less in southern Xinjiang for an estimated 40,000 border personnel. But PLA troops are widely dispersed along the 2,520 miles Sino-Indian border, manning static positions near the border and usually patrolling between guard points on foot, on horseback, or in vehicles in groups of ten men or fewer. Farther from the border are the “mobile operational units,” but those are still relatively few in number for such a large area, especially compared to the Indian border forces. Even Chinese commentators note that India has many more troops along the border than China does; India also has the world’s largest mountain forces, which are particularly useful along such a mountainous disputed border. Moreover, even though the Western Theater Command covers almost half of China’s total land area, contains some of the most difficult terrain, and has the important mission of protecting the disputed Sino-Indian border, China dedicates less than 25 percent of the PLA to that region.


Reality is China and India don't see their border problem leading to any confrontation.
Indian troop deployment is to prevent any loss of territory and China troop deployment is to assure there is no capability nor intent to change the border.
Hence the Ram Madhav speech in Beijing.
Only problem is the future of Pakistan.

I think we will see it resolved soon.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 31 Aug 2018 01:19

The creation of pakistan was to prevent russia from forging strategic ties with india. After pakistan, we lost the only border we had with the soviet union. We lost the only border we had with afghanistan after paksitan took PoK. After the fragmentation of the soviet union, the great game finally came an end although pakistan still plays the role of a chokidar. There are only two real nuclear powers in the world and that is the only real game(power).

There is another game emerging in the form of china. The game's only prime purpose is to acquire as much stake over resources as possible. China has able to stake claim over resources in africa, south america, east asia etc even though it doesn't possess the military prowess as US or russia. Geopolitics can change all the time but resources are always limited. The purpose of european colonists was to channel resources back their empires. The purpose of american balancing strategy is to acquire resources. China is expanding to secure as many resources as it can and its military prowess grows along as well.

Pakistan has been able to contain india within south-asia and this forms a part of the great game.

India is the only state which can contain china and the han understand it. Sooner or later, they will act to reduce the probability. Nehru was a foolish man and he failed(rather he refused) to understand the Han PoV. Vajpayee too refused to acknowledge the han PoV. Anyone who thinks that the source of sino-india confrontation is because of the border dispute is as arrogant and foolish.

The chinese expansion will eventually dethrone the americans. But the immediate consequences will be felt on india. You all need to acknowledge the Han PoV.

China is a strategic imperative for the americans. They are hoping that indians will buy weapons from the americans and contain china indirectly on their behalf.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Neshant » 31 Aug 2018 08:54

nvishal wrote:Vajpayee too refused to acknowledge the han PoV.


Are you kidding.

This was the man who "formally" gave India its nuclear status.

In truth, the US & UK were using the CTBT to force India to declare itself a nuclear weapon state with a test.

They wanted to :
a) have China spend money to directing nuclear resources against India.
b) close the door on any future countries (e.g. Iran) gate crashing the nuclear club with an n-test.

What's amazing is that China did not see that the real purpose of the CTBT was directed against its interests. i.e. to create a nuclear armed adversary on its borders.

It thought it was part of the western alliance working towards denuclearizing India.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 31 Aug 2018 10:08

Neshant,

Vajpayee signed away Tibet to the han. He too was one of those people who believed that the border dispute was the cause behind indo-china rivalry.

It already takes many Indians decades to realize that Kashmir is not the cause behind india-pak confrontation. It happens because Indians(by culture) are not able to consider or acknowledge the rivals PoV. A refusal to acknowledge a foreign culture with a thought process independent of the moral dilemmas presented in the many Indic stories.

For many Indians, fed on tales of shravan, narashima and bhishma, they think they know exactly what the han and the muslims of the hind want. But they don't. Indians are naive.
nvishal wrote:India lost the only border it had with afghanistan after pakistan took PoK.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17635
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 31 Aug 2018 10:59

yensoy wrote:
V_Raman wrote:I don’t think this is about India-China directly. IMO . Operationalizaton means Indian boots in AFG.


We participated on the American side in the Korean war with a medical team, and yes the US remembers that we "fought" on their side. It's entirely possible to "operationalize" with Medical, Infra, Training and Logistics support, and avoid Combat.


Why??

Don't we have anything better to do??

The amerikis and the cheeni are dragons of slightly different colours but both are undeniable dragons and very hungry dragons at that.

The hans are setting up the pakis to subdue India and the amerikis are still setting up India to subdue the hans. Both have their bloodied hands buried in the India story, one using it's soft and so called hardware selling military power and the other using first and third party border and cross border terrorism and hard economics.

How does being eaten and digested by one or the other any different??

Modi is venturing into options not usually used by our lame duck "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" foreign policy for over seven decades.

This is very disconcerting to both, the cheeni and the ameriki as each expected a cakewalk on their Indian sojourn and both gravely miscalculated.

CPEC vs the nuke deal, no??

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1189
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chanakyaa » 31 Aug 2018 18:29

nvishal wrote:... Indians(by culture) are not able to consider or acknowledge the rivals PoV. A refusal to acknowledge a foreign culture with a thought process independent of the moral dilemmas presented in the many Indic stories...

Hoping mods don’t get too upset, with a minor digression here. You have repeatedly point out the “han POV”. May I request you to please expand on specific examples of some of the PoV that you think indics just refuse to accept or don’t get? And, if you were advising the PMO, your feedback. Your generosity with a lengthier post will be greatly appreciated. And I promise not to derail the dhaga further with a response.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5972
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Peregrine » 31 Aug 2018 20:01

Trump threatens to withdraw US from World Trade Organisation

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump threatened in an interview with Bloomberg News on Thursday to withdraw from the World Trade Organisation if “they don’t shape up,” in his latest criticism of the institution.

Such a move could undermine one of the foundations of the modern global trading system, which the United States was instrumental in creating.

Trump denies planning to pull out of WTO

“If they don’t shape up, I would withdraw from the WTO,”Trump said.

Trump has complained the United States is treated unfairly in global trade and has blamed the WTO for allowing that to happen. He has also warned he could take action against the global body, although he has not specified what form that could take.

Cheers Image

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 965
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby yensoy » 01 Sep 2018 00:08

chetak wrote:
yensoy wrote:
We participated on the American side in the Korean war with a medical team, and yes the US remembers that we "fought" on their side. It's entirely possible to "operationalize" with Medical, Infra, Training and Logistics support, and avoid Combat.


Why??

Don't we have anything better to do??


I wouldn't normally bite for this, but I think I must say something here.

We have made it clear that a military solution to Afghanistan doesn't really concern us. We only care for our glorious historic association with Afghan people and which we can partner by economic means. That is good for the Afghans and our relationship with them, and best that we don't put boots on the ground.

But then we have another longer term objective, which is to be a world player. One can't sit on the fence or stay away from all unpleasant situations and yet aspire to be a superpower. We have been involved in 3rd party affairs right from around the time of our independence. NAM was a considered position taken to demonstrate our independent foreign policy and take the leadership among developing nations. Our then equally poor neighbours, the Chinese, were also taking sides - both in deep economic ties and military/strategic outreach (see for instance the history of the liberation of Namibia, where sadly, we are totally absent but the Chinese were very involved). The fact that NAM went into disuse doesn't take away from the fact that our principled position was grudgingly appreciated (although publicly derided).

Today we have an opportunity to piggyback with Unkil to extend our reach into Afghanistan (which promises to be fun for us jingos just to see the reaction of the Pakis). We can do so at a minimum cost/maximum goodwill tradeoff with a medical and other non-combat missions. We further interoperability and intelligence while getting a ringside view into the activities of the Chinese/Pakis in Afg/Central Asia. Do we want to play the game and improve our skills, or sit it out yet again?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17635
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 01 Sep 2018 11:20

yensoy wrote:
chetak wrote:
Why??

Don't we have anything better to do??


I wouldn't normally bite for this, but I think I must say something here.

We have made it clear that a military solution to Afghanistan doesn't really concern us. We only care for our glorious historic association with Afghan people and which we can partner by economic means. That is good for the Afghans and our relationship with them, and best that we don't put boots on the ground.

But then we have another longer term objective, which is to be a world player. One can't sit on the fence or stay away from all unpleasant situations and yet aspire to be a superpower. We have been involved in 3rd party affairs right from around the time of our independence. NAM was a considered position taken to demonstrate our independent foreign policy and take the leadership among developing nations. Our then equally poor neighbours, the Chinese, were also taking sides - both in deep economic ties and military/strategic outreach (see for instance the history of the liberation of Namibia, where sadly, we are totally absent but the Chinese were very involved). The fact that NAM went into disuse doesn't take away from the fact that our principled position was grudgingly appreciated (although publicly derided).

Today we have an opportunity to piggyback with Unkil to extend our reach into Afghanistan (which promises to be fun for us jingos just to see the reaction of the Pakis). We can do so at a minimum cost/maximum goodwill tradeoff with a medical and other non-combat missions. We further interoperability and intelligence while getting a ringside view into the activities of the Chinese/Pakis in Afg/Central Asia. Do we want to play the game and improve our skills, or sit it out yet again?


Do we need to piggy back with someone who often says, I don't want to play with you anymore unless it is by my rules so I will take my bat and go play with someone else and a while later comes back as though nothing has happened and says let us play again. Rinse and repeat.

When do we learn?? Intelligence sharing is a separate domain and its out of the public view. Everyone shares but only upto a point determined by each country's risk perception and cost benefit considerations. Even we have shared actionable intelligence with the pakis, maybe even burned a trusted source or two in our inane eagerness to please.

the talibs and the pakis will not differentiate between a "medical" mission in uniform and boots on the ground and rightly so.

We need to tread cautiously before we decide to go the whole hog and also be prepared to take the consequences.

The fence is the best place as you can see both sides at the same time.

We have no dog in the afghan fight. Let us keep it that way.

The 2+2 talks is fast beginning to look like "I talk, you listen" because the amrekis always think "me tarzan, you jane"

Eric Thompson
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 04:48
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Eric Thompson » 01 Sep 2018 18:59

Neshant wrote:
nvishal wrote:Vajpayee too refused to acknowledge the han PoV.


Are you kidding.

This was the man who "formally" gave India its nuclear status.

In truth, the US & UK were using the CTBT to force India to declare itself a nuclear weapon state with a test.

They wanted to :
a) have China spend money to directing nuclear resources against India.
b) close the door on any future countries (e.g. Iran) gate crashing the nuclear club with an n-test.

What's amazing is that China did not see that the real purpose of the CTBT was directed against its interests. i.e. to create a nuclear armed adversary on its borders.

It thought it was part of the western alliance working towards denuclearizing India.


India was already a nuclear power since Pokhran I in 1974 and Pokhran II in 1998 did not impact much. One could argue that Pokhran II helped Pakistan more than India.

Eric Thompson
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 04:48
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Eric Thompson » 01 Sep 2018 21:01

nvishal wrote:Neshant,

Vajpayee signed away Tibet to the han. He too was one of those people who believed that the border dispute was the cause behind indo-china rivalry.

It already takes many Indians decades to realize that Kashmir is not the cause behind india-pak confrontation. It happens because Indians(by culture) are not able to consider or acknowledge the rivals PoV. A refusal to acknowledge a foreign culture with a thought process independent of the moral dilemmas presented in the many Indic stories.

For many Indians, fed on tales of shravan, narashima and bhishma, they think they know exactly what the han and the muslims of the hind want. But they don't. Indians are naive.
nvishal wrote:India lost the only border it had with afghanistan after pakistan took PoK.


Trading Tibet for Sikkim by NDA could be termed as a criminal conspiracy.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10620
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Sep 2018 21:36

"Last year, Iraqi Kurds had a foretaste of what can happen when you misread or ignore Washington’s strategic interests."

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... aq/569029/

Eric Thompson
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 04:48
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Eric Thompson » 01 Sep 2018 23:29

chetak wrote:
yensoy wrote:
I wouldn't normally bite for this, but I think I must say something here.

We have made it clear that a military solution to Afghanistan doesn't really concern us. We only care for our glorious historic association with Afghan people and which we can partner by economic means. That is good for the Afghans and our relationship with them, and best that we don't put boots on the ground.

But then we have another longer term objective, which is to be a world player. One can't sit on the fence or stay away from all unpleasant situations and yet aspire to be a superpower. We have been involved in 3rd party affairs right from around the time of our independence. NAM was a considered position taken to demonstrate our independent foreign policy and take the leadership among developing nations. Our then equally poor neighbours, the Chinese, were also taking sides - both in deep economic ties and military/strategic outreach (see for instance the history of the liberation of Namibia, where sadly, we are totally absent but the Chinese were very involved). The fact that NAM went into disuse doesn't take away from the fact that our principled position was grudgingly appreciated (although publicly derided).

Today we have an opportunity to piggyback with Unkil to extend our reach into Afghanistan (which promises to be fun for us jingos just to see the reaction of the Pakis). We can do so at a minimum cost/maximum goodwill tradeoff with a medical and other non-combat missions. We further interoperability and intelligence while getting a ringside view into the activities of the Chinese/Pakis in Afg/Central Asia. Do we want to play the game and improve our skills, or sit it out yet again?


Do we need to piggy back with someone who often says, I don't want to play with you anymore unless it is by my rules so I will take my bat and go play with someone else and a while later comes back as though nothing has happened and says let us play again. Rinse and repeat.

When do we learn?? Intelligence sharing is a separate domain and its out of the public view. Everyone shares but only upto a point determined by each country's risk perception and cost benefit considerations. Even we have shared actionable intelligence with the pakis, maybe even burned a trusted source or two in our inane eagerness to please.

the talibs and the pakis will not differentiate between a "medical" mission in uniform and boots on the ground and rightly so.

We need to tread cautiously before we decide to go the whole hog and also be prepared to take the consequences.

The fence is the best place as you can see both sides at the same time.

We have no dog in the afghan fight. Let us keep it that way.

The 2+2 talks is fast beginning to look like "I talk, you listen" because the amrekis always think "me tarzan, you jane"


It is an open secret that MoD & EAM are just rubber stamps and all decisions and deals are being done by Modi/PMO.

2+2 drama is just to fool the naive people. The deals have already been done by Modi/PMO.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby V_Raman » 02 Sep 2018 00:02

I am beginning to believe that this will end with Indian boots in AFG. This is my theory. It is rather simplistic. But I believe many things at such high level are very simple.

USA needs to get out of AFG - it has enormous amount of ARMS stockpiled in there. They cannot move it out, nor destroy it. They need to hand it over to someone.

India needs a guarantee against Chinese-Pakistani aggression.

All the acquisitions of USA equipment - if it aligns with their equipment in AFG - then Indian troops can just use them while in AFG
Apache
M777
Ammunition - NATO standard rifles we already have
NASSMS to utilize the AMRAAM stocks
Reaper drones

What else
F16/F18?
Javelin?
APCs?
More?

Items like ABRAMS - i dont think India cares if they are given to Pakistan.

2+2 dialogues are to formalize the details of this engagement

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17635
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 02 Sep 2018 09:13

Eric Thompson wrote:
chetak wrote:
Do we need to piggy back with someone who often says, I don't want to play with you anymore unless it is by my rules so I will take my bat and go play with someone else and a while later comes back as though nothing has happened and says let us play again. Rinse and repeat.

When do we learn?? Intelligence sharing is a separate domain and its out of the public view. Everyone shares but only upto a point determined by each country's risk perception and cost benefit considerations. Even we have shared actionable intelligence with the pakis, maybe even burned a trusted source or two in our inane eagerness to please.

the talibs and the pakis will not differentiate between a "medical" mission in uniform and boots on the ground and rightly so.

We need to tread cautiously before we decide to go the whole hog and also be prepared to take the consequences.

The fence is the best place as you can see both sides at the same time.

We have no dog in the afghan fight. Let us keep it that way.

The 2+2 talks is fast beginning to look like "I talk, you listen" because the amrekis always think "me tarzan, you jane"


It is an open secret that MoD & EAM are just rubber stamps and all decisions and deals are being done by Modi/PMO.

2+2 drama is just to fool the naive people. The deals have already been done by Modi/PMO.


It is also an open secret that there are entrenched lobbies in the MoD & EAM that are looking out for ingrained interests and the undesirable advantage of some inimical "entities".

These lobbies act quite deviously and independently to undermine, subvert and dilute our supreme national interests because of "ideologies" acquired at some of the alleged "elite" universities and further the insidious reach of FFNGOs which "employ" their relatives and their near and dear.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1648
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby g.sarkar » 02 Sep 2018 09:39

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/30/in ... s-america/
ARGUMENT
India Is Getting Cold Feet About Trump’s America
Harsh rhetoric and trade wars have tarnished a once-promising relationship.

BY ATMAN TRIVEDI, APARNA PANDE | AUGUST 30, 2018, 11:31 AM
In the 2016 campaign trail, now-U.S. President Donald Trump assured an Indian-American audience: “There won’t be any relationship more important to us.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo periodically reminds everyone of India’s centrality to U.S. Asia policy.
Growing warmth toward India is one of the few policies to have survived the change in administrations intact. With India now the world’s sixth-largest economy, and growing fears in Washington about a rising China, New Delhi is looking like an increasingly attractive partner—especially as the two nations, at least theoretically, share similar values: democracy, rule of law, and entrepreneurship. But just as the United States is warming up to India, India is starting to get cold feet about the whole idea.
Bilateral relations in recent years have begun to reflect America’s eagerness to get close to India. High-level security conversations have sprung up, like the so-called 2+2 dialogue—a first—between Pompeo, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and their Indian counterparts scheduled for Sept. 6.
In India’s honor, Asia strategy is increasingly being framed as “Indo-Pacific.” The Pentagon renamed its regional combatant command in the same fashion. Defense trade appears poised to skyrocket as both sides make progress on agreements facilitating military communications, interoperability, and geospatial situational awareness, and India takes advantage of easier access to U.S. defense technology. Potential U.S. secondary sanctions over Indian arms purchases from Russia and oil buys from Iran continue to bedevil the relationship. But these irritants can be managed with a heightened appreciation of each other’s interests and a touch of creativity. Despite efforts by Mattis and others to impose a strategic direction and invest in strengthening ties, there are plenty of fresh doubts in New Delhi. In the short term, that unease has been stirred by Trump’s economic nationalism and the White House’s unreliability. But something more significant—the longer-term direction of U.S. foreign policy—may be making India cautious.
Since the 1990s, the U.S.-India relationship has grown steadily, with every president from Bill Clinton and every prime minister from Atal Bihari Vajpayee viewing each other as natural allies and partners. India’s strategic community and permanent bureaucracy have taken longer to adjust. Some still harbor suspicions about closer ties and view Washington as unreliable. The Trump administration’s erratic behavior may be inducing latent tendencies to resurface. Trump’s trade rhetoric, tightened H-1B visa rules for high-skilled workers, metals tariffs (imposed on spurious national security grounds), and the threatened removal of developing-country trade benefits portend a rough patch, whether or not ongoing negotiations produce a cease-fire.
In Asia, the White House leadership has shown an interest in trade and North Korea—and that’s about it. (Despite a lot of tough talk on China, there has been a lack of investment or strategic planning outside of a misguided trade war.) The region has already witnessed whiplash-inducing U.S. policy changes on Taiwan and North Korea.
That has quietly raised plenty of fears in New Delhi beyond just trade. To their west, Indian diplomats struggle to rule out a self-confident president who is overlooking Pakistan’s military-intelligence complex and relying instead on the earnestly spoken words of a new civilian leadership. Some worry that Trump’s desire for a quick, domestically saleable exit from Afghanistan, based on negotiations with the Taliban, could result in Delhi being asked to reduce ties with Kabul.
To its east, India must adjust to the White House’s ever-changing China policy.To its east, India must adjust to the White House’s ever-changing China policy. Today, the president is lobbing verbal grenades at China. Tomorrow, some Indian analysts fear, he could be working for a far different endgame: a “G-2” alliance to carve up the region with Asia’s ultimate deal-maker, Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Not surprisingly, India is starting to respond to all the uncertainty by rebalancing its strategic portfolio, showing the early signs of someone living in a tough neighborhood who’s not sure who has their back. As a post-colonial, developing nation, India has always been most comfortable in a multipolar world, where it isn’t forced to choose between great powers. Trump has made it easy for India to slip back into the habit, learned in the Cold War days, of pandering to as many sides as possible.
....
Gautam

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1648
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby g.sarkar » 02 Sep 2018 10:11

https://www.firstpost.com/world/india-u ... 90141.html
India-US 2+2 talks: If Washington wants to be New Delhi’s most ‘reliable strategic partner’, it must shun coercive approach
Sreemoy Talukdar Sep 01, 2018
As we approach the inaugural high-level dialogue in New Delhi between India and the US in 2+2 format, it’s worth taking a close look at the nature and structure of the bilateral relationship that is arguably at its strongest than any other time in the past. This closer embrace is driven by a strategic and geopolitical logic. The seeming irrefutability of that logic — China’s meteoric and aggressive rise —has raised expectations that the trajectory will remain steady and linear.
That said, the strength of the partnership cannot be taken for granted, neither can be the trajectory. It isn’t just the political turbulence caused by a mercurial White House. For all of Donald Trump’s disruptions, his administration has built on the foundation laid by successive US presidents (starting with Bill Clinton) to place India at the front and centre of US national security and South Asia policy.
The dangers emerge more from the presence of stubborn irritants in ties that have grown in scope and scale even as the ties have progressively strengthened. In fact, an unfortunate side-effect of a deeper engagement has been a papering over of cracks. In absence of an honest assessment, these cracks could become impediments. It has been clear for some time now that shared defence and strategic interests have been the major drivers of the India-US partnership. This tilt precedes Trump, though he has taken forward the Barack Obama legacy of declaring India as a ‘major defence partner’ in 2016. India is central to Trump administration’s National Defence Strategy and National Security Strategy and the US is keen to become India’s primary and principal supplier of arms. Bilateral defence trade now stands at $18 billion from almost zero 10 years ago.
The US describes India as an “all weather partner” and confirms that “operationalisation of India’s status as a major defence partner” will be firmly on the agenda when James Mattis and Mike Pompeo meet Nirmala Sitharaman and Sushma Swaraj on 6 September.
According to Alice Wells, the principal deputy assistant secretary for south and central Asia in the Trump administration, the 2+2 dialogue will be “an important opportunity to discuss and enhance engagement on a range of diplomatic and security priorities and really is an indication of the deepening strategic partnership that we enjoy with India.” The rise in defence commerce and the burgeoning strategic relationship mask some of the vulnerabilities, nowhere starker than in trade relations. The deterioration in trade ties has been inversely proportional and near simultaneous to the geopolitical embrace. Trump is fixated on the $25 billion deficit that US suffers in bilateral trade — a pittance compared to its $350 billion deficit with China.
Trump administration has slapped steel and aluminum tariffs on India — inviting reciprocal duties on 29 American exports — while US has lodged six cases against India at the WTO. India’s trade barriers and myopic policy of capping prices of medical devices has caused heartburn among American manufacturers and has contributed towards hardening of stance. India’s industrial policy, status as a global manufacturer or regional security imperatives pose no threat (and is in fact, complementary) to the US but such realities are incompatible with Trump’s trade philosophy. The US president also seems unable to understand that obsessing over a paltry trade deficit — that anyway could become a surplus once India starts importing more defence equipment with the signing of foundational agreements such as COMCASA — undercuts American strategy of encouraging India to take a leadership role in India-Pacific. The Trumpian world is defined by such incongruities.
As Professor Sreeram Chaula of the Jindal School of International Affairs points out in Foreign Policy, “So inflexible is Trump that invocations of the 'strategic partnership' between India and the US and Washington’s designation of New Delhi as a 'major defence partner' have not moved the needle on tariffs against India. Sophisticated suggestions, like that of the US House Speaker Paul Ryan to deploy tailored tariffs that hurt only China while avoiding broader damage, is music to Indian ears that finds no audience in the White House.”
If trade deficit remains a major irritant, free movement of talent occupies the next spot. Both issues reflect a protectionist turn in US politics. On the contentious H1B visa issue, Indian interests are completely at odds with Trump’s politics. The crackdown on the non-immigrant visa programme has affected Indian skilled workers and IT professionals. As in trade, here too, both sides suffer from an inflexibility of approach.
External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj had told Parliament in July that India will “forcefully” raise the issue of H1B visas with the US during the 2+2 dialogue and maintained that “growing restrictions on the visa rules by the Trump administration was a cause of concern to the Indian government, the Opposition members and the entire House.”
The US' move to instead extend the suspension by five more months of premium processing for H-1B visas till February 2019 couldn’t have gone down well with New Delhi. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on Wednesday that it was “extending the temporary suspension” and, beginning 11 September, “will expand this temporary suspension to include certain additional H1B petitions.”
Conversely, even as horns remained locked over these irritants, India and the US edged closer to signing COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement), the foundational agreement that will enable interoperability between US and Indian forces over an end-to-end secured network and lay down the legal framework for transfer of high-end American weapons systems.
.....
Gautam

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6091
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Amber G. » 02 Sep 2018 20:26

Just was reading some old documents.

Turns out that one major change in US/India relations, that I know of :) , took place 50 years ago (exactly to the todays date).

Your's truly took a flight from Palam to come to some school on the East Coast in USA, because that school gave a fellowship to one of the first graduate from an institute that hardly any common people then knew. It was IIT Kanpur.. and I was among the second batch which graduated in a subject called Physics. (A subject not common in *any* technical school in India).

In those days, there were *very* few Indian's in USA.. even in big cities (like NY) there were no Indian stores/restaurants and the school I went to (5000+ students) there were only about a dozen Indians. (faculty+students+family).

Virtually no one among aam abdul in US then knew anything about India. (and similarly very few people in India knew much about USA).

This was then -- Now Indian PM can fill up Madison square. Hindi is the second most common language heard in places like Google cafeteria. (Baadal is one of the restaurants where Googlers discuss cloud computing :) during their lunch)..and people like Kenneth Keniston complains "MIT Physics dept. is run by IIT Kanput Mafia" :)

And there are 1600+ posts in this dhaga - India-Us Relations IV!

It was really fun to read my old journal's entries .. :)

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3215
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Sep 2018 10:00

^Maybe you should regale us with some interesting anecdotes... I'm sure many here would like to hear these. Of course that is if you are comfortable in making journal entries public after suitable mods.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9266
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Yagnasri » 03 Sep 2018 10:33

:D :D :D :D

KJo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9449
Joined: 05 Oct 2010 02:54

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby KJo » 03 Sep 2018 12:29

Amber G. wrote:Just was reading some old documents.

Turns out that one major change in US/India relations, that I know of :) , took place 50 years ago (exactly to the todays date).

Your's truly took a flight from Palam to come to some school on the East Coast in USA, because that school gave a fellowship to one of the first graduate from an institute that hardly any common people then knew. It was IIT Kanpur.. and I was among the second batch which graduated in a subject called Physics. (A subject not common in *any* technical school in India).

In those days, there were *very* few Indian's in USA.. even in big cities (like NY) there were no Indian stores/restaurants and the school I went to (5000+ students) there were only about a dozen Indians. (faculty+students+family).

Virtually no one among aam abdul in US then knew anything about India. (and similarly very few people in India knew much about USA).

This was then -- Now Indian PM can fill up Madison square. Hindi is the second most common language heard in places like Google cafeteria. (Baadal is one of the restaurants where Googlers discuss cloud computing :) during their lunch)..and people like Kenneth Keniston complains "MIT Physics dept. is run by IIT Kanput Mafia" :)

And there are 1600+ posts in this dhaga - India-Us Relations IV!

It was really fun to read my old journal's entries .. :)


Amber ji, my father came to the US for MS in 1965 (West Coast, Stan Madrassa) right after his BE. He tells me that the US was a very different place back then, esp Silly Vallley. Would love to hear about your experiences. Pitashree took a boat from Bombay to NYC and then a bus from NYC to SF. :shock:
In comparison to your gen, my gen (mid 90s) had it much easier. Today's gen it is a cakewalk with internet and they walk in with Musharraf's arrogance to Agra Summit.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests