brar_w wrote:No it's not and this is why I have been trying to caution folks on drawing parallels between Turkey and India. The former is an alliance partner and a nation who's bi-lateral ties were informed based on certain assumptions of its proximity to the US as a bi-lateral partner and its overall commitment to NATO. The partner is now taking active steps to align more closely with the US's geo-strategic competitor and that is as good as a reason as any to modify the US's behavior and posture towards the bi-lateral relationship. Not doing so would be dereliction on part of the US politicians and Military advisers...
In case of the Indo-US bilateral relationship, the Indo-US and US-Russian relationship is already priced in by both parties so that level of strategic and alliance driven exclusivity is not there hence making it a completely different case from the US-Turkish relationship. The US side understands that India, with its strategic independence, will likely never operate certain US military systems, or be open to alliances, while the India side probably also knows that because of the Indo-Russian relationship (which is very important for India) access to certain technologies and systems would not be possible as the US will no doubt want to protect those things.
I am not even talking about Turkey. I was talking only about India.
So my question still stands ---> Since the SCO is in full agreement with the current administration and the prior administration, when it comes to the question of Russian interference, do you believe it is rational to penalize India that had nothing to do with this election interference? Isn't America the one talking about the CAATSA waiver for India?
brar_w wrote:This is baffling to be honest. This is akin to saying that India shouldn't apply economic coercion on Pakistan, or mobilize the rest of the world against it, after the horrible state sponsored terror attacks because India was unable to manage its internal security. If tomorrow a Chinese missile sinks a US. Japanese, South Korean or Indian ship, and the US/SK/Japan/India impose sanctions or declares war on China, would your position be that they are blaming china for their inability to defend their own ship?
The US is not penalizing India because the US has not imposed any sanctions following Indo-Russian deals. This is not to hurt any end user but mainly exists as a deterrent. The US side in the Indo-US relationship already realizes the Indo-Russian relationship and how vital it is for India so I highly doubt that the Turkey solution applies to India. I would be surprised if it even applies to Egypt, another regional ally that has had ties to both US and Russia and one that is not tied into a formal alliance with the US/NATO unlike Turkey.
Is this the first time that elections have been hammed in the US? I am not aware of any previous foreign interferences in US elections, but the other prominent one that comes to mind is the 2000 US Presidential Elections - Bush vs Gore. There are some other notable mentions i.e. the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial campaign. One would imagine - being the sole superpower and all - that the US could conduct fair and free elections on a consistent basis, before they go around the world lecturing other nations on the same.
Now on to your "Chinese missile sinking a Japanese, South Korean or Indian ship
" question. If the platform for where that missile was launched, was actually from a Russian-built Su-35 (which the Chinese have 24 examples of), is it the position that since the Chinese missile came from a Russian-built Su-35, now Japan or South Korea or India should now declare war also on Russia in addition to China? The Chinese sunk our ship, but let us blame everyone else as well who provided the Chinese the ability to do so!
You are a smart man Saar and I know you realize that argument will not fly. Now using the same argument, since Russia interfered in the US presidential election, is it the position of the US Govt to penalize (or leave the door open for such a scenario) other nations that also have military relations with Russia?
A deterrent for what brar? India feels the S-400 is vital for its security. Why does America need to enforce CAATSA sanctions for that? But then we are told, the US might provide a CAATSA waiver for India. And then we are told, but repeated waivers for India would be tough. We are still waiting on the first waiver though. Why is such a discussion with India even happening?
The US has not penalized India yet, because it does not make monetary sense to do so. There are billions of dollars of further potential deals in the pipeline that will be harmed as a result. Is not that the plain and simple argument?
brar_w wrote:You are making a straw man argument. How many nations were sanctioned for buying Flankers in the past? Did the US stop supplying aircraft or other military hardware to India, Malaysia and many other nations who also operate Russian wares or whom purchased Russian systems in the last decade? India has continued to buy/lease cutting edge Russian gear alongside similar deals with the US. Have any sanctions been imposed because of them? Shouldn't they have if your theory is to be believed?
CAATSA exists now because of the US view on Russian actions during the elections along with other activities that triggered multiple rounds of economic sanctions both by the Obama administration, and the Trump administration and European NATO nations. The US believes that Russia mucked around in its election process and has taken several economic actions to impose a cost to Russia for that. Other NATO members have responded likewise. One of the aspects of the economic cost being brought to bare is to target the Russian defense and aerospace sector which CAATSA focuses on. Blaming these sanctions on anything else is completely missing the forest for the trees.
Since you mentioned about the Flankers....US Department of Statehttps://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/09/286077.htm
September 20, 2018
First, the Secretary of State added 33 additional persons – a person is either an entity or an individual – to the CAATSA section 231 List of Specified Persons (LSP) for being a part of, or operating for or on behalf of, the defense or intelligence sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation. This action increases the number of persons identified on the LSP to 72. Any person who knowingly engages in a significant transaction with any of these persons is subject to mandatory sanctions under CAATSA section 231.
Second, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State imposed sanctions on the Chinese entity Equipment Development Department (EDD) and its director, Li Shangfu, for engaging in significant transactions with persons on the LSP. These transactions involved Russia’s transfer to China of Su-35 combat aircraft and S-400 surface-to-air missile system-related equipment.
If Russia mucked around the US elections, then go punish only Russia. Why punish other nations that deal with Russia? Granted in the above case, it was China and I am unsure how effective those sanctions are. You will likely know more on this. Tomorrow if we get the Su-35, will we get another waiver on top of the rumoured S-400 waiver (which has yet to arrive!)? I wonder if CAATSA would be enforced on India....if in some twisted, weird way the Su-35 wins the MMRCA contest.
brar_w wrote:No one is stopping any other nation from trading with Russia or even buying arms from it. CAATSA most certainly does not stop them from doing so nor can it.
Ok. But yet, isn't America the one talking about the CAATSA waiver for India?
brar_w wrote:I'm not sure if it has but that is besides the point NO? Sovereign nations are well within their rights to decide on bi-lateral ties and whether to trade or not trade with certain nations. Russia would be well within its rights to apply economic sanctions on the US if it feels that the impact of that would act as a deterrent or help modify any behavior that Russia views as detrimental to its interests. I mean weren't many of us here arguing about India imposing severe economic costs (along with a Military response) on Pakistan to get it to modify its behavior vis-a-vis the terrorist support?
Why has that not happened brar?
Isn't that the point?
The US willy-nilly drops sanctions on whoever they feel like.
I am sure you are aware how effective any sanctions on the US would really be.