CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. 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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 29 Mar 2019 20:09

arshyam wrote:

The sheer arrogance has to be seen to be believed. Best part is that this person would not realize how she sounds, as in the amriki mind, it's an article of faith that what's good for them is good for the world, and vice versa.

Shyam Saar, in addition to what Brar Saar has said above...just remember this. Make *USE* of the so-called natural and strategic partnership between India and the US. No takleef is necessary. Let them say what they want. Give them chai-biskoot. Smile & Nod at everything they say. But do what we feel is best.

Did not Nirmala Sitharaman and Sushma Swaraj pointedly state (in relation to the S-400 purchase) that India will not be dictated to and India only recognizes UN laws. CAATSA is a US law. That in no way applies to India. Just because they say it does, does not make it true.

But yet in the same vein, we signed COMCASA and have acquired a smorgasbord of American Platforms (P-8I, C-17, C-130, AH-64, CH-47, etc). And there will definitely be repeated purchases of a number of those platforms. And that is a good thing.

Buy what we need from everyone (as long as they are willing to sell) and build up our capability. And that includes our philanthropic friends from La France, the evil Russians and the slimy & lying Yanks ;)

Also with the Mueller Report exonerating the Stable Genius aka President Trump, how valid is the CAATSA law? The report has concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia. And the main goal of CAATSA is designed to punish Russia for interfering in the 2016 US Presidential Elections. Even that interference is now in doubt. So I ask again, how valid is the CAATSA law then?

If they still want to place sanctions, please go ahead and do it. The short-term ramifications for India will be painful, but the same will be true for the US as well. They will not put those sanctions. There is too much at stake (loss of business i.e. money) in the relationship to impose sanctions on India.

Impose sanctions and the US will have just reinforced the belief that they are an untrustworthy partner.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2019 20:29

Rakesh wrote:
Also with the Mueller Report exonerating the Stable Genius aka President Trump, how valid is the CAATSA law?


The Meuller report has nothing to do with CAATSA which was in response to something totally different. In fact, if anything, the report will only highlight the need for things like CAATSA and other more direct measures like keeping the sanctions in place. The posturing and trying to steer allies away from Russian systems was quite common during the Cold War so one would only be surprised if their field of reference was a a couple of decades and not 40-50 years of strategic competition between the US and the FSU.

As I said, the India-US bilateral relationship prices in India-Russia and US-Russia ties and relationships on both sides. India prices that in when it deals with its purchasing and Mil-Mil ties and the US prices that in when it does the same. India's position has always been very clear and one of strategic independence. This is completely different from a strategic NATO ally which has chosen to be part of a strategic alliance and who once had a very close strategic Mil-Mil relationship with the US (so much that the US was comfortable with placing Nukes on its territory). If that ally moves closer to one of the US's primary geo-strategic competitor then the US has full right to re-evaluate its ties and what it has to offer. I wouldn't be surprised if the Nukes are no longer in Turkey and I expect those TPY-2's to be relocated to Jordan or elsewhere as well. This is just a re-balancing of ties after factoring in the new reality.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 29 Mar 2019 20:57

Rakesh , the problem with Sanction is not just the sanctioning country ability to limit Indias military capability but also deny us something we paid for.

Today India buys Equipment using Forex and these are not free doles or a subdized one like our Neighbours get it. So its not just the loss of military equipment but also the money we put in and military equipment have a life cycle of 30 plus years in IAF service.

I recollect during 99 sanction the SHAR fleet was mostly grounded and only 6-7 could me made operational canabilising the others and Sea king were mostly grounded as well and then Kargil happened.

We need to make sure that we put a legally binding agreement that any equipment we buy from any country are not subject to sanction and the equipment atleat the one bought is supported during its entire life cycle.

If a country does not learn from its past history they end up repeating it.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 29 Mar 2019 21:23

Rakesh wrote:Also with the Mueller Report exonerating the Stable Genius aka President Trump, how valid is the CAATSA law? The report has concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia. And the main goal of CAATSA is designed to punish Russia for interfering in the 2016 US Presidential Elections. Even that interference is now in doubt. So I ask again, how valid is the CAATSA law then?


CAASTA and Trump were related because the Demps accused Tump got elected via Russia and used all sort of proof to make this point but with Muller acquittal of Trump the Demps will use CAASTA law to some how prove that Russia is still related to Trump not from legal point but election talk by questioning AG , Muller Russia etc

Hillary Clinton defeat was a shocking one for Dems so along with Obama Intel Chief John Brennan and James Clapper laid a well laid mine collecting all information on some Troll Posting something against Hillary that some how they figured out came from a Russian Troll Farm and made it into a big story of election interference !

Like Putin using his extraordinary pyschic power could not just convince voters not to vote for Hillary but also GRU with their Super Duper Cyber Capability using AI Trolls in St Petersbug factory could outdo NSA and all the other intel agency , Something Obama could figure only after Hillary defeat. Prior to that he gently told Putin not to interfere as good gentle man he is. :lol:

I am sure if Hillary would have been elected this would be a different story of Hope and Change be that it may be even after Muller findings the likes of James Clapper and John Brennen are still sulking how their elaborate story of Putin-Trump nexus went so wrong :rotfl:

Senate Hearing is another comical drama where Senators hears seriously all kind of CT and super natural powers of Putin.

An Oxford Professor told the Senate Hearing last Year that Russia will Intefere in India Election next

After US, Indian elections may be the next target of Russia: Oxford Professor


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 245913.cms

So who ever gets elected the looser will know now who to blame if they dont win :wink:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2019 21:39

Austin wrote:CAASTA and Trump were related because the Demps accused Tump got elected via Russia and used all sort of proof to make this point but with Muller acquittal of Trump the Demps will use CAASTA law to some how prove that Russia is still related to Trump not from legal point but election talk by questioning AG , Muller Russia etc



CAATSA is a bi-partisan legislation that is aimed at Russian interference not any collusion or any alleged collusion between Russia and a US political party, candidate or political operative. The Meuller report further bolsters this claim as his investigation has indicted Russian nations or entities, and Trump's own Director of National Intelligence is on record of supporting that aspect of the conclusion.

So to sum, the current US Executive, and Legislation (i.e. the White House and Congress), the office of the DNI, and the office of the SC are all aligned when it comes to the underlying factors that led to CAATSA.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 29 Mar 2019 21:52

Well even the Spying on American by US Intel and IIRC it was the same DNI Chief Clapper who under oath lied with both Dems and Rep playing wink wink.

So every thing is Bi-Partisan in US as long as it works to its favour

And US intel is a Political Orginisation it will work in the favour of the President of the Day and get the intelligence it wants , So in Iraq war the same intel got intelligence that Iraq has the bomb to support Bush war on Iraq ...... China suddenly became No-1 threat when DT came to power but before that the Ideoligically Alligned Obama and Demps were too happy to play along with China ..........Iran JCPO withdrawl is suddenly the right thing to do with Trump in Power when Obama thought it was other wise

US intel can get any proof it wants that can get bi-partisan support it wants ...... Remember it was the same Brennen and Clapper till yesterday going on all the Cable Network claiming that Trump or his family will get conviction and these are the same people who Headed US Intel at one point.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2019 22:07

Austin wrote:Well even the Spying on American by US Intel and IIRC it was the same DNI Chief Clapper who under oath lied with both Dems and Rep playing wink wink.


DNI clapper is no longer in office, and the conclusion that the current administration has shared comes from a different DNI - a Trump appointee and is backed by the current CJCS (who Trump gave a second term to), the incoming CJCS (who Trump has nominated), the prior DNI (different administration apointee), the current and previous NSA (both Trump apointees), the current and previous OSD (both nominated by Trump) and the current and previous SOS (both Trump nominees). The Special Council's report is in agreement with this conclusion as is evident from the fact that he and his team was able to get a grand jury to indict the foreign entities that it sought to indict.

So again, it would be foolish to doubt that the US Congress will simply ignore all these and go towards a different direction when it comes to what measures it takes vis-a-vis Russia (while tactics could change the broader strategy is unlikely to).

And US intel is a Political Orginisation it will work in the favour of the President of the Day and get the intelligence it wants


The current administration's position is what I had mentioned and this is in agreement with that of its appointed DNI, and the SCO or essentially all the political and career appointee bodies that looked at this. So the US Congress and the executive will rather go by the information it is getting and as I said, the underlying rationale for CAATSA has only been bolstered by the conclusions of the Mueller investigation that have been shared (leave aside what is included in the yet to be released 300 page report). Suggesting otherwise is just plain wrong.

So yes, when it comes to the underlying premise behind CAATSA and the Russian sanction, the current administration and the previous administration are in agreement and that is what matters when it comes to the future of CAATSA or other measures aimed at sanctioning Russia. So the underlying claim that CAATSA and Trump are somehow related is just plain wrong. CAATSA and other Russian sanctions are/were not imposed because someone accused Trump or his campaign of colluding with Russia. It was in response to something else i.e. election interference. The SCO report's executive summary of conclusions sides with those conclusions and the known actions taken by the SCO is further proof of that. So don't expect the conclusion of SCO's investigation and the subsequent publishing of its report to have any material impact on the US Congress's tactics to that end.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3304
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby arshyam » 29 Mar 2019 23:24

I don't think you guys got my point. I was specifically referring to the part where the spokie extrapolated US's takleef with Turkey buying S-400 into a "global security" issue. It is not, and unless called out, we will be in the same boat tomorrow, what with Chinooks and Apaches coming in, which are arguably their top if the line rotary platforms. Sure, they are not F-35 type tech, but why wait to find out? Just state our position and be on our merry way :)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 29 Mar 2019 23:36

brar_w wrote:The Meuller report has nothing to do with CAATSA which was in response to something totally different. In fact, if anything, the report will only highlight the need for things like CAATSA and other more direct measures like keeping the sanctions in place. The posturing and trying to steer allies away from Russian systems was quite common during the Cold War so one would only be surprised if their field of reference was a a couple of decades and not 40-50 years of strategic competition between the US and the FSU.

The Mueller report is not directly tied in with CAATSA, however that US law was written up - with Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Elections - being one, among many, reasons. The Mueller Investigation was to find out if there was any collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia during the 2016 US Presidential Elections. In the absence of any verifiable evidence of collusion, one can argue that whether if the Russians even interfered at all! The US Govt has yet to provide any evidence of any Russian election interference.

Treasury Sanctions Russian Cyber Actors for Interference with the 2016 U.S. Elections and Malicious Cyber-Attacks
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312

Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated five entities and 19 individuals under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) as well as Executive Order (E.O.) 13694, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” as amended, and codified pursuant to CAATSA.

“The Administration is confronting and countering malign Russian cyber activity, including their attempted interference in U.S. elections, destructive cyber-attacks, and intrusions targeting critical infrastructure,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “These targeted sanctions are a part of a broader effort to address the ongoing nefarious attacks emanating from Russia. Treasury intends to impose additional CAATSA sanctions, informed by our intelligence community, to hold Russian government officials and oligarchs accountable for their destabilizing activities by severing their access to the U.S. financial system.”

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 29 Mar 2019 23:40

arshyam wrote:I don't think you guys got my point. I was specifically referring to the part where the spokie extrapolated US's takleef with Turkey buying S-400 into a "global security" issue. It is not, and unless called out, we will be in the same boat tomorrow, what with Chinooks and Apaches coming in, which are arguably their top if the line rotary platforms. Sure, they are not F-35 type tech, but why wait to find out? Just state our position and be on our merry way :)

Shyam Saar, let them say it is a global security issue. Who honestly cares?

Tomorrow if they want to sanction India, let them go ahead and do it. Ramifications are a two-way street.

Place sanctions on India and then all the goodwill since President Clinton's arrival in 2000, will go down the toilet. If and when a future US Administration lifts those sanctions, what trust will be left? They will prove that they are untrustworthy. The Govt has obviously highlighted those concerns to the Trump Administration. It is now up to the US Govt to make the call. The ball is in their court.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2019 23:55

Rakesh wrote: The Mueller Investigation was to find out if there was any collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia during the 2016 US Presidential Elections.


The Mueller report is titled- " Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election". Its mandate was to look into Russian interference into US elections (i.e. to bring to conclusion the ongoing investigations by bringing in charges if appropriate) along with any crimes committed by US nationals in conspiring (willingly or unwillingly) to aid this activity. It was not designed, as you put it, to just look into whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia though that was an add on as a primary consideration because this had not been looked at before. The FBI was investigating the Russian interference and that investigation was brought into the SCO fold once the SC was appointed along with all criminal or counterintelligence investigations ongoing at the time .

The summary that the Trump appointed AG has released firmly concludes this as to have occurred and is therefore consistent with findings of other offices and authorities within the Trump administration like the Director of National Intelligence, other Intel agencies, the CJCS (both current and incoming), the NSA (past and current) and many others as I have mentioned in my last post.

The SCO was tasked with taking over all Russian interference related criminal and counterintelligence investigations, finding whether any US national and particularly the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians, and finally whether there was obstruction of justice on part of POTUS to impede any of the prior investigations in any way. The report concludes, and sides with the prior investigative works, that the Russians did interfere, concludes that Trump or Trump campaign did not conspire and does not provide any direction on whether there was any obstruction of justice, instead leaving that to its superiors (AG and DAG) to determine.

To directly quote from the report's summary conclusions as presented by Trump's AG/DOJ (emphasis mine):

AG summary on conclusions of the SCO report wrote:

The report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 US presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans - including individuals associated with the Trump campaign - joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime......

The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Council did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails of persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Council brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election....


Rakesh wrote:“The Administration is confronting and countering malign Russian cyber activity, including their attempted interference in U.S. elections, destructive cyber-attacks, and intrusions targeting critical infrastructure,”


This is why I said that the SCO report only bolsters the rationale behind CAATSA and other sanctions. Not only did Bob Meuller's team agree with the investigative agencies who were looking into Russia interference (and their conclusions) but he went a step ahead and in partnership with the DOJ brought charges to bear against entities and individuals.

In short, the SCO report is in full agreement with the current administration, and the prior administration, when it comes to the question of Russian interference. Therefore instead of making the premise behind these US actions irrelevant, it further reinforces it.

Rakesh wrote:The US Govt has yet to provide any evidence of any Russian election interference.


Who should the US government provide this evidence to? The US investigative agencies are in agreement, the SC was appointed to look into this, and is also in agreement. The SCO and DOJ consider the data gathered to be comprehensive enough to present it to a grand jury and file charges against Russian entities or individuals. Criminal investigative agencies gather evidence and dig deeper into alleged crimes. They then present this information to the DOJ that determines whether that evidence is strong enough to file charges. In this case this process worked just as described. FBI investigated and the DOJ brought charges. The matter is closed. The rest is going to be up to the US Congress to do what it thinks is necessary and for the US counterintelligence and intelligence operations to do what they need to do covertly. This is not an international or a multi-national thing where they have to lay out all the evidence to the entire world or the United Nations. If the US investigative and law-enforcement agencies and the political leadership is convinced of something then they will act within US law as they see fit as this is an internal matter. CAATSA is a US law. It does not apply to any nation outside the US. The US is a sovereign nation and is therefore free to determine with whom it trades or has bi-lateral or multi-lateral relationships with. Just as the US has brought sanctions on Russia, Russia too is fully within its rights to sanctioning the US.
Last edited by brar_w on 30 Mar 2019 02:42, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 30 Mar 2019 02:38

Thank you for the explanation above Brar.

brar_w wrote:This is why I said that the SCO report only bolsters the rationale behind CAATSA and other sanctions. Not only did Bob Meuller's team agree with the investigative agencies who were looking into Russia interference (and their conclusions) but he went a step ahead and in partnership with the DOJ brought charges to bear against entities and individuals.

In short, the SCO report is in full agreement with the current administration, and the prior administration, when it comes to the question of Russian interference. Therefore instead of making the premise behind these US actions irrelevant, it further reinforces it.

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 interference? I will buy the Turkey argument on face value, that you have laid forth, because it makes sense. Turkey is deeply invested into the American military eco-system. But India is not Turkey.

As per the info provided above by you, the IRA and the Russian govt itself worked to provide disinformation, sow discord (with the eventual aim of interfering in the election). Secondly, the Russians also conducted computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The key word being in all of this -- Russia.

That is what the Americans are stating, based on the evidence they have gathered. What does India buying the S-400 (or the upcoming Akula or the AK-203 rifle or the four Krivak frigates or whatever else) got to do with CAATSA? The US is penalizing India (and other nations) because the Americans were incompetent to manage a Presidential Election? Isn't that what they are saying?

You hit the nail on the head in your own previous reply to me --->

brar_w wrote:The posturing and trying to steer allies away from Russian systems was quite common during the Cold War, so one would only be surprised if their field of reference was a a couple of decades and not 40-50 years of strategic competition between the US and the FSU.

Isn't that what this is really about brar? Rhetorical Question, do not bother. You have spoken the truth. I do not buy the interference argument. That is just a smoke screen to hide the real reason, which you have stated above.

By the way, does not CAATSA have a Iran and North Korea section as well? Similar to Russia? I believe it does. Now already India is being asked to wean away from acquiring oil from Iran or face sanctions.

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote:The US Govt has yet to provide any evidence of any Russian election interference.

Who should the US government provide this evidence to? The US investigative agencies are in agreement, the SC was appointed to look into this, and is also in agreement. The SCO and DOJ consider the data gathered to be comprehensive enough to present it to a grand jury and file charges against Russian entities or individuals. Criminal investigative agencies gather evidence and dig deeper into alleged crimes. They then present this information to the DOJ that determines whether that evidence is strong enough to file charges. In this case this process worked just as described. FBI investigated and the DOJ brought charges. The matter is closed. The rest is going to be up to the US Congress to do what it thinks is necessary and for the US counterintelligence and intelligence operations to do what they need to do covertly. This is not an international or a multi-national thing where they have to lay out all the evidence to the entire world or the United Nations. If the US investigative and law-enforcement agencies and the political leadership is convinced of something then they will act within US law as they see fit as this is an internal matter. CAATSA is a US law. It does not apply to any nation outside the US. The US is a sovereign nation and is therefore free to determine with whom it trades or has bi-lateral or multi-lateral relationships with.

Brar, that was a rhetorical statement :)

I do not expect the US to provide evidence to anyone. So while the US is a sovereign nation and is therefore free to determine with whom it trades or has bi-lateral or multi-relationships with, does that include sanctioning countries that have (military) relations with Russia? I have heard of the statement the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but this is more like the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy onlee :lol:

Now in the upcoming 2020 Presidential Elections, if Burundi interfered in the elections....is the rest of the world required to now stop having trade with Burundi or face sanctions? Another rhetorical statement onlee :)

brar_w wrote:Just as the US has brought sanctions on Russia, Russia too is fully entitled of sanctioning the US.

Has that ever happened?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2019 03:03

Rakesh wrote: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 interference?


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...

If tomorrow, the UK allows H-6 bombers to be based on its shores, or purchases a few batteries of HQ-9's from China do you think it will remain a Five-Eyes member? Should the US keep on sharing or transferring/selling its crown jewels of Military technologies despite of that?

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.

Rakesh wrote:The US is penalizing India (and other nations) because the Americans were incompetent to manage a Presidential Election? Isn't that what they are saying?


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.

Rakesh wrote:Isn't that what this is really about brar? Rhetorical Question, do not bother. You have spoken the truth. I do not buy the interference argument. That is just a smoke screen to hide the real reason, which you have stated above.


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 who 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.

With Turkey it is very much about either keeping it in its sphere (as an alliance partner should be because both benefit from an alliance) or if Turkey is not interested in that then taking away any privileges that may come as a result of that. Certainly being included in a partnership to develop the cutting edge multi-role fighter for the US forces was one such thing as was the industrial work share guaranteed to Turkish firms for decades to come. This along with having Nukes in Turkey or putting strategic missile defense assets there would most certainly have to be re-looked in the backdrop of a vital NATO strategic alliance member shifting more towards the US and NATO's primary geopolitical competitor.

Rakesh wrote:Now in the upcoming 2020 Presidential Elections, if Burundi interfered in the elections....is the rest of the world required to now stop having trade with Burundi or face sanctions? Another rhetorical statement onlee


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.


Rakesh wrote:Has that ever happened?


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?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 30 Mar 2019 05:01

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 State
https://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.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2019 05:21

Rakesh wrote: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?


No I do not think that it is rational to penalize India [I don't from where you would draw that conclusion], nor has India been penalized. If it has do provide evidence to that end.

Rakesh wrote: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.


This has nothing to do with the topic on hand or on US imposing economic sanctions on Russia if it sees that as an appropriate response to what it perceives as interference.

Rakesh wrote: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!


No this is not my position. Please point to anything that I mentioned that would make it appear that this was what I was advocating.

Rakesh wrote: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?


The penalties are aimed at the Russian A&D sector or one half of the transacting party that evokes CAATSA. To the best of my knowledge this has only been applied to the Chinese case and may perhaps be enforced in the Turkey case, though I would have expected a strong response to the Turkey decision even in the absence of CAATSA (it really is a different matter all together).

The US government has not penalized any other friendly nation using this mechanism and is unlikely to. No the language in CAATSA, like most Congressional laws is not perfect but its no one's intention to use this to penalize allies but it is a mechanism to put an economic cost on Russia's A&D sector..

Rakesh wrote: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?


Where/When have the CAATSA sanctions been imposed?

Rakesh wrote: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?


No this is not the "plain and simple argument". Economic sanctions are meant against Russia and its A&D sector and not to hurt existing geostrategic relationships that the US enjoys with countries around the world including India where the relationship has been growing over time and successive administrations.

No it is "strategic" sense not to go about evoking these clauses in cases where doing so would be the equivalent of a strategic own goal.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 30 Mar 2019 06:48

brar_w wrote:No I do not think that it is rational to penalize India [I don't from where you would draw that conclusion], nor has India been penalized. If it has do provide evidence to that end.

Why is then there a discussion on a CAATSA waiver for India? Why is such a discussion happening?

brar_w wrote:This has nothing to do with the topic on hand or on US imposing economic sanctions on Russia if it sees that as an appropriate response to what it perceives as interference.

I made the following statement ---> The US is penalizing India (and other nations) because the Americans were incompetent to manage a Presidential Election? Isn't that what they are saying?

In response to the above, you said you were baffled. I responded to that by giving a few more examples on election incompetence in the US. But since I was the one who moved off topic, I will withdraw from making any further statements on this.

brar_w wrote:No this is not my position. Please point to anything that I mentioned that would make it appear that this was what I was advocating.

At no point, did I state that is what you are advocating. I would never put words in your mouth.

But I am extrapolating "one" logical conclusion of the scenario you raised about a Chinese missile sinking a US. Japanese, South Korean or Indian ship.

What you have said or have not said is the not the issue here. It is the hypocrisy of a US law that sets out to "possibly" penalize nations that have military relations with Russia. Or even on the issue of importing oil from Iran. I am not stating that these are "saint" nations. But if the US has an issue with these Russia or Iran, then deal directly with those countries. Sanction Them, Penalize Them or Whatever Else. Why punish other nations for this?

India's Iranian oil imports slide in December under U.S. pressure
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indi ... SKCN1P51I9

India’s oil imports from Iran fell by 41 percent in December to 302,000 barrels per day oil (bpd), ship tracking data reviewed by Reuters showed, as pressure from U.S. sanctions took effect.


brar_w wrote:The penalties are aimed at the Russian A&D sector or one half of the transacting party that evokes CAATSA. To the best of my knowledge this has only been applied to the Chinese case and may perhaps be enforced in the Turkey case, though I would have expected a strong response to the Turkey decision even in the absence of CAATSA (it really is a different matter all together).

The US government has not penalized any other friendly nation using this mechanism and is unlikely to. No the language in CAATSA, like most Congressional laws is not perfect but its no one's intention to use this to penalize allies but it is a mechanism to put an economic cost on Russia's A&D sector..

I believe the US Govt will not penalize India. But I do not believe it has anything to do with India being a friendly nation. I am not going to get into what if scenarios because it has not yet occurred. So I will leave it at this.

brar_w wrote:Where/When have the CAATSA sanctions been imposed?

I ask again, what is the deterrence for? What is CAATSA trying to deter?

brar_w wrote:No this is not the "plain and simple argument". Economic sanctions are meant against Russia and its A&D sector and not to hurt existing geostrategic relationships that the US enjoys with countries around the world including India where the relationship has been growing over time and successive administrations.

No it is "strategic" sense not to go about evoking these clauses in cases where doing so would be the equivalent of a strategic own goal.

I hope that the relationship continues to grow. But I do believe the relationship will suffer a regression if sanctions are imposed. But since that has not yet happened, I will not beat that horse.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2019 07:12

Rakesh wrote:Why is then there a discussion on a CAATSA waiver for India? Why is such a discussion happening?


There is a discussion because the underlying basis for the act is not to hurt US strategic allies but to deter as I said. If there are second or third order consequences of that (via transacting with sanctioned organizations) then the US Congress and GOTUS need to move and mitigate that and there are various mechanisms in place to do this.


Rakesh wrote:In response to the above, you said you were baffled. I responded to that by giving a few more examples on election incompetence in the US. But since I was the one who moved off topic, I will withdraw from making any further statements on this.


I said I was baffled because you were trying say that the US should have just been better at (after the fact) conducting its election instead of taking action after the fact. That is flawed. The US will react as it sees fit and economic sanctions are one way to exercise that soft power.

I believe the US Govt will not penalize India. But I do not believe it has anything to do with India being a friendly nation. I am not going to get into what if scenarios because it has not yet occurred. So I will leave it at this.


There is a strategic partnership that between India and the US that successive US and Indian governments have invested a lot of time and political capital in fostering and growing. They will not shoot them in the foot by enforcing anything that is not even remotely meant to hurt India. What term you or I coin to describe that is besides the point.

Rakesk wrote:I ask again, what is the deterrence for? What is CAATSA trying to deter?


Same thing that other economic sanctions and coercion are meant to deter or more aptly - attempt to create costs that they hope will modify future behavior. Economic sanctions meant to put a cost on other sectors of the Russian economy have also been applied and CAATSA is one such cost focused on its defense sector (that is responsible for roughly 20% of all mfg. related jobs in Russia). It is aimed at squeezing the Russian defense sector and not penalizing US allies so expect it to be applied on instances where it does what it is designed to do without hurting US strategic partnerships (hurting which is not its intention).

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 30 Mar 2019 10:42

[The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails of persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Council brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election....


This has been denied by wiki leaks multiple times that Russia or any other foreign government entities had give. Them these leaked materials.

They are even willing to come to US and testify before congress

The source as we know is the internal guy who worked for Democratic Party and was then mysteriously killed

These are all conconated claims like the US claims that Iraq had WMD to which all the US intel agency agreed and was the premise of Iraq war so much so that Powell even Came to UNsecurity council and showed the evidence which was but fake

And DNI chief and CIA chief not being in office does not matter most evidence was fabricated including the alleged Donald and Putin nexus and was the basis for all the intel report

By the time Clapper and Brennan and Comey left they had made all those senate hearing and made so called indisputable evidence of election meddling which is just a smoke to Hillary Clinton massive and unexpected defeat

So evidence can be faked by US intel no matter which administration they are in we know too well by the Iraq war invasion

US is clearly and openly meddling in Venezuela election and no one now talks of election meddling in other states

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2019 10:48

Austin wrote:This has been denied by wiki leaks multiple times that Russia or any other foreign government entities had give. Them these leaked materials.


Have they denied it? That must settle it then. Time to move on. But what does defending WikiLeaks have to do with CAATSA? which is a US law, made by US lawmakers?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 30 Mar 2019 11:32

Because it is a law based on flawed premise and some of the evidence used like Russia supplied Wikileaks with hacking DNC server are denied by wikileaks and they are happy to come to US Senate to testify before Congress if they allow them too.

If the idea is to sanction Russia any way on any premise then it is fine it is their objective that is OK then go ahead and fully sanction them ,Russia has always been on some or the other Sanction from US since SU days , but atleast dont use some flawed premise based on Intel from a Biased Person as Clapper Brennan or Comey and make it a premise to put sanctions and worst accuse your own Elected President of collusion and harress him for 2 years only to be proven wrong now.

These 3 chaps Clapper Brennan or Comey went on all the cable TV in past 2.5 years accusing him and even his family members of Colluding with Russia and to know these people were the one which collected so called evidence should tell you how credible these would be or better forged.

Also dont use it as a premise to threaten other countries specifically India , There were dozen of US official that came to India and threatened India on CAASTA for the past many months if they bought weapons and specifically S-400 from Russia........whats the point ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2019 11:46

Again, Wikileaks, Comey, Clapper, Brennan et al Cable TV, Wikipedia, Radio etc etc.

What does that have to do with CAATSA?

Does it make CAATSA any less valid?

Is it only partial US law because of what you seem to think and your own theories about all this? I doubt it. It is US law, and applies to the US only not to any one else. It is aimed at (and so will be its enforcement) Russia, and not the US, India or at hurting US strategic relationships and bilateral ties with nations around the world.

US officials came to India and threatened India? Were you there when that happened? I don't think India is going to move away from working with the US on things that are of mutual concern. And neither is the US. CAATSA is not aimed at disrupting US and India ties, ties that both countries have worked very hard at strengthening over the last many years over successive governments with varying political ideologies.

NEWSBREAK: Turbulence Ends, India Set To Acquire U.S. ISTAR Jet, 4 More With Indian Sensors



This came about after CAATSA was cleared and has been in the works for a number of years. I think the GOI and the MOD may be on a different wavelength than you as is indicative of a G2G deal for what seems to be strategically vital ISTAR capability...but that is just my guess/opinion.
Last edited by brar_w on 30 Mar 2019 12:27, edited 2 times in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 30 Mar 2019 11:57

Well CAATSA is not aimed at Russia becuase she is already under sanction , It is aimed at country buying equipment from Russia and the threat is to sanction these countries should they buy equipment the way US sees it.

CAATSA does not come with blanket waiver for India ......so to assume it wont be applied now or in future stands no guarantee , Good Will can change over night.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2019 12:03

Austin wrote:Well CAATSA is not aimed at Russia becuase she is already under sanction


CAATSA is a form of economic sanction aimed squarely at the defense industries export sector of Russia. Its application would be in instances where that desired affect is achieved (or otherwise) and where the consequences of enforcing the measures do not hurt the US strategic interests (partnerships, bilateral and multi-lateral ties with vital US interests around the world).

It is not a law designed to break the back of years of hard work at improving ties and developing Military to Military relations with Nations around the world, some strategically important (like India, Vietnam etc) who also happen to do business with Russia.

Again, the purpose of the law is to attempt to impose costs on Russia, not hurt US's own strategic interests and partnerships.

Austin wrote:CAATSA does not come with blanket waiver for India ......so to assume it wont be applied now or in future stands no guarantee , Good Will can change over night.


That is something that can very easily be addressed and I would be highly surprised if, given the bilateral relationship between India and the US, it is not already being worked upon in back channels. Not all things happen out in the open and if recent news about the MOD in the final stages of placing more defense orders from US OEM's (on vital systems like an ISTAR platform none the less) are to be believed then it further strengthens the hypothesis that the PMO and MOD think that the situation is under control and can be resolved within.
Last edited by brar_w on 30 Mar 2019 12:28, edited 1 time in total.

Barath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Barath » 30 Mar 2019 12:28

Austin wrote:Rupee-Ruble trade is a very positive thing not just limited to Defence purchase but even for general trade. We used to have Rupee-Ruble trade back then with SU and our two way trade was very high.

Using USD or for that matter any intermediate currency is a big bottle neck considering India and Russia can have a high trade volume with fully closed cycle trade and Indian Economy growing at 7 % YOY this trend will get better for both parties.

Removing the constrains of USD would also mean both parties can trade more and trade freely


While we had Rupee Rouble Trade with Soviet Union, it did not end well.The Idea was that exports by soviet union (military etc) would be balanced by imports from India (tea,commodities etc). Thus not requiring much by way of foreign exchange reserves or any sophisticated mechanisms.

The problem is that there was simply not enough tea imports, so the soviet Union built up a huge trade balance. After the fall of the soviet union, India had to pay off this balance - they paid the soviet union in hard foreign exchange ($) at the then rate (not very helpful to rupee)

USD is often used simply as a basis (exchange rate) for notional conversion, and you can pay trade deficits in any hard (convertible currency).But US is one of the more commonly used transparent convertible currencies. .

The problem is that for closed cycle trade requires perfect balance,which does not happen often.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 30 Mar 2019 12:53

During SU time the entire trade was in Rupee-Ruble and both currency pegged was fixed.

Now they have decided to do Rupee-Ruble trade for Defence Contracts to bypass US sanctions which should be good long term for us. Dont have to pay precious forex for the rest of Trade they can always use USD , Euro or other designated IMF reserve currency if they wish too.

Times are different now and both country have established a working mechanism for trading in mutual currency much before Sanction were even come to play as part of BRICS mechanism. Sanction just hasten the process.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby arun » 30 Mar 2019 17:48

X Posted from the Indian ASAT Test thread.

Austin wrote:Fall Out of ASAT Test ?

USA Denied Visa to Top Indian DRDO Defence Scientists




Visa denial to DRDO officials including DRDO Chairman Dr G Satheesh Reddy IMO does not have anything to do with the Mission Shakthi ASAT test as the denial predated the ASAT test by a few weeks. Below question mentions “three weeks”. Possibly CAATSA?

Anyway weird answer by Robert Palladino. Possibly in the disjointed style of the Trump Administration, one bit of the State Department failed to communicate with another bit of the State Department about a visa denial despite being invited by another department of the Trump Administration.

Text transcript to go with the video posted earlier:

Department Press Briefing - March 26, 2019
Robert Palladino
Deputy Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 26, 2019 ………………………..

MR PALLADINO: I don’t have anything further on that today.

India? Sure, Tejinder. Go ahead, please.

QUESTION: Is there a shift in U.S.-India defense relationship? There has been denial of visas to Indian defense officials and that also after extending an invite to them. I have two examples from last three weeks. One is the secretary DRDO, Dr. Satheesh, and he was here even in December with the Indian defense minister. And the second one is Dr. Guruprasad, DG production, and out of a team of five he was only one who was denied visa. So these both were not coming first time or any clearance issues. So is there a shift in the policy? Because I know that you don’t talk about visas from the podium, but please, is there a policy why these people are getting denied the visas after then invite?

MR PALLADINO: The United States – no, okay. The United States-India defense and security cooperation is rapidly expanding as part of our deepening strategic partnership, and India is one of the premier security partners in the Indo-Pacific region. So as part of that effort, exchanges, reciprocal visits between American and Indian defense officials – they’re increasing at an unprecedented pace. We – the United States, we seek to expand our defense and security cooperation with India, and that includes defense and security officials. And I’ll stop there.


From US State Department website:

Department Press Briefing - March 26, 2019

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 02 Apr 2019 22:25

Turkey’s marriage of F-35 and S-400 ‘absolutely unsustainable,’ says EUCOM nominee

From the details in the link , This should safely rule out any F-35 sale to Indian Armed forces Navy or IAF.

They dont want S-400 to co-exist with F-35 in any way and are happy to Kill the Deal for a NATO allay and manuf partner .... mere mortals like India should rule out any F-35 and focus of AMCA

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2019 22:56

Now they are threatening Egypt not becuase of S-400 but coz of Su-35 ......Besharmi ki Height

Egypt faces sanctions if it buys Su-35s from Russia, US warns

https://www.janes.com/article/87808/egy ... a-us-warns

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 23 May 2019 08:05

I did not know where else to post this. If moderators find a better thread, please move it there....

As Waivers End, U.S. Imposes Sanctions on India for Importing Oil from Iran
https://www.indiawest.com/news/global_i ... e791f.html

The U.S. officially began imposing sanctions on India May 3 for buying oil from Iran, after waivers for the country and seven others ended a day earlier.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 30 May 2019 04:31

Russia Says It Would Happily Sell The Pentagon Ammo If It Weren't For Those Pesky Sanctions
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -sanctions

One of the most recent U.S. government actions came in 2017 when Congress passed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAASTA), which targeted Russia, as well as Iran and North Korea. There have been concerns that CAASTA would lead to a total ban on the commercial sale of Russian-made ammunition, which is popular in the United States for its low price, but that has not occurred. In addition, at least one American distributor, Sporting Supplies International (SSI), which owns the well-known Wolf brand, had already stopped selling Russian-made rounds due to legal disputes.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11383
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby UlanBatori » 30 May 2019 05:17

There should be a RATSA that imposes sanctions on countries dealing with Pakistan. Ooops! India is #1 there too.

uskumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 24 Aug 2009 23:41

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby uskumar » 31 May 2019 13:28

India's buying of S-400 from Russia will have serious implications on defence ties: US
A Senior State Department Official told a group of reporters on Thursday that New Delhi's decision to buy S-400 air defence system from Moscow was significant, disagreeing with the view that it "isn't a big deal".

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Austin » 17 Jun 2019 11:37

US warns India of ‘serious implications’ if it picks Russian S-400 over American defense promises
The US-India defense ties will be put at risk should New Delhi purchase Russian S-400 air defense systems, a senior American diplomat warned, noting that India should think very carefully about making such strategic choices.

“At a certain point, a strategic choice has to be made about partnerships and a strategic choice about what weapons systems and platforms a country is going to adopt,” Alice Wells, US principal deputy assistant secretary for South and Central Asia, said this week at the hearings on US interests in South Asia and the budget for the fiscal year 2020.

India’s procurement of the S-400s “effectively could limit India’s ability to increase our own interoperability,” she said, explaining that Washington has “serious concerns” about the implications of the $5 billion deal signed with Russia in October on India-US defense ties.


Washington wants to capture India’s arms market, the diplomat told House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for Asia, noting that US is now willing to sell equipment that previous administrations had refused to consider.

“Under the Trump administration, we've been very clear that we're ready to help meet India’s defense needs and we are seeking a very different kind of defense partnership building on the 'Major Defense Partner' designation that India has received from Congress,” she said.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19885
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Philip » 17 Jun 2019 12:20

Let them be " at risk". The US should realise that antagonising India with sanctions over Ru arms will only draw India closer to China in the long run.Moreover we did exceptionally well for ovef half a century without US arms using mainly Sov./ Ru weaponry instead.There are numerous western nations who would be eager to supply India with weapon systems if the US refused to sell them to us.The US actually requires India more strategically than we need it.The sooner our wise men in Delhi realise this and leverage our intresets from a position of strength the better off we will be.

Who needs Harley's too when we have our classic Royal Enfield Bullets , elegant and far cheaper too!

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3035
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby kit » 18 Jun 2019 04:16

Frankly I think American propositions to equalize india with "tier 1" countries w r t military sales as rather Mercantile than any sort of bonhomie. Rather a tigers tail I would say. Grab it and you cant let it go !

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 19 Jun 2019 00:13

I would not place too much emphasis on what the Principal US Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia has to say. They have been playing this good cop-bad cop routine for a while now. India needs to just go about her business and buy what she needs to purchase from everyone (incl the US). The Indo-US relationship is very strong and will not be held hostage over the perceived and imaginary silliness (from the US) over the acquisition of the S-400 or not purchasing the F-16 or F-18 in the upcoming MMRCA contest, if that contest ever reaches fruition.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby Rakesh » 19 Jun 2019 10:16

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/114 ... 73442?s=21 —> If the S-400 acquisition ends up limiting interoperability between India and the United States, then great! What makes Washington think that New Delhi wants greater interoperability? Just because COMCASA was finally signed after years of India not wanting to sign it?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19312
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby chetak » 19 Jun 2019 11:17

kit wrote:Frankly I think American propositions to equalize india with "tier 1" countries w r t military sales as rather Mercantile than any sort of bonhomie. Rather a tigers tail I would say. Grab it and you cant let it go !


very true. they are carpet baggers, first and foremost.

for them its a lucrative business and for us its a risky national security issue because the amerikis want us to turn away from our traditional and secure sources of weapons like the russkis, the frenchies and the israelis.

we just cannot afford to do so and besides, the amerikis won't really part with the really high tech stuff.

If indeed they were all that benevolent towards us, they would have sold us their engine tech years ago.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3035
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby kit » 19 Jun 2019 17:19

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/1140617304704573442?s=21 —> If the S-400 acquisition ends up limiting interoperability between India and the United States, then great! What makes Washington think that New Delhi wants greater interoperability? Just because COMCASA was finally signed after years of India not wanting to sign it?


i am 1001% sure that India doesnt want whole sale inter operability with the Americans !!! . Thats down right stupidity

For the same reason i am very much looking forward to see how Modi 2.0 is going ahead with the S400 or not

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3035
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: CAATSA...An Oxymoron?

Postby kit » 19 Jun 2019 17:23

Philip wrote:Let them be " at risk". The US should realise that antagonising India with sanctions over Ru arms will only draw India closer to China in the long run.Moreover we did exceptionally well for ovef half a century without US arms using mainly Sov./ Ru weaponry instead.There are numerous western nations who would be eager to supply India with weapon systems if the US refused to sell them to us.The US actually requires India more strategically than we need it.The sooner our wise men in Delhi realise this and leverage our intresets from a position of strength the better off we will be.

Who needs Harley's too when we have our classic Royal Enfield Bullets , elegant and far cheaper too!


Talking about Harleys, one of my friends had a hard time disposing off his Harley in India !! .. the Yamahas were sold off without an effort !! ., wonder who gave the americans the idea harleys are going to be sold like hot cakes in India, reality is quite different


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests