MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pogula » 18 Mar 2011 00:58

[OT]

kit wrote:Would you like a middle aged moderately good looking woman with a lot of make up and coming up with um good recos (but have to take it at face value) or a much younger good looking girl with a lot of potential and the willingness to learn ? :mrgreen: If you ask me i would rather go for the latter one :wink:


If the middle aged woman comes with a bigger paycheck and a larger inheritance, I'd just close my eyes and tie the knot(s). :P hehehe... Just kidding. But, maybe our GoI does not mind such a scenario. :lol: If the opposition gets too noisy, a mysterious naxal or terrorist attack diverts the public mind... a cabinet reshuffle takes place in the mean time... a few opposition MPs are paid off (from the proceeds of MMRCA loots) and the no-confidence vote is overcome easily... things go back to normal until some whistle blower (not happy with his cut) decides to throw GoI under the bus :twisted:

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby aditya.agd » 18 Mar 2011 02:27

To buy from US is as good as selling the sovereignty of India. Those guys know how to squeeze and our dhoti-netas may lose everything.

Congress and Christian Antony are hell bent to please USA..... God Save India

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby aditya.agd » 18 Mar 2011 02:35

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=14532

This is how Americans react to Indian business interests.

IN future, they may say that the cockpit screw is a dual use technology and put export controls... We are dealing with a hell lot of un-predictable American foreign policy. Now the era of American decline has started and they would want to make money on every screw now. Our defence planners, better be aware, lest you bring shame to this great nation of Bharat.

I would prefer Russians and to some extent French for any defence relationship. Russia is the only safe alternative to American technical prowess.

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pogula » 18 Mar 2011 04:56

aditya.agd wrote:To buy from US is as good as selling the sovereignty of India. Those guys know how to squeeze and our dhoti-netas may lose everything.

Congress and Christian Antony are hell bent to please USA..... God Save India


[OT]

Wow! As a fellow Indian Christian, I find that comment very offensive. Most Indian Christians I know are anti-American (in foreign policy matters), by the way, which includes me. If you have credible concerns over A. K. Antony's policies or past record, be my guest and point them out. But dragging his religion as the sole reason for his political/diplomatic alignments is as ridiculous as saying Muslim Abdul Kalam is Pro-Pakistan. I would not have taken your comments seriously if they had any resemblance of humor or sarcasm in them; while I see neither.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Gaur » 18 Mar 2011 05:06

aditya.agd wrote:To buy from US is as good as selling the sovereignty of India. Those guys know how to squeeze and our dhoti-netas may lose everything.

Congress and Christian Antony are hell bent to please USA..... God Save India

Does one need to stoop so low for the simple purpose of giving one's POV?

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 714
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 18 Mar 2011 05:10

^^^I agree with Pogula and Gaur.

aditya.agd bringing up AK Antony's religion is offensive, divisive, ill-advised, entirely uninformed and definitely not in the Indian interest.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby svinayak » 18 Mar 2011 05:10

Take it offline guys.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2060
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Vivek K » 18 Mar 2011 05:58

Admins may want to restrict this thread to a News Only thread! Discussion without concrete information has brought out the worst in us.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby manum » 18 Mar 2011 06:12

aditya.agd wrote:To buy from US is as good as selling the sovereignty of India. Those guys know how to squeeze and our dhoti-netas may lose everything.

Congress and Christian Antony are hell bent to please USA..... God Save India


This is least acceptable to comment on cast, creed, religion of anyone...
As much MRCA thread is concerned....it has gone in circles...still months to go...

yantra
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 03:46

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby yantra » 18 Mar 2011 07:12

aditya.agd bringing up Anthony's religion is down-right despicable and anti-Indian! How pathetic and cheap can one get?

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby geeth » 18 Mar 2011 08:36

Congress and Christian Antony are hell bent to please USA..... God Save India


Anthony is an Atheist and is not fondly remembered by the Christians/Muslims of Kerala for his famous statement (while he was the Chief Minister) about minority communalism. Even if he is hell bent on pleasing USA, rest assured, it won't be because of his Christian background.

I would dare say that he is more of a nationalist than some of our Hindu stalwarts in politics.

arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby arunsrinivasan » 18 Mar 2011 09:09

Every day I see a zillion new posts in the thread, & I check it eagerly hoping to see some news on the status of the deal. Everyday am disappointed by the lack of any real news, but a zillion posts with the same old arguments. I request the Admins to consider limiting this thread to news about MRCA. My 2 paise.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 18 Mar 2011 09:53

aditya.agd wrote:To buy from US is as good as selling the sovereignty of India. Those guys know how to squeeze and our dhoti-netas may lose everything.

Congress and Christian Antony are hell bent to please USA..... God Save India


This has to be one of the most asinine comments I have seen here.

Not that there is any dearth of asinine comments otherwise as well.

OT here but I have had a few thoughts on the knee jerk anti US sentiment that exists in us Indians.

I would lay the blame on partly not having outgrown the years when we were a relatively poor country with really no ability to influence events through the normal levers of power and therefore we would use the only weapon we had, which was lofty ideals and talk.

There are other legitimate reasons (and rightly so from our point of view) of opposing the US as well, particularly how the US and the UK have dealt with us on the Pakistan issue, but here I would quote a Chinese example below on how they have partnered and opposed the same US even though they fought a war with US.

I appreciate the call taken in 40s, 50s, 60s etc about commenting against US and their poodle UK etc on the basis of the typical policy that US followed then and also the fact that those were the days when socialism/ communism offered an alternate to the capitalism and was also sounding as a successful way to develop a country. And their is no reason to deny how some of the policies on economic issues that we followed helped us create heavy industries, dams, developing capabilities in Space etc. because only Government was capable of investing the money required and the private sector was too small to do so.

Further, Nehru et al also went for the Non-alignment policy, at that time, correctly in my opinion, because we were too big (even though poor) to permanently belong to any particular camp and therefore in the future were likely to have our own ways and means of doing something. Further it was in our interest to not align completely with any party and therefore try to get the best of both worlds. Although there were times when this policy did make us fall between the stools, but more often than not it proved to be a useful and beneficial policy to have. Just one example - after China war, we were helped by both the West and the Soviets - each for their own reasons - but that is hardly the issue - that is real life. There are no free lunches.

Now that we have grown up, our economic capacity is rising, we can spend more on defence, our per capita income is increasing, the quality of the life of the average Indian citizen is getting and going to get better (barring the normal pains of developing a country of India's historic poverty and multifarious issues), we are going to be able to influence the events in the world by not only "statesman like" words but also action.

Now, to be able to influence the world, hold our own in a world of multiple powers, and a still very powerful US (though relatively less powerful now than anytime after WW II) and protect our interests, we will learn to play a very fleet-footed game at the high table of Geo-politics. And to do all that the first thing we will have to learn is to believe that we can hold our own and be confident about our ability to do so.

Yet, the one of the biggest (actually the biggest probably) issue one sees is our inability to outgrow the defensive and therefore reactionary (usually) nature of approaching the game of Power Politics. Although some people may hate me for saying this but if we have to learn to play the game, we should learn from the Chinese. Chinese, because here is a country which has always played the power game better than India. They are so well versed with realpolitiks that they dont even consider the niceties of the moral play unless it is useful to their interests. They are probably among the best at this - comparable to the great-powers like US, UK (erstwhile) and Soviets (erstwhile, till they come back after they work on their economy and their population/ people development).

I wrote the following earlier in a different thread, I think, but I believe it is worth writing again.

Just look at what the Chinese did. Here was a country, among the poorest, after they became PRC in 1949, yet fighting a superpower (US) to a standstill in the Korean peninsula in 1953. Then look at what they did - within 18 years, they were PARTNERING with the same US, to go against the Soviets, in 1971, when the famous Kissinger visit happened to China, mid-wifed by the Pakistanis. And then US and China became great friends. So this is a country which, in less than a generation had grown enough hair, in a manner of words, to start playing a completely opposite game and dumped their friends the Soviets, who had helped Mao in his own revolution.

And thereafter, whenever it has suited the Chinese to partner with the US, they have done so, without shivering in their boots about how US will f..k their happiness and crying hoarse, and whenever it has not suited the Chinese, they have not partnered with the US. Bottomline they hold their own yet don't get all "shivering" when it comes to having relations with the US. They are a confident nation that knows how to play the game.

Now let us come to India. Again, I wrote this earlier as well. Please note - even when we were at the worst of our times i.e. after 1962 war, when we had been defeated by the Chinese, food situation was bad, economy was in any case growing very slowly and we were taking help from US, UK and the Russians, and the British and the Americans were pressing us to give concessions to Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, yet Nehru, Swaran Singh and his team and others, did not give in to the US and UK.

So we were able to protect our interests even then, and bloody hell, we should be able to believe that we can do so now as well. Only confident nations which know how to play the game at high table are able to hold their own. They partner even with their worst enemies when it suits them - look at the Chinese in 1971, and screw then when the times are different - look at how the Chinese have been behaving with the US in the last 3 years post the economic downturn in various forums including the one where reduction in carbon emissions were being discussed in Copenhagen last year.

Mr. K. S. Bajpai, erstwhile Foreign Secretary etc. writes a lot on this inability of ours to outgrow our defensive nature which makes us react to anything vis-a-vis the US unlike how the Chinese have dealt with US (partner as well as oppose based on protecting one's interests). Similarly late Mr. K. Subrahmanyam had been trying to teach us to not get knee jerk reactions to anybody, what to talk of US.

I think it will take us a lot of time to learn to do that. Things are changing but not fast enough. US does exactly what any Super power will do - protect and forward its interest. What to talk of US, any self-respecting nation would do so. Both UK and France have been trying to protect the interests of their companies - Vodafone, Areva etc., Chinese are doing that - Huawei etc., Russians are doing that. And that is what India should do - when it suits our interest we should partner with the US, when it doesn't we shouldn't. Nothing else matters. So we should buy the aircraft/s which suit our interests. And, I humbly submit that there is no need to panic or react if the US is trying to hardsell its planes. Every country does that.

Bottomline is that interest are permanent as is the cliche most often quoted. And unless we learn to not react in a knee jerk fashion we will continue to be looked at as a poodle on the high tables.

Finally, my intention is not to hurt anyone. My apologies in advance if it is perceived as that.

Best regards.

PrithviRajChauhan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 09 Sep 2009 00:59

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby PrithviRajChauhan » 18 Mar 2011 11:29

Guys I understand the above statement made by aditya.agd is not appropriate, but is it necessary for each one of you to tell how bad it is? A more mature response would be to ignore such a comment.

The other phenomena that I have noticed so apparently in this forum is to justify how bad or good country XYZ is, bringing our 5000 year old civilization ethos in between and conveniently forgetting how bad those last 1000 years were. In my humble opinion why should we think that each and every country out there is there to exploit us? Leave about the colonial hangover, we still have slave mentality (which we have imbibed in last 1000 yrs) which clearly shows in our thought process. The very perception of ourselves that we'll abide by everything and play total innocent and how vulnerable we are is absolutely BS. Every other country will exploit you if you expose your weaknesses to them. IMO, we should think whats good for India not how ethical country A or B is. Let me ask you a very simple question, why in the first place we are buying 126 fighter planes or for that that matter any other offensive/defensive platforms? To me the answer is our immediate vicinity dictates that and more importantly buying such platforms gives sense of security and at the same time shows our defensive/offensive capability to our adversaries which inturn act as a deterrent. Now if we can buy the same sense of security by aligning ourselves with country A (in addition to the 126 fighter off course), then I guess it is worth it. Now this unsurety that the country A may not come to our rescue when we may actually need them i.e. in the case of war with China and/or Pak can actually be played to our advantage as well. Lets say if are able to create a perception ( and it could be real) in our adversaries mind that in case of war the country A would come to our rescue which results in deterring of any offensive design of the enemy , then in my opinion it as as good as buying tons of offensive weapons. Here I want to emphasize that by aligning ourselves with country A I do not mean that we need to loose our sovereignty and by all means we should have the capability to defend ourselves (conventionally n nuclear) without the need of any external help but unless that capability is built, we need to device a way that portray us that we have that capability even if it requires unconventional ways (external help). And mind you this capability has to be build indigenously which will not happen overnight and for which we require time n money.
Take a leaf from China's policy of 70's n 80's(reader would remember Nixon's era) and buid a relationship with a country which can help you in elevating at global stage. A 3-4 decade of 10 % economic growth will do wonders for us and help us in achieving what we are dreaming of.

We keep on reminding ourselves that we live in a terrible neighborhood and how bad the situation is for us from external threats perspective. But more than this external threat scenario, it is our thinking that how vulnerable we are , make our situation worse. I'll give you an example of what I mean.
When we deal with Pakistan , we know that a conventional war is out of bounds now since the enemy has nukes. And if a war actually takes place , the Pakis have nothing to loose since their country is already in shambles and with a GDP rate of 9 %, it is India which would loose the most. And here we need to give some marks to Paki military which has built this perception that in case of war we have nothing to loose, its India which would loose the most and hence has continued proxy war under the umbrella of this belief. I understand lot of readers would say that this perception is actually real but I would like to say a nuclear war would be atleast equally disastrous for both countries. Actually it would be more destructive for Pak considering its landmass.If we cannot use the conventional method against Pak then we should seek some unconventional ways ( it may include proxy wars ). The thinking that we would do no wrong and would always act in a morally correct n ethical fashion is fatal and flawed. A country which has waged a war against you in an unconventional way (or whatever manner) has to be confronted in whatever fashion. Let me remind you a tale from Mahabharata. I assume readers are aware of Bheem n Duryodhan mace fight where Bheem defeated Duryodhan in a way which was unfair by Mace rules. In conventional way, Bheem was wrong but if you look at the bigger picture he has to defeat Duryodhan so that the bigger cause (good wins evil) can be achieved. We call it ourselves a regional power ( which is emerging at global stage). Now a regional power is a power which shapes regional policies and in our case we are just reactive to the situations created by our adversaries.So in true sense it is our adversaries which acts as Regional power.
On China front, the moment comes China to the picture we think of Worlds largest Army , the economy which would soon become world largest and a looming PLA threat in our NE. But ignorantly we forget the fact that we too are nuclear power and we have the minimum deterrent capability. It is the belief that we need to give ourselves that at any cost we will not compromise our territorial integrity. Not exactly, but to some extent we too can play the same card with Dragon what Pakis are playing with us or for that matter we can return the favor to Chinks by finding our version of Pak in South East Asia (read Taiwan/Vietnam). And if it gives us the sense of security than why not.

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Henrik » 18 Mar 2011 12:53

Guys, can we please get this thread back on track? It's very interesting and all but can we stick to the MRCA topic before Admins go berzerk?

RSoami
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 14:39

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby RSoami » 18 Mar 2011 13:03

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensen ... aft%20Deal

Antony`s take on the whole thing...

American`s are pushing hard towards the finish line...
And GoI is resisting well...A real good bargain would make us all here very happy.. :D

http://newshive.blogspot.com/2011/03/hi ... ia-us.html
The last paragraph explains Antony`s position very clearly
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110314/j ... 711279.jsp
Regards

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby rajanb » 18 Mar 2011 14:44

Can any guru please oblige by telling me if the Mig35 is a SU30MKI+ machine?

Trying to get this place back on track inspite of such lucid posts and arguments, some steamy :wink:

In the meanwhile, Wikileaks has put paid to the solah and the SH! :rotfl:

Two down and four to go!

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 18 Mar 2011 15:33

Update from Gripen India campaign director.. Press release

Gripen aero India pics

Aero India 'fly gripen' contest experience

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby shukla » 18 Mar 2011 18:16

American push for MMRCA in overdrive..

How Indo-US business can enter boom time
Rediff News

American business believes the best way the United States and India can share high technology with one another is by cooperating in the defence sector, says Ron Somers, president of the US-India Business Council.

He also said that the way to kick off that cooperation in a tangible way would be for India to purchase the 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft from American manufacturers.

Speaking at the conference titled, 'The Rise of India: What it Means for the United States', hosted by the neo-conservative think tank, The American Enterprise Institute, Somers said, 'All the big issues of the 21st century are going to be solved by technology and our knowledge partner in this activity will be India. And, I believe that the best way you can begin sharing high technology with one another is by truly, genuinely, fully cooperating in defence.'

'Once you begin a defence relationship, where you are sharing your best technologies and your best platforms, the rest will follow,' he said.

Then without any further ado, making a pitch for Boeing and Lockheed, who are in the running with the Russian and European manufacturers for this deal worth $11 billion, Somers said, 'We are very hopeful that this is going to be a purchase of either Lockheed Martin or Boeing technology by the Indian Air Force.'

He acknowledged that India 'could choose to go with (the Russian) MiGs again, they could choose to go with the Eurofighter, they could choose to go with the Swedish Gripen or the French Dassault, but the reality is to team up with the United States would not just be a $11 billion arms procurement by the Indian Air Force for 126 fighter aircraft, it really would be the alignment of our militaries for the next two generations.'

Somers, said, 'When you buy a platform like an aircraft, it isn't just a military hardware sale. It really is training, it's really spare parts, it's really inter-operability and communication between our servicemen to the point where you develop relations and deep trust between our two services so that it lasts well beyond the platform itself -- it really is the alignment of our two defence establishments for the 21st century.'

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Mar 2011 18:29

that last para is full poodlinvitation :)

jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby jai » 18 Mar 2011 19:25

shukla wrote:American push for MMRCA in overdrive..

How Indo-US business can enter boom time
Rediff News

American business believes the best way the United States and India can share high technology with one another is by cooperating in the defence sector, says Ron Somers, president of the US-India Business Council.

He also said that the way to kick off that cooperation in a tangible way would be for India to purchase the 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft from American manufacturers.


Hmm, Interesting message - We need to buy US planes for effectively "sharing high technology in defence with US". And I thought sharing was about co-developing projects, doing joint defence research etc etc.

Another cheap sales pitch after all....the US of A could not find any other field useful for high tech exchange with India ! :lol: :lol:

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby GeorgeWelch » 18 Mar 2011 20:33

> We need to buy US planes for effectively "sharing high technology in defence with US"

Yes. Do you expect them to just give it to you? Of course you have to pay to gain access.

> And I thought sharing was about co-developing projects, doing joint defence research etc etc

That's one way.

ToT, a key component of MRCA (which is that the winning bidder SHARE information with India), is another.

> the US of A could not find any other field useful for high tech exchange with India !

He didn't say 'only', he said 'best', which from his perspective is probably true as it is the field with the most money available.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Victor » 18 Mar 2011 20:49

A few more plugs for the Hornet:

The fact that it is available the quickest is itself the deciding factor IMO. The very reason for going the MRCA route is to fill the gaps quickly, not over decades.

Another thing in its favor--it will never be made available to the chinese, let alone the pakis.

The F/A-18 is the only aircraft among the 6 that can be used as is by the Navy also. A huge plus for our upcoming carriers.

In 2011, "non-alignment" sounds like a chiropractic condition but if we are to "align" ourselves with any of the MRCA companies, Boeing should be at the top of the list. Not just for defence but civil and space too. We have already bought the C-17 but can deepen this "alignment" if we choose the Apache and Chinook also. What we want out of this is entirely up to us.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2582
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Chinmayanand » 18 Mar 2011 21:13

We don't want intruding agreements. We don't want our offensive balls in evil Unkil's hands for groping and squeezing in dire times. :twisted: :evil:
Last edited by Chinmayanand on 18 Mar 2011 21:20, edited 1 time in total.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2582
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Chinmayanand » 18 Mar 2011 21:19

I am cross-posting this why India should stay away from teens

------------------------------------------------------


ramana wrote:Looks like in the North African-West Asian crisis and the Japan quake we have been neglecting Af-Pak.

Shiv, Acharya, Muppalla, CRS!

Stratfor George Friedman in "Next Decade'

The Indo-Pakistani balance is being destabilized in Afghanistan, a complex war zone where American troops are pursuing two competing goals, at least as stated officially. The first is to prevent al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base of operations; the second is to create a stable democratic government. But denying terrorists a haven in Afghanistan achieves little, because groups following al Qaeda’s principles (al Qaeda prime, the group built around Osama bin Laden, is no longer fully functioning) can grow anywhere, from Yemen to Cleveland. This is an especially significant factor when the attempt to disrupt al Qaeda requires destabilizing the country, training the incipient Afghanistan army, managing the police force of Afghan recruits, and intruding into Afghan politics. There is no way to effectively stabilize a country in which you have to play such an intrusive role.

Unscrambling this complexity begins with recognizing that the United States has no vital interest in the kind of government Afghanistan develops, and that once again the president cannot allow counterterrorism to be a primary force in shaping national strategy.

But the more fundamental recognition necessary for ensuring balance over the next ten years is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are in fact one entity, both sharing various ethnic groups and tribes, with the political border between them meaning very little. The combined population of these two countries is over 200 million people, and the United States, with only about 100,000 troops in the region, is never going to be able to impose its will directly and establish order to its liking.

Moreover, the primary strategic issue is not actually Afghanistan but Pakistan, and the truly significant balance of power in the region is actually that between Pakistan and India. Ever since independence, these two countries partitioned from the same portion of the British Empire have maintained uneasy and sometimes violent relations. Both are nuclear powers, and they are obsessed with each other. While India is the stronger, Pakistan has the more defensible terrain, although its heartland is more exposed to India. Still, the two have been kept in static opposition—which is just where the United States wants them. :mrgreen:

Obviously, the challenges inherent in maintaining this complex balance over the next ten years are enormous. To the extent that Pakistan disintegrates under U.S. pressure to help fight al Qaeda and to cooperate with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the standoff with India will fail, leaving India the preeminent power in the region. The war in Afghanistan must inevitably spread to Pakistan, triggering internal struggles that can potentially weaken the Pakistani state. This is not certain, but it is too possible to dismiss. With no significant enemies other than the Chinese, who are sequestered on the other side of the Himalayas, India would be free to use its resources to try to dominate the Indian Ocean basin, and it would very likely increase its navy to do so. A triumphant India would obliterate the balance the United States so greatly desires, and thus the issue of India is actually far more salient than the issues of terrorism or nation-building in Afghanistan.

That is why over the next ten years the primary American strategy in this region must be to help create a strong and viable Pakistan. The most significant step in that direction would be to relieve pressure on Pakistan by ending the war in Afghanistan. The specific ideology of the Pakistani government doesn’t really matter, and the United States can’t impose its views on Pakistan anyway.

Strengthening Pakistan will not only help restore the balance with India, it will restore Pakistan as a foil for Afghanistan as well. In both these Muslim countries there are many diverging groups and interests, and the United States cannot manage their internal arrangements. It can, however, follow the same strategy that was selected after the fall of the Soviet Union: it can allow the natural balance that existed prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to return, to the extent possible. The United States can then spend its resources helping to build a strong Pakistani army to hold the situation together.

Jihadist forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan will probably reemerge, but they are just as likely to do so with the United States bogged down in Afghanistan as with the U.S. gone. The war simply has no impact on this dynamic. There is a slight chance that a Pakistani military, with the incentive of U.S. support, might be somewhat more successful in suppressing the terrorists, but this is uncertain and ultimately unimportant. Once again, the key objective going forward is maintaining the Indo-Pakistani balance of power.

As in the case of stepping back from Israel, the president will not be able to express his strategy for dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India openly. Certainly there will be no way for the United States to appear triumphant, and the Afghan war will be resolved much as Vietnam was, through a negotiated peace agreement that allows the insurgent forces—in this case the Taliban—to take control. A stronger Pakistani army will have no interest in crushing the Taliban but will settle for controlling it. The Pakistani state will survive, which will balance India, thus allowing the United States to focus on other balance points within the region.


This guy who ignored India completely in his book on Next Century is back with blast in this book.


Is this guy a British guy? Looks like someone made him sit on the harishchandra's throne!

Here plain and simple that US wants to keep TSP to balance India and will go any length including nuke delivery systems. Now we understand the whole politics and policies of US admins since Nixon.

Now understand why India abstained in the UN NFZ vote.

And the support for Iran.
We need our own guys.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby VikramS » 18 Mar 2011 21:40

That Stratfor article is amazing. Very rare do you see such clear articulation of what the US' goal is and what it should do.

The question of course is whether is a sign of panic that the =/= has to be pushed so hard and openly.

Friedman is from Hungary, born to holocaust survivor. Brzezinski is from Poland.

Why do these Eastern European strategy experts have such a strong love for TSP?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby svinayak » 18 Mar 2011 21:41

VikramS wrote:That Stratfor article is amazing. Very rare do you see such clear articulation of what the US' goal is and what it should do.

The question of course is whether is a sign of panic that the =/= has to be pushed so hard and openly.

Friedman is from Hungary, born to holocaust survivor. Brzezinski is from Poland.

Why do these Eastern European strategy experts have such a strong love for TSP?

THey are trying to preserve the western system and they see the change coming

Understanding what they see is very important. It is the sum of all their knowledge and their world view

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby manum » 18 Mar 2011 21:47

It'll be in no time our relations might turn sour with them...and we again get back to do the hard work...and the systems given by them turn to scrap.
You cant trust them whatesoever...said again and again and again....I am gonna get a tattoo to never forget it...

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Lalmohan » 18 Mar 2011 22:18

VikramS wrote:That Stratfor article is amazing. Very rare do you see such clear articulation of what the US' goal is and what it should do.

The question of course is whether is a sign of panic that the =/= has to be pushed so hard and openly.

Friedman is from Hungary, born to holocaust survivor. Brzezinski is from Poland.

Why do these Eastern European strategy experts have such a strong love for TSP?



because TSP was a component in the anti-communist global force projection of unkil (unlike bad pro-soviet/warsaw-pact-member-in-all-but-name-only-yindia)

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby manum » 18 Mar 2011 22:32

VikramS wrote:That Stratfor article is amazing. Very rare do you see such clear articulation of what the US' goal is and what it should do.

The question of course is whether is a sign of panic that the =/= has to be pushed so hard and openly.

Friedman is from Hungary, born to holocaust survivor. Brzezinski is from Poland.

Why do these Eastern European strategy experts have such a strong love for TSP?


They are professionals they only write when it makes sense to them...strategic analysis is their profession why should there be bias or love...its just plain truth....

RSoami
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 14:39

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby RSoami » 18 Mar 2011 22:52

...The Stratfor article is just one point of view..we need not react to it as if its stated US policy...
I think the article is plain dumb and Friedman might have his own interests in promoting the policy that he is advocating...
The least we can do is stop reacting to these dumb foreign policy advocates in US of A...
Regards

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2582
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Chinmayanand » 18 Mar 2011 22:58

RSoami wrote:...The Stratfor article is just one point of view..we need not react to it as if its stated US policy...

What if that article is the point of view and unstated US policy ... ?
BTW, what is your interest in batting so much for the teens ? :P

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 714
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 18 Mar 2011 23:12

^^^RE: That Stratfor article,

I am not surprised by it in the least, and neither should any Indian be surprised who has been paying any attention since 1950.

Make no mistake, that Friedman guy makes a living off that line of thinking, advising people in the Pentagon and State Department. American administrations haven't just bought-in to that line of thinking -- they invented it!

As for "... stated US policy..."; it is much more important to measure policy in practice, rather than mere words.
American policy in practice should be plain to see.

Please Chinmayanand, do me a favour and X-Post that article to the Geopolitical thread. (I fear how small the text would turn out if I did it.)

Thanks,
RK
Last edited by Ravi Karumanchiri on 18 Mar 2011 23:20, edited 1 time in total.

RSoami
BRFite
Posts: 771
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 14:39

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby RSoami » 18 Mar 2011 23:17

Nahi guruji...
I ve no interest in batting for anyone...But I think there is a lot of bias against Unkill and I point that out when I see it..Thats all.
And I ve mentioned before that I wouldnt mind seeing an American plane being bought...
I disagree with most of the reasons that ve been given for avoiding America...
Taking this Stratfor article and citing it as a reason is one of them.
Regards

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Anant » 18 Mar 2011 23:38

As much as this thread has deviated,
certain axioms hold.

1) The US is bad and cannot and should not be trusted.
2) Rest of the world is great and can be counted on especially Russia (regardless of evidence that is objective and contrary).

The odd juxtaposition to this of course is that many of the Rakshaks either live or work in the United States or Canada and I assume make good and respectable livings there (myself included); yet each of them bad mouth the US every chance they get. Interesting to say the least.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby manum » 19 Mar 2011 00:13

Anant wrote:As much as this thread has deviated,
certain axioms hold.

1) The US is bad and cannot and should not be trusted.
2) Rest of the world is great and can be counted on especially Russia (regardless of evidence that is objective and contrary).

The odd juxtaposition to this of course is that many of the Rakshaks either live or work in the United States or Canada and I assume make good and respectable livings there (myself included); yet each of them bad mouth the US every chance they get. Interesting to say the least.


Who told you many (how many?) of Rakshaks live in USA? Well we never said USA is bad...some of us said, cant trust em...with their self conflicting strategies...
and this statement of theirs 'with us or without us' is helping the world a lot to have faith in them...
Listen the old gen might have a fascination to go to US...But I don't see this trend holding on...so good luck with your good salary...I am not as indebted to USA for my good living to not criticize them...I am happy living with familiar mosquitoes... And being rightfully cynical due to lack of sleep next morning...

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Victor » 19 Mar 2011 00:17

We are again straying from the MRCA but this needs to be said: simply stating "it is US policy to balance India-TSP" is plain stupid. Balance for what? To contain India? To give china the upper hand? How does either help the US when the cold war is over, china is it's only potential adversary and India is one of the most pro-US countries in the world? Or should we simply say that the Americans are stupid like that onlee? Give me a break.

It makes more sense to consider such nonsense to be smoke and mirrors. Americans are in Afpak for Central Asian OIL, period. They have no particular love for pakis, Afghans, chinese or Indians. It's just that the whores in pindi are a predictable and known quantity. The Americans want to bring the oil from CA to the Arabian Sea because Russia has a stranglehold over the East European path. India wants that oil too, as do the chinese. Does unkil care if India brings them the oil instead of Afpak? I'd say "NO" and its looking increasingly possible that this may happen. Go from there.

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Pogula » 19 Mar 2011 00:28

Anant wrote:The odd juxtaposition to this of course is that many of the Rakshaks either live or work in the United States or Canada and I assume make good and respectable livings there (myself included); yet each of them bad mouth the US every chance they get. Interesting to say the least.


Living in America does not mean one should align himself/herself with every single foreign policy (involving India/Pakistan) that the GoA comes up with. History speaks for itself on this. And this record of American foreign policy is exactly what must weigh in the most in defense deals like the MMRCA.

Given the nature of the program, and its 50% ToT deal, the foreign policy and reliability of partnership is very important to GoI in making their decision. Once the choice is made, ToT is going to happen over many years (maybe a decade or more). Any sort of changes in world geo-political map must not threaten the smooth ToT that India needs to execute this program. Are you sure US of A guarantees such reliability? If so, then great! No problems going with the teens.

On the other hand, I agree with the above comments that America's policies are a lot more complex than just simple power-balancing.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby manum » 19 Mar 2011 00:39

Victor wrote:We are again straying from the MRCA but this needs to be said: simply stating "it is US policy to balance India-TSP" is plain stupid. Balance for what? To contain India? To give china the upper hand? How does either help the US when the cold war is over, china is it's only potential adversary and India is one of the most pro-US countries in the world? Or should we simply say that the Americans are stupid like that onlee? Give me a break.

It makes more sense to consider such nonsense to be smoke and mirrors. Americans are in Afpak for Central Asian OIL, period. They have no particular love for pakis, Afghans, chinese or Indians. It's just that the whores in pindi are a predictable and known quantity. The Americans want to bring the oil from CA to the Arabian Sea because Russia has a stranglehold over the East European path. India wants that oil too, as do the chinese. Does unkil care if India brings them the oil instead of Afpak? I'd say "NO" and its looking increasingly possible that this may happen. Go from there.


So you agree its not a holy war? And has general fluidity of interests and least of morals as said on camera...you agree its all about go grab it?
You agree they consider themselves victims and victimize nations for generations for all their rightful reasons...
You agree all their enemies were their friends in past?
You agree they victimized Japan (co-incidence of only nation of using nukes) vietnam Iraq afghanistan and almost strangled us...on just their whims in just few decades...
Don't blame us for not trusting them with their machines...I don't see them nothing more than Godzilla with missiles... And I am only in favour of equipments from them which we can do without in dire situations...
Last edited by manum on 19 Mar 2011 00:47, edited 1 time in total.

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 714
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 19 Mar 2011 00:46

Dear Anant,

I am Canadian, but I have lived and worked in the US. For the record, most – 99.9999% of the Americans that I’ve encountered have been very fine folks. FULL STOP.

However, far too many Americans are rather clueless about US foreign policy, believing instead the government propaganda that "the US is a beacon of freedom and democracy". Indeed, it is this propaganda that enables the USG to do all the dirty deeds it certainly has done. If the American people really knew about the US ‘shenanigans’ in central and south America, across the middle east, southeast Asia, south Asia, Africa, et cetera, et cetera; I am sure they wouldn’t stand for it. But, sadly, Americans don’t know, and so I don’t hold them personally or individually responsible for all the bad things I know come from US foreign policy. In a way, they are (sort of) victims of it too. (Americans are routinely lied to by their own mainstream media, all of which is owned by weapons cartels.)

So, make no mistake – I don’t “bad mouth” America in general – but neither do I turn a blind eye to the dirty work of the CIA, etc., and forget about things like… http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html

FURTHERMORE, earlier in this thread I tried to make the case that Russia would be a better geopolitical partner for India than would the United States (gaming the scenario that the two best MMRCA contenders could be American and Russian -- though I like the Rafale too). This was not based on any sort of emotional attachment to Russia or any kind of “knee-jerk Anti-Americanism”, as some have charged. Rather, it was the result of my own analysis, which apparently bears repeating:

1) Russia no longer aspires to global domination, and so has less of an interest in suppressing India, unlike the United States, which openly advocates for 'The Project for a New American Century' (PNAC), plus similar BS from the likes of George Friedman from STRATFOR (see above).
2) Russia is not beholden to foreign creditors, unlike the United States which is a significant debtor to China.
3) Russia is an energy-exporting country, which means that she enjoys a degree of sovereignty that an energy-importing country does not have, unlike the United States which is heavily dependent on middle-eastern oil (not to mention petrodollar banking).
4) Russian aeronautical technology is first-rate, and the perceived American edge can be boiled down to electronics (which India should be able to match and exceed, particularly since R&D budgets in the US have gone down, while they have increased in both Russia and India).

Also for the record: The Soviet Union was not defeated by the West – there was no direct military engagement between the two blocks. Rather, the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of an inherently inefficient economic system, cracked-open by years of authoritarian repression of Soviet Republics, a collapse that was arguably quickenned by the arms race. Russia of today works under a different economic paradigm, much more closely aligned to the capitalist system (which has obvious advantages), and is widely and generally much less authoritarian with its neighbouring states than during the Soviet era (though granted, there is still room for improvement).

It’s not that Russia is inherently more trustworthy than the United States because of some kind of Russian virtue or American vice – no, that’s not it at all. The fact is, Russia is more sovereign than the United States (in terms of economics and energy security). Russia has obvious interests in a multi-polar world which has room for India to grow, unlike the US, which still pursues hegemony where India is kept from consuming too much of the world’s finite resources. Indeed, keeping India from developing fully – forcing her to spend excessive treasure on weapons – is the best way to keep every Indian family from achieving the same standard of living that the Americans enjoy. But don’t blame the average American for that – they’re generally clueless about this. Believe me, I would much rather that Americans and Russians and Indians and Chinese people, et cetera; enjoy the fruits of a genuine 'peace dividend' that was the promise with the end of the 'Cold War'. Unfortunately, one country still chooses to spend HUGE amounts on weapons, and this touches off arms races all around the world. Do you want to guess who is spending the most? Do you know by what margin? (I think the US spends as much on its military as the next 29 nations combined -- 26 of which are allies!)

My opinions in this regard are not about allegiance to one country or another – not even for India. It’s about honest analysis and a loyalty to the truth.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests