India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

[KLNMurthy]

Yes, they can in the spirit of anything religious is allowed. The dress codes focus on decency and safety more than anything else. So no guns, offensive tattoos and adequate amount of clothing. I suppose the dress code around clothing may be in violation of the religious beliefs of students keeping faith in religions that proscribe any type of clothing, but such a case has yet to happen in real life.

It would be different for schools (private) that require uniforms. There the dress code is very strict, including no jewelry, no makeup, no costly fabric etc The idea is to remove all social differences inside school compound, same idea behind uniform anywhere.

I haven’t seen any cases of girls wearing hijab with school uniform. Policy would probably depend on the school.

[chetak]

@RajeevSrinivasa·8h

Just as we thought, it's a church project.

[vera_k]

It would be different for schools (private) that require uniforms. There the dress code is very strict, including no jewelry, no makeup, no costly fabric etc The idea is to remove all social differences inside school compound, same idea behind uniform anywhere.

I haven’t seen any cases of girls wearing hijab with school uniform. Policy would probably depend on the school.

What I wrote is for public (i.e. government funded) schools. You might remember this case -
Case

Now, there aren't similar cases yet with regards to private schools, but its a matter of time. Private schools aren't as numerous in the USA because the government run system is so prevalent.

[chetak]

the same NYT had a very different viewpoint on the Indian "farmer's" agitation and the year long blockade of roads in dilli

wonder who exactly is coordinating and funding this show of strength in kaneda and the people backing them.

there are indications that truckers in the US are showing interest in this agitation because they also want the same exemptions.

[srikandan]

https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/ ... fmtbYpAAAA

Very interesting. The execrable piece of human garbage Tanvi Madan got her leg up from Rahul Bajaj, congressi bootlicker. USA has already been implanted with CONgressi drones including the turdling piece of garbage Shiv Shankar Menon, ExNSA and traitorous piece of s*it. That explains the explicit animosity against India and Indians by the genocidal vermin in the US state department.

[srikandan]

https://twitter.com/TRF_Climate/status/ ... 4273644552

Thomas Reuters foundation (has ex-CIA people running it) now thinks Solar Energy is bad for India, since India refused to kowtow to the US skulduggery in the UN.

[Mort Walker]

India cancels $3 billion purchase of 30 armed Predator drones.

Certainly good news as they are too expensive and takes at least 27 hours to arm.

[ramana]

And lots of maintenance.
But for import pasand services can put Dhruvastra on Rustom and let it rip.
IRS sats already cover daily orbits.

[Mort Walker]

And lots of maintenance.
But for import pasand services can put Dhruvastra on Rustom and let it rip.
IRS sats already cover daily orbits.

And can buy an additional squadron of Tejas Mk1A on top of that.

[aharam]

Hi,
Forgive me at the outset, for I am going to post a controversial opposer - I will attempt to argue honestly. I believe India lost a strategic opportunity today. Forget the ups and downs of a game theoretic argument - we have to look out only for our own interests exercise - for a moment. Russia's attack to end an independent country Ukraine's choice of government is wrong - whether it is for security interests, which are barely legitimate or anything else - aka dharmic position. This is no different from Tibet - we had similar arguments then. That said, India cannot simply walk away from a 60 year steady relationship over one event.

The problem India faces is that its actual strategic competitor is neither of the Cold War foes - it is China. In this exercise, only the West can help. Russia is economically dependent - it has had clashes with China long in the past, and will help China because of its economic engine. Play the game theory forward - if Russia wants to remain relevant, it has to be able to harness China's economic might, which implies a closer tie. China similarly uses Russia to get a jump start on everything from materials to jet engines. Yes, India takes solace in the fact that Russia doesn't sell the latest to China, I tend to take that argument with a grain of salt, given a strategic economic motive.

Now consider a future India China conflict - the signs are there, we can debate it, but likelihood is high. There is no practical way in which Russia will intervene given its balancing act. With enough money, Russia plays the equalizing game of the US in the 80s, which provided Pak with F16s as a technological counter. Also, in the event of a China conflict for India, the West will not directly intervene - they will see little benefit from it. given the dissonance of India's transactional behavior. So why tilt either way?

India's foreign policy has always been independent, how does this change anything.

This, not stupid GWB and Iraq is a defining moment - do the right thing.

The crux lies in the intangibles. In a future India China conflict, the West is a source of better side benefits such as intelligence that matter and rapid loss replacement. The West with its increasing divergence of values with China has much to benefit and little to lose in supporting India in any way short of a MAD. It is basic behavior - an extension of the Afg war in the '80s. Not that India needs it, but a backstop to help never hurts, particularly one that has a significant technological advantage.

That said, the West led by the US is mercurial, with enough bodies relying on failed promises by the wayside - at some level that needs to stop for the US to maintain relevance - foreign policy is a national security exercise that is not party dependent. If India is going to relinquish a strategic partner for a moral reason, there is no way, it should take a secondary position. India should have extracted a set of goals diplomatically and voted with the West - it is the dharmic option. The primary goal for India is the elimination of the US-UK and now AUS first technology transfer caste and then everyone else system - US has tech, India has numbers, growth and increasingly home grown tech - there are very core unrealized synergies. Shared values do not depend on skin color - fix this stupidity and recognize where there are other systems like India with far greater diversity, economic growth and yet commonality than you can imagine. It enables American relevance into the future. The second part is Indian diplomats need to make clear they will pursue an independent foreign policy from the West with no expectation of shared votes. India cannot lose the moral high ground, lest we forget the impact it has always had in Indian society. Unless the Western alliance can fundamentally come to terms with India on these values, it would be a bloody bad lost opportunity that is a relic of colonialism.

I have lived outside the country for a while now, and can see things that are a product of my experiences. Indians have goodwill around the globe and in any strategic situation affecting India's security, game theory or otherwise, we can expect support only from those with whom we have shared affinity of government and its purpose - if India's loses the moral high ground, there is no amount of transactional behaviour that improves its security.

Just my 2 paise. Please shoot away.

Jai Hind
Aharam

[vimal]

^^ US has forsaken its long time munnas like sauds what makes you think they will come to our overt help? Maybe intelligence sharing and some military hardware none of which will suffice.

The lesson to learn is that India needs to become atam nirbhar and not buy from any desert cult country. This goes for weapons but also future energy sources.

[Kati]

Sorry Sir ^^^^^
to burst your balloon of optimism about the western "goodwill". You are mixing up between "goodwill" toward
individual desis and their western guv's diplomatic support to GoI. The former has ZERO effect of the latter.

[m_saini]

if India's loses the moral high ground, there is no amount of transactional behaviour that improves its security.

Sir, could you give some examples where keeping moral high ground improved someone's security?

Because tranactional behavior has quite a few.

[Rishirishi]

AHRAM

I agree with your conclusion, but not with all the logic.
Indian strategic thinkers must ask the simple question; Does India want to be like China/Russia or EU/USA. We want a free society, democracy etc etc.

India tilted towards the Russians, because India did not know which direction was best in the 50's. Was it the capitalistic model or the socialistic? Another issue was the racist view most western countries had towards India. Nehru genuinely though that allowing foreign investments and products would open the door to colonialism V2. Today we should know better. The Canadian/scandinavian/Australian model is my choice.

[Karan M]

IMHO, given we have multiple strategic programs underway with Russia, get a lot of kit from there, and prefer a multi polar world to balance out the west and its virtue signaling and brazen actions against even Indian interests, we need Russia on our side. Or at the very least non hostile to us. The western strategic commentators and establishments treat our native civilizational interests and belief systems, our desire to decolonialize with unbridled hostility and interference, so we need powers to balance them out and also prevent Russia and China from linking up completely and becoming an anti India force.

[aharam]

^^ US has forsaken its long time munnas like sauds what makes you think they will come to our overt help? Maybe intelligence sharing and some military hardware none of which will suffice.

The lesson to learn is that India needs to become atam nirbhar and not buy from any desert cult country. This goes for weapons but also future energy sources.

Please, let's argue honestly. Saudi US relationship is transactional, and you are seeing the outcome when transaction is not worthwhile. Same with Pak - the west is not some cult of personality - people have to have shared values. They are democratic systems that can sustain "hold your nose" transactional relationships to a point, and then their shared values take over. I never said, India wouldn't be defending for herself - I did my share - no planning ever occurs assuming external help. India's first and absolute priority should always be complete self reliance in all security aspects.

As for intervention in a conflict, Russia will be even less useful than the West in a India/China conflict - it has no technological advantage and is economically beholden - let's up our game theory here. Do you really see a commonality of basic values here. Western democratic systems are eventually driven by their people's perception. That value system is the same with India, and not with autocratic regimes like China, and increasingly Russia.

Cheers
Aharam

[aharam]

Sorry Sir ^^^^^
to burst your balloon of optimism about the western "goodwill". You are mixing up between "goodwill" toward
individual desis and their western guv's diplomatic support to GoI. The former has ZERO effect of the latter.

That is exactly what I am talking about. You are mistaking individual relationships for population dynamics - democratic systems have an actual value system. When there is a strong dissonance between individual values and government behavior, it doesn't continue for long. Ask yourself this - given arbitrary wealth, where would you live. Russia, China, or somewhere else. It doesn't have to be the west. Maldives, NZ, Thailand are perfectly good answers. Then honestly ask yourself why.

As always, available to debate

Cheers
Aharam

[aharam]

Sir, could you give some examples where keeping moral high ground improved someone's security?

Because tranactional behavior has quite a few.

Come on, I have seen your posts. You can do better than this. My example is Ukraine. Useless transactionally. Currently has a UNSC resolution condemning a Russian attack with 1 veto. 2 countries abstained - India and China. They are in the same bucket now. Who do you think the Russians are going to support in an India/China conflict, with their economic interests completely tied to China.

Cheers
Aharam

[Kati]

That is exactly what I am talking about. You are mistaking individual relationships for population dynamics - democratic systems have an actual value system. When there is a strong dissonance between individual values and government behavior, it doesn't continue for long. Ask yourself this - given arbitrary wealth, where would you live. Russia, China, or somewhere else. It doesn't have to be the west. Maldives, NZ, Thailand are perfectly good answers. Then honestly ask yourself why.

As always, available to debate

Cheers
Aharam

Sorry Ahram Saar, no point in getting into a debate with you.

Either you are too naive to see through the geopolitical fog, or you are trying to make us drink the western neo-colonial Kool-aid into a delusion.

[aharam]

AHRAM

I agree with your conclusion, but not with all the logic.
Indian strategic thinkers must ask the simple question; Does India want to be like China/Russia or EU/USA. We want a free society, democracy etc etc.

India tilted towards the Russians, because India did not know which direction was best in the 50's. Was it the capitalistic model or the socialistic? Another issue was the racist view most western countries had towards India. Nehru genuinely though that allowing foreign investments and products would open the door to colonialism V2. Today we should know better. The Canadian/scandinavian/Australian model is my choice.

History worked against India for all the stupid reasons history can throw from the 50s onwards. Idiot west was racial, USSR was not. Transactional behavior was de jure. I have the easy benefit of history. But look today - there is a large mass of Indians everywhere in the world, where do they find moral commonality? How many emigrate to China, or Russia for that matter?

There is a genuine dichotomy India faces. A rather large body of commonality of values with the West, when the West is terribly transactional in its relationships - and a weak Russia tied to an economically mighty China with a kow tow system. And frankly, I will cut the knees off anyone that asks me to kow tow.

The West really does need to reform, see where the mass of humanity is striving, and make its push with that which unites values. This is the biggest single continued failing of the US UK EU system - deal with reality. You are aging, but have the right values. No More transactional behavior, else you lose any respect remaining.

India's history ties itself to the West. Points in history are where it diverges. I grew up in the city of Gandhi, at its most basic people drive governments, people are driven by their sense of right and wrong, and eventually government is the will of the people. People fundamentally fight their hardest when they know they are in the right. Transactional behavior only gets you so far.

Being on the wrong side of society, of basic values of humanity, for a transactional reason will never be right for me. These only lead to expensive corrections.

Cheers
Aharam

[ricky_v]

right or wrong side of the history is a subjective argument

[aharam]

Sorry Ahram Saar, no point in getting into a debate with you.

Either you are too naive to see through the geopolitical fog, or you are trying to make us drink the western neo-colonial Kool-aid into a delusion.

Come on - really seriously. We are Indians, and better than this. We argue without ad hominem. I have no interest in any one's Kool aid. If you wish to debate, please point out how exactly the analysis is wrong. I concur, Western behavior is stupidly boorish and colonial - it does not change the reality of China being India's biggest conflict.

As for naivete, the British left because Gandhi was more relatable to their people than their occupation was.

Doesn't mean turn the other cheek - strength and self reliance should be the first priority. After that when you need help, commonality of values is all there is.

Cheers
Aharam

[GShankar]

Come on - really seriously. We are Indians, and better than this. We argue without ad hominem. I have no interest in any one's Kool aid. If you wish to debate, please point out how exactly the analysis is wrong. I concur, Western behavior is stupidly boorish and colonial - it does not change the reality of China being India's biggest conflict.

As for naivete, the British left because Gandhi was more relatable to their people than their occupation was.

Doesn't mean turn the other cheek - strength and self reliance should be the first priority. After that when you need help, commonality of values is all there is.

Cheers
Aharam

Not going into why british left and all that stuff - recall seeing a photo of a letter from britshit pm - from General Bakshi's book

Indians better than what exactly? Indiana need to be dharmics. What is that exactly? To have the resolve to stand up for our interests, fight our own battles. I too have lived couple decades in the un-kill.

Ask yourself honestly, even if Krishna were to come and chat the gita, seems like you are not willing to fight.

We should have followed or rather did before chinese, what chinese did.

Talk a good game against west and then abstain. Probably got something from west to abstain.

With the level of information i am accessible to, I am seeing this as an opportunity lost.

[hanumadu]

Looks like influencers are now being deployed on BR.

[Pratyush]

Forgive me at the outset, for I am going to post a controversial opposer - I will attempt to argue honestly. I believe India lost a strategic opportunity today. Forget the ups and downs of a game theoretic argument - we have to look out only for our own interests exercise - for a moment. Russia's attack to end an independent country Ukraine's choice of government is wrong - whether it is for security interests, which are barely legitimate or anything else - aka dharmic position. This is no different from Tibet - we had similar arguments then. That said, India cannot simply walk away from a 60 year steady relationship over one event.

I have a serious objection to calling any post 2014 US backed coup Ukrainian government as independent or even democratic.

They have been US Stooges through and through.

[m_saini]

Come on, I have seen your posts. You can do better than this. My example is Ukraine. Useless transactionally. Currently has a UNSC resolution condemning a Russian attack with 1 veto. 2 countries abstained - India and China. They are in the same bucket now. Who do you think the Russians are going to support in an India/China conflict, with their economic interests completely tied to China.

I really couldn't, you overestimate me sir. Just your average mango abdul here.
Anyway, UNSC vote or not, Amreekis do what's in their interest. If Russians support China against us, then that's their prerogative. Morality was made to go live on the faraway farm in rural Kansas quite a while ago, it's got no place or need in geopolitics.

Like Gen Rawat sir said, we're on our own. And we should be, if our dreams of being a world leader are sincere.

[aharam]

I have a serious objection to calling any post 2014 US backed coup Ukrainian government as independent or even democratic.

They have been US Stooges through and through.

I have to beg to differ here, I have employed 100s of people in both Kyiv and St. Petersburg since before 2014 - 2006 to be exact. There is no cultural difference between either, and as you can imagine, I have rather good friends on both sides for a very long time. The US problem is fundamentally not realizing, unlike Kennedy, that NATO expansion is a threat to Russian interests. Cuban missile crisis was solved not by withdrawal of Soviet naval assets, but by removal of Jupiter missiles.

I have been to Ukraine, their government is not a stooge. If it were, US would be supporting it, instead of doing the absolute non-dharmic stupidity of sitting in the side lines. Poland is a better ally.

Again, Let's argue, I am only stating my own view.

Cheers
Aharam

[Shaktimaan]

The way I look at it, we did what we had to do. Fact of the matter is, a large chunk of our military hardware comes from USSR/Russia. 2.5 hostile enemies are surrounding us and also moving inside our territory. They will immediately detect any gaps in our defence and move accordingly.

We are not Atmanirbhar. And until we become Atmanirbhar, we will have to maintain good relations with the Russians.

I say this without passing any judgement on the Ukraine situation, speaking only from the Indian point of view.

[Arima]

countries look out for there core interest at all cost. our Babus need to learn this lesson and have mindset of India Interest first.

[aharam]

Not going into why british left and all that stuff - recall seeing a photo of a letter from britshit pm - from General Bakshi's book

Indians better than what exactly? Indiana need to be dharmics. What is that exactly? To have the resolve to stand up for our interests, fight our own battles. I too have lived couple decades in the un-kill.

Ask yourself honestly, even if Krishna were to come and chat the gita, seems like you are not willing to fight.

We should have followed or rather did before chinese, what chinese did.

Talk a good game against west and then abstain. Probably got something from west to abstain.

With the level of information i am accessible to, I am seeing this as an opportunity lost.

I am not sure where you are going with your argument. Your assumption that I am not willing to fight, is I may say rather wrong. I have fought before and do not need to prove any skills in that domain with you.

As for living for decades in Unkill? your statement shows the old adage that existing has little value. As for your information claims, I have little knowledge of what you know vs. reality, and thus cannot comment. Your couple of decades does not match my experience that is longer.

I am not an apologist for the West - you are making an assumption. The west has so far been stupid and hasn't gotten beyond transactional politics - it appears to be a terrible forcing function of the US system of government and political appointments. The West has to realize that the future is a dominant India, and its interest lies in making that future a reality, because it has shared interests in how people live most fundamentally. The reality is that India, with its massively muti-cultural multi-religious society hangs together because it has a fundamental value connection together - Hindu, Muslim or Sikh - there is a societal value system. Since you seem, like me, willing to fight, ask yourself this, would you live in an autocratic system that dictated your daily life and the leaders you elect and what they do. Come on, there is no part of India that will do it.

The failure of diplomacy here is making the west see what is right and what it is forcing India's position to be, in the absence of alternatives. You cannot seriously argue that in an India China conflict, by your own argument Russians would support India overtly. Russia should look for its welfare and thus stay on the sidelines. May I ask, what do you think any world opinion would be, when India sat in the sidelines on other equivalently momentous occasions - there is no one on our side.

India needs to stand up for its interests, and its interests solely. The art of diplomacy in this situation is convincing everyone else of the enormous cost India will bear for this decision, and unless the west wants to sit forever on the sidelines, it has to fundamentally bring India along as an equal partner to their old relationships like UK. The future is a conflict of a 1.4B nation of declining population with another 1.4B nation of an expanding one - let's not lose sight of strategic reality. Alliances should be values - lose the values, and you lose the majority of the people. Once you have lost the people everything else is sophistry.

Cheers
Aharam

P.S.: as always, please argue. truth always lies in between.

[aharam]

Does that include letting Americans run our foreign policy and setting up american bases on mainland India?

Canadian/Australian/scandinavian model is indeed great but there are no free lunches in life. There is no American largesse without bending over.

That's a great point you raise. The American model has been "my way or the highway". That's over now - it is shared interests of a common societal makeup. Unless they come to the more basic realization of societal wishes and see commonality there, there is no path forward, just decline for America. Free society is fundamentally more important than practically anything else.

Cheers
Aharam

[Baikul]

…..As for intervention in a conflict, Russia will be even less useful than the West in a India/China conflict - it has no technological advantage and is economically beholden - let's up our game theory here. Do you really see a commonality of basic values here. Western democratic systems are eventually driven by their people's perception. That value system is the same with India, and not with autocratic regimes like China, and increasingly Russia.

Cheers
Aharam

I particularly want to address this “shared values in democracy making us natural partners” belief because it’s overstated, over estimated and oversold.

Commonality of basic values don’t mean much in international relations. Why else did the USA support so many right wing, semi - fascist regimes in Latin America and across the world? And what exactly has America done to further the cause of democracy in other nations when not convenient to them? Just look to our immediate west to see what the US did to “encourage democracy” in Pakistan.

As an aside India owes zilch to the US or any other nation for its own democratic system. While there were influences, our democracy emerged from our own genius. So just because we’re democracies does not mean we’re brother brother onlee.

I don’t want my argument to mean we support genocide or be completely immoral in the name of India first. But what matters in international relations is governing self interest and track record. For example what’s in India’s best interest now and in the future? And what’s the track record of the Russian, North American and Ukrainian nations in terms of past support for India?

Personally. I think those of us who’ve lived in the West tend to confuse life within that country with that country’s moral behaviour in international relations. For example I lived and worked in the US for a long time and grew to value living there. I’m deeply appreciative still of American courtesy, American tolerance, American experiences.

But this is the same America which is transactional, where you struggle to make real friends, where your company would fire you in a heartbeat if they could save a dollar. And THIS is the America you will experience in the international arena as well- matter of fact, mercenary, businesslike. None of that liberal arts, good cheer crap.

Therefore on Ukraine, sure I feel admiration for its people, their fight against a larger nation, “brave nation taking on a giant” and all that. But push comes to shove, we should support them today in exactly the same way they supported us in the past, and how we expect them to support us in the future.

[Rakesh]

I believe India lost a strategic opportunity today.

What strategic opportunity did India exactly lose today?

In this exercise, only the West can help.

The west helps India exactly how against China?

While we are at it, can we define the west? Who in the west are we referring to? The US? UK? France? Italy? or is it a group of western nations?

Also, in the event of a China conflict for India, the West will not directly intervene - they will see little benefit from it. given the dissonance of India's transactional behavior. So why tilt either way?

Give the dissonance of India's transactional behavior, why is it that it is only the West that can help as you indicated in your earlier quote?

India's foreign policy has always been independent, how does this change anything.

So that is what India's vote today has confirmed. Nothing has changed.

This, not stupid GWB and Iraq is a defining moment - do the right thing.

What was the right thing to do?

The crux lies in the intangibles. In a future India China conflict, the West is a source of better side benefits such as intelligence that matter and rapid loss replacement.

The rapid loss replacement argument has been thoroughly disproven. But I would be pleased to have that discussion again. Since that line of argument has been brought up as a plus point that the West has, let us talk platform specific when we hash out the details. Would make for a much more interesting discussion. Which platform would you like to start with in the realm of rapid loss replacement? My suggestion is below;

* Fighter Aircraft (Rafale, F-21, Eurofighter, F-15EX, Gripen E, F-18SH). I am including all the 4th generation western aircraft here, but we can narrow the list down to country specific if you like i.e. French, US, UK, Swedish, etc.

Before we get into other western platforms (artillery, infantry weapons, surface-to-air missile systems, naval vessels, armoured vehicles, etc) perhaps we can start with fighter aircraft first?

The primary goal for India is the elimination of the US-UK and now AUS first technology transfer caste and then everyone else system - US has tech, India has numbers, growth and increasingly home grown tech - there are very core unrealized synergies. Shared values do not depend on skin color - fix this stupidity and recognize where there are other systems like India with far greater diversity, economic growth and yet commonality than you can imagine. It enables American relevance into the future.

I don't believe anyone is that myopic to believe international relations depend on the colour of your skin. There is no stupidity there to fix.

Secondly, there are a number of examples where the west has not been willing to provide the very technology that India has been seeking to acquire. The JETJWG is a prime example of that. India with her far greater diversity and economic growth was not able to close that bridge with the west.

I have lived outside the country for a while now, and can see things that are a product of my experiences.

Perhaps that is where the disconnect is? India has moved on, from when you left. One can argue the semantics and the path that India has adopted, but it is not the same India of the 60s, 70s or 80s. Your individual experiences - while valuable to you and defines your individuality - cannot be painted onto a nation of 1+ billion people. They too are individuals with different experiences and expectations.

Indians have goodwill around the globe and in any strategic situation affecting India's security, game theory or otherwise, we can expect support only from those with whom we have shared affinity of government and its purpose - if India's loses the moral high ground, there is no amount of transactional behaviour that improves its security.

India has not lost any moral high ground today and that too over a vote. I think you are tremendously stretching the truth here and I have to push back on that assertion.

[sudham]

@Aharam

Irrespective of the transactional or moral approach, all countries operate within certain constraints.

For India, it is a fact that irrespective of how helpful we think Russia will be in a future India-China conflict, right now they are critical to our plans.

Irrespective of this conflict turns out for Russia their dependence on China will grow. While doing so they to will not want to be over dependent. Our lever is financial incentive, past support and the potential for future support. This vote was just right from that perspective. No need for anyone to take the Indian vote for granted. Russia is badly with this. The west may not like it but know that this is the best that they will get.

Sure they will conduct some emotional blackmail etc. Their plans to hobble India would not change either way based on how we voted here.

Last point. Our past actions or support/opposition has an impact on the capital that we develop with the country. Ukraine's actions were against Indian interests and they sure did not lose sleep over it. This is a good lesson to other countries that you cannot expect to act against or interests and expect us to support you.

[Pratyush]

Aharam,

Just because you have business interests in Russia and Ukraine dosent mean you have a clear understanding of what is happening or what has led to the current situation.

The cold hard fact is that the US started with its coloured revolution nonsense in 2003. In 2014 less than 6 months before the elections were due, the incumbent was overthrown in a US backed coup.

The influence of US was such that they were dictating the formation of the next government.

Jo Biden demanded the firing of a prosecutor who was investigating a company that was paying 83k dollars a month to his son. Under the threat of holding back a billion dollar loan guarantee from the IMF. That to in under 6 hours.

BTW, Donald Trump got impeached for asking Ukrainian government to look into just what had happened.

Nearly 30 % of Ukrainian's speak Russian as first language. It was one of the 2 official languages. The post coup dispensation removed Russian as the second language.

In the last 8 years,over 80% of 14000 deaths in the so called civil was happened to ethnic Russians. While the devolution of central powers assured under various post 2014 treaties have not yet been implemented in the Ukrainian constitution. While they had the time and energy to make NATO member ship a part of constitution.

So as far as I am concerned Russia is justified in acting the way it had. In order to preserve the interest of Russian speaking minorities. While also remove the threat presented by potential NATO membership of Ukraine.

[Rakesh]

As a forum moderator, I kindly request you to stop with this. You made a long post and posters are replying back. You don't have to like the answers and that is fine. But counter the point and kindly stop giving people unsolicited advice on how they should post.

Stop patronizing posters. This is your first warning.

Please, let's argue honestly.

Come on, I have seen your posts. You can do better than this.

Come on - really seriously. We are Indians, and better than this.

[achy]

I have lived outside the country for a while now, and can see things that are a product of my experiences. Indians have goodwill around the globe and in any strategic situation affecting India's security, game theory or otherwise, we can expect support only from those with whom we have shared affinity of government and its purpose - if India's loses the moral high ground, there is no amount of transactional behaviour that improves its security.

I will answer only the bolded and underlined part as this deals with transactional vs universal. More a philosophy question then perhaps an existential. Actually, this question has vexxed us for long. I call it the Muslim question in our context! We faced this question when first time Md Bin Qasim landed ashore Sindh. We misunderstood many times till, Shivaji, actually answered it! Partially!

When we are faced with an enemy; we have to first ask the question what is the world view/nature of the one you are confronting. Let me give more stark examples.. Sanatan vs Islam. West vs Orthodox. Sanatan Vs Confucius. Sanatan, Confucius, and may be orthodox is equilibrium doctrine while Islam and West is an expansionist doctrine. Expansionist doctrines will not stop till you stop it. We all know about Islam but make no mistake about West. "West" stripped of all its "modern" adornment is nothing but christianity 2.0.

Once we know the nature of enemy we will have to ask more questions before we formulate a response. Are we in position to dictate or are we fighting for our existence? It will be easy to take a moral position if we are in position to dictate. We can take immoral position if its question of survival. We can be ambivalent/tactical if its neither.

Basically, we can not have one set of response for all conditions. We should never be Prithiviraj. But not even Shivaji. We always have to be Krishna!

[Vayutuvan]

Looks like influencers are now being deployed on BR.

hey ram how very abraham.

[aharam]

.....

Hi Rakesh,
I have read a lot of your posts in detail and have a huge body of respect for it. The point I was making was today was an opportunity for Indian diplomacy to change the basic ball game with the US and eliminate the transactional behavior. This behavior does not exist in its relationship with its old allies. May I ask, however little value you place on intelligence, do you actually think Russia would provide Chinese naval asset coordinates in a war with China? The same game-theoretic argument of national interest applies to Russia's relationship with China - they will be completely in the sidelines. Is it not clear that Chinese undersea assets are significant and well at the limits of Indian detection? And why would the West help - it undermines their enemy with no risk - India takes the risk, and yet the coordinates are useful, and Russia won't.

As to moral high ground, India today was on the same side as China and UAE - says everything. Pretty much every country in the world objected and I am not talking of just the UNSC vote. The US is a transactional pig most of the time - doesn't mean a broken clock is not sometimes right.

Which brings up the need for India to be completely self sufficient and it is well on the path.The point of vulnerability with China is in the interim - 10 years from now, there is no argument about India's self defense and China is no fool. Mutual self interest drives systems together - where exactly is the commonality with China in this vote. They are a straight up competitor - militarily and hegemonically. With economic clout, they will control Russian decision making. I am saying this purely from an Indian national interest perspective - Russia is beholden. The problem with my argument is that US is an absolute disaster of a partner. US behavior has to fundamentally change.

Non alignment has reached a logical conclusion. Finland and Sweden are looking at NATO. It is not color of skin that I am commenting on for international relations. The fact here is that the US has had a tiered relationship model that simply does not work - color of skin be damned, it is long term history, and much as you wish, it is what it is. The basic mistake US is making is in not aggressively pursuing a much closer relationship with India akin to UK-UK in WWII. There is no future for the US without it.

Transactional behavior generates transactional results because diplomats retire and the next generation doesn't remember the causes of the transaction. They see the results and how it maps to their world view of right and wrong. I am not arguing for some new understanding with the West - just that the opportunity for it was lost. Put terribly, this was an opportunity for a longer term transaction that ensured some support for India. The path you recommend has India on its own - a Russia beholden to China and the rest of the world looking on (probably still with Israel's resupply). Whatever one's strength, allies are always useful.

To the aam abdul, sophistry of national interest does not direct their choice of right and wrong. If all we depend on is our own strength in any future battle, none of this matters - why even participate in the global system - it is everyone for themselves.

The part I foresee is the lesson China learns from this - it emboldens its risk taking against India. We should never lose sight of that. Everything else is a sideshow.

Cheers
Aharam

P.S.: Please believe me when I say, I haven't lost track since I left India, just gone back to the basics. In a India/China conflict, where would you currently expect any help however small would come from - a beholden Russia or a transactional west (US + EU) that sees the same long term ideologically incompatible entity in China.

[GShankar]

I am not sure where you are going with your argument. Your assumption that I am not willing to fight, is I may say rather wrong. I have fought before and do not need to prove any skills in that domain with you.

Can't help with lack of comprehension. Tom-toming personal fighting skills adds to the lack of comprehension again. I'll explain the lack of comprehension bit down.

For your fight in your past, good for you and yes, no need to prove nothing. I didn't ask for any. All good.

As for living for decades in Unkill? your statement shows the old adage that existing has little value. As for your information claims, I have little knowledge of what you know vs. reality, and thus cannot comment. Your couple of decades does not match my experience that is longer.

Since you have not demonstrated the "value" of your existence as well, let's say it is a draw here.

I am not an apologist for the West - you are making an assumption.

I did not make any assumption. You are making statements to the effect that India needs to ally with unkil and aiyo (so called west) due to shared values and all that good stuff. I am just disagreeing with this. This is plain BS actually.

The west has so far been stupid and hasn't gotten beyond transactional politics - it appears to be a terrible forcing function of the US system of government and political appointments. The West has to realize that the future is a dominant India, and its interest lies in making that future a reality, because it has shared interests in how people live most fundamentally.

Until the underlined happens , let's wait on building castles on the cloud w.r.t shared values/interests and such

The reality is that India, with its massively muti-cultural multi-religious society hangs together because it has a fundamental value connection together - Hindu, Muslim or Sikh - there is a societal value system.

Not really. This is just because hindus as a collective are a bit nicer and naive.

Since you seem, like me, willing to fight, ask yourself this, would you live in an autocratic system that dictated your daily life and the leaders you elect and what they do. Come on, there is no part of India that will do it.

Why do you (or any one willing to fight) need to choose between autocratic vs electoral democracy? That is not why one allies with another. Another part of comprehension gap i see.

The failure of diplomacy here is making the west see what is right and what it is forcing India's position to be, in the absence of alternatives. You cannot seriously argue that in an India China conflict, by your own argument Russians would support India overtly. Russia should look for its welfare and thus stay on the sidelines. May I ask, what do you think any world opinion would be, when India sat in the sidelines on other equivalently momentous occasions - there is no one on our side.

I really wonder, who were NOT sitting on sidelines during Galwan? And who is still NOT sitting on sidelines while we are fighting to evict the chinese from our borders?

India needs to stand up for its interests, and its interests solely. The art of diplomacy in this situation is convincing everyone else of the enormous cost India will bear for this decision, and unless the west wants to sit forever on the sidelines, it has to fundamentally bring India along as an equal partner to their old relationships like UK. The future is a conflict of a 1.4B nation of declining population with another 1.4B nation of an expanding one - let's not lose sight of strategic reality. Alliances should be values - lose the values, and you lose the majority of the people. Once you have lost the people everything else is sophistry.

This is what I referred above w.r.t gita-upadesam. Diplomacy at all cost? hahah...I recommend this line to come as a comedy in a future movie titled "Border 2"

Cheers
Aharam

P.S.: as always, please argue. truth always lies in between.

Cheers!!!
Truth is truth, it doesn't move. It lies still. Arguments don't change it