India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

[g.sarkar]

https://www.rediff.com/news/report/indi ... 260516.htm
India-Pak truce a favour to Sharif, Munir: Trump repeats mediation claims
Senjo M R, May 16, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Friday said that the 'ceasefire' that he got done between India and Pakistan was a favour to their army chief Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
Trump, in his gaggle with reporters on Air Force One En Route Anchorage, said that the ceasefires he has done until now was at the behest of other nations.
"We really did the ceasefire at the request of other nations. I wouldn't have really been in favour of it, but we did it as a favour to Pakistan--terrific people, the Field Marshal and the Prime Minister," he said.
Munir's latest claims that India approached the United States for a ceasefire appear at odds with American lobbying disclosures showing Islamabad mounted an intense diplomatic and defence-linked outreach in Washington after India launched Operation Sindoor.
.....
Gautam

[drnayar]

https://www.marineinsight.com/iran-anno ... -its-navy/


U.S Plans To Deploy Warships In Bangladesh, Closer To India & China


The United States and Bangladesh are signing defence agreements, which will allow America to deploy its naval warships in the Bay of Bengal.

This deal will give U.S Navy ships direct access to Dhaka’s ports and airports for maintenance, refuelling, and resupply operations and ports like Chittagong and Matarbari are expected to play a crucial role.

[Manish_Sharma]

https://x.com/TheNavroopSingh/status/20 ... 58499?s=20

Macro headwinds for India:
(Updated with Data in the Blog)

"India structurally runs a Current Account Deficit (CAD), primarily driven by heavy imports of crude oil, gold, and edible oils, which together accounted for over $240 billion or about 31% of the total import bill of $775 billion in FY26. Crude petroleum alone contributed $134.7 billion, gold a record $72 billion, and edible oils around $19.5 billion.

Historically, this deficit has been financed by a robust Capital Account surplus from FDI and FPI inflows. However, early 2026 data revealed a critical shift amid global geoeconomic headwinds, including U.S. tariffs, West Asia tensions pushing oil prices above $100 per barrel, and risk-off sentiment.

In Q3 FY26 (Oct-Dec 2025), India’s CAD widened to $13.2 billion(1.3% of GDP) from $11.3 billion (1.1% of GDP) a year earlier, mainly due to a merchandise trade deficit expanding to $93.6 billion.

This, combined with capital account pressures from massive FPI outflows (exceeding ₹1.9-2 lakh crore in early 2026), dragged the overall Balance of Payments into a $24.4 billion deficit. Cumulative CAD for April-Dec stood at $30.1 billion (1% of GDP).

Thus heavy FII outflows over ₹2 lakh crore from equities in early 2026 plus significant G-Sec selling (e.g., $1+ billion in debt in April) have driven the 10-year Government Security yield from ~6.66% in late February to 7.0–7.1% range in April-May 2026.

This selling, triggered by global factors like higher US yields, strong dollar, geopolitical factors and rupee weakness, increases bond supply pressure amid record government borrowing.

Higher yields raise the cost of debt renewal for the government’s massive maturing liabilities. Interest payments are budgeted at ₹14.04 lakh crore for FY27 (up ~10% YoY, ~40% of revenue receipts)

When foreign capital fails to cover the import bill, the fallout is immediate: the Rupee faces severe depreciation, hitting record lows near ₹95-96 per USD. The RBI burns through forex reserves down by $24.4 billion in Q3 alone from peaks around $728 billion to stabilize the currency.

Unable to print dollars, policymakers must compress the CAD via demand-destruction measures, including hiking gold import duties to 15% in May 2026 (from ~6%), restricting edible oil imports, promoting Work From Home to cut transport fuel use, and urging reduced non-essential consumption.

These interventions suppress slowing domestic growth, productivity & output, and risking a vicious cycle of weaker sentiment, leading to further capital outflows by foreign investors, and deeper external imbalances.

While services exports and remittances provide buffers but even remittances are likely to bit amid global economic slowdown, with sustained high oil prices during to conflict and volatile capital flows underscore the need for structural reforms to reduce import dependence and build resilience.

For an emerging economy like India where capital is the absolute scarcest and most vital resource for developmental progress, one would expect a tight grip on domestic investments.

Yet, an ironic and troubling trend is unfolding where Indian conglomerates are pouring billions of dollars into the United States to get into the good books of the Trump Administration, starting a new trend since the era of globalisation since 1991 when India use to invite heavy capital investment into its growing economy.

To critical observers, this dynamic reveals a stark reality where the U.S. is effectively utilizing India as an economic blood bag a host from which to siphon resources to rejuvenate its own industrial base."

[S_Madhukar]

https://www.marineinsight.com/iran-anno ... -its-navy/


U.S Plans To Deploy Warships In Bangladesh, Closer To India & China


The United States and Bangladesh are signing defence agreements, which will allow America to deploy its naval warships in the Bay of Bengal.

This deal will give U.S Navy ships direct access to Dhaka’s ports and airports for maintenance, refuelling, and resupply operations and ports like Chittagong and Matarbari are expected to play a crucial role.

US can feed the Kanglas and even get them immigration to US since climate change makes them vulnerable. Ofc one never knows what microbes might latch on to the boats.
A detente with the lizards means they are coming for us now

[drnayar]

https://www.marineinsight.com/iran-anno ... -its-navy/


U.S Plans To Deploy Warships In Bangladesh, Closer To India & China


The United States and Bangladesh are signing defence agreements, which will allow America to deploy its naval warships in the Bay of Bengal.

This deal will give U.S Navy ships direct access to Dhaka’s ports and airports for maintenance, refuelling, and resupply operations and ports like Chittagong and Matarbari are expected to play a crucial role.

US can feed the Kanglas and even get them immigration to US since climate change makes them vulnerable. Ofc one never knows what microbes might latch on to the boats.
A detente with the lizards means they are coming for us now

By prolonging the Iran war , America is indirectly attacking and bleeding Bharat and other Asian economies .. no doubt about this .. all the while keeping primacy of USD intact under threat of sanctions and tariffs they also have simultaneously insulated themselves !

Beggars belief that America cannot the end the war they started in the first place !!

[Tanaji]

https://www.marineinsight.com/iran-anno ... -its-navy/


U.S Plans To Deploy Warships In Bangladesh, Closer To India & China


The United States and Bangladesh are signing defence agreements, which will allow America to deploy its naval warships in the Bay of Bengal.

This deal will give U.S Navy ships direct access to Dhaka’s ports and airports for maintenance, refuelling, and resupply operations and ports like Chittagong and Matarbari are expected to play a crucial role.

Are these materially different than the CISMOA/LEMOA agreements that we have signed?

[Manish_Sharma]

https://www.business-standard.com/econo ... 871_1.html

India buying Russian oil regardless of US sanctions waivers: Govt official
Sujata Sharma, Joint Secretary in the Petroleum Ministry, said India has been buying Russian oil irrespective of US sanctions waivers

[drnayar]

https://www.marineinsight.com/iran-anno ... -its-navy/


U.S Plans To Deploy Warships In Bangladesh, Closer To India & China


The United States and Bangladesh are signing defence agreements, which will allow America to deploy its naval warships in the Bay of Bengal.

This deal will give U.S Navy ships direct access to Dhaka’s ports and airports for maintenance, refuelling, and resupply operations and ports like Chittagong and Matarbari are expected to play a crucial role.

Are these materially different than the CISMOA/LEMOA agreements that we have signed?

Direct Comparison of Pacts

The table below breaks down how the U.S.–Bangladesh defense agreements correspond to the agreements
signed by India:U.S.–

Bangladesh Agreement. Equivalent Indian Agreement. Material Purpose & Operational Bounds

ACSA (Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement) LEMOA (Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement)Logistics and Resupply: Allows military vessels and aircraft to access ports and airfields for refueling, maintenance, and resupply on a reciprocal basis. It does not establish a permanent military base.( Unless there is a separate un announced one !)

GSOMIA (General Security of Military Information Agreement)CISMOA / COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement)Information Security: Establishes legal protocols to securely share classified intelligence, military data, and encrypted operational communication without a leak to third parties.


While the legal and logistical mechanisms are practically identical, the geopolitical context and execution differ

No Automated Combat Support: Just like India's LEMOA, Bangladesh's ACSA functions on a case-by-case basis. It provides logistical "access" rather than an active military "deployment" or staging ground for conflict. It does not bind Dhaka to U.S. wartime operations.

Economic Linkage: Unlike India's strategic partnerships, Washington has explicitly tied the completion of these defense pacts to trade incentives for Dhaka. In exchange for signing ACSA and GSOMIA, the U.S. is extending a 19% concessional tariff framework on Bangladeshi garment and textile exports.

[Manish_Sharma]

https://x.com/md_deepesh/status/2057069 ... 44557?s=20

America and China are “enemies.”
Wow.
What a script.
Until you realize it is theatre.

Let me tell you what America and China actually are.

America is the brain.
China is the hands.

One entity.
Two bodies.
One master.

America lost its democracy decades ago.
Not to a foreign power.

To its own corporations.

Apple.
BlackRock.
Statestreet.
JP Morgan.
Goldman Sachs.
Meta.
Microsoft.
Google.
Nvidia.

The real cabinet meetings happen in boardrooms.
Not in Washington.

Now ask yourself a dangerous question.

Why did America build its future inside China?

Factories.
Supply chains.
Electronics.
Rare earth processing.
AI hardware.

Because China was never just a country.
It became the perfect operating system for global manufacturing.

No strikes.
No elections.
No inconvenient rights.

1.4 billion exploited workers.
Zero political unpredictability.

Just scale.
Discipline.
Execution.

Nixon opened the door in 1972.
Then Wall Street walked in.
And never walked out.

So, when Trump landed in Beijing with CEOs surrounding him…

You were not watching diplomacy.
You were watching management visiting infrastructure.
The board inspecting the factory floor.

Notice something else.
China attacks American media.
China attacks American policy.

But Trump?
Rarely directly.

Why?
Because this game is bigger than politicians.

Much bigger.

This summit was never about tariffs.
Or Taiwan.
Or Iran.

It was about the next operating system of civilization.
AI.
Surveillance.
Digital identity.
Algorithmic governance.
America builds the software.
China builds the hardware.

The rest of the world becomes the user.
Consent optional.

Nvidia.
xAI
OpenAI.
Meta.
Microsoft.

These are no longer tech companies.
They are becoming architects of behavioral infrastructure.

A system where your habits become data.
Your data becomes prediction.
And prediction becomes control.

Will this alliance survive?
Or collapse under its own ambition?

That…

is the darker chapter.

And most people still think this is only a trade war.

Will continue in Upcoming posts.

[Manish_Sharma]

5 jets down 7 jets down 11 jets down...

ab kya hua

https://x.com/araghchi/status/2056843793458979009?s=20

Months after initiation of war on Iran, US Congress acknowledges loss of dozens of aircraft worth billions.

Our powerful Armed Forces are confirmed as 1st to strike down a touted F-35. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlRQTZN ... eRefresh=1 )

With lessons learned and knowledge we gained, return to war will feature many more surprises.

[uddu]

5 jets down 7 jets down 11 jets down...

ab kya hua

https://x.com/araghchi/status/2056843793458979009?s=20

Months after initiation of war on Iran, US Congress acknowledges loss of dozens of aircraft worth billions.

Our powerful Armed Forces are confirmed as 1st to strike down a touted F-35. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlRQTZN ... eRefresh=1 )

With lessons learned and knowledge we gained, return to war will feature many more surprises.

72 is not that far away.
US Lost 42 Aircraft, Including Fighter Jets, MQ-9 Reaper Drones In Iran War: Report
https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/u ... war-report

MQ-9 performed badly. Got Squatted like flies in Iran and we are buying it againt better armed adversaries like Pakistan and China. What chance has this expensive slow moving drones stand other than public money wasted?
Govt must get more number of Tapas and Rustom and forget about unnecessary expensive purchases and still save public money.

[bala]

I don't know why India bought the Apache Helo. One of them got stuck on the himalayan heights and had to be disassembled and brought back. MQ-9 reaper drones are sitting ducks and anyone can take them out.

[stephen]

I don't know why India bought the Apache Helo. One of them got stuck on the himalayan heights and had to be disassembled and brought back. MQ-9 reaper drones are sitting ducks and anyone can take them out.

They may be expensive, just like the slow moving AWACS/AEWS and our Poseidons, but they would not be expected nor would our armed forces send them to active battlefields. They will be used to patrol far off in the periphery. The US would rather the MQ-9s took the hit than lose one of their planes. We would not be taking the same risk with our MQ-9s. But yeah, in times of peace the MQ-9s would definitely be useful to patrol our vast ocean and the seas and would be a force multiplier to our poseidon's, same goes for the one's going to the IAF.

[williams]

I don't know why India bought the Apache Helo. One of them got stuck on the himalayan heights and had to be disassembled and brought back. MQ-9 reaper drones are sitting ducks and anyone can take them out.

10 ton Apache is never meant for the Himalayan mountains. The original plan was to use it in the western desert region. However the Chinese conflict forced the use of them in the Himalayas. I guess it is all about the Longbow fire control radar and hell fire missiles.

[Manish_P]

...
10 ton Apache is never meant for the Himalayan mountains. The original plan was to use it in the western desert region.
...

+1. All weapon systems are optimized for some roles/conditions and have performance restrictions in others. There is no 'all round super' weapon.

Given our vast and varied terrain and climate conditions we simply need various types, optimized for each role/region.

Light, medium, heavy fighter aircraft and Helis. Light, medium, heavy tanks. MALE, HALE, drones..... list goes on.

[Manish_Sharma]

https://x.com/TheNavroopSingh/status/20 ... 15185?s=20

Let it be stated clear, don’t be fooled by America backed Think Tanks and strategic experts. America is no more interested in any privilege partnership with India. This is the era of transactional diplomacy, the era of bi-partisan consensus is broken and over.

These experts will sing peans, write flowery opeds on Secretary Rubio’s visit and how Viceroy Gor is working to repair the relationship. There is no repair going on and these so called experts wont tell you that America is looking for ‘America First’ in deals with India ! And America First is not India First !

From courting the Billionaires for investments in USA, to visiting the Missionaries in Kolkata, to backing Pakistan regionally & to make India a captive buyer of US Oil & Gas forwarding the profits of Big Oil investments in Venezuela.

This is what America brings to table - transactional diplomacy, extractive trade terms, threats of 301 investigations, Russian Oil tariffs, Predatory Economics, delaying defence projects, doing coups & coloured revolutions in India’s neighbourhood, bailouts to Pakistan.

From which point of view does this look like strategic partnership to you. An Ornamental Quad summit is a joke given what US has done to India economically and strategically.

Even Telegraph, UK knows it but these so called American experts will continue their ball by ball commentary of Secretary Rubio arriving on India Tour.

Dont be under any delusions what Rubio & Gor sell you, they are just salesman for Corporate America & selected lobbies represented through the White House !

https://x.com/TheNavroopSingh/status/20 ... 93700?s=20

Rubio is coming here primarily as salesman of Big Oil & its investment in Venezuela to make India their captive buyer of US energy.

While forwarding Evanglical agenda of the Trump base. Quad summit is just a side show and Trump is really not interested in it.

https://x.com/TheNavroopSingh/status/20 ... 06597?s=20

Its about stopping the Delhi Loop with Russia for Russian Oil in non Dollar trade settlement. Rubio is saying dump BRICS payment settlement system and come join us ! Become a vassal to USA. Take our expensive energy in Dollar & waste ur foreign exchange so that a BOP crisis can be engineered for protests ! Be a good slave else we will screw you !

[Manish_Sharma]

https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2057 ... 56278?s=20

Another fascinating article by my friend @kejimao
, who remains one of the most thought-provoking geopolitical scholars in China: https://thewire.in/diplomacy/chess-piec ... -for-india

He tackles an apparent contradiction that I know many people are struggling with: if there is indeed some form of detente between the U.S. and China, why then is the U.S. still selling the "China threat" narrative to countries like India, Japan, and South Korea?

Mao's thesis: the U.S. now understands it cannot contain or suppress China anymore - that game is over. But the narrative remains enormously profitable. Keeping allies scared means keeping them buying US weapons, US energy, US technology. The China threat has gone from strategic doctrine to market preservation, or - as Mao puts it - from treating "allies" as "chess pieces" to treating them as "blood bags" (as in the medical bags you drain until it's empty and then discard).

Mao, being an India specialist and writing in an Indian paper, warns India it is particularly vulnerable to this because whatever leverage India once had over Washington has largely evaporated. The U.S. needed India when it believed it could contain China. It no longer believes that - which means India has gone from being courted to being invoiced.

There is, interestingly, a parallel to this around green energy that I myself highlighted in several of my articles (such as this one in Le Monde Diplomatique last December: https://mondediplo.com/2025/12/10china).

Trump's anti-renewable rhetoric - "drill, baby, drill," calling green energy a "hoax" - functions exactly like this: it's not really about energy policy at home (renewables made up an extraordinary 88% of new US power generating capacity in 2025: https://electrek.co/2026/04/01/ferc-ren ... y-in-2025/), it's about keeping others dependent on US fossil fuels.

In essence, as things stand, neither the "China threat" nor the "green energy hoax" are operative strategies. They're sales pitches. The U.S. doesn't act on either one - it installs renewables at home and pursues détente with Beijing. The narratives exist for the purpose of keeping invoices flowing to countries foolish enough to drink the Kool-Aid.

https://thewire.in/diplomacy/chess-piec ... -for-india

'Chess Piece’ to ‘Blood Bag’? What Trump-Xi Summit Could Spell for India
Keji Mao
20/May/2026
What India needs to do is not to reinvent the wheel, but return to the core concept of its founding tradition – strategic autonomy.


To understand the real impact of US President Donald Trump’s recent visit to China on India, the key lies in clearly grasping the essence of this visit. In the China-US summit briefing released on the White House website on May 17, the most striking new US official characterisation of bilateral relations is the phrase “constructive strategic and stable China-US relationship”, which fully adopts the Chinese formulation, including the English wording. This strongly suggests that Washington has completed a paradigm-level shift in its foreign strategy, one that could have comprehensive implications for India.
Trump’s visit may signal completion of America’s grand strategic shift

In the decade before Trump’s second term, the underlying logic of the US strategy toward China was rather clear — mobilising its allies, quasi-allies, and partners to jointly contain China, thereby consolidating and maintaining the US dominated global order. Therefore, whether it was the Obama-era “pivot to Asia”, Trump’s first-term “Indo-Pacific strategy”, or the Biden administration’s “small yard, high fence”, they were all essentially different versions of this same logic.

Under this framework, India was seen as a key piece to counterbalance China. To a large extent, the US changing its policy slogan from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific” was precisely to highlight India’s pillar role. The essence of this US arrangement is the “chess piece model”, meaning the US provides allies and partners with security commitments, technical support, market access, and even cash incentives in exchange for their geopolitical cooperation, or even obedience. From the junior partner’s perspective, this means that as long as they assume the role assigned by the US, they can obtain all-round US support and guarantees, band-wagoning to gain the upper hand over China.

However, the premises supporting this “chess piece model” up to now have become difficult to sustain. In Trump’s second term, the costs of multiple rounds of trade wars with China, chip blockades, and maritime restrictions are laid out before the White House – rare earth product supply disruptions, collapse of agricultural exports, and technology ban against China even accelerating the latter’s breakthroughs in key areas. Facing this situation, the US easily concludes that pushing China so harsh is such a bad deal that costs way more than it gains, and it would be better to find a balance point for coexistence with China.

It was against this backdrop, that the US has naturally lost interests in investing in and supporting the regional “chess pieces”. Trump’s visit to China is a reconfirmation of this major change. During the visit, what China and the US reached was not a breakthrough-style thaw, but a framework consensus of “maintaining stability amid competition.” This precisely indicates that the US has completed its shift, with its diplomatic strategic focus changing from “how to mobilise junior partners to confront China” to “how to maximise gains while stabilising China”.

In this context, the “blood bag model” has become the policy choice of the Trump administration – since it cannot profit by confronting China, it now turns to maximise the utilisation of the junior partners, exploiting their anxiety toward China. The US wants to convert the relations to makes them continuously dependent and pay a high premium for that dependence.

The “chess piece model” and the “blood bag model” have a fundamental difference: in the former, allies are still chess pieces with partial autonomy, while in the latter, they are merely repeatedly exploited and discarded after use. Only by understanding this distinction can one decipher the seemingly contradictory phenomena in the current and future international landscape: China and the US continuously release signals of détente on the surface, but the US keeps escalating its security rhetoric when it comes to one-on-one conversation toward its junior partner.

There is a clear logic behind this. If China is no longer portrayed as a terrifying threat, the junior partners lose their source of anxiety, and the US loses the pretext to “bleed” its allies. At the same time, the US is not willing have an open confrontation vis-à-vis China, because it is simply unwilling to bear the high costs that confrontation inevitably entail. The US’s optimal solution is to maintain a “tense but not out of control” relationship with China, exploiting allies’ sense of threat as a leverage to harvest protection fees. This point is actually the key to understanding the direction of the entire US foreign policy after Trump’s visit to China.
The real risks facing India

Once the US foreign strategy paradigm shifts, the main risks facing India change accordingly. Viewing China as India’s greatest external threat is rather common practice in India. But as long as one looks at where India’s external shocks and pressures have actually come from in recent years, it is not difficult to see that the view of “treating China as the biggest enemy” either stems from lack of strategic imagination or is blinded by deliberately created illusions – this misleading cognition locks India’s attention on hypothetical threats, but allows a greater and more real threat to repeatedly exact costs from India.

So what is the real threat facing India? It is the quadruple shocks that the US exerts on India under the “blood bag model”.

The first shock is about energy. The most visible case concerns the recent episode around Iran. The Trump administration, knowing full well their military strikes on Iran might lead to the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, never considered the impact on India – 90% of India’s liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), more than half of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) and its crude oil depends on this waterway. During the escalation of the conflict, the Trump administration also keep strengthening sanctions on Iran, forcing India to abandon discounted Iranian crude oil.

Even more interestingly, although Trump often boasts his personal relations with Putin, when it comes to India’s purchase of Russian oil, he turns unprecedentedly tough, not only linking India’s purchase to secondary sanctions, but even imposing a 25% punitive tariff. Such operation seems contradictory, but the underlying logic is rather simple and coherent – no matter how the Iran conflict turns out, and no matter whether Russia and the US reconcile, what matters is forcing countries like India, which are unprepared, to buy overpriced US oil and gas.

While India suffers in the inflation caused by higher import bills, US energy business become the biggest winners. This looks like an energy crisis spilling over from geopolitical conflict, but in essence, it is a dependence crisis manufactured by the US.

The second shock is about arms sales. Often, even if many US geostrategic maneuvers were not directed against India, they catalysed a series of regional conflicts, forcing India into the loop of “security anxiety-arms procurement”. Whether it is the “Indo-Pacific strategy” which lured India into confronting China in the Himalaya frontier, or in South Asian regional conflicts, using India’s trust in the US to play between India and Pakistan, none deviate from this logic.

After each crisis escalates, the US with the arms dealers behind it immediately use “deteriorating regional situation” as a leverage to sell India overpriced arms such as the F-35. In other words, the US approaches India as a partner, while deliberately amplifying India’s security anxiety, then peddling the antidote to “relieve” the anxiety. In other words, it is the US who set the fire, sold the fire extinguisher, give the price, and then the ones who buy the extinguisher still have to say “thank you”.

The third shock concerns technological squeeze. This is actually heavier and deeper than the previous two, and also much more difficult to solve. The SWIFT network, artificial intelligence computing power, cloud services, semiconductor and underlying operating systems – India has little to no technological backup in all above areas. For a long time, the US has been continuously siphoning talents from India, causing a semi-permanent brain drain there, but has never wanted India to develop local technological and industrial capabilities.

For example, India’s growing industry of Global Capability Centers (GCCs), due to its potential damage to the white-collar job creation in the US, is likely to become a major target in the near future. This line of policy logic to contain India’s advanced service industrial has already been tellingly demonstrated in the Trump’s H-1B policy. It is not difficult to imagine that once the US “blood bag model” is fully activated, India may be even more vulnerable to various “secondary sanctions”, “data compliance”, and “security reviews” that can be potentially imposed from the US side.

The fourth shock is about capital extraction. Even more alarming is that the US is forcing and luring India into making huge US-bound investment commitments. Of course, India is not the only “blood bag” under pressure – Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all unlikely to be spared either. However, the key difference is that, compared to economies that have already fully industrialised and own surplus capital domestically, India is still in the early stage of economic take-off and its domestic capital scarce and precious. So, every penny drained from India comes at a much higher opportunity cost than for other blood bags, and thus may inflict much greater damage.

As a country that is more strategically independent, India should have been better able to resist US pressure. The problem is that many interest groups in India are already highly tied to the US. Once under pressure, these groups’ interests tend to align more with the US than with India. Why, when India has already been in a serious balance-of-payment crisis, are many Indian riches still investing overseas massively? Because converting rupee assets into dollars to evade the local currency depreciation best serves their interests, along with those of the US.

Putting these four shocks together, it is not hard to detect the reoccurring spirit behind: the US does not need, and does not care about, India’s basic interests. The US not only gives no regard to India’s security environment, energy supply disruptions, technological deficit, and capital flight, but has the very reason to aggravate and exploit them. This may be the biggest difference between the “chess piece model” and the “blood bag model” – chess pieces still need to be kept in functioning conditions, while blood bags are often used and then discarded.
India’s realistic choice: Identify the real threat

The very first step to mitigate the mounting risks is not to rush into policy choices, but a more fundamental recognitive rerouting –identifying who the true antagonist is. Over the past decade or so, India’s strategic discourse has built around an oversimplified binary narrative: China is a threat, and whatever it does to India carries negative connotation, while the US is a partner and its actions are more conducive to India. This narrative moves smooth emotionally, but in fact it may be exactly the opposite.

As long as one returns to the data-based reality, who helps and who exploits India becomes clear. For example, in recent years, India’s consumer electronics industry has made tremendous progress, becoming the poster child of the ‘Make in India’ initiative. It also has become one of the few industries capable of earning additional foreign exchange for India. As a matter of fact, the rise of India’s consumer electronics has been built on China’s capital, technology, talent, and, of course, its stable supply of components and parts. However, if one is blinded by the “binary narrative”, it is very likely to overlook China’s vital and formative contributions to India’s industrial rise, only preoccupying with the trade deficit, which has only been seen as the proof of Chinese exploitation.

The very same logic applies to active pharmaceutical ingredients, photovoltaic components, and home appliance parts, It is unfortunate that many in India not only fail to feel the tremendous Chinese push, but blindly follow the script written by the US, constantly repeating the clichés of “trade deficit” and “dependence risks”.

Think about it: why doesn’t Vietnam complain about the “China deficit” like many in India, and why doesn’t Mexico complain about “dependence risks”?

By contrast, the supposedly friendly interaction between the US and India has ultimately materialised into overpriced fossil energy, expensive weapons systems, perennial brain drain, and the constant threat of tariff penalties, immigration restrictions, outsourcing controls, and even verbal insults. On one side is China, which provides building blocks for India’s industrialisation with minimal political conditions attached; on the other is the US, which tried every means to harvest India like a “blood bag”.

However, many in India may find it difficult to accept this conclusion. Doing so would require them to acknowledge that an entire generation has been fundamentally mistaken in its strategic orientation. The psychological cost of such an admission is high, and it may be the primary reason why genuine introspection has been so limited in India’s strategic community. But, the cold realities of international politics never reward psychological comfort – they only reward strategic clarity. Avoiding the introspection will not make the challenge disappear; it will only make the challenge return to the table in a more cruel way.

In fact, what India needs to do is not to reinvent the wheel, but return to the core concept of its founding tradition – strategic autonomy. Strategic autonomy is not strategic laziness that requires compromise on everything, nor is it an egalitarianist treatment towards the powers, but a thorough clarity based on national interests, not blinded by any preconceived notions, and after accurately recognising gains and losses, making the best choices without being bound by any side.

First of all, clearly recognising the danger of the US under the “blood bag model”. This does not mean confronting the US, but maintaining necessary security distance from the US, especially after it shifts from the “chess piece model”. This requires India to stop treating its “special relationship with the United States” as the default premise and starting point for decision-making. Instead, it must establish “firewalls” in key areas – such as industrial development, diplomatic strategy, arms procurement, energy imports, and financial infrastructure – to protect itself from potential US interference. Only then can India move out of Washington’s line of fire. After all, at the policy level, strategic autonomy fundamentally means having the ability to remain free from harm and coercion.

Second, developing a more solid base for Sino-Indian cooperation. China will not provide India with security guarantees, nor will it demand strategic obedience in return. What China can offer are practical, measurable benefits, including the world’s most cost-effective solutions for industrialisation, reliable infrastructure capabilities, access to a vast market, and investment without political strings attached. Naturally, these benefits will not come for free. In exchange, India needs to provide a clear, transparent business environment supported by credible political assurances. While this is only the most basic requirement for economic and trade relations, it has often not been adequately met in the past, leaving considerable room for improvement.

Third, activating multilateral platforms such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the G20. In the short term, these platforms cannot challenge the dollar system or the Western-dominated international order. Their real value lies in providing India with credible alternatives. Regrettably, for many years India has often positioned itself as a “China opponent” in these non-Western forums, sometimes even taking satisfaction in demonstrating its distinctiveness to the West. This approach now appears counterproductive. After all, when India faces U.S. pressure, the absence of effective cooperation with China leaves it without real alternative options. The existence of an exit option is often more important than whether it is actually used.
Conclusion

Trump’s visit to China is a mirror. What it reflects is not merely a specific adjustment in China-U.S. relations, but a paradigm-level shift in America’s foreign strategy. For India, the old map can no longer chart the path to new horizons.

Continuing to rely on “chess piece model” thinking – calculating how to profit from China-US confrontation or how to extract more commitments from Washington – will only exacerbate India’s hemorrhaging under the new paradigm.

True strategic clarity means acknowledging the real dangers of the existing dependent system, identifying the true antagonist, and rebuilding a set of policy choices that match reality, guided by national interests rather than emotions and narratives. This path is difficult, but the cost of avoiding it is greater.

Keji Mao is an analyst at the International Cooperation Center, the founder of the South Asia Research Brief, and visiting fellow at the Harvard-Yenching Institute.

[S_Madhukar]

Why are we posting from Mao a CCP shrill? The stuff he says CCP will never do is exactly what they will do . He must think we are muppets

[Jay]

What India needs to do is not to reinvent the wheel, but return to the core concept of its founding tradition – strategic autonomy.

In a world where we have so many of our strategic interests, needs, and aspirations are not bound by national boundaries, why is it not better to practice strategic support, instead of strategic autonomy? Maybe it's a question for strategic thoughts thread.

[A_Gupta]

Trump's anti-renewable rhetoric - "drill, baby, drill," calling green energy a "hoax" - functions exactly like this: it's not really about energy policy at home (renewables made up an extraordinary 88% of new US power generating capacity in 2025

Just FYI, Trump is paying companies to end their green energy installation projects; what was installed in 2025 was momentum from the Biden years.

Using AI to work around paywalls:

After the administration's initial executive orders attempting to block offshore wind were struck down by federal courts, the Department of the Interior shifted strategy. Instead of regulatory bans, the administration began offering massive taxpayer-funded payouts—essentially lease refunds—to energy developers in exchange for them permanently abandoning their clean energy projects and agreeing not to pursue new ones in the U.S.

Also:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... y-progress

“ The undaunted pace of the renewables rollout comes as the Trump administration’s attempts to stymie the industry have floundered in court.

Last week, a federal court in Massachusetts blocked a slew of Trump’s anti-renewables actions, such as barring solar and wind projects on federal land. This follows the resumption of five major offshore wind farms, a form of energy the president has long reviled as “ugly”, that the administration had ordered to halt.”

—-
Trump’s war against renewables is real.

[A_Gupta]

In the China-US summit briefing released on the White House website on May 17, the most striking new US official characterisation of bilateral relations is the phrase “constructive strategic and stable China-US relationship”, which fully adopts the Chinese formulation, including the English wording.

Yes, this is significant.

“ Until now, the phrase "strategic stability" was strictly reserved in U.S. diplomatic parlance for nuclear arms control, typically used in dialogues with Russia (and narrowly with China) regarding nuclear arsenals, deterrence, and preventing accidental atomic war.”

[Amber G.]

Per WSJ - Tulsi Gabbard Is Preparing to Resign as U.S. Intelligence Chief--
Outspoken critic of foreign interventions had largely been sidelined from Trump’s national-security team.

[A_Gupta]

The “chess piece model” and the “blood bag model” have a fundamental difference: in the former, allies are still chess pieces with partial autonomy, while in the latter, they are merely repeatedly exploited and discarded after use.

Trump has been following the “blood bag” model well before this China summit. It is the cornerstone of his foreign policy. It is not new after the summit with China.

[A_Gupta]

If China is no longer portrayed as a terrifying threat, the junior partners lose their source of anxiety.

This is, to put it politely, bullshit.

India, the Philippines, Japan etc., do not lose their concerns about China simply because the US does not portray China as a terrifying threat.

In fact, Japan writing pacifism out of its Constitution and proceeding to rearm is a consequence of the US waffling on the threat posed by China. There is an ongoing diplomatic row after Japan said that a takeover of Taiwan is an existential threat to Japan.

[A_Gupta]

Why are we posting from Mao a CCP shrill? The stuff he says CCP will never do is exactly what they will do . He must think we are muppets

To understand how they think?

[A_Gupta]

The Trump administration, knowing full well their military strikes on Iran might lead to the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, never considered the impact on India – 90% of India’s liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), more than half of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) and its crude oil depends on this waterway. During the escalation of the conflict, the Trump administration also keep strengthening sanctions on Iran, forcing India to abandon discounted Iranian crude oil.

All indications are that Trump and Netanyahu expected regime change in Iran after the first few days of their war, and disregarded what the military strategists told them about potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

So I do not see this as a valid point.

[A_Gupta]

After each crisis escalates, the US with the arms dealers behind it immediately use “deteriorating regional situation” as a leverage to sell India overpriced arms such as the F-35. In other words, the US approaches India as a partner, while deliberately amplifying India’s security anxiety, then peddling the antidote to “relieve” the anxiety. In other words, it is the US who set the fire, sold the fire extinguisher, give the price, and then the ones who buy the extinguisher still have to say “thank you”.

1. Contradicts the premise of the blood bag model. If the US ceases to portray China as a terrifying threat how does it help with arms sales?

2. There always has been the issue of US restrictions on the use of the weapons it sells.

[A_Gupta]

Think about it: why doesn’t Vietnam complain about the “China deficit” like many in India

“The core reason Vietnam doesn't complain about its China deficit is that it doesn't primarily import consumer goods from China. Instead, it imports intermediate goods—raw materials, machinery, industrial chemicals, and electronic components.

Vietnam’s manufacturing model relies on importing these Chinese inputs, assembling them using highly competitive domestic labor, and exporting the finished high-value products (like smartphones, electronics, and clothing) to Western markets.”

[Vayutuvan]

Per WSJ - Tulsi Gabbard Is Preparing to Resign as U.S. Intelligence Chief--
Outspoken critic of foreign interventions had largely been sidelined from Trump’s national-security team.

Her husband, Abraham, was diagnosed with a rare form of blood cancer. That is the reason, not because she had been sidelined. She herself X.com-posted the resignation letter.

Facts, facts, facts.

[saip]

So Do Not Invite, now will never be invited.

[bala]

That is the reason, not because

Vayu ji, this forum is under TDS delusions, facts don't matter much for the TDS. Just leaving this link for those who need facts.