Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Australia has more affinity with Europe and Anglosphere - UK, Canada, NZ - than the US. Why would they have cultural affinity to the US? Baseball vs Cricket, Football vs football, American English vs British English, Directly elected of President vs Hereditary HoS, Separate executive and legislative vs unified executive and legislative, two-party system where horsetrading happens within the parties during primaries vs multi party where horsetrading happens after elections, large population vs small population, very fertile land vs huge desert.
But if you really want to know, you can easily look up the basis of the Australian-US relationship (prior to Trump).G'day! This is the official account of the Embassy of Australia in the United States.
The relationship between Australia and the USA is unique in its breadth, depth and length, and is characterised by genuine cultural affinity and a spirit of collaboration.
While the United States remains the global leader in space capabilities, its ecosystem shows fragility. Emerging space powers like Turkey, India, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates have adopted flexible, multi-vector space and defense strategies. These countries provide lessons in adaptability, resilience, and co-development in a multipolar world. They offer potential models that can enrich how Washington approaches capability development and alliance management. It is time for the United States to treat capable mid-tier partners not as challenges to American space primacy, but as co-creators of spacepower’s future.
Perhaps even more problematic is how Washington tends to engage its partners. For decades, American alliance management has often followed a model in which allies are treated more as end-users or purchasers of U.S.-made systems than as equal co-developers of strategic capabilities. This patron-client approach may generate short-term defense sales but discourages indigenous innovation, undermines technological sovereignty among partners, and limits Washington’s ability to foster real capability redundancy across alliances. While the the United States seeks to build coalitions to counter Chinese advances, it risks surrounding itself with technologically dependent allies instead of empowered contributors.
side bar from wiki:Establishing the Turkish Space Agency in 2018 reflected more than symbolic ambition. Within a few years, Turkey advanced national satellite programs such as Türksat 6A, the National Indigenous Earth Observation Satellite, and the Göktürk intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance series while developing early-stage human spaceflight capabilities in collaboration with Axiom Space. Turkey embedded technology transfer and training into its contracts through these arrangements, ensuring knowledge acquisition alongside operational milestones.
Even more significant is Ankara’s diplomatic strategy. Turkey works with American partners in its space endeavors while actively engaging in non-Western frameworks. It is a member of the China-influenced Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization, pursues regional leadership through the Islamic Space Cooperation Organization and Turkic state collaborations, and has avoided signing the U.S.-led Artemis Accords. This careful balance maximizes learning opportunities and diplomatic flexibility without complete dependence on any one bloc.
back to the article:The Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) is an inter-governmental organization operated as a non-profit independent body with full international legal status.[1][2][3] It is headquartered in Beijing, People's Republic of China.[4][1] Members include agencies from:[5] Bangladesh, China, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand and Turkey.
Its stated objectives include:[9]
To promote and strengthen the development of collaborative space programs among its Member States by establishing the basis for cooperation in peaceful applications of space science and technology.
To take effective actions to assist the Member States in such areas as space technological research and development, applications and training by elaborating and implementing space development policies.
To promote cooperation, joint development, and to share achievements among the Member States in space technology and its applications as well as in space science research by tapping the cooperative potential of the region.
To enhance cooperation among relevant enterprises and institutions of the Member States and to promote the industrialization of space technology and its applications.
To contribute to the peaceful uses of outer space in the international cooperative activities in space technology and its applications.
As of 2010, the organization defined ten projects on designing, building and launching light satellites, middle class satellites weighing 500–600 kg, research satellites, remote-sensing and telecommunications satellites.
India has followed a different, equally instructive path. The Indian Space Research Organisation has delivered impressive capabilities on modest budgets, achieving lunar landings, conducting Mars missions, and advancing preparations for human spaceflight with remarkable efficiency. Its expanding private sector adds further energy, moving into launch services, satellite production, and small payload delivery. Although India’s strategic partnership with the United States has grown, reflected in expanded NASA collaboration and increasing Artemis dialogue, New Delhi maintains longstanding ties with Russia, France, and others, preserving the flexibility that major powers often require.
South Korea offers another version of this model. It has rapidly expanded space capabilities while remaining deeply integrated within the U.S. alliance system. Its KSLV-II launch vehicle, substantial defense conglomerates, and growing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and missile defense projects demonstrate how industrialized allies can contribute meaningfully. While several middle powers have the potential to become co-producers of strategic capability, U.S. policy has not always supported this path. In some cases, such as South Korea’s space launch ambitions, citing security concerns, Washington actively slowed indigenous development — particularly regarding missile proliferation risks on the Korean Peninsula. As a result, South Korea relied on Russian technology for the KSLV-I space launcher’s main stages after U.S. restrictions on technology transfer. Long-standing missile range limitations under U.S.-South Korea bilateral missile guidelines and the Missile Technology Control Regime further constrained its program. Seoul’s participation in joint development and research partnerships with the United States shows how cooperation can evolve beyond the conventional buyer-seller relationship.
The United Arab Emirates demonstrates a different form of strategic agility. Using financial strength and diplomatic finesse, the Emiratis have built partnerships across the United States, Japan, Russia, and China. Its Hope Mars mission, the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre astronaut program, and involvement in the Artemis Accords illustrate how smaller states can become influential players in what was once a superpower domain.
What distinguishes these emerging actors is not the scale of their capabilities but the structure of their national ecosystems. Their approaches combine multi-vector diplomacy, agile partnerships across public and private sectors, and a strong emphasis on developing sovereign technological expertise and institutional know-how. They do not aim to replace the United States, but to ensure that no single dependency defines their space ambitions. While Washington continues to approach alliance management primarily through arms sales and access agreements, these smaller powers show a different, arguably more resilient, way to build capability.
Additionally, empowering regional actors through joint research and development initiatives, multi-party mission planning, and shared industrial frameworks can build long-term resilience. A useful example is the NASA–JAXA Lunar Gateway partnership, which combines co-development, equitable technology access, and joint mission planning. Treating capable allies as equals in design, not just deployment, is the next step in creating a truly multipolar spacepower architecture.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned on Wednesday that countries such as Brazil, China and India could be hit very hard by secondary sanctions if they continued to do business with Russia.
Rutte made the comment while meeting with senators in the U.S. Congress the day after President Donald Trump announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened "biting" secondary tariffs of 100% on the buyers of Russian exports unless there is a peace deal in 50 days.
"My encouragement to these three countries, particularly is, if you live now in Beijing, or in Delhi, or you are the president of Brazil, you might want to take a look into this, because this might hit you very hard," Rutte told reporters, who met with Trump on Monday and agreed the new steps.
"So please make the phone call to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he has to get serious about peace talks, because otherwise this will slam back on Brazil, on India and on China in a massive way," Rutte added.
author is a paid toorki troll and the article is basically astroturfing their SUARCO level "space" program. In what universe is the Indian space program anywhere in the same level as the other 3.ricky_v wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 12:06 https://warontherocks.com/2025/07/the-f ... lar-world/
While the United States remains the global leader in space capabilities, its ecosystem shows fragility. Emerging space powers like Turkey, India, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates have adopted flexible, multi-vector space and defense strategies. These countries provide lessons in adaptability, resilience, and co-development in a multipolar world. They offer potential models that can enrich how Washington approaches capability development and alliance management. It is time for the United States to treat capable mid-tier partners not as challenges to American space primacy, but as co-creators of spacepower’s future.
Perhaps even more problematic is how Washington tends to engage its partners. For decades, American alliance management has often followed a model in which allies are treated more as end-users or purchasers of U.S.-made systems than as equal co-developers of strategic capabilities. This patron-client approach may generate short-term defense sales but discourages indigenous innovation, undermines technological sovereignty among partners, and limits Washington’s ability to foster real capability redundancy across alliances. While the the United States seeks to build coalitions to counter Chinese advances, it risks surrounding itself with technologically dependent allies instead of empowered contributors.
how much tariffs is EU getting from US?A_Gupta wrote: ↑16 Jul 2025 17:45 Rutte is merely echoing Trump.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nato-says-br ... p_catchallWASHINGTON (Reuters) -NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned on Wednesday that countries such as Brazil, China and India could be hit very hard by secondary sanctions if they continued to do business with Russia.
Rutte made the comment while meeting with senators in the U.S. Congress the day after President Donald Trump announced new weapons for Ukraine and threatened "biting" secondary tariffs of 100% on the buyers of Russian exports unless there is a peace deal in 50 days.
"My encouragement to these three countries, particularly is, if you live now in Beijing, or in Delhi, or you are the president of Brazil, you might want to take a look into this, because this might hit you very hard," Rutte told reporters, who met with Trump on Monday and agreed the new steps.
"So please make the phone call to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he has to get serious about peace talks, because otherwise this will slam back on Brazil, on India and on China in a massive way," Rutte added.
this misunderstanding, willful or not, will fuel the the western lens on india's power matrix for some time, the assertion is that india could not become the sole power in the subcontinent because china supplied military goods and services to pakistan, and india does not have the strength or capacity to counter this, so it has agreed to genial relationship with china, and by extension russia; many actions from the western bow can flow from this erroneous assertionIndia’s motives for reaching a deal with China at this point also must be understood. Although the underlying and long-running geopolitical rivalry with China persists, India cannot engage China as an open adversary. As a recent paper from Chatham House observes, India is neither and will not be a Western ally against China anytime soon, nor can it confront China at present. There are several reasons for this outcome. First, in 2024, despite prolonged and complex negotiations, the border issue with China was solved. Second, India has always adamantly insisted upon its unquestioned strategic autonomy and will not be an adjunct to other states’ policies. So, while it is associated with the US, Australia, and Japan in the Quad, it is by no means their ally against China. Third, as this report indicates, “India’s dependence on China as a supplier of components and raw materials for its industrial development. That reliance undermines the narrative sometimes advanced by Western policymakers in which India emerges as a beneficiary of the push to de-risk or diversify global supply chains away from China.”
Fourth, China’s unwavering support for Pakistan in the recent crisis between India and Pakistan was crucial in denying India a victory. Meanwhile, Pakistan supports terrorist attacks on India and uses its nuclear shield and Chinese weapons transfers to inhibit a decisive win and prevent India from being the undisputed hegemon on the subcontinent of South Asia. Fifth, the Trump Administration’s erratic policy on tariffs threatens India’s economic growth, undermines any concept of mutual trust with Washington, and erodes the basis of the Indo-American partnership, which is the most Washington can realistically attain.
Indian willingness to accept the status quo on the border and other issues also confirms the correctness of China’s view that India, while a potential threat, cannot compete with China as a great power in Asia and allows it to downplay, if not ignore, Indian claims. i.e, despite the border agreement with India, China is continuing to advance its claims in the territory of Arunachal Pradesh in Northeast India. Thus, having confirmed its apparent victory in talks between Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar and Chairman Xi at the Shanghai Cooperative Organization summit, China greenlighted the Russian proposal to revive this Troika. Thus, China has won a significant diplomatic victory.
According to an analysis by Citigroup, which is based on European Central Bank (ECB) data, European bonds saw nearly 100 billion Euros (US$116.4 billion) of buying from outside the continent in May, the largest amount in more than a decade.
Analysts at Citigroup, which is one of the largest U.S. commercial banks, say the data shows that European assets are benefiting from a move away from . The 100 billion Euros of net inflows into European bonds with maturities longer than one year that was seen in May were the largest on a monthly basis since 2014, says Citigroup.
Code: Select all
Rank Country Exports Imports Total Trade Trade Balance
1. United States 88.02 43.01 130.3 45.01
2 China 16.66 101.75 118.41 -85.09
3 United Arab Emirates 35.63 48.02 83.65 -12.39
4 Russia 4.26 61.43 65.69 -57.17
5 Saudi Arabia 11.56 31.81 43.37 -20.25
6 Singapore 14.41 21.20 35.61 -6.79
7 Iraq 3.35 30.00 33.35 -26.65
8 Indonesia 5.99 23.41 29.40 -17.42
9 Hong Kong 8.24 20.45 28.69 -12.21
10 South Korea 6.42 21.14 27.56 -14.72
11 Netherlands 22.37 4.97 27.34 17.40
12 Germany 9.84 16.27 26.11 -6.43
13 Australia 7.94 16.16 24.10 -8.22
14 Japan 5.16 17.70 22.86 -12.54
15 Switzerland 1.53 21.24 22.77 -19.71
16 United Kingdom 12.92 8.42 21.34 4.50
17 Malaysia 7.26 12.75 20.01 -5.49
18 South Africa 8.71 10.54 19.25 -1.83
19 Belgium 7.84 7.24 15.08 0.60
20 Thailand 5.04 9.91 14.95 -4.87
21 Vietnam 5.47 9.35 14.81 -3.86
22 Italy 8.77 5.80 14.56 2.97
23 Qatar 1.70 12.38 14.08 -10.68
24 France 7.14 6.24 13.38 0.90
25 Bangladesh 11.06 1.84 12.91 9.22
andUnder the UAE-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), more than 80% of goods traded between India and the UAE enjoy reduced or zero tariffs.
Once goods clear customs in the UAE, they can be re-exported with “Emirati origin” certificates, often qualifying for preferential or duty-free access under the UAE’s own network of free trade agreements.
This two-step origination can circumvent high duties or stringent non-tariff barriers that a direct Indian export would face in certain markets.
UAE banks provide trade finance, letters of credit and Islamic finance products attuned to global commodity flows, which can be more accessible than Indian export financing for certain SMEs (small and medium enterprises).
Minimal corporate taxes and streamlined company-registration in free zones encourage Indian trading houses to set up subsidiaries that can invoice in Dirhams, euros or dollars—bypassing volatility in INR transactions.
Re-exporting from the UAE also avoids India’s export-bonus regulations or agricultural export quotas in certain sectors.
A_Gupta wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 20:35 This following is a bit of a rant.
Until very recently, India was basically a means of virtue signaling by the rest of the world's elite. "We've given them aid, lectured them on human rights and democracy, blah blah, and see, they have made some progress because of our efforts despite their backward religion and culture and food habits, etc. etc." Or, "we are advancing the class revolution in India, liberating people, encouraging mutinies against oppression, oppression, oppression, casteism, patriarchy, anti-minorityism, blah, blah, blah". Virtue signal, award yourself to hang certificates on your walls. See how they salaam us, and produce poverty ***** to entertain us. But on the rest, India can be safely ignored."
In what is like a blink of an eye in terms of history, India is now an emerging threat, a disruption to their way of life.
And this rant is because, IMO, they realize the changed situation better than Indians themselves.
What they still control is the information flow via X/Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, Instagram, Telegram, Truth Social, BlueSky.
Now, Indians have successfully wielded these in some overt campaigns, e.g, https://www.indiatoday.in/trending-news ... 2024-03-13
But more insidious are the ones aimed at shaping Indian public opinion. I believe there are active campaigns aimed at shaping Indian opinion in directions that would be detrimental to India's rise. IMO, Indians need to realize that they are in the midst of active information warfare and must guard themselves accordingly. This is not a peacetime information landscape.
this was to be done since I was only son and I should be treating the girl as a sister… She wasn’t a commie or ideological but …!That is why I post stuff in the understanding the US thread about those groups in the US who give succor to INDI alliance and try to portray Modi as the butcher of Gujuraat (second u should pronounced as oo, not a).
A_Gupta wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 20:35 This following is a bit of a rant.
Until very recently, India was basically a means of virtue signaling by the rest of the world's elite. "We've given them aid, lectured them on human rights and democracy, blah blah, and see, they have made some progress because of our efforts despite their backward religion and culture and food habits, etc. etc." Or, "we are advancing the class revolution in India, liberating people, encouraging mutinies against oppression, oppression, oppression, casteism, patriarchy, anti-minorityism, blah, blah, blah". Virtue signal, award yourself to hang certificates on your walls. See how they salaam us, and produce poverty ***** to entertain us. But on the rest, India can be safely ignored."
In what is like a blink of an eye in terms of history, India is now an emerging threat, a disruption to their way of life.
And this rant is because, IMO, they realize the changed situation better than Indians themselves.
Credit should be given to C that they fooled the world this long. We need to learn and understand their tools of geopolitical propaganda and the resilience in sucking up the worlds manufacturing wealth. They have been manipulating holes in various democratic regimes (including India) around the world and have succeeded in deterring the world from taking provocative action against them. For example in 2020 when they escalated in Galwan, we should have taken a more provocative action, but we did not. Same goes with our withdrawal from Kailash range as the starting point of disengagement. Hopefully our strategic brass makes the necessary course correction moving forwardbala wrote: ↑29 Jul 2025 01:37 After Op Sindoor, India has established the quadrilateral tussle between R, C, I and U. Eurotards are really under NATO of U. Of the quadrilateral, U and R are the strongest in terms of military prowess. R now has more experience in actual wars and some say that U is not ready for protracted wars as shown in Ukraine which is mostly defensive posture for U. Russia realized after Op Sindoor I's capability and immediately called for R I C unity against U. The U is worried about such an alliance. R got C backing for Ukraine, but C is not supplying any equipment to R. R deftly poached North Korea (NK) away from C in its Ukraine fight. NK ditched China Beidou and adopted Russian GLONASS system. The US hope of using I against C like a pawn is now on shaky grounds. There is a deep worry within U that I is leapfrogging in the military domain and could with R become invincible. The brahmos has put a fear factor and Akash Teer of India is more effective than Israel's Iron dome. Indian Navy demonstrated who is the boss in Indian Ocean. C has scaled back its belligerence on I and is more circumspect whether it can hold on to Tibet anymore. Phillippines with Brahmos is a huge headache for C. If Vietnam (which has thrashed C once) has brahmos then C will double sweat.
Many people are fooled by C and its military strength. It turns out C is a hollywood facade pretending to be a great power when clearly numbers don't imply military strength. Much of C equipment is a copy of other nations equipment, firstly starting with the Soviet Union and then espionage of U equipment. All C copies are one big rubbish heap that don't work in actual combat situation. Much of their gee whiz eqipment has not been battle tested and also the PLA is ill prepared in using them. The PLA itself has been devasted in top leadership by CCP and is in no mood to fight. In Op Sindoor and Iran bombing, C equipment has been conclusively proven to be bad copies and don't work one bit. In military might, poor equipment means that it would become a turkey shoot in actual warfare and C knows that numbers will become glorified rubbish heaps in war. Once the AD is taken out you are effectively nude like Israel has shown with Iran. C is currently looking at an economic debacle considering the tariff play of U. Things are not that great for C which may resort to some irrational move which could be their unravelling as a nation.
Grok's analysisbala wrote: ↑29 Jul 2025 01:37 After Op Sindoor, India has established the quadrilateral tussle between R, C, I and U. Eurotards are really under NATO of U. Of the quadrilateral, U and R are the strongest in terms of military prowess. R now has more experience in actual wars and some say that U is not ready for protracted wars as shown in Ukraine which is mostly defensive posture for U. Russia realized after Op Sindoor I's capability and immediately called for R I C unity against U. The U is worried about such an alliance. R got C backing for Ukraine, but C is not supplying any equipment to R. R deftly poached North Korea (NK) away from C in its Ukraine fight. NK ditched China Beidou and adopted Russian GLONASS system. The US hope of using I against C like a pawn is now on shaky grounds. There is a deep worry within U that I is leapfrogging in the military domain and could with R become invincible. The brahmos has put a fear factor and Akash Teer of India is more effective than Israel's Iron dome. Indian Navy demonstrated who is the boss in Indian Ocean. C has scaled back its belligerence on I and is more circumspect whether it can hold on to Tibet anymore. Phillippines with Brahmos is a huge headache for C. If Vietnam (which has thrashed C once) has brahmos then C will double sweat.
Many people are fooled by C and its military strength. It turns out C is a hollywood facade pretending to be a great power when clearly numbers don't imply military strength. Much of C equipment is a copy of other nations equipment, firstly starting with the Soviet Union and then espionage of U equipment. All C copies are one big rubbish heap that don't work in actual combat situation. Much of their gee whiz eqipment has not been battle tested and also the PLA is ill prepared in using them. The PLA itself has been devasted in top leadership by CCP and is in no mood to fight. In Op Sindoor and Iran bombing, C equipment has been conclusively proven to be bad copies and don't work one bit. In military might, poor equipment means that it would become a turkey shoot in actual warfare and C knows that numbers will become glorified rubbish heaps in war. Once the AD is taken out you are effectively nude like Israel has shown with Iran. C is currently looking at an economic debacle considering the tariff play of U. Things are not that great for C which may resort to some irrational move which could be their unravelling as a nation.
Wow. That is a very decent analysis. In fact quite impressive. Grok figured out I, C, R, and U as well.vijayk wrote: ↑01 Aug 2025 17:44 Grok's analysis
...
Overall, the narrative captures real shifts (e.g., India's assertiveness, China's vulnerabilities) but exaggerates China's weakness—Beijing remains a formidable player. Future irrationality is possible but not inevitable, as diplomacy (e.g., RIC) offers outlets.
The US Navy has 14 Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs), often referred to as “boomers.”.....Each can carry 20 Trident ballistic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads. Tridents have a range of up to 4,600 miles (7,400 kilometers), meaning they wouldn’t need to move closer to Russia to hit it – in fact, they could do so from the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian or Arctic oceans.
{Guided missile submarines} : Retaining the same overall specs as the boomers, the SSGNs carry Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of the Trident ballistic missiles. Each can carry 154 Tomahawks with a high-explosive warhead of up to 1,000 pounds, and a range of about 1,000 miles.
{Fast attack submarines} - carry torpedos and Tomahawks, i.e, inherently shorter range.
Saar, don't remember clearly. Was a few years before I was barn.A_Gupta wrote: ↑10 Aug 2025 18:26 Does anyone feel a pre-World War I deja vu that the "big" powers determine the borders and economic policies of the "little guys"? Instead of Indian economic policy being determined in London, it is now attempted to be determined in Washington, DC. I would not put it beyond Trump to come to a "solution" of the "Kashmir problem" all on his own, or with Asim Munir by his side.
