Bharat Rakshak

nam wrote:It costed China only 750K to bribe Time magazine to shut their mouth. Quite cheap.

It is not the money with NYT. It is a sarkari rag of record. All the talk about being the Paper of record is self-proclaimed. Yet only two papers' - NYT and WaPo - claims, are not challenged since they have the GOTUS sanction.

nam wrote:Whatever be plan, just like the Chinese, we need to learn to milk the cow. Americans in the deep state hate us? so be it. as long as they are outsourcing billion dollar IT projects to TCS & Infy.

It is a pipe dream. Billion-dollar projects in the US will become $250 million dollar projects in desh. Now that Covid WFH proved to be working out well for Silicon Valley and other folks, they will give projects to be done in India or elsewhere. Vietnam/Philippines/Ireland/Canada/UK (even) come to mind.

Not sure what is a pipe dream. US is the biggest market for Indian IT companies.We have made billions by exporting to US. This is a fact. It was IT & BPO for India and manufacturing for the Chinese.

The difference between India & China is that in IT, it is Indian companies which dominate outsourcing. For China, despite having major OEM, the real deal are the US, German, Taiwanese, SK & Japanese companies.

They can move with the right incentive. Our IT walas will not easily move out of India. The Chinis have not been able to crack the oursourcing market from us, despite doing everything possible. WFH has now come as a boon. Desi outsources will now recruit from tier 2/3 cities with lower salaries & WFH. Drive the RFP prices even further.

Indian software engs do not want to go out of India? Really? Just give them chances to apply.

at the people level - indians totally trust USA and vice versa. we are everywhere - heck even in disney channel movies/shows! india has immensely benefited from USA due to IT/BPO sector and western defense techs as well. nuclear reactors, space program, LCA - would not have been possible without western components and/or help.

it is just a matter of time - i say we can trust USA.

^^^^
Actually space progarm and LCA were severly hampered by the US using espionage or sanctions. we benefitted by working with a variety of actors, russians, europeans to get our mil tech and we paid good amount of cold hard cash for it.
The US and India hjourney will only go as long as there is a good deal of convergence. Based on Rudradev Mort and Vayutavan Saar posts on US, it is only a matter of time before the woke/islami pasand crowd takes over the reins and we will be in the firing line.

Although I have often wondered, why is it that the woke only target India for whatever imaginary or perceived shortcomings on minority equations. Somehow Cheen, pakis and Middle east kingdoms are exempt from all this.

It is important not to conflate strategic partner with economic partner. China is an economic partner with the US, where neither can live without each other, but at this time they are not strategic partners and more like strategic adversaries.

Both US and China have the largest GDPs in the world, and India will have to do business with both. However, it does NOT mean a strategic partnership is necessary. Growing trade in goods and services with US is important and has a strategic element to it in relation to keeping the PLA and Islamists influences from growing too much.

venkat_kv wrote:^^^^
Although I have often wondered, why is it that the woke only target India for whatever imaginary or perceived shortcomings on minority equations. Somehow Cheen, pakis and Middle east kingdoms are exempt from all this.

not really , i presume you are in India

V_Raman wrote:at the people level - indians totally trust USA and vice versa. we are everywhere - heck even in disney channel movies/shows! india has immensely benefited from USA due to IT/BPO sector and western defense techs as well. nuclear reactors, space program, LCA - would not have been possible without western components and/or help.

it is just a matter of time - i say we can trust USA.

Stockholm syndrome.

India has immensely benefited from USA

They have benefited even more from us otherwise they would not be doing business with us. Nothing that they have sold us at sky high prices was not available from other sources. Their nuke reactor tech is obsolete, they sabotaged ISRO and the cryogenic engine, killed our scientists and one can go on and on.

they do not trust you enough to even sell you anything of strategic value, whereas they sell without any restriction to France where both the people and the govt hate the US.

So the French get EMALS and then some and both countries don't like each other but India which has its brightest human resources so very eager to get to the US and the amerikis have enticed said human resources with something that they call "soft power" which is nothing but some fancy concept for theft of India's intellect and yet when these guys get there, they and their families are subjected to every kind of discrimination with visa restrictions, cannot take up specific jobs, qualified spouses find it hard to get work because of arbitrary "regulations", long wait in the green card lottery line and what not and yet we are eager to trust them

they have and will again in future sanction us as fancy takes them

They have milked us and bilked us for decades and we chose not to see.

So, on what basis, and why should we trust them when they don't trust us.

just keep it business like and transact exactly like they do, without the useless adoration, over-the-top cultural worship, and the one sided pappi jhappi.

In God we trust: all others need to pay cash.

If this is how they have dealt with us why are we doing something different when we deal with them...

what if the Cheeni attack us and joe "bye"-den does another runner, this time on India, a la Afghanistan.

QUAD, allies all forgotten while we get to see his clean pair of heels disappearing over the horizon, followed closely by the japs and the aussies.

kit wrote:

venkat_kv wrote:^^^^
Although I have often wondered, why is it that the woke only target India for whatever imaginary or perceived shortcomings on minority equations. Somehow Cheen, pakis and Middle east kingdoms are exempt from all this.

not really , i presume you are in India

Saar, I don't see any meaningful criticisms of cheen, pakis or gulf sheikdoms, There were a few noises in the past few years when the orange man was in charge, but that was more to do with his admin. earlier obama regime were probably mumbling when it came to "human right violations" with respect to Cheen and Pakis.

Pakis have been killing US service men for a long time and that has been echoed by retired and in service members who have served in Afpak. Yet we don't see any sanctions. We don't see any human rights issues with respect to the Pakis as well even though christianity itself is being targeted.

So I am not sure if there are such conferences as dismantling global hindutva or some such shyte going on in the west against these nations.

chetak wrote:Stockholm syndrome.

Great post. +108 to you!

Rudradev wrote:In light of everything we've seen over the last 5 years, and in particular the last two weeks, please provide your thoughts on the poll question.

If it was a strategic partnership during the Cold War where India aligned with the Soviet Union, then now India should lens itself via a strategic partnership with the US during the rerun of the neo-Cold War where the US attempts to counter and defang “resurgent” Russia and an “increasingly aggressive” China. Hence it is anything but inevitable for India to strategically align with the US. Especially because of the cliché that "enemy of my enemy is my friend,” where China and Russia are now more aligned than they’ve been since the mid-1950s.

Tuan wrote:

Rudradev wrote:In light of everything we've seen over the last 5 years, and in particular the last two weeks, please provide your thoughts on the poll question.

If it was a strategic partnership during the Cold War where India aligned with the Soviet Union, then now India should lens itself via a strategic partnership with the US during the rerun of the neo-Cold War where the US attempts to counter and defang “resurgent” Russia and an “increasingly aggressive” China. Hence it is anything but inevitable for India to strategically align with the US. Especially because of the cliché that "enemy of my enemy is my friend,” where China and Russia are now more aligned than they’ve been since the mid-1950s.

we are sitting with critical soviet sourced weapon systems that are essential for our security and safety and we have also hedged some bets by sourcing from france and the US.

we have kept very clear of UK systems for historical reasons

we simply cannot afford to delink from the russkis as the amerikis are adamantly demanding because of the historic lack of trust factor that has always clouded the Indo US ties.

The bulk of the anti Modi social media angst is emanating out of the US and that is not mere happenstance. The US govt is actively encouraging it by remaining nonchalant.

The hans fear our agnis and the pakis fear our conventional forces. Terrorism will increase with the cheeni also pitching in and supporting inimical forces in the NE

Given the multiple BIF narratives in play and the many apples simultaneously in the air, Modi has done more than just well.

That's why the BIF want Modi out.

chetak wrote:we are sitting with critical soviet sourced weapon systems that are essential for our security and safety, and we have also hedged some bets by sourcing from France and the US.

we have kept very clear of UK systems for historical reasons

we simply cannot afford to delink from the Russkis as the amerikis are adamantly demanding because of the historic lack of trust factor that has always clouded the Indo US ties.

The bulk of the anti Modi social media angst is emanating out of the US and that is not mere happenstance. The US govt is actively encouraging it by remaining nonchalant.

The hans fear our agnis and the pakis fear our conventional forces. Terrorism will increase with the cheeni also pitching in and supporting inimical forces in the NE

Given the multiple BIF narratives in play and the many apples simultaneously in the air, Modi has done more than just well.

That's why the BIF want Modi out.

You overlooked the obvious, though. Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't your assumptions undercut the core narratives of Indo-US relations as per India's foreign minister Jaishankar???

Tuan wrote:

chetak wrote:
we are sitting with critical soviet sourced weapon systems that are essential for our security and safety, and we have also hedged some bets by sourcing from France and the US.

we have kept very clear of UK systems for historical reasons

we simply cannot afford to delink from the Russkis as the amerikis are adamantly demanding because of the historic lack of trust factor that has always clouded the Indo US ties.

The bulk of the anti Modi social media angst is emanating out of the US and that is not mere happenstance. The US govt is actively encouraging it by remaining nonchalant.

The hans fear our agnis and the pakis fear our conventional forces. Terrorism will increase with the cheeni also pitching in and supporting inimical forces in the NE

Given the multiple BIF narratives in play and the many apples simultaneously in the air, Modi has done more than just well.

That's why the BIF want Modi out.

You overlooked the obvious, though. Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't your assumptions undercut the core narratives of Indo-US relations as per India's foreign minister Jaishankar???

Jaishankar is talking about the "in the moment thing", which will last as long as the current interests of the US, specific to the region, do not change.

Beyond the region, the US and India have little in common except the ameriki's deep desire to bulldoze their way into India's markets by bribing favorable changes in India's industrial and trade policies to suit ameriki companies and their profitability.

One would do well to remember the ameriki state sponsored viciousness when they boycotted Modi as CM of gujarat.

only the naive would place any long term trust in the ameriki, given the well known propensity of their deep state to act independently of elected authority as well as their shifting stances mirroring their frequently changing interests.

jaishankar is no novice in the diplomatic arena or even a vacuous darbari like sujatha singh was when she acted against national interests by disregarding the policies laid down by the head of the govt.

Tuan wrote:You overlooked the obvious, though. Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't your assumptions undercut the core narratives of Indo-US relations as per India's foreign minister Jaishankar???

Have you looked into Foreign Minister Jaishankar's view of multi-polar alignment?

Rakesh wrote:

Tuan wrote:You overlooked the obvious, though. Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't your assumptions undercut the core narratives of Indo-US relations as per India's foreign minister Jaishankar???

Have you looked into Foreign Minister Jaishankar's view of multi-polar alignment?

I have, saar.

Jaishankar is more driven by intellect and long term national interests, and less by ideology and unleveraged accommodation to gain momentary but fleeting advantage.

wasn't this what happened at shimla with bhutto and the 93K paki prisoners...

***deleted for duplicate

chetak wrote:

Rakesh wrote: Have you looked into Foreign Minister Jaishankar's view of multi-polar alignment?

I have, saar.

Jaishankar is more driven by intellect and long term national interests, and less by ideology and unleveraged accommodation to gain momentary but fleeting advantage.

Chetak Saar, I directed that question to Tuan And I agree with you.

Rakesh wrote:Chetak Saar, I directed that question to Tuan And I agree with you.

oops

Rakesh wrote:

Tuan wrote:You overlooked the obvious, though. Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't your assumptions undercut the core narratives of Indo-US relations as per India's foreign minister Jaishankar???

Have you looked into Foreign Minister Jaishankar's view of multi-polar alignment?

Yes, I have. Multi-polar alignment calls for an equidistant foreign policy, to which India is nowhere close.

I also believe that once the global pandemic is said and done, we will have a new unipolar world order in which the US will once again dominate the world. Time will tell...

Tuan wrote:Yes, I have. Multi-polar alignment calls for an equidistant foreign policy, to which India is nowhere close.

I also believe that once the global pandemic is said and done, we will have a new unipolar world order in which the US will once again dominate the world. Time will tell...

It is not close, because it is not a policy that has been around for a long time i.e. non-alignment. It will take time to get there.

The larger point what Jaishankar is trying to convey is to partner in areas of mutual interests. However formal alliances are not necessary for this.

So India needs to be cautious in a whole-hearted embrace of the US, as it has been doing all this while. Certainly partner with them, where it is beneficial for India. But the relationship is best left at a transactional stage. Basically make use of the relationship.

I am happy that it will be the US dominating the world and not China. But running away from Afghanistan is not a good step towards global dominance. America's partners have taken notice. If I were Taiwan, South Korea or Japan...I would be really concerned after the way America walked away from Afghanistan. And that was Rudradev-ji's larger question --->

Rudradev wrote:In light of everything we've seen over the last 5 years, and in particular the last two weeks, please provide your thoughts on the poll question.

Tuan wrote:

Rakesh wrote: Have you looked into Foreign Minister Jaishankar's view of multi-polar alignment?

Yes, I have. Multi-polar alignment calls for an equidistant foreign policy, to which India is nowhere close.

I also believe that once the global pandemic is said and done, we will have a new unipolar world order in which the US will once again dominate the world. Time will tell...

Tuan ji

More nations will acquiesce to ameriki leadership rather than the cheeni leadership

The known devil as opposed to the unknown. OBOR effect will much diminished as more affected countries wake up and smell the cheeni coffee.

The US will take some time to live down the bye-den effect.

There will be a rebalancing of the diplomatic dynamics that will play out on the global arena.

The big picture will start to become clearer in 6-8 months when the afghan imbroglio dust settles, and xi's main thrust begins to make headway, revealing the direction as well as the magnitude of their intent.

Xi is already very wary of being sucked into the afpak region as a guarantor to replace some of the roles carried out by the amerikis.

If the taliban do not get enough traction from xi, they are bound to lash out, enmeshing both the cheen and the paki.

For us, the crucial tests may be in cashmere, as well as, the NE.

the wuhan virus (and its implications) has now become a known devil that every country will be forced to factor in, so no big surprises there, except the degree to which various countries will be affected.

Rakesh wrote:

Tuan wrote:Yes, I have. Multi-polar alignment calls for an equidistant foreign policy, to which India is nowhere close.

I also believe that once the global pandemic is said and done, we will have a new unipolar world order in which the US will once again dominate the world. Time will tell...

It is not close, because it is not a policy that has been around for a long time i.e. non-alignment. It will take time to get there.

The larger point what Jaishankar is trying to convey is to partner in areas of mutual interests. However formal alliances are not necessary for this.

So India needs to be cautious in a whole-hearted embrace of the US, as it has been doing all this while. Certainly partner with them, where it is beneficial for India. But the relationship is best left at a transactional stage. Basically make use of the relationship.

I am happy that it will be the US dominating the world and not China. But running away from Afghanistan is not a good step towards global dominance. America's partners have taken notice. If I were Taiwan, South Korea or Japan...I would be really concerned after the way America walked away from Afghanistan. And that was Rudradev-ji's larger question --->

Rudradev wrote:In light of everything we've seen over the last 5 years, and in particular the last two weeks, please provide your thoughts on the poll question.

Sir, you shall not judge a great power solely based on the recent developments in Afghanistan. It may well be a strategic deception of tactical withdrawal on the US part. There is a popular psyche that the US lost the war in Vietnam but in the greater scheme of things US won the Cold War and undermined the idea of communism by utilizing its soft power.

Let me quote General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith:

So if big, open-ended military deployments are no longer going to be in vogue, then what replaces them?

One clue can be found in the speech delivered on 2 June at the Royal United Services Institute's Land Warfare Conference by the UK Chief of General Staff, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.

Today's Army, he said, will be "more networked, more expeditionary and more rapidly deployed, more digitally connected, linking satellite to soldier and centred on a Special Operations Brigade".

Fewer boots on the ground inevitably means a greater reliance on cutting-edge digital technology, including artificial intelligence.

Trends emerging from recent conflicts have prompted a radical rethink in strategic priorities. The brief war in the Caucasus between Azerbaijan and Armenia saw the latter's tanks getting decimated by cheap, unmanned, armed drones supplied by Turkey and directed to their targets at almost no risk to the operators.

Mercenaries, once considered a throwback to a bygone era in Africa, have been making a comeback.

The most obvious example here is Russia's shadowy Wagner Group which has allowed Moscow "plausible deniability" while operating with few restrictions in conflict zones from Libya to West Africa to Mozambique. "A state-centric world order," says Dr Sean McFate, senior fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council, "is giving way to a war without states."

None of this means an end to military missions overseas. In Mali and the Sahel the French may be winding up their single-nation Operation Barkhane and sending thousands of troops home. But the UN mission continues and the French are retaining a reduced force committed to a multinational counter-terrorism mission.

In Iraq, the Nato mission will continue to train local counter-insurgency forces and offer them technical support.

In Afghanistan however, the western military presence is disappearing over the horizon at the very time it may be needed most to confront a combined threat from the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

Further, the Taliban in Afghanistan will act as a deterrence against China’s BRI, so long as the US plays its cards correctly. The US so far has agreed at Doha that it will withdraw NATO and allied troops. It does not mean that there would be no PMCs. Air-Sea Battles will shape future wars. It is an integrated battle doctrine that was developed as a critical element of the military strategy of the United States. This way of thinking became official in February 2010 and was renamed to Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC). That is, whoever has control over and can maneuver Global Commons (whether it is in maritime, air, space, or cyber) will dominate the planet as a hyperpower. This integrated modern warfare concept will be facilitated by technological intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), which can be effective even without troops on the ground in Afghanistan since the US military can operate remotely. The US is still superior in all these domains, not Russia, China, or Iran. Suppose the US-led NATO withdrawal emboldens the Taliban fighters. In that case, they will most likely create an implacable enemy that would play a key role off stage in their destruction sooner or later. Watch this space!!!

The cheeni are eager for CAR oil and gas, with pipelines going through afghan lands bypassing the pakis, if possible.

This will piss off putin for obvious reasons, as well as, the pakis, because gwadar will probably take a back seat allowing the baluch to gain the upper hand.

It will also take big money for xi to keep the taliban on the hook.

So, what role will India play in the new taliban controlled afghanistan and how will the sidelined pakis react...

R&AW are big players in this region with plenty of sleeper contacts in taliban controlled afghanistan

The factors that will cause serious headwinds are "bye" den doing a runner in afghanistan, the badly hit cheeni economy as well as the growing internal dissensions and the re emerging wuhan virus variants especially in cheen itself.

Per reports, the amerikis themselves are taking a massive hit due to the wuhan virus

the two sooper powers seem to have their hands full.

Tuan wrote:Sir, you shall not judge a great power solely based on the recent developments in Afghanistan. It may well be a strategic deception of tactical withdrawal on the US part. There is a popular psyche that the US lost the war in Vietnam but in the greater scheme of things US won the Cold War and undermined the idea of communism by utilizing its soft power.

I am going to leave it to history to judge the future trajectory of the United States. But if spending $2+ trillion in Afghanistan over 20 years - with nothing to show for it (i.e. defeating the Taliban) - is a strategic deception, then it is money well invested.

Where ever the US has deployed troops to fight - post World War Two - is has ended up in a mess and defeat. Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq come to mind. And where ever the US has trained troops of foreign nations, it has been an equally spectacular mess. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are prime examples. And while these invaded countries have been set back decades, what do they have to lose really? They were a mess before US intervention and they are worse off post US intervention. But for the US, these tiny shrimp nations should have been a cake walk.

And was the Cold War ever really over? Or did communism transfer from the Soviet Union to Putin's "Democratic" Russia? Why are free and fair elections (if there is ever such a thing) not held in Putin's Russia? Was communism ever defeated in China? Why is the Communist PRC a threat to the international rules based order, which is dictated by the US?

But the fundamental question is can India trust the United States? The answer to that is NO. As it has been stated many times on this forum - there are only interests, no friends in geopolitics. So by all means partner with the US, where interests converge....but a whole hearted embrace like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan is best not done. And that is what Jaishankar is emphasizing. Partner with all nations, including the US. But have alliances with no nations, including the US.

Tuan wrote:Further, the Taliban in Afghanistan will act as a deterrence against China’s BRI, so long as the US plays its cards correctly. The US so far has agreed at Doha that it will withdraw NATO and allied troops. It does not mean that there would be no PMCs. Air-Sea Battles will shape future wars. It is an integrated battle doctrine that was developed as a critical element of the military strategy of the United States. This way of thinking became official in February 2010 and was renamed to Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC). That is, whoever has control over and can maneuver Global Commons (whether it is in maritime, air, space, or cyber) will dominate the planet as a hyperpower. This integrated modern warfare concept will be facilitated by technological intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), which can be effective even without troops on the ground in Afghanistan since the US military can operate remotely. The US is still superior in all these domains, not Russia, China, or Iran. Suppose the US-led NATO withdrawal emboldens the Taliban fighters. In that case, they will most likely create an implacable enemy that would play a key role off stage in their destruction sooner or later. Watch this space!!!

History has proven time and time again, that despite all the advances in military technology....if you have no boots on the ground, you will get no where. And even with that, there is no guarantee of success as Vietnam and Afghanistan proved.

If you do not engage the people that you are sent to protect, they will only turn hostile to your over-arching presence. That is Rule 1. And that rule has worked in Kashmir for the Indian Army, which is the leader in COIN operations. And it is a rule the US rarely - if ever - whole heartedly followed in Afghanistan. Air and sea battles, JAM-GC, Global Commons, NATO has zero significance here. To hunt and kill Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, it took boots (US Special Forces) on the ground and not JAM-GC and Global Commons.

Afghanistan cannot be won over by air and sea battles, JAM-GC, Global Commons, NATO.

Afghanistan cannot be controlled. Many nations tried and they all failed.

Sir, while I agree with you that the primary rationale of counterterrorism or counterinsurgency is that military force and extraordinary legal measures cannot on their own be used to resolve the underlying causes of terrorism, we all know that the Taliban is not the only factor for the US "debacle" not "defeat" (not yet) in Afghanistan. By and large, the US has been battling against the entire regional and global players who compete for influence in the Caspian Sea Region, which is one of the oldest oil-producing areas in the world and is quickly growing as a natural gas production hub. Against this backdrop, I respectfully disagree with you that the war in Afghanistan emanated from terrorism alone. Rather it is an increasing global power projection strategy that was chalked out by the US, the EU, Canada, Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and India, to name a few. Therefore, the dimension of the war in Afghanistan has every element of air-sea battles, JAM-GC, Global Commons, NATO, etc., because of a new way of thinking on the changing military paradigms in the global arena.

To sum up, do I think India should have a strategic partnership with the US at the dawn of the new world order? I would say definitely yes!

Sirjee, the US invaded Afghanistan 20 years ago to defeat the Taliban. The Taliban are terrorists. But just like the Communists in the Soviet Union and China, were the Taliban ever defeated by the US? In fact, the US negotiated with the Taliban and pulled out of Afghanistan. So much for the American policy of not negotiating with terrorists. These concepts of JAM-GC, Global Commons, NATO, etc will work against an adversary like China. It was bound to fail against Afghanistan. The US is good for fighting battles behind a computer screen, pushing this button and that. And it has worked for them successfully in many conflicts where technology was the underlying factor. But get boots on the ground i.e. Vietnam and Afghanistan and all of sudden the myth of the "Invincible US" gets unraveled.

A strategic convergence is what is happening right now. Here is a tweet illustrating that point...

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 45921?s=20 ---> USA's Deputy National Security Adviser for Cyber Security is visinting India for discussions on enhancing cybersecurity and cyber threat intelligence cooperation between India and US.

However the un-reliability of the US political setup does not foster a strong foundation on which the US and India can engage with each other. There is no guarantee what one administration agrees to, the following administration will follow. And that has repercussions for a country like India with enemies on both borders. On that note, the French and the Russians have been more strategic in their outlook towards India. But they did it for their own interests and influence. But can we imagine a scenario in where a US nuclear submarine is leased to India, like India does with Russia? Does a strategic partner keep reminding India - every few months like clockwork - that CAATSA waivers are not guaranteed? How do you believe this is being perceived in New Delhi?

So have the convergence, have chai-biscoot, nod & smile, stroke the ego, buy arms...but India must do what it feels is right. And if that contravenes US interests, so be it i.e. the S-400 purchase. But make use of the relationship, because it is a great relationship to be in...to foster India's rise. However alienation of the US must not be done. Otherwise the puppy will piddle all over your fancy Persian rug and create quite a mess. And it will be an expensive mess to clean up. Stroke the Ego

Everyone is a strategic partner of the US. Because the US can cut off anyone from accessing their funds. Just ask the Taliban. So India is de-facto a strategic partner with the US. More so than China or Russia. Does India entertain the thought of parking it's funds in Roubles or Yuan? Think of it, even the timing and scope of the 1998 tests were limited by the potential of US economic sanctions :
Percentage Central Bank Currency Reserves by Currency - 2020. Source: IMF
US $ 59.02
Euro 21.24
Yen 6.03
Sterling 4.69
Chinese Remnibi 2.25
Canadian $ 2.07
Australian $ 1.82
Swiss Franc 0.17
Other currencies 2.70

The one time India made a very bold move was in dividing Pakistan in 1971. That was only possible because of the defence pact with the then USSR. Present trends in India's neighborhood are a tightening squeeze on every border including Sri Lanka in the south. Russia will not do anything to antagonize China, that is clear from their shallow assurances that PLA troops were in Doklam for an exercise and would soon withdraw. The Chinese economy is roughly 4x larger than India and if look only at manufacturing GDP, it is 5x larger. The economy is the foundation on which funding is available for the defence budget and on that front China will continue to outpace India i.e. defence budget is 4x larger than India now and that gap will continue to widen. The US is the only game in town right now which will enable India to break out. International relations are not governed by trust but by temporary shared interests. So long as China wants to replace the US as the largest economic and military power, Indian and US interests converge. The degree of convergence will determine the scope of cooperation.

Thanks for your point of view, Idev.

Terrorism that is rooted in income inequality can best be combated economically rather than militarily.

Since the profit motive primarily drives the Taliban, the US needs to dominate its “proxy-masters” instead of the proxy itself to attain peace in Afghanistan.

Profits and poppy: Afghanistan's illegal drug trade a boon for Taliban
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-08-16/

The US has had ample time to dominate the Taliban's proxy masters in Pakistan. Did the US do it? In these past 20 years, did the world's sole superpower make any attempt to cut off the head of the snake? In these 20 years, the US did the exact opposite - they armed Pakistan. And with their ignominious exit from Afghanistan, they have armed the proxy masters even more so.

And since everyone is a de-facto strategic partner of the US, it should be really easy for the US to cut off funds from India, when it makes decisions that contravenes the US national interest. So using the S-400 example, the idea of CAATSA sanctions should not come in the picture. Just cut off the funds to purchase the system. Problem Solved

The only country - in recent times - that has successfully eliminated terrorism is Sri Lanka. They hammered the LTTE into oblivion. But they did it with boots on the ground.

kit wrote: not really , i presume you are in India

He may be in India or the US. That doesn't matter. It is a matter of keeping one's eyes open. Venkat_kv garu is right. My perception is the same. I lived in the US since 1985 and several states - in rural ~3K town as well as urban, I mean Midtown Manhattan urban, CA, and Midwest. They equate India with hindu, hindu with hindutva, hindutva with radical Islam. Everything goes out of the window after that false equivalence.

Rakesh wrote:The US has had ample time to dominate the Taliban's proxy masters in Pakistan. Did the US do it? In these past 20 years, did the world's sole superpower make any attempt to cut off the head of the snake? In these 20 years, the US did the exact opposite - they armed Pakistan. And with their ignominious exit from Afghanistan, they have armed the proxy masters even more so.

And since everyone is a de-facto strategic partner of the US, it should be easy for the US to cut off funds from India when it makes decisions that contravene the US national interest. So using the S-400 example, the idea of CAATSA sanctions should not come into the picture. Just cut off the funds to purchase the system. Problem Solved

The only country - in recent times - that has successfully eliminated terrorism in Sri Lanka. They hammered the LTTE into oblivion. But they did it with boots on the ground.

While America's strategic quest to obtain oil was made evident during Iraq's invasion under the hoax of the 'war on terror', I never really thought in such depth (as you have explained the idea of S-400 example). You have an incredibly valid point.

I believe that this entire war on terror is a hoax. IMHO, it will take only a matter of months to obliterate the Taliban if the US and NATO wanted; (like the case in Sri Lanka vs. LTTE) however, the West, including the US, uses the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, et al., as a catalyst to speed up the process of balancing their economic equilibrium. That is, they pursue "cost-benefit analysis," whereby the US engages a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives. Cost-benefit analysis is used to determine options that provide the best approach to achieve benefits.

Furthermore, economic equilibrium is a condition or state in which economic forces are balanced. Economic equilibrium may also be defined as the point at which supply equals demand for a product, with the equilibrium price existing where the hypothetical supply and demand curves intersect.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ec ... ibrium.asp

In other words, the West is orchestrating commercial warfare under the guise of counterterrorism at the cost of the lives of innocent civilians in the global south, in my opinion.

We will soon figure out to whom and what the US is supplying and to whom and what the Taliban is demanding, and vice versa.

Tuan wrote:Thanks for your point of view, Idev.

Terrorism that is rooted in income inequality can best be combated economically rather than militarily.

Since the profit motive primarily drives the Taliban, the US needs to dominate its “proxy-masters” instead of the proxy itself to attain peace in Afghanistan.

Profits and poppy: Afghanistan's illegal drug trade a boon for Taliban
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-08-16/

Tuan ji,

A guy like saddam hussein would subdue these guys in a matter of a mere month, income inequality or not.

saddam kept very basic food stuff, cheap petrol and some meager health services and very basic housing accessible to the aam jehadi. Everything else was prohibitively expensive. they worked for a pittance and lived as best they could under the circumstances.

for raising any other queries or demands, the guys were shot publicly like dogs in the street and saddam's secret police watched everyone all the time and harsh sentences were handed out even for minor transgressions.

The problem arises when you try to transplant "democracy" on a civilization or cult that sees "democracy" as weak and decrepit as opposed to their concept of the sharia sanctioned caliph's rule of the sword and by the sword.

the amerikis and the west have yet to understand this simple construct.

Immediately, following the departure of the amerikis, the sharia police moved in and shot countless people to restore order at the cost of many thousands of afghan lives

It is the western press that keeps playing up the "democracy" angle. By next week the taliban will have established the recommended and sharia compliant order in their society.

why should anyone from the outside worry about what they do.

once the sharia compliant order is established, taliban happy and afghans also happy.

Their monkeys, their circus

Their "success" is rooted in brutality and the use of tried and tested sharia sanctioned "administrative" practices which is the language that every jehadi, the world over understands, accepts, and respects.

now they all crib because they feel that more amriki planes will come and whisk them all off to the land of milk and honey, more so because such "democracy" questions are being asked to them by sexy, blonde PYT western teevee journos.

once they are sure that no more ameriki planes are on their way, they will get back to their sharia ordained lives.

this is how these tribes in the afghan badlands have lived and died for centuries past. It is a familiar life to them. why then rush to presume that western democracy is the only solution to improve their lives or that they even desire such a solution. this is how they have been ruled for centuries and it is also how they prefer to be ruled. their books don't mention elections, democracy or even personal freedoms

once in the west, they steal, kill, rape local women and young kids, congregate in filthy ghettoes, and refuse to integrate into western society. They refuse to work but insist on becoming lifelong freeloaders with state funded large families and free housing, building saudi funded mosque after mosque, and creating frequent law and order disturbances, and vociferously demanding the imposition of that very same sharia that someone in the west thought these people would be so happy to be rid off.

ever wondered why these muz1!m "refugees", safely living in freedom in far away democratic countries, and continents away from the regimes and tyrants that allegedly oppressed and tyrannized them, living comfortably in first world countries like england, the US, and all over the EU are demanding that sharia laws be imposed.

The need is to understand clearly that terrorism is a cultural and civilizational narrative, overwhelmingly dominated by but not limited to one abrahamic desert cult and not gloss it over or sweep it under the rug of misguided and superficial psychoanalysis as many intellectuals in the west are wont to do thereby missing the woods for the trees. The LTTE sucide bombers were from the other cult and they were motivated entirely differently but that is a discussion for another day.

the mullahs and the jehadi ideologues have turned around the concept of shaheed to a new upgraded version that includes a sartorial embellishment, the suicide vest.

This upgraded shaheed concept has been cleverly romanticized, heroically radicalized, and given attributes of unprecedented social sanction and acceptability among the desert cult so that it is now viewed as an act that validates the natural incarnation of violent religious resistance against an oppressor.

The mullahs have artfully convinced these unwashed patsies that this is their assured path to a revered place in jannat or the "paradise garden", which is the final abode of the righteous and the believers. What better way for a ghazi to depart on his final journey.

This is further reinforced by the choreographed public spectacle of huge and frenzied crowds thronging the funereal processions of jehadis killed in encounters with the army or law enforcement agencies thus causing the virus of terrorism to take root in impressionable minds, some of whom may actually aspire to become suicide bombers, brainwashed into going against the very grain of that most primal of human instincts, which is the instinct of survival. This outpouring of public adoration also ensures donations for the bomber's family and an elevated status in their social standing.

this is how buddi butt, out of thin air, conjured up the heroic image of buran wani, the headmaster's son while removing from the public eye the true image and reality of buran wani, the common terrorist and psychopath.

go figure.

chetak wrote: A guy like saddam hussein would subdue these guys in a matter of a mere month, income inequality or not.

saddam kept very basic food stuff, cheap petrol and some meager health services and very basic housing accessible to the aam jehadi. Everything else was prohibitively expensive. they worked for a pittance and lived as best they could under the circumstances.

for raising any other queries or demands, the guys were shot publicly like dogs in the street and saddam's secret police watched everyone all the time and harsh sentences were handed out even for minor transgressions.

The problem arises when you try to transplant "democracy" on a civilization or cult that sees "democracy" as weak and decrepit as opposed to their concept of the sharia sanctioned caliph's rule of the sword and by the sword.

the amerikis and the west have yet to understand this simple construct..........

Agree. To truly defeat a nation, you have to subjugate it's people and that requires ruthlessness and cruelty which has been absent from wars for some time now. Consider the Russians vs the Germans in WW2 on the Eastern Front, the brutality on show there, the firebombing of civilians in Dresden, Germany by the RAF, the bloody hand to hand fighting between Imperial Japan and the US Army in the Pacific campaign, the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bloody fighting between Chinese backed North Koreans and South Korea and it's allies during the Korean War. Contrast that with the clean, made for TV wars which are the norm today where the US is involved, where any excess is highlighted within the hour on social media. These kinds of wars will never defeat a people. If the US truly wanted to defeat Afghanistan, they would need to drop a few nukes on Pakistan and exterminate 70% of the Afghan male population. Not even thinkable in today's world.

chetak wrote:The problem arises when you try to transplant "democracy" on a civilization or cult that sees "democracy" as weak and decrepit as opposed to their concept of the sharia sanctioned caliph's rule of the sword and by the sword.

the amerikis and the west have yet to understand this simple construct.

+108 Chetak-ji. The two best lines in your post.

The only way to defeat the Taliban (or any terrorist organization) is that you have to be ruthless. As you said above, these people live and die by the sword. In World War 2, Germany and Japan were defeated when the Allies became ruthless. Germany was reduced to a rubble. Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have to break the will of the people.

All this fanciful theories of nation building, democracy and freedom will work in Judeo-Christian societies like in the US and in Western Europe. It will not work anywhere else.

Tuan wrote:While America's strategic quest to obtain oil was made evident during Iraq's invasion under the hoax of the 'war on terror', I never really thought in such depth (as you have explained the idea of S-400 example). You have an incredibly valid point.

I believe that this entire war on terror is a hoax. IMHO, it will take only a matter of months to obliterate the Taliban if the US and NATO wanted; (like the case in Sri Lanka vs. LTTE) however, the West, including the US, uses the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, et al., as a catalyst to speed up the process of balancing their economic equilibrium. That is, they pursue "cost-benefit analysis," whereby the US engages a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives. Cost-benefit analysis is used to determine options that provide the best approach to achieve benefits.

It is incredibly difficult to defeat an enemy that has nothing to lose. Most nations - including Pakistan - has something that they hold valuable. The Taliban live in caves. Elimination is the only way to defeat them. That is the only cost-benefit analysis they can relate to. For the US, it does not even require months to obliterate the Taliban. But do the American people have the appetite for mass elimination?

When the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their citizenry was by and large behind President Truman. No one in the US wanted to see a mass slaughter of their troops attacking mainland Japan. Is that situation in the US today? Half the population believes that Biden does not even belong in the White House. And if the Democrats win in 2024, it will not be a pretty sight.

Post the Second World War and in the transition to hi-tech warfare, the American military set aside the boots-on-the-ground concept. And like I said earlier, hi-tech warfare has worked beautifully for them where technology was the underlying factor. But the moment American troops are sent into battle, the myth begins to unravel as we saw in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. And what is even more embarrassing is that where ever they have trained foreign troops it has been a disaster as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If this was some western European nation that walked out of Afghanistan, there would not have been this much brouhaha. In fact, no one would even care. But when the sole superpower in the world leaves a theatre of conflict - in this manner - the entire world takes notice. And in that vacuum will come China. What was unthinkable, just became reality. If I were South Korea or Japan or Taiwan today, I would be asking this very same question. But there are definite advantages for India in partnering with the US in areas of strategic convergence and it must be done. But today, the US is not the only top dog that countries can turn to. No empire sits on top forever. History has proven that.

Partner with the United States - Yes
Trust & Rely on the United States - No

That should not be taken as a knock though, because trust and reliance goes hand-in-hand with friendship. And in the world of geopolitics, there are no friends or friendships...only shared interests. The same paradigm is also true for India’s other partners - France, Russia or Israel.

Rakesh wrote:Post the Second World War and in the transition to hi-tech warfare, the American military set aside the boots-on-the-ground concept.

Last year, I read The Bomber Mafia by Gladwell. This book traces the history of the modern USAF to the school of thought that precision bombing of modern infrastructure could win wars without mass casualties. This was unlike the RAF of those days who believed in near total destruction of the cities to break the morale of the population.

This of course breaks down when the enemy is able to fight without needing modern infrastructure. Extending the thought, this principle breaks down for limited conflict scenarios where the infrastructure exists elsewhere to resupply the shooting range as it were, but cannot be touched for political reasons.

https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/14 ... 78434?s=19

@bennedose:

Please cut this nonsensical American rhetoric. This kind of gassing will not work. Heard it too many times from Amreeka and hopeful Indians. The US will never touch Pakistan. It is up to us slave-minded Indians who think US will do something, who will have to handle Pakistan.

Indians think like white westerners & we see ourselves as holding up democratic values and feel the US should see us as brothers. That is nonsense. The US will be happy to allow Pakistan to direct all jihad at India. The US is NOT an India ally in the war against Islamic jihad.

History is forgotten so soon. Any Indian under 40 will not have learned that the US armed and funded Pakistan from 1979 onwards despite their developing nukes and directing Islamic terror groups against India. Indians are slave fools and Hindus are at the top of that

Those of us who are Hindu "Right Wing" somehow keep on singing the coolie tune of Hindus being democratic and therefore pleasing to America. We may be democratic but it is this "pleasing America" bit is pure mental slavery that will_pull_India_down. US gives a rats ass for us

Ironically, Jawaharlal Nehru thought that the west would support democratic, modern thought and referred J&K to the UN, and asked for US airforce support in 1962. We curse Nehru but still think like him, acting as if there is some special free democracy bond between India & west

The poodle needs to go for discipline training.

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 37636?s=20 ---> Britain's Secretary of Defence says USA is no longer a Superpower.