Aharam, when quoting please put the name of the poster whom you are quoting. It is easy for other readers to follow. If that code is difficult to put in, then it would be best if you just start off your reply with @NameofPoster.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Thank You.
aharam wrote:The tracking point I was making is not a strawman argument. There is a current assumption that US/West will continue to provide it, because it is in their national interest - I hope to show that this is not true. The world order is changing - this was a historical moment with a choice. US has other alternatives to build out a defense network that is fully capable and excludes India - an outcome that I am against. Assuming the same level of Chinese movement intel sharing as during the period surrounding Galwan clashes is no longer a certainty. The most useful stick that the US will use is this - India US should not devolve to such a transactional relationship, because things like intelligence become US gifts subject to sanctions. That whole nonsense has to stop. The alternative source for such intelligence would have been Russia, which as we agree is largely irrelevant.
You are trying to convert this UN vote into a historical moment, to prove a point which does not exist.
If the US has other alternatives to build a defense network that is fully capable and excludes India, then by all the means the US should adopt that path. I like how you just slid that the "threat" in there. Others have tried that strategy, but it has never worked. Nice try though. But since the US lacks a moral spine (other than looking out for her own self interest) it is clearly in the interest of the United States to continue to engage India to partner with her. As mentioned earlier, the trade that flows out of the South China Sea is vital to the global economy of which the US is the leader (the largest economy). It is therefore in the interest of the United States to monitor and track all Chinese naval assets in the South China Sea (and beyond) and share that valuable information with other nations that push back on Chinese expansionism. Russia on the other hand, has more pressing concerns, than to focus on what the Chinese do in the South China Sea. Why go to Russia, when America is already doing the work!
An abstention vote from India in the UN is not going to change that fact. It is simple economics for the US. That is the only language America understands really. Loyalty, morality, freedom, democracy, rules based order, etc is nice to give in State of the Union speeches from the podium at the US House of Representatives. But money and power is the only language that the US understands. This notion that the US will be less willing to share intelligence on Chinese naval assets - because of one abstention vote by India in the UN - does not pass the smell test. In case you are unaware, a US Navy P-8A crew (among other US naval assets) has just arrived in India as part of Exercise Milan 2022.
But since India was "morally" corrupt in her abstention vote in the UN, perhaps President Biden should call up Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and his SECNAV and request to have those US naval assets turn back from that naval exercise. Also, it would be a good idea for the US to cancel her foundational agreements that she has signed with India. They are GSOMIA, LSA, BECA and CISMOA. Also no more Malabar exercises between the two countries. How much of these do you believe will actually be accomplished? Because if not a single one of these can be overturned by the US, then it is America that is hypocritical in siding with a nation that made an abstention vote in the United Nations over Ukraine.
Demographically, America is losing the war at home. And when I say America, I am referring to the White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP). The key words in that are White Anglo Saxon, as Christianity is just a crutch that the White Anglo Saxon uses to justify his behaviour at home and around the world. They are demographically dying and they are being replaced in alarmingly large numbers by other less desirables (which is what WASPs privately address them as) i.e. the Han race, South Asians, South East Asians, Arabs, Africans, etc. And that reality is downright scary for the WASP and was used to great effect (the Angry White Man) by Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election. In fact, Donald Trump further crystallized that idea, when he infamously said that why America would want immigrants from shithole countries such as Haiti and El Salvador and that the U.S. should have more people coming in from places like Norway. That is hilarious because people in Norway live a far better quality of life, than they ever would in the United States.
It is this flawed sense of WASP superiority that guides all of America's decision making and they expect the world to just blindly follow. There was a time when that was indeed by and large followed, but all civilizations do come to an end. The US is on that path now. Every nation can see it. You yourself admitted that fact a number of times in your previous replies. So why walk in step with a country who has no morality to begin with, other than her own self interest? It would best for India to make use of the relationship that they have with the United States. But walk in step, I would prefer that India not do that. India must make her own decisions. And to equate some arm twisting from India's part by voting with the US was also not feasible.
Hypocrisy is not something new to the US. It is a tried and tested strategy that they rely on. They sanctioned Turkey for the S-400 purchase, but when it came to India....it is Republicans in the US House and the US Senate (Senator Ted Cruz is leading that charge) that are urging President Biden to grant India a CAATSA waiver. India too purchased the S-400, but yet economics comes into play. Sanction India and all of a sudden the money tap will stop towards the American MIC. Boeing is sending her F-18SH Block III in March for testing by the Indian Navy. It is all about the Benjamins. Morality lecture from an American? Naah, I am going to pass on that Sir.
When Osama Bin Laden blew two twin towers in New York, the US led a global coalition to hunt and kill the Taliban in Afghanistan. When Pakistani terrorists attacked the very seat and foundation of India's democracy on 13 December 2001 (a little over three months from 9/11), it was the US that urged India to exercise restraint in the military build up (Operation Parakram) that followed. It was because of the US, that Lt Gen Kapil Vij - the then GOC of the Indian Army's 2 Strike Corps - was forced to pull back its assets, as it was too close to the Pakistani border. The US fully knew that an Indo-Pak War would hamper the US' ability to hunt and kill the Taliban, as Pakistan was the launching base for many of the early operations against the Taliban. Moral lesson to learn from this is the H&D of a WASP has more value than the H&D of an Indian citizen.
President George Walker Bush, when addressing a Joint Session of Congress on 20 September 2001, said this, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward,
any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." But both the Bush and Obama Administrations continued to supply arms and ammunition to Pakistan post 9/11. At that point in time, Pakistan's double speak was conveniently overlooked, because supporting a terrorist breeding ground was more important to the US' goal in Afghanistan. Another clear hypocrisy. Moral lesson to learn is that America says one thing, but does the opposite.
aharam wrote:I never said that US does not follow its own self interest or that nations don't - as most here, I have read India Way, which very lucidly puts forth its view on foreign policy. The problem is the assumption that self interest is the only guiding principle. What was that old phrase, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities." In this case, they are doing what is the "right thing" per much of the world as measured in countries - if an issue can carry the world along, it is qualitatively different from purely self interest driven decision making. The upcoming UN General Assembly vote will be much more representative of that than the legacy UNSC. India should have been a veto member of UNSC since it was the committee of the victors of WWII that fought across the globe. India did - China never fought beyond its borders - my grandfather fought in that war.
I can see that you are certainly drunk on the flawed idea of American Exceptionalism. Nice.
Allow me to finish that old phrase ---> "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities...
because at the end of the day, it is all about America."
A few wonderful examples of Americans doing the right thing;
* Callously spraying Agent Orange on the people of Vietnam, whose successive generations are still reeling from the effects of it.
* Invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (in the name of regime change), whose civilian population suffered the greatest brunt of the invasion.
* Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll (whose residents were purposefully displaced).
Thank you for reminding us all of Americans doing the right thing. Where was the global outrage over any of the above? Any UN morality votes over this Sir? As mentioned earlier, it comes from upbringing. The UK was/is no different. The apple indeed does not fall too far from the tree!
This is why the western world is supposedly doing the "right thing". Do click on that link. You may not like it --->
https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status ... ndLRlOV-Hg
Nice to know that America indeed knows to do the "right" thing, when it affects the Caucasian race. But non-WASPs are not really human beings you see. After all if there was no WASP, there would have never even been something called civilization! The Egyptian and Indian civilizations were just there for time pass onlee. This flawed sense of race superiority is nothing new though. The WASP practices this strategy even at home (voting rights, segregated housing, education, access to health care, career, etc). There are sufficient problems in India to deal with that when the Prime Minister of India visits the US, he does not feel the need to lecture the US Govt on the treatment of her citizens. I long to the see the day when the reverse is equally true. Kindly spare us the pontification.
Before we discuss on how India should have voted in the UN, I would humbly suggest that you work on fixing the social and moral ills that plague the country of your residence. Please work to make America a more perfect union of states, as many American Presidents have wished for. If you are doing that, kudos and respect to you. But from what I am seeing, you have a long way to go Sir. So you need to work harder towards that goal. But I am acutely aware that is easier said than done for you. Because to the WASP, the only real American citizen is another WASP. The rest - even though they may *HOLD* US citizenship - are actually only visiting America. You would dare not venture to lecture the WASP on the treatment of his fellow non-WASP American citizen, because you will soon realize how quickly things will go south for you. So it is safer for you Sir to come to a forum and lecture India on how it should have voted. Because unlike the WASP American, Indians actually take the time to explain the reality to you. This comes from a sense of decency and morality. A set of values. The idea that your fellow human being, is actually human just like you.
aharam wrote:My personal belief is that there is a change happening that will unfold over months and years, but EU will emerge as another united military power.
Nice to have another united power! How much of that would the US entertain really?
After all there cannot be two tigers on a mountain. But ok
aharam wrote:This is not true in my humble opinion. This is an event that has galvanized the West.
Too early to call. We will see how long and how far the West will be united.
aharam wrote:I agree with you here on the timeline to hash it out - it is months longer. On the other hand, a simple understanding would have done - it is 1 page with only broad outlines. Then the US/West gets to show whether it will hold its understandings - their national interest is in raising India, and they are trying. This is the part that keeps getting missed - the West is not the enemy and neither do they view India as such. They recognize the nonsense of supporting Pak, which played the same national interest balancing act, which then forced them against US interest. That's what made them useless - Americans are very simple by typical Indian analysis.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If there is anything that geopolitics has taught is that agreements that the US signs on cannot even be equated to a bucket of warm piss. The entire political set up in the US Congress does not foster such an environment. There have been very few agreements - which basically tie in to American self interest - that the US continues to adhere to. This "understanding" concept might pass with Kindergarten level diplomats, but India has had enough experience with the American perfidy.
Allow me to correct you Sir. The US national interest is in raising (and molding) India into the American worldview. However, there is an another worldview that exists outside of America. And that worldview is as valid and as relevant as the WASP one. To ignore one and uplift the other is not acceptable. That strategy has not gotten America very far with India. When America comes down from the high moral horse that she sits on, then we can talk.
aharam wrote:Here is my 2 paise. There is little chance that the US and EU now will not intervene in a Taiwan conflict. And China is no dummy. An invasion in the near term is off the cards - they will be hammered by everyone, economically and militarily. Russia is much better at playing the nuclear threshold game with decades more practice than China - and they are having a difficult time with getting anyone to believe their escalation ladder. Taiwan would be conventional war under nuclear overhang, and I am not too sure China will succeed, which then focuses its attention on India.
No bueno. Post Afghanistan (and now Ukraine), I would be wary of trusting the US to do anything. Why would Germany invest 100 billion Euros into national defence, when it would be better to have the US do its fighting for them? Why did Trump ask the other NATO partners to increase their contributions towards NATO? That raised alarm bells with these NATO partners. And now with Ukraine, they have realized that America will only do what is right in her interest. Now Western Europe is now united and they realize that their future lies not in relying on America, but rather in partnering amongst themselves.
China will certainly attack Taiwan, as they will India. The only thing that is stopping China now is loss of face. The concept of humiliation is something the ChiComs will never entertain. The day they achieve overwhelming advantage against Taiwan and India, Xi will unleash everything at his disposal. If the US is around to see that day, as a nation state that is, then good. But that is not a reliability that Taiwan or India can rely on any longer. Self reliance is a good thing though. These countries too need to rise without anyone telling them how it should be done.
aharam wrote:Sir, fostering convergences and managing divergences works for a class of issues, and these are broadly transactional in nature and run by the government and its national interest. NSG membership is a great example of this. In my belief there is a second class of problems, where basic principles of operation of nation states are aligned. In such problems, nations vote against national interest and in support of their principles. The current event of the war in Ukraine is such. Russia has a casus belli right to attack, because NATO has come too close to its borders and NATO is fundamentally a military anti-Russia alliance. That said, the result cannot be forced by war anymore, and if that happens, citizens protest. In any democracy, citizen sentiment trumps everything else. As example I offer, many EU nations that will suffer and Germany quite a bit with heating fuel loss - it is not in their national interest. It is in the interest of their citizenry.
Are you honestly stating that this result cannot be forced by war anymore? Really?
You are asking India to vote over an issue (led by the US) in a governing body that the US itself considered irrelevant in 2003? When the UN voted against war in Iraq, where was the moral outrage? If results cannot be forced by war, then why did the US invade Iraq in 2003? What purpose did that serve, other than ingratiate US oil companies to make billions in profit selling Iraqi oil?
I am aware of the fact that two wrongs don't make a right, but since the US itself considers the UN to be irrelevant, then why should India put any weightage over what the US (or the West) thinks about her vote in the UN? What is this dying need to get approval from the WASP? What purpose does that serve?
aharam wrote:A few pages ago, I was told I was being patronizing. And looking through the examples, it certainly appears so, and I apologize. In my defense, I was told that I would not fight even if the Gita was read to me, and many other assumptions of what my motive was. Hopefully, my posts from a decade ago would argue that is not the case. That said, the above sounds a lot like Hitopadesh for NRIs and equally patronizing wouldn't you say.
You came here and are lecturing us that India's vote in the UN was morally incorrect. BRF came to your country of residence (and to your home) to lecture you? So who is being patronizing?
aharam wrote:I am not trying to impose any worldview, merely pointing out how things are viewed differently.
Thank you for the alternate point of view. Noted. But India is mature enough to cast her vote and does not need to be second guessed over it.
aharam wrote:As example, I offer the Jewish community in the US. They are in my humble opinion, the closest to Indians in terms of arguing things logically and being confrontational about it. They look out for Israel's interest very well and that is not because they blindly support Israeli actions.
This is laughable, because this is what Israel did a few days back and then reversed course today.
Despite US request Israel refrains from co-sponsoring UNSC resolution against Russia
https://www.timesofisrael.com/despite-u ... st-russia/
26 Feb 2022
After rebuffing US at UNSC, Israel set to back General Assembly vote slamming Russia
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-le ... cial-says/
28 Feb 2022
In the middle of these two days, did you happen to visit the embassy of Israel in your country of residence and advise them of their lack of moral courage? Any chance you get an opportunity to visit the UAE embassy and advise them of the same? The morality dilemma is true for Israel & UAE, as it is for India no?
aharam wrote:As an example, I offer Trump. It is in India's national interest for Trump to be the President - Democrats have always sucked in realpolitik. As an American, Trump is a genuine disaster - his ability to whip up crowds not withstanding. He single handedly made the US a laughing stock, he lies constantly and his inability to build and retain a competent executive team is a complete failure. This is dharam sankat wouldn't you say.
Like Putin and Xi, Trump only thinks about Trump. He will gladly throw India under the bus, if that benefits him politically.
I think we need to stop focusing on what America will or will not do for India and focus more on what India can do for herself.
aharam wrote:The US is done with Bush's my way or the highway, Trump notwithstanding. It is operating in a multi-polar world. In the current conflict, it spent effort building worldwide consensus. The upcoming general assembly will likely show that.
America built worldwide consensus for invading Afghanistan and Iraq as well. Amounted to nothing, just as this vote will also amount to nothing.
America is operating in a multipolar world, with the idea of US-led military alliances. That is no longer going to work.
aharam wrote:Let's start with the first assumption - it is a short war. I question that. India is not going to capitulate just because aircraft got shot down in a week. You underestimate Indian military will Sir, and its ability to fight a ground war - 1962 never became a ground war. It will merely be considered a setback - this is not 1962. China can choose to declare a unilateral ceasefire when she thinks she is ahead, it will have no bearing on the Indian response to the ceasefire. I can easier see China capitulating due to inability to hold high altitude peaks and no experience with actual mountain warfare with India, but the converse is a long drawn out affair with Chinese supply lines over the himalayas.
You brought up the argument of rapid loss replacement. I am questioning that wisdom, not whether the loss of 36 Rafales is a setback or not.
1962 was all about a ground war. India lost that war. India lost territory, i.e. Aksai Chin. 1962 was never an air war from India's side. We can thank Nehru for that wisdom.
I push back on the assertion that it will not be a short war. OTOH, it makes ample sense for China to humiliate India as quickly as possible. Their force deployments clearly point to that. Their rocket force is overwhelmingly huge (compared to India). Their ability to rapidly insert material into a theatre of conflict outstrips that of India's. Their bomber force is equally massive and very capable. The only thing holding them back, IMVHO, is their lack of acclimatized troops for mountain warfare. That is India's only edge and to be quite honest, it is not a comforting edge. They will eventually master that as well. Once all their pieces are in play on the chess board, they will make their move and they will do it fast.
To have a long drawn out battle will result in a stalemate. And a stalemate is huge a loss of face for China, but a strategic victory for India. Same situation with Pakistan, but only in reverse. Do a quick action - destroy all front line air bases, destroy the forward deployed brigades, destroy all logistical nodes and then send in the troops, supported by their massive artillery corps. If they have mastery over the air, China will win.
aharam wrote:That does not mean there won't be reverses. The integration complexity you mention above is type training - I am familiar with it.
I am well aware you are familiar with it. I am aware of your background.
aharam wrote:Unless method has changed, and I fully acknowledge that I do not know this as it happens currently, IAF training would start with the base model training prior to country specific module installation - this was our process and we were type trained on many models. The base model training jump starts the program before the India specific aircraft is ready - more hours that actually count. The differences are typically in A2G/AA radar modes, RWR, actual comms tech (which is invisible since you dial the freq). If I am not mistaken, IAF is already trained on it and the differences are within a few days of retraining. Weapons loadout may change, but as a strike package, there is little loss of utility. And to top it all, you are underestimating IAF pilots sir - they are a lot smarter at rapid decision making than many western equivalents that operate by protocol. This is really few days work. As example, I offer current EU transfer of MIG 29's and SU25s that started hours ago. These are Warsaw pact versions from Poland, Romania, Hungary most likely and are a different type from the Soviet internal versions. That said, the Ukrainian pilots will be able to rapidly make use of the platforms.
Can a pilot who has been trained on a Mirage 2000, then asked to go do a DPSA mission in a Jaguar Darin III? An aircraft he has never flown? As you well aware, I am not referring to the basic concept of flight. I get that part. The pilot knows how to fly. But can he exploit the platform in the timeframe required? That is where the issue lies. Today's aircraft are less flying and more mission focus. The pilot has to know and master the aircraft's sensors. An IAF Mirage 2000 pilot usually trains from Hawk AJT to Mirage 2000 trainer to Mirage 2000 fighter. Some come from MiG-21 streams prior to joining the Mirage 2000 squadron. The current batch of Rafale pilots are Su-30MKI and Jaguar veterans, among other types.
The transfer of EU MiG-29s and Su-25s is really not a good example. These are vintage ex-Soviet birds that are nowhere close in terms of the sensor overload and sophistication that the Rafale and other modern Western aircraft have. So the training curve is negligible. But since you brought that example up, how effective do you believe a Ukrainian pilot (who has never flown a Rafale, Tyhpoon, Gripen E, F-15C/D/E, F-18SH or F-16 Block 50/52) would be, if he has not been given the proper training on a Western platform? How long do you think this training would take? One day? A few hours? A few minutes? A week? Two weeks? A month? Two months? How much time do the Ukrainians really have, before Putin goes scorched earth on Ukraine? To be honest, I am surprised why the Ukrainians have not been given access to these Western aircraft to date.
aharam wrote:It won't be that all 36 Rafale's are lost - but realistically, some would be and that reduces coverage. If we assume all 36 are lost, and they represent the best of our long range reach, then the MKIs are already done. This is apocryphal and still hopefully does not mean loss of country. There is much more fight in India.
This idea that Indians have much more fight in India is nice to say in a movie. It is a nice Bollywood dialogue.
When we don't have any fighter aircraft to fight with, are we going to fight the Chinese with slings and stones?
The issue is rapid loss replacement, which will be pointless in the middle of a quick and punishing war.
aharam wrote:There is a colonial mindset that says India lost to the British. It does not represent history - merely a result of divide and rule where each Indian kingdom looked out for only its interest. India was indeed invaded many times - failures which were numerous, but the invaders stayed behind. In my view, India is the land of the successful invaders - a country with a many millenia history, and has enough genetic advantages in all its terrain and a people that can fight. It is not easy to overcome India in an all out battle for literally anyone. On land, India was never a push over and now as a country that is truly unified, even less so. There is no reason to yield in a week and the more friends we have helping the better.
I am not talking about yielding. I am talking about the ability to hurt the Chinese and force them to a stalemate.
Unless India is interested in a blood bath and just mindlessly send in waves of troops to defeat the Chinese horde.
A result that will have no meaningful result in the overall outcome of the conflict.
=================================================================================
Here is something for you to think about....a nice little reminder about the concept of interests (the only moral principle).
https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status ... jGZAyvsoQQ ---> When we do it vs. when they do it.
with quality bookmark worthy posts. Wish there was a way to bookmark posts...