Manish_P wrote: ↑09 Apr 2024 20:16
We are buying their wares already aren't we... C17s, Apaches, engines for the Tejas, C295s, P8s, Rafales, Scorpenes, SiG 716s,...
This relentless push for 'upgrade' from 'buyer-seller' to 'coalition partner' is purely to get India committed to being the front on the battle fields & waters... we are just to far from the atlantic ocean else they would have said India will be part of NATO (NAIOTO).
G2G deals of C-17, Apaches, P-8Is, engines for Tejas, SiG 716s are not equated with a military alliance. A US-led military alliance is a whole other cup of tea and comes with a geopolitical baggage that India does not need at all, especially during her metoric rise. India's rise must be managed by Indians alone and certainly not by the US. Signing up for an AUKUS-type alliance will also result in India getting involved in nation building and freedom activities (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc) and needs to be avoided with a barge pole. We are not going to get the crown jewel (nuclear reactor technology) in AUKUS anyway and the video made that amply clear.
I purposefully left out C-295, Rafales, Scorpenes and other such non-US kit from above, as no one has been as forceful on a military alliance as the United States has. And that is not because of any undying love successive US Administrations have had towards India, but rather to limit/curb India's choices from purchasing arms from other nations. Tying India to a US-led military alliance would have resulted in the F-18SH for the MRCBF contest and a US bird for the MRFA contest (if it comes to fruition). The more US origin arms a nation has, that much level of political persuasion and coercion can be applied to that nation. Never forget the Pressler Amendment.