India US Relations

Villager

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
993
Likes
1,223
Country flag
Indo-US ties will pick up, Joe Biden no stranger to India: S Jaishankar
External Affairs minister S Jaishankar said India has dealt with Joe Biden in his former roles as vice president in the Barack Obama administration and as ranking Democratic member and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

The Indian government will face no problems in taking forward ties with the US under the Joe Biden administration because of the strong element of bipartisan support for the bilateral relationship, external affairs minister S Jaishankar said on Tuesday.

“I am very confident that we will pick up where we left off (with the Donald Trump administration), we have done that over the last four administrations,” Jaishankar said while participating in an online discussion organised by the think tanks Centre for International Governance Innovation and Gateway House.

“I think that will be the case as well here and I say that because within the American politics, it’s not just that we deal with the administration of the day, we also tend to deal with the Congress. American politics by its nature has very strong elements of bipartisanship,” he said.

President-elect Biden is “not a stranger to India or to the relationship” and India has dealt with him in his former roles as vice president in the Barack Obama administration and as ranking Democratic member and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jaishankar said.

“He (Biden) is very much part of this period when Indo-American relations underwent a radical transformation, which I reasonably date back to former President Bill Clinton’s visit to India in 2000,” he said.

“You had four presidents and you really cannot find more dissimilar people – Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. But one issue and one relationship to which all of them were committed was the Indian relationship,” he added.

There is a “very strong element of structural predictability and a certain ballast” in the India-US relationship, Jaishankar said, adding that both countries are natural partners.

 

SanjeevM

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
1,631
Likes
4,503
Country flag
BREAKING: With An Eye On China, US to Deploy New Naval Fleet In Indian Ocean
 

neatgye

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
20
Likes
44
Country flag
Well, USA - India defense deals have gone way further than this.
Now, India is trying to acquire unilateral strike and sanctions authority from big brother USA.
While Mr modi is in power, it will only destabilize the world further.
 

Maharaj samudragupt

Kritant Parashu
Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
7,650
Likes
21,949
Country flag
Well, USA - India defense deals have gone way further than this.
Now, India is trying to acquire unilateral strike and sanctions authority from big brother USA.
While Mr modi is in power, it will only destabilize the world further.
It's better that our enemies like you did destabilise , before we do .
 

DownWithCCP

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
2,036
Likes
8,726
Country flag
Well, USA - India defense deals have gone way further than this.
Now, India is trying to acquire unilateral strike and sanctions authority from big brother USA.
While Mr modi is in power, it will only destabilize the world further.
The best bet for pakistan (and this always has been) is to stop insurgency in Kashmir, give up fantasies and to focus on domestic issues, at this rate you are going to only screw yourself, and ultimately you will become a Chinese colony.
 

Villager

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
993
Likes
1,223
Country flag
Well, USA - India defense deals have gone way further than this.
Now, India is trying to acquire unilateral strike and sanctions authority from big brother USA.
While Mr modi is in power, it will only destabilize the world further.
You should know that India isn't the biggest economic or military force and it doesn't dictate world policies yet. India's rise would only make the world more stable and India would play the role of balancing other world's (destructive) powers.

There are those who have been engaged in wars and conflicts and conspiracy among the natives across the world:

US is the number 1 state on the list.
Then comes the UK and EU.
Then we have a wannabe in Zhonguoo which will most likely outdo Yankees soon enough.

We are not even there on the list but still you see us as a threat and not the ones who (US and allies) armed militants inside Pakistan for their benefits, then also made Pakistan a scapegoat for their crimes and violated Pakistan's sovereignty and bombarded Pakistan for so long. Try to see the bigger game they are playing against us that you are still trapped in. They are your enemy. We are your brothers. We have differences because of our diversity but we do not have genuine hatred for each other. Must work together to defeat them. Allah Hafiz.
 

Villager

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
993
Likes
1,223
Country flag
Is The US's Indo-Pacific Strategy Is a Recipe for Disaster

By Lyle J. Goldstein
Thursday, February 18, 2021, 8:56 AM

In early March 1992, a foundational U.S. strategy surfaced revealing that America’s goal after the Cold War would henceforth be, in the words of the New York Times’s reporting on the document, “to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge” and to maintain the continuity of the so-called “unipolar moment.” The inclination to seek everlasting primacy has not served the nation well during the past few decades. The “unipolar moment” and its various supporting rationales precipitated countless and costly military interventions—most of them unsuccessful—and also have spurred intense, precarious strategic rivalries. A similarly sweeping strategy, the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific, first written in 2018 but declassified in early January 2021, has many echoes of this 1992 progenitor but may have even more destructive consequences. Though the Biden administration has quickly distanced itself from many of the previous administration’s policies, these policy shifts have not focused on China. As the Biden administration begins a review of U.S. defense policy toward China and the broader region, it would do well to discard the Indo-Pacific strategy and start again with a more sound understanding of the political realities.


The authors of the Trump administration’s framework were evidently so pleased with the work that they thought it necessary to declassify it before leaving office and share it with the public, even though the general custom is to wait 30 years before declassification. But surely they also intended that the document might constrain and direct the Biden administration’s approach to U.S. strategy. The new document appears to build directly on the 1992 effort in that the first line of the document establishes the maintenance of “U.S. strategic primacy” in the region as the central challenge of U.S. policy.

Given that pursuing primacy as an end in itself could be seen as cynically self-aggrandizing (and perhaps explains why such documents are customarily classified), that objective is surrounded by many statements underlining the importance of countering Chinese “illiberal spheres of influence” and, moreover, pledging to “promote American values throughout the region.” The strategy represents a fusion of neoconservative and neoliberal thinking and may satisfy large segments of the foreign policy elite, orchestrating the design for a new cold war—this time focusing on China.

The authors of the document seem oblivious to its many contradictions. For example, the neo-Wilsonian tone of the strategy, which states as a goal a region in which “countries uphold the principles that have enabled U.S. and regional prosperity and stability, including … respect for individual rights and rule of law,” seems to fit poorly with a diverse region. Prospective partners for Washington range from very undemocratic (Vietnam) to immature democracies under grave threat (Philippines), to one-time democracies that have now given up all appearances (Thailand), to merely democracies on paper (Singapore). The strategy document appears amateurish in its understanding of international relations theory, as when it ignores completely the all-too-likely possibility of an acute security dilemma resulting from the unbridled U.S. quest for primacy. Likewise, the strategy seems to be ignorant of history, strongly advocating that South Korea and Japan must cooperate more fully as American alliance partners. That deeply troubled bilateral relationship, which is impeded by the legacies of a colonial relationship that involved many cruelties, hardly represents a strong foundation on which to rest America’s regional security architecture.

The above flaws are serious, but none could be described as fatal. The same could not be said regarding the document’s treatment of Taiwan. The island has befuddled American strategists for decades and their clever solution has been “strategic ambiguity,” balancing a general acceptance of China’s claim with a subtle hint of deterrence in the hope that the complex issue could be settled peacefully. The newly declassified strategy overtly codifies the deterrence aspect without even the slightest nod to Chinese claims—something acknowledged by American presidents going back to Franklin Roosevelt. Discarding strategic ambiguity, as the Trump administration seemingly did in its last year in office, has put Washington and Beijing on a direct course for war. Some Americans seem to welcome that possibility, but they are not well informed about the military balance and likely scenarios. The truth is that the United States could very well lose such a war, a fact admitted in early 2021 by a senior Air Force official, and there is no telling whether nuclear weapons would be employed or not.

The Taiwan part of the former administration’s strategy is predictably reckless, but it is the India part of the so-called Indo-Pacific strategy that makes the least sense. India gets more attention in this strategy than any other partner, but is that particular country, charming and hefty as it might be, worthy of so much attention from U.S. national security officials? While its military is improving, to be sure, there are still many reasons to doubt New Delhi can wield genuinely formidable military forces. This is at least partially due to India’s unhealthy reliance on foreign suppliers for most weapons—a practice that inevitably leads to poor maintenance and substandard training. U.S. strategists have somewhat cynically hoped for escalating tensions in the Himalayas—the more so to distract China’s military from its maritime flank. The prospect of the Indian Navy sailing to the rescue in the South China Sea seems dubious, at best. A troubling strategic paradox, however, is that even if New Delhi can succeed in threatening China’s vulnerable energy “life-line” across the Indian Ocean, the reality of that threat currently seems to be at least partially fueling Beijing’s rapid naval buildup. By playing to Beijing’s worst fears regarding the so-called “Malacca Dilemma”—a potential blockade of the vast oil supplies heading to China through that narrow strait—planners in Washington and New Delhi are triggering a security dilemma for Beijing, causing it to take robust countermeasures.

In other words, Sino-Indian rivalry is not necessarily in the U.S. strategic interest. Most importantly, India has vast public health, education, infrastructure and environmental shortfalls that should preclude a responsible government in New Delhi from unloading billions of dollars for fancy American weaponry.
Washington’s surfeit of China hawks will inevitably use the newly declassified Indo-Pacific strategy as a means to pressure the incoming national security team, arguing that the strategy is sound even if implementation proved inconsistent. Indeed, even the hawkish Trump administration found the strategy was too bellicose, since Trump proved rightly hesitant about starting any new wars. It looked for a negotiated compromise on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, and administration leaders also came to realize that pushing consistently against Beijing’s core interests might not facilitate reaching a workable trade accord.

In the end, the Indo-Pacific framework proved long on rhetoric and ideology, but failed to grapple seriously with the underlying changes in the regional balance of power that must occasion a new U.S. strategy based on realism and restraint. The Biden administration should not overlook the former strategy’s foundational weaknesses. The new team would be wise to junk the old strategy and start fresh.

 

Indrajit

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
4,029
Likes
15,302
Country flag
Is The US's Indo-Pacific Strategy Is a Recipe for Disaster

By Lyle J. Goldstein
Thursday, February 18, 2021, 8:56 AM

In early March 1992, a foundational U.S. strategy surfaced revealing that America’s goal after the Cold War would henceforth be, in the words of the New York Times’s reporting on the document, “to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge” and to maintain the continuity of the so-called “unipolar moment.” The inclination to seek everlasting primacy has not served the nation well during the past few decades. The “unipolar moment” and its various supporting rationales precipitated countless and costly military interventions—most of them unsuccessful—and also have spurred intense, precarious strategic rivalries. A similarly sweeping strategy, the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific, first written in 2018 but declassified in early January 2021, has many echoes of this 1992 progenitor but may have even more destructive consequences. Though the Biden administration has quickly distanced itself from many of the previous administration’s policies, these policy shifts have not focused on China. As the Biden administration begins a review of U.S. defense policy toward China and the broader region, it would do well to discard the Indo-Pacific strategy and start again with a more sound understanding of the political realities.


The authors of the Trump administration’s framework were evidently so pleased with the work that they thought it necessary to declassify it before leaving office and share it with the public, even though the general custom is to wait 30 years before declassification. But surely they also intended that the document might constrain and direct the Biden administration’s approach to U.S. strategy. The new document appears to build directly on the 1992 effort in that the first line of the document establishes the maintenance of “U.S. strategic primacy” in the region as the central challenge of U.S. policy.

Given that pursuing primacy as an end in itself could be seen as cynically self-aggrandizing (and perhaps explains why such documents are customarily classified), that objective is surrounded by many statements underlining the importance of countering Chinese “illiberal spheres of influence” and, moreover, pledging to “promote American values throughout the region.” The strategy represents a fusion of neoconservative and neoliberal thinking and may satisfy large segments of the foreign policy elite, orchestrating the design for a new cold war—this time focusing on China.

The authors of the document seem oblivious to its many contradictions. For example, the neo-Wilsonian tone of the strategy, which states as a goal a region in which “countries uphold the principles that have enabled U.S. and regional prosperity and stability, including … respect for individual rights and rule of law,” seems to fit poorly with a diverse region. Prospective partners for Washington range from very undemocratic (Vietnam) to immature democracies under grave threat (Philippines), to one-time democracies that have now given up all appearances (Thailand), to merely democracies on paper (Singapore). The strategy document appears amateurish in its understanding of international relations theory, as when it ignores completely the all-too-likely possibility of an acute security dilemma resulting from the unbridled U.S. quest for primacy. Likewise, the strategy seems to be ignorant of history, strongly advocating that South Korea and Japan must cooperate more fully as American alliance partners. That deeply troubled bilateral relationship, which is impeded by the legacies of a colonial relationship that involved many cruelties, hardly represents a strong foundation on which to rest America’s regional security architecture.

The above flaws are serious, but none could be described as fatal. The same could not be said regarding the document’s treatment of Taiwan. The island has befuddled American strategists for decades and their clever solution has been “strategic ambiguity,” balancing a general acceptance of China’s claim with a subtle hint of deterrence in the hope that the complex issue could be settled peacefully. The newly declassified strategy overtly codifies the deterrence aspect without even the slightest nod to Chinese claims—something acknowledged by American presidents going back to Franklin Roosevelt. Discarding strategic ambiguity, as the Trump administration seemingly did in its last year in office, has put Washington and Beijing on a direct course for war. Some Americans seem to welcome that possibility, but they are not well informed about the military balance and likely scenarios. The truth is that the United States could very well lose such a war, a fact admitted in early 2021 by a senior Air Force official, and there is no telling whether nuclear weapons would be employed or not.

The Taiwan part of the former administration’s strategy is predictably reckless, but it is the India part of the so-called Indo-Pacific strategy that makes the least sense. India gets more attention in this strategy than any other partner, but is that particular country, charming and hefty as it might be, worthy of so much attention from U.S. national security officials? While its military is improving, to be sure, there are still many reasons to doubt New Delhi can wield genuinely formidable military forces. This is at least partially due to India’s unhealthy reliance on foreign suppliers for most weapons—a practice that inevitably leads to poor maintenance and substandard training. U.S. strategists have somewhat cynically hoped for escalating tensions in the Himalayas—the more so to distract China’s military from its maritime flank. The prospect of the Indian Navy sailing to the rescue in the South China Sea seems dubious, at best. A troubling strategic paradox, however, is that even if New Delhi can succeed in threatening China’s vulnerable energy “life-line” across the Indian Ocean, the reality of that threat currently seems to be at least partially fueling Beijing’s rapid naval buildup. By playing to Beijing’s worst fears regarding the so-called “Malacca Dilemma”—a potential blockade of the vast oil supplies heading to China through that narrow strait—planners in Washington and New Delhi are triggering a security dilemma for Beijing, causing it to take robust countermeasures.

In other words, Sino-Indian rivalry is not necessarily in the U.S. strategic interest. Most importantly, India has vast public health, education, infrastructure and environmental shortfalls that should preclude a responsible government in New Delhi from unloading billions of dollars for fancy American weaponry.
Washington’s surfeit of China hawks will inevitably use the newly declassified Indo-Pacific strategy as a means to pressure the incoming national security team, arguing that the strategy is sound even if implementation proved inconsistent. Indeed, even the hawkish Trump administration found the strategy was too bellicose, since Trump proved rightly hesitant about starting any new wars. It looked for a negotiated compromise on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, and administration leaders also came to realize that pushing consistently against Beijing’s core interests might not facilitate reaching a workable trade accord.

In the end, the Indo-Pacific framework proved long on rhetoric and ideology, but failed to grapple seriously with the underlying changes in the regional balance of power that must occasion a new U.S. strategy based on realism and restraint. The Biden administration should not overlook the former strategy’s foundational weaknesses. The new team would be wise to junk the old strategy and start fresh.

All very good arguments but without offering a counter strategy.
 

Villager

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
993
Likes
1,223
Country flag
All very good arguments but without offering a counter strategy.
US has its goals wrong. It wants to maintain its supremacy (in a unipolar world) which has again been acquired through not so justified means. If it had used its strength to really promote and help other democracies around the world, it would be a strong and truly respectable power but the objective of being the sole superpower dictating world affairs is unrealistic and representative of the same racist culture they have always belonged to. Their best bet is to partner and ally with India and move aside the goal of being a racially superior power. That way they will be near equals to any new possible superpower/s and respectable too. I doubt they would though. Their racial complexities won't permit them to share power and be an equal until they are humbled by others.
 

Villager

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
993
Likes
1,223
Country flag
Diversity lies within India too. We are enemies because of hatred because our ideologies contradict each other. Indians dreamt of a liberal society, Pakistan is an Islamic fundamentalist state.
Can't say for sure. Too many theories for what Pakistan was to be and what it should be. It's a state exploited. Islamic fundamentalism was promoted by the US support so I won't fully blame muslims.

We didn't create Pakistan, Muslims didn't create Pakistan. There wouldn't be an identity issue in Pakistan if they (muslims) had created or sought a muslim homeland under two-nation theory and there wouldn't be a need of coup in Pakistan time and again. And if we Indians (refer Indian National Congress) had dreamt of liberal India, there wouldn't be a partition on communal lines and even if we had to make a liberal India by giving them a muslim homeland, we wouldn't have accomodated so many muslims in the newly drawn map of India i.e. about the same size as Pakistan and Bangladesh. You know it's not just Pakistan that contradicts itself but we too do the same.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
Can't say for sure. Too many theories for what Pakistan was to be and what it should be. It's a state exploited. Islamic fundamentalism was promoted by the US support so I won't fully blame muslims.
The existence of porkystan was upon fake vile rotten desert cult which constantly does randi rona about kafirs. So amreekans only amped the already existing hatred within inbred porkys. Radicalisation is innate. Therefore Inbred porkies dont want to teach the Hindu history of their illegal country.The liberal brain is cucked to have a soft-corner towards jihadis.No wonder onus is always on the non-separatists to appease the separatists and beg them to stay. Today, there are no Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, temples and monuments or Zoroastrian Fire Temples in the Central Asian Republics of the ussr and Sinkiang in China, in Makran, and the entire Afghanistan which was honeycombed with temples before the advent of shitlame. What new temples were built during the Sikh and British rule in today’s porkystan and Bangladesh are fast vanishing.

And you wont fully blame moslems ? How do you explain - 'wa aaminu bimaa anzaltu mussadiqal limma ma 'aakum wala takunoo awwila kaferin bihi horsehit '?

We didn't create Pakistan, Muslims didn't create Pakistan. There wouldn't be an identity issue in Pakistan if they (muslims) had created or sought a muslim homeland under two-nation theory and there wouldn't be a need of coup in Pakistan time and again. And if we Indians (refer Indian National Congress) had dreamt of liberal India, there wouldn't be a partition on communal lines and even if we had to make a liberal India by giving them a muslim homeland, we wouldn't have accomodated so many muslims in the newly drawn map of India i.e. about the same size as Pakistan and Bangladesh. You know it's not just Pakistan that contradicts itself but we too do the same.
We are continuous unbroken 12000 years plus old living civilization. And porkystan is a failed illegal inbred dirtbag.How much percentage of moslems voted for moslem league? And btw the moslems of Bharat are not some other moslems , they follow the same al kitab. Hindus were expected to sing “Ishwar Allah tero naam” while moslems wouldn’t reciprocate one bit of that . Liberalism secularism every so called human value is incompatible with shitlame. The retarded basis of porkystan was shitlame.Clearly, unlike dhimmis who believed that a harmonious secular polity could be willed into existence merely by the awesomeness of the cambridge educated subhuman nehru and his elevating speeches, we could have had a partition with a complete exchange of population, and then remained in cordial terms with each other.

This possibility was ruined by the elite Dhimmi cucksgress tendency to pat themselves on their back over secularism. Other human lives are less important for “these ass of intellectuals” than their own virtue signalling, so these jaahil nawab nehru gandhians forced an unrealistic arrangement of Hindu moslem bhai bhai. And they cucked out when they decided to codify Hindu law but refused to do the same with moslem laws. So Hindus became technically stateless while a treachours moslem population got their own illegal ass of a nation which has become a chinese colony now btw.
 
Last edited:

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
Is The US's Indo-Pacific Strategy Is a Recipe for Disaster

By Lyle J. Goldstein
Thursday, February 18, 2021, 8:56 AM

In early March 1992, a foundational U.S. strategy surfaced revealing that America’s goal after the Cold War would henceforth be, in the words of the New York Times’s reporting on the document, “to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge” and to maintain the continuity of the so-called “unipolar moment.” The inclination to seek everlasting primacy has not served the nation well during the past few decades. The “unipolar moment” and its various supporting rationales precipitated countless and costly military interventions—most of them unsuccessful—and also have spurred intense, precarious strategic rivalries. A similarly sweeping strategy, the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific, first written in 2018 but declassified in early January 2021, has many echoes of this 1992 progenitor but may have even more destructive consequences. Though the Biden administration has quickly distanced itself from many of the previous administration’s policies, these policy shifts have not focused on China. As the Biden administration begins a review of U.S. defense policy toward China and the broader region, it would do well to discard the Indo-Pacific strategy and start again with a more sound understanding of the political realities.


The authors of the Trump administration’s framework were evidently so pleased with the work that they thought it necessary to declassify it before leaving office and share it with the public, even though the general custom is to wait 30 years before declassification. But surely they also intended that the document might constrain and direct the Biden administration’s approach to U.S. strategy. The new document appears to build directly on the 1992 effort in that the first line of the document establishes the maintenance of “U.S. strategic primacy” in the region as the central challenge of U.S. policy.

Given that pursuing primacy as an end in itself could be seen as cynically self-aggrandizing (and perhaps explains why such documents are customarily classified), that objective is surrounded by many statements underlining the importance of countering Chinese “illiberal spheres of influence” and, moreover, pledging to “promote American values throughout the region.” The strategy represents a fusion of neoconservative and neoliberal thinking and may satisfy large segments of the foreign policy elite, orchestrating the design for a new cold war—this time focusing on China.

The authors of the document seem oblivious to its many contradictions. For example, the neo-Wilsonian tone of the strategy, which states as a goal a region in which “countries uphold the principles that have enabled U.S. and regional prosperity and stability, including … respect for individual rights and rule of law,” seems to fit poorly with a diverse region. Prospective partners for Washington range from very undemocratic (Vietnam) to immature democracies under grave threat (Philippines), to one-time democracies that have now given up all appearances (Thailand), to merely democracies on paper (Singapore). The strategy document appears amateurish in its understanding of international relations theory, as when it ignores completely the all-too-likely possibility of an acute security dilemma resulting from the unbridled U.S. quest for primacy. Likewise, the strategy seems to be ignorant of history, strongly advocating that South Korea and Japan must cooperate more fully as American alliance partners. That deeply troubled bilateral relationship, which is impeded by the legacies of a colonial relationship that involved many cruelties, hardly represents a strong foundation on which to rest America’s regional security architecture.

The above flaws are serious, but none could be described as fatal. The same could not be said regarding the document’s treatment of Taiwan. The island has befuddled American strategists for decades and their clever solution has been “strategic ambiguity,” balancing a general acceptance of China’s claim with a subtle hint of deterrence in the hope that the complex issue could be settled peacefully. The newly declassified strategy overtly codifies the deterrence aspect without even the slightest nod to Chinese claims—something acknowledged by American presidents going back to Franklin Roosevelt. Discarding strategic ambiguity, as the Trump administration seemingly did in its last year in office, has put Washington and Beijing on a direct course for war. Some Americans seem to welcome that possibility, but they are not well informed about the military balance and likely scenarios. The truth is that the United States could very well lose such a war, a fact admitted in early 2021 by a senior Air Force official, and there is no telling whether nuclear weapons would be employed or not.

The Taiwan part of the former administration’s strategy is predictably reckless, but it is the India part of the so-called Indo-Pacific strategy that makes the least sense. India gets more attention in this strategy than any other partner, but is that particular country, charming and hefty as it might be, worthy of so much attention from U.S. national security officials? While its military is improving, to be sure, there are still many reasons to doubt New Delhi can wield genuinely formidable military forces. This is at least partially due to India’s unhealthy reliance on foreign suppliers for most weapons—a practice that inevitably leads to poor maintenance and substandard training. U.S. strategists have somewhat cynically hoped for escalating tensions in the Himalayas—the more so to distract China’s military from its maritime flank. The prospect of the Indian Navy sailing to the rescue in the South China Sea seems dubious, at best. A troubling strategic paradox, however, is that even if New Delhi can succeed in threatening China’s vulnerable energy “life-line” across the Indian Ocean, the reality of that threat currently seems to be at least partially fueling Beijing’s rapid naval buildup. By playing to Beijing’s worst fears regarding the so-called “Malacca Dilemma”—a potential blockade of the vast oil supplies heading to China through that narrow strait—planners in Washington and New Delhi are triggering a security dilemma for Beijing, causing it to take robust countermeasures.

In other words, Sino-Indian rivalry is not necessarily in the U.S. strategic interest. Most importantly, India has vast public health, education, infrastructure and environmental shortfalls that should preclude a responsible government in New Delhi from unloading billions of dollars for fancy American weaponry.
Washington’s surfeit of China hawks will inevitably use the newly declassified Indo-Pacific strategy as a means to pressure the incoming national security team, arguing that the strategy is sound even if implementation proved inconsistent. Indeed, even the hawkish Trump administration found the strategy was too bellicose, since Trump proved rightly hesitant about starting any new wars. It looked for a negotiated compromise on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, and administration leaders also came to realize that pushing consistently against Beijing’s core interests might not facilitate reaching a workable trade accord.

In the end, the Indo-Pacific framework proved long on rhetoric and ideology, but failed to grapple seriously with the underlying changes in the regional balance of power that must occasion a new U.S. strategy based on realism and restraint. The Biden administration should not overlook the former strategy’s foundational weaknesses. The new team would be wise to junk the old strategy and start fresh.

Dont get manipulated by this school yard outcasted patrakar. Lemme educate him - QUAD consists of a three of the top five economies. It is a healthy mixture of raw material, manufacturing, and consumer power with tremendous innovation capability. BHARAT and amreekans alone have strong and experienced Armed Forces. Combined with forces of Australia and Japan, its an overmatch for plafags. Probably , these countries need not even come to each other’s direct aid. A coordinated synergised multidirectional application of force is adequate to screw pla hard. The butthurt of author is evident just about that. ;)
 

Villager

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
993
Likes
1,223
Country flag
And you wont fully blame moslems ? How do you explain - 'wa aaminu bimaa anzaltu mussadiqal limma ma 'aakum wala takunoo awwila kaferin bihi horsehit '?
Do you think there was/is some English-European angle to our territorial conflicts? Would you put some light on it? What were their plans in India before WWII? How did they control India without military invasion? Have they given up on their old ways? How do they continuously speak of our matters in their parliaments from time to time? They are no longer playing any game against us, right? They won't take any anti-Indian measures and won't run anti-India propaganda if we take armed action against or inside Pakistan, right? If they do take or call for action against us, what would be our options? The thing is most Indians-Pakistani can speak as much as they want because they are pretty much the same but very few look at the possibilities that they may still be under influence of the same entity that played them before because most hardly know about them. On the contrary, we seek support from the same pricks who played us against our own. The game they played against natives in Americas and Australia was being played against us slightly differently which took a backseat due to the second conflict between Europeans but they haven't given up.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
Do you think there was/is some English-European angle to our territorial conflicts? Would you put some light on it? What were their plans in India before WWII? How did they control India without military invasion?
Ofcourse. Its always been about fake predatory abrahamic cults bs trying to conquer Dharma. They managed to control by attacking native education system by the britfags. Yet Hindus endured and will continue to do so. Replace “Romans” with “Hindus.” The rest of the scenario remains the same. Its just roman civilization is long dead now. Just as islam , the love of christianity is corrosive to the soul of a civilisation.
I suggest you reading - The Rise and Fall of Roman empire

On the contrary, we seek support from the same pricks who played us against our own.
Because China wants the world to repeatedly chant ‘One China’ which is expansionist. China gobbled Tibet, Xinxiang, Inner Mongolia . It is now in the process of gobbling up Hong Kong, and South China Sea illegally. Next in line are Taiwan and Senkaku islands. And we are the only ones who have the capacity to stop them. We are also major defense partners of many developed nations. BHARAT and Japs and amreekans today have increasing interest convergence on bilateral, regional and global issues. Right now china claims to want a multipolar world but what it wants is a unipolar Asia in which its the sole power.The geo political equations keep changing and everybody secures their national interests. Whats the problem if like minded countries today coordinate responses to the various challenges that the corona chan has brought to the fore ?

The thing is most Indians-Pakistani can speak as much as they want because they are pretty much the same
Same ??? Elaborate.
 

Villager

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
993
Likes
1,223
Country flag
Because China wants the world to repeatedly chant ‘One China’ which is expansionist. China gobbled Tibet, Xinxiang, Inner Mongolia .
They did the right thing. They would not have reached where they are now if they didn't expand and claim territories beyond. We should have done the same, we should do it even now. Tell me who are Americans and who is occupying Americas? How did the Hawaii become a part of US?

It is now in the process of gobbling up Hong Kong, and South China Sea illegally. Next in line are Taiwan and Senkaku islands. And we are the only ones who have the capacity to stop them. We are also major defense partners of many developed nations.
It isn't our job to protect to Hong Kong, Taiwan. We may use these as our cards for leverage on them. We don't claim and protect our own historical boundaries but for some reason some Indians keep fantasizing about preventing China from rising and expanding. We can't stop them, we don't have to and we definitely can't do it alone. So who is gonna help us. The US? You think they give shit about democractic values or building a humane world? We need to look out for our interests and gain from both rivals US and China. China rising is a good thing for multipolar world.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
They did the right thing. They would not have reached where they are now if they didn't expand and claim territories beyond. We should have done the same, we should do it even now. Tell me who are Americans and who is occupying Americas? How did the Hawaii become a part of US?
>massacred 60 millions of their own
>encroachment lands illegally
>Holomodor like the ones in soviet communist ghettos
>starvation of millions during great leap forward
>Ethnic cleansing of non hans

Much of China’s greed for territorial gain has to with the degradation of its national character under communist rule. Maoism wrought havoc with the nation’s Confucian values. Materialism, money and superficial success have become its ruling passions. The desire to dominate the world both politically and economically stems from this mindset. How much a literal dhimmi cuck one has to be to call this a right thing ? Stop being a forum mongrel buddy. You cannot justify chinese barbaric ******ry just because west did it. West is a decayed society and is already counting days on earth anyways , nothing as what they portray in fucktarded hollywood. Karma bites back. Also your goddless communist 3futiya babby eaters actually had a interesting culture 100 years ago. But like everything else, Japanese culture invaded and now Chinese also have to display the peace sign in every photograph they take. Nowadays, Chinese people copy from west and Japanese culture. China as you are trying to portray no longer exists nor does it displays any original content. Yet its ironic some ******s live in fallacy world that how chinese are peaceful .You know why there are so many intellectually reprehensible on forums these days ? Bcos It only takes one half-assed Google search and 38 seconds worth of skimming through long, boring edited wiki and you too can achieve seemingly Akashic like knowledge and understanding of everything and anything and then they go on to make bs statements like this on run d tv.

It isn't our job to protect to Hong Kong, Taiwan. We may use these as our cards for leverage on them. We don't claim and protect our own historical boundaries but for some reason some Indians keep fantasizing about preventing China from rising and expanding. We can't stop them, we don't have to and we definitely can't do it alone. So who is gonna help us.
Are you dyslexic? I just mentioned instances of chinese expansionism. Upon what authority you are making this retarded statement ? Do I need to remind you about chinese bychcraft along LOAC and how they got a bloody nose? We only lost 20 but we killed 100. 50 is confirmed even by entire world. ;). Our bois in Galwan showed that United Bharat ensures chinee kam ;)The Galwan thrashing has also made China seek peace and forced them to come back to table talks lmfao . Entire world is laughing at china . Their white paper plans of 2019 are completely btfo. YOu might have read that paper havent you . I doubt . Stop whining buddy.

he US? You think they give shit about democractic values or building a humane world? We need to look out for our interests and gain from both rivals US and China.
Nobody claims that . But you forgot or dont understand a thing about "convergence of national interests".

BECAUSE OF convergence of national interests amreeka allows $100 billion in outsourcing business to BHARAT employing 4 million plus highly skilled Bhartiyas . No wonder we are highest earning group there even more than amreekans themselves ;)

AND BTW $100 billion is not a reward to attack China. Dhmmis short sighted pea-brained mind could look at it that way -envy lmfao
100 billion is money righteously paid for god tier engineering IT services rendered.

NOW I ask you what china has ever done for Bharat ?Tell me a country Chinese have helped so much that they are now in a better place than before? Cambodia, North Korea, porkystan lol chinese godless commies turned porksytan into chinese bhosda, Venezuela or African countries? All of them have something in common, huge corruption.
I do not think Bharat wants Chinese investment. We want foreign countries to buy our goods and services. Of all countries BHARAT distrust foreign investors.

Plus I see no evidence that China can do that. Show me a single country that has benefited from Chinese investments. All china does is encroachment of land. INFACT entire china is illegal it belongs to MONGOLS.

Count the payroll of MNCs in BHARAT and percentage of contracts among large outsourcing companies west allows $100 billion in outsourcing business to BHARAT employing 4 million Hindus , bringing BHARAT $100-200 billion regularly.Go to Bengalaru and other BHARTIYA cities ...
Count the payroll of BHARAT by Going to every amreekan mnc
Go to large Bhartiya IT Giants and calculate the % of business to amreeka it adds up.
BHARATS’s IT industry stands at $200 billion with exports amounting to $150 billion plus and the industry employees around 4.1 million people and its all set to hit 350 billion in value soon ;)



China rising is a good thing for multipolar world.
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. THE JOKE OF THE CENTURY. China doesnt want a multipolar world . It wants a Unipolar asia where it decides everything. And BHARAT is the one whos blocking this delusional ******ry from capitalizing. ANd you indeed dont know the kind of support quad is gathering. You certainly dont know anything . I have had enough of you not gonna waste one more time here. Good luck with your half assed pseudo hippy bs.
 
Last edited:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top