India's bid to join US alliance could irk China, Pakistan: Chinese media

[footmarks]

This agreement is just playing for the gallery. Though it pave way for a lot more dealings under the fine prints of this agreement. as for just the wordings of the agreement, it is only meant to Irk china.

 

[cerberus]

It has in fact nothing to do with the capability of our armed forces. It has to do with the infrastructure that we have built up with little or no assistance from anybody else. It is this that is being given without any reciprocal advantage.

What the rest of this incoherent note means is not at all clear to me.

We also take advantage of their infrastructure
Sir and US are world best in this regard

It's now who can churn out more from others Nation capabilities
And I think Indian armed forces are capable in doing so if they were given a Chance.

Let's wait what it's turn out to be

 

[Joe Shearer]

We also take advantage of their infrastructure
Sir and US are world best in this regard

It's now who can churn out more from others Nation capabilities
And I think Indian armed forces are capable in doing so if they were given a Chance.

Let's wait what it's turn out be

Sure.

That is reasonable. But unless we plan to attack Canada, I am not very sure how we can use their infrastructure. Greenland, perhaps?

 

[The BrOkEn HeArT]

Sir, if you don't mind, this is one part i would love to hear in detail about. A lot has changed in last one decade after 123 agreement (& while i believe, it was ex PM Dr Singh's efforts of getting US close), NDA government has been pretty decisive in having a clear policy of leaning towards US. In summer of 98, when US had posed huge sanctions on India in aftermath of Pokharan 2, it is almost unbelievable to think that India will get this close to US, strategically speaking.
How is this new situation going to alter India's position on World stage? Are we better off?
So have we gained nothing?

I'm not agree with @Joe Shearer . Being a third largest power and economy in future, india have to be involved globally. This is just a start. We will gain phycological advantage on China. But at the same time it is not about alliance, it is mutual interest for both countries. This is very simple to understand that. No need to make it complicated.

 

[nair]

Logistics support is very good agreement

How????

There is feel in Indian statergic thinking that Russians are dubious and neutral in matters of
Chinese

Nothing wrong in it..... We do the same..... Eg : Israel/Iran....... Russia is a trusted partner, and you cannot get some one better than that....... The are more trustworthy than US any day...... (only on this aspect)

All they want is now Indian money for their failing economy its not putin Russia no USSR sir

I thought that is an advantage aint it?

After NSG its clear that Chinese are ready to mend into our interests if they have authority to do so
Russians shown to be like mum in this matters
On the contrary US got us both the wavier and MTCR membership maybe they have long interest in it but Iam talking what India go

I agree on this part...... US has been helping us in this......

 

[barbarosa]

There is nothing worse than being an ally of United states of Uncle Sams so i say let them be their ally as they will get a taste of it very soon. Turkey is a recent example of how US treats its closest allies.

I think that Indian govt has no vision over the politics of super powers.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What has india got in return? Is the biggest question.
Imo agreement is for safe gaurding india against the agressive and reckless chinise military mindset.
Immediate benefits are less visible but long time benefits are more. Question araises y v are making enemies out of chinise..ans is we were never friend either.seeing chinise movement in scs do v still have to believe that they will not keep an eye on arunachal pradesh n sikkim.
If india n us come close v get added benefit in afganistan...which increases our strategic front vis a vis pakistan.
Apart from all this the agrement clearly states that if india wants they can deny using of their ports.
In other words this will keep status quo.
If china tries too much on scs japan australia viet and usa are there.if it tries too much in indian ocean then us n india are there.
Same way if india tries to be too agressive in indian ocean china n pakistan take care of that.
@Joe Shearer @hellfire @PARIKRAMA @anant_s @Abingdonboy ur opinions please

The trade-off, if we had cared to develop it in terms of a trade-off, would have been acknowledgement, or tacit acceptance of Chinese hegemony in the South China Sea, in exchange for a settlement of the Kashmir border, on the LAC, and for the eastern border, along the McMahon Line modified to meet watershed points, moving it back or forward as needed, and for a commitment of non-interference in the Indian Ocean. The last is the most important and least likely to happen. At least the first two could have been sought. After achieving that, neutralising their lobby for the Indian Ocean domination and other related issues could be neutralised.

I'm not agree with @Joe Shearer . Being a third largest power and economy in future, india have to be involved globally. This is just a start. We will gain phycological advantage on China. But at the same time it is not about alliance, it is mutual interest for both countries. This is very simple to understand that. No need to make it complicated.

What interest of ours is served?

 

[third eye]

To find fault comes naturally, a sort of default response. Surely, one wouldn't expect the 'fine print ' to be made public .

We have two things we were almost born with a persistently threat now only to our West and an enveloping threat who has made itself clear staking claims on far off islands not to mention an entire Indian state.

In exercise of our options we chose a logostic agreement that prima facie gives both parties flexibility.

 

[enquencher]

The trade-off, if we had cared to develop it in terms of a trade-off, would have been acknowledgement, or tacit acceptance of Chinese hegemony in the South China Sea, in exchange for a settlement of the Kashmir border, on the LAC, and for the eastern border, along the McMahon Line modified to meet watershed points, moving it back or forward as needed, and for a commitment of non-interference in the Indian Ocean. The last is the most important and least likely to happen. At least the first two could have been sought. After achieving that, neutralising their lobby for the Indian Ocean domination and other related issues could be neutralised.



What interest of ours is served?

I dont think china would have agreed abt it. Chinese military is no mood to compromise with india.even after setelling the issues on border n reciprocal in scs china would have always helped pakistan against india.but then v would have already lost all our bargaining chips.

 

[cerberus]

Sure.

That is reasonable. But unless we plan to attack Canada, I am not very sure how we can use their infrastructure. Greenland, perhaps?

Afghanistan is for one example will give advantage in long run against Pakistan

For are future statergic interest in chabhar port

SCS is other front are relationship with ASEAN countries

There are many other factors which involve here

 

[Pandora]

I think that Indian govt has no vision over the politics of super powers.

Like i said let them as if we know something from history then that is nothing is more worse than being best buddy of uncle SAM. You will hear pathetic comments like India also has access to US bases. So my question is what India expects to Use american bases in USA for ? Maybe Canadian maple syrup has some beef in it which might have irritated India to set up shop in US . Seriously indians here are calling it a fair agreement .

 

[footmarks]

The trade-off, if we had cared to develop it in terms of a trade-off, would have been acknowledgement, or tacit acceptance of Chinese hegemony in the South China Sea, in exchange for a settlement of the Kashmir border, on the LAC, and for the eastern border, along the McMahon Line modified to meet watershed points, moving it back or forward as needed, and for a commitment of non-interference in the Indian Ocean. The last is the most important and least likely to happen. At least the first two could have been sought. After achieving that, neutralising their lobby for the Indian Ocean domination and other related issues could be neutralised.



What interest of ours is served?

Sure, we could have been better off with a trade-off with China. But it is inherently easier to deal with a capitalist than a communist. If sufficient economic interests are at stake, US cannot snub India, china can. What we need to keep on doing is - keep showing them money, and they will be with us. We don't need to bow down on our knees and accept their hegemony, as is the case with China.

 

[The BrOkEn HeArT]

[QUOTE="smuhs1, post: 8631839, member: 144]There is nothing worse than being an ally of United states of Uncle Sams so i say let them be their ally as they will get a taste of it very soon. Turkey is a recent example of how US treats its closest allies.[/QUOTE]
This not how India's foreign policy works dear and we are not a tiny country like any Tom , Dic , Harry. you can take it other way around, may be india is using U.S. for complete its aim.

 

[Mo12]

Like i said let them as if we know something from history then that is nothing is more worse than being best buddy of uncle SAM. You will hear pathetic comments like India also has access to US bases. So my question is what India expects to Use american bases in USA for ? Maybe Canadian maple syrup has some beef in it which might have irritated India to set up shop in US . Seriously indians here are calling it a fair agreement .

To surround Pakistan from the bases in the Indian ocean and in Asia

 

[anant_s]

mutual interest

Sir, this is exactly i'm looking to understand and hence requested seniors like @Joe Shearer
Please note that with our limited understanding all past debates of aligning with one country or other is seen in immediate economic, political or material gains (military ones included). However a greater underlying principle of such agreements and to predict if they will actually last is to first see the grounds of such marriage.
One way is to understand if these agreements are compatible on long term foreign policy principles. India and US are democracies and inspite of all the faults in our democratic system, we are a stable democracy. Only a handful of countries in these times of extremism and chaos can claim this.
Second is foreign policy. now i'm not qualified to make comments on US policy (we hear all sorts of comments) but in case of India, atleast our historical relations with most nations have remained cordial (some more cordial than others but nevertheless) and so has the foreign policy.
On basis of above two points, i wish to analyze such agreements. Remember US supplied a massive amount of cutting edge weaponry to Iranian King before revolution and then things turned ugly. Whoever makes policy decisions in US would definitely have considered the fact that Indian governments in past haven't changed foreign policy abruptly and therefore it actually might not be bad to engage with India.
I wish to mention one more point (although i always get trolled on this), but do consider India's record on Non Proliferation. IMHO this would have forced many people to change mind who were not necessarily in favor of according such status to India in US.