What's new

The Russian visit

Well he is Russian and it is a Russian source check the link

yeah i checked the link and pulled out a few more from this author which confirms he is not Russian - more a Pakistani to me, can u prove otherwise?.A concern is it being voice of Russia, which is a Radio service, but the said article is not a radio program, but a write up. And the Lapdog thingy LOL I don't think a Russian would have such words for India ever. Also can u give me any links from other than Pakistani media about the said visit by Putin to Pakistan?
 
.
No, he is talking of soviets as a third person and almost praising Pakistan's effort against the soviets and is repeatedly being anti India and pro Pakistani. I don't think a Russian would ever do that. Authors do take in pseudo nationalities and personalities and i am convinced he is not Russian, can anyone prove otherwise.

:rofl::rofl: The author is Brodov Alexei does not look like a Pakistani name and Voice of Russia does not sound like Pakistani media to me. but glad you read it correctly it is anti Indian and pro Pakistani. You will simply have to get used to it as the dream team get it together:rofl:
 
.
:rofl::rofl: The author is Brodov Alexei does not look like a Pakistani name and Voice of Russia does not sound like Pakistani media to me. but glad you read it correctly it is anti Indian and pro Pakistani. You will simply have to get used to it as the dream team get it together:rofl:

Ok whatever u say, lets wait and watch.:lol:
 
.
the Indian govt accepted a unipolar world in the early 90's and are still in that frame of mind.

Do you have any source to back this up or is it just your claim ?

Infact it was pakistan which was under the umbrella of uncle sam for major part of 60 yrs
 
.
Pakistan is free to approach and try coaxing Russians for armaments. But you do remember one thing when dealing with Kremlin: they don't give out free handouts. :D

So you'll need to revise your mindset before even approaching them. They are neither USA for free weapons nor China for zero interest loans. :)

Another simpleton Indian who does not understand that neither is coaxing it is in Russian and Pakistani interests to get closer. You simply do not understand you. Your education and intellectual prowess clearly has limits that prevents proper geo strategic discussion lol
 
.
When you get news you do not like go off topic. that is so incredibly Indian of you

Do you believe the Italians are innocent? if so than Raymond Davis is as innocent as them.
 
.
lol Pakistan cant kick US from its own ground and you feel you can kick US from AF?:rofl:
Indian was invited by US to take control over AF , we rejected it though :sick:
and once you helped US and talibans in kicking out Soviets and now you want to do reverse :lol: I pity :tongue:
And remember Russians wont give you aids :P

that's it Indian when you cant handle what you see go off at a tangent

l
Yes but we offer more benefits to Russia so Russia wont be making risk by hurting Relations with India . Russia is a good partner and all the best for Pak-Russian relations .:tup:

can you not see that is far outweighed by you acting a s a regional proxy for American interests in our neighbourhood that Russians Chinese Iranians and Pakistanis simply do not want:rofl:
 
.
that's it Indian when you cant handle what you see go off at a tangent



can you not see that is far outweighed by you acting a s a regional proxy for American interests in our neighbourhood that Russians Chinese Iranians and Pakistanis simply do not want:rofl:

Hai Rama Rama rey.
 
. .
But it must be admitted that India is much better in their foreign policy compared to pakistan. Their partnership with USSR proved to be much more beneficial for them than US relationship with Pakistan. At present, they are assuming a neutral stance between US and Russia, which, from their perspective, is not a bad option for them.

No not accepted at all The following comments are by a former Indian Ambassador to Russia and diplomat:

Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government.” But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.

Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres — Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of India’s foreign policy when I see the huge ‘psywar’ being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.

In Pakistan’s case, the ‘psywar’ substitutes Russia with China. The US’s ‘Track II’ thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistan’s aid, the two countries’ ‘all-weather friendship’ notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing ‘psywar’.

One is the lengthy article featured by America’s prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled “China’s Pakistan conundrum”. Its argument is: ‘China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabad’s preferences’. It puts forth the invidious argument that China’s real use for Pakistan is only to “box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.”

Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly ‘coordinating’ their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply don’t know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to ‘coordinate’ about ‘coordinating’ their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.

A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistan’s existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepon’s article last week titled ‘Pakistan’s Patrons’, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow India’s foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fool’s paradise.

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

Pakistan is not rushing for any ARM deal with Russia any sooner like many Indian friends comes up with their multi billion lists of arm purchases when young Pakistanis raise this stupid point here.

Our first priority is to develop good relations with Russia and welcome their investments here.

We do not want to go down Indian route of buying weapons all the time we want to build our own manufacturing eg JF17 joint ventures indigenous production
 
. .
No not accepted at all The following comments are by a former Indian Ambassador to Russia and diplomat:

Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government.” But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.

Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres — Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of India’s foreign policy when I see the huge ‘psywar’ being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.

In Pakistan’s case, the ‘psywar’ substitutes Russia with China. The US’s ‘Track II’ thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistan’s aid, the two countries’ ‘all-weather friendship’ notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing ‘psywar’.

One is the lengthy article featured by America’s prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled “China’s Pakistan conundrum”. Its argument is: ‘China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabad’s preferences’. It puts forth the invidious argument that China’s real use for Pakistan is only to “box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.”

Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly ‘coordinating’ their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply don’t know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to ‘coordinate’ about ‘coordinating’ their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.

A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistan’s existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepon’s article last week titled ‘Pakistan’s Patrons’, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow India’s foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fool’s paradise.

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

I was speaking from the historical perspective. Compare the advanced weaponry which India got from USSR and what Pakistan got from US. Compare the help India got from USSR in 1971 and what Pakistan got from US. Its much favorable for India.

Still now, they are maintaining a balance between US and Russia. They recognise they cannot switch into any one camp and prosper. They are getting weapons from Russia as well as US. I must say they are experts at managing foreign policy.
 
.
A Russian author expressing his point of view about Indians got them inflamed with C4..ahah...so funny...
BTW I know many ruskies in KSA...they regret the cold war..haha!

Cant wait for Indians to see more of this in future:rofl:

Looks like India's relationship with Russia is transforming from a strategic one (with the Soviets, & Russia in the 90s), to a transactional one. Russia needs to sell its arms, from an economic POV, & India being the 2nd largest country in the world, & the biggest arms importer in the world fulfills that. From a strategic geopolitical POV, I don't know how India can help Russia counter the US's influence in the region. Pakistan can certainly help them doing that.

Why are the Indians on here blind to your wise words Bilal

yeah i checked the link and pulled out a few more from this author which confirms he is not Russian - more a Pakistani to me, can u prove otherwise?.A concern is it being voice of Russia, which is a Radio service, but the said article is not a radio program, but a write up. And the Lapdog thingy LOL I don't think a Russian would have such words for India ever. Also can u give me any links from other than Pakistani media about the said visit by Putin to Pakistan?

keep living in denial I am not compelled to do anything for you

Do you believe the Italians are innocent? if so than Raymond Davis is as innocent as them.

whenever in doubt go off topic and report me to webby lol
 
.
1. You were unable to comprehend what i said
2. There is not permanent enemies & friends - it's interests which remains permanent
lol i gave a reply to your questions and you are diverting now .
your second point is absolutely true for Pakistan :P
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom