What's brewing in Washington?

[huzihaidao12]

The US does not perceive India to be a credible threat any time soon. It is not stupid enough to militarily build up a potential rival. The situation is decidedly different from the case of China: even in the best of times, the US never gave China the kind of leverage it is now giving to India.

How to say? If the United States (West) more attention in China than in other developing countries, it is because we have grown more powerful compared to other developing countries, so it is natural to put more vigilant attention. but until the last decade, our strength is so small compared the United States, I hate to say, but it is almost not worth mentioning, if not we have nuclear weapons, and you may not know the treatment in India, we get the same in 80S. nothing strange.

 

[Developereo]

Raising the bar again? So now when I pointed out NAM was founded in 1961 you started judging India for what he did before NAM, even after being pointed out by me that India oppsed USSR foreign policy even at the zenith of Indo-Russia friendship. Seems your intellectual dichotomy knows no bound.

On the contrary, I am pointing out the reality of the India-Soviet quid pro quo relationship. Indians generally acknowledge, the "special" relationship with Russia over the decades, regardless of any window dressing now and then.

By the way would you please cite your source regarding Indian opposition of UN resolution 120, so far my search leads me here.

India-USSR Relations 1947-71: (From Ambivalence to Steadfastness) PART-I - Shri Ram Sharma - Google Books

It doesn't allow me to cut/paste, but go to the third paragraph where India broke ranks with the nonaligned countries and voted with the communist block. Of course, India has the usual doublespeak ready to excuse it's actions.

History lesson for you. Until 1969 the Soviet Union took an evenhanded position in South Asia and supplied a limited quantity of arms to Pakistan in 1968. Russia's role in 65's war between India-Pak was strictly neutral.

Yes, and the Russian military patronage of India increased multi-fold during the NAM years. But I am sure it's all just coincidence.

So far I have been citing sources, real events to bolsters my argument as opposed you repeatedly asking me to understand what you think was US-China relation in cold era. So do you walk the walk too?

The official statements of Obama, Clinton, Bush, Haig and others have been presented here before. We can't keep reeducating the Indians time and again. Feel free to scour the archives. Like I wrote, the focus here is the Pak-US relationship; the history lesson was a brief interlude.

Better read the post made by the Chinese and understand the US policy vis-a-vis China back in cold era.

No one denied that the US 'used' China during the Cold War. I specifically wrote "Brief interludes notwithstanding, there has been no change in the fundamental US doctrine towards the CCP -- the only variant has been debate about whether to achieve US objectives through containment or engagement."

In other words, US opposition to the CCP has been constant. It merely worked with the CCP for a while for joint goals, but American agenda has always been to undermine the CCP.

Says a guy from a country which hosts US base for last 60 years or so. Come again when you see foreign troops operating from sovereign land of India.

What does that have anything to do with the discussion? Drifting again?

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

you may not know the treatment in India, we get the same in 80S. nothing strange.

The US was offering top of the line military technology to China in the 80s?

 

[huzihaidao12]

No, you are absolutely right and many people in Pakistan realize that. At this point the bar is rather low for the Pakistan-US relationship. The question is not how to develop a beneficial relationship with the US, but how to minimize the damage and keep the US off its back.

The key is that the U.S. global strategy calls for Pakistan to pay more, but the United States can not provide compensation, on the other hand, the U.S. economy is in decline, more and more can not provide it, and because of the decline of American power, the United States more rely on the support of India, this is a trend，all are decided, Pakistan's current and long-term interests are contradictory and the United States.

United States can not provide the appropriate supplement, it can only rely on force to compel， the United States is powerful,Pakistan can not resist, but Pakistan also has its own national interests, so some games are inevitable.

Breaking up is not easy, the Chinese have a saying, "上贼船容易下贼船难," meaning that it is easy to take the robber's boat, but you want to leave this ship from the robber's hand, it is not easy， not to to mention that Pakistan is still a need in the United States, both economic and military, of course if you are determined to self-reliance as Iran, it would be no problem, just need to pay the price, such as sanctions and isolation, but not offensive, I do not think that Pakistan's political family and the military have this determination.

 

[huzihaidao12]

The US was offering top of the line military technology to China in the 80s?

Most military equipment and technology is open, as long as the money, not just the United States, the West is the same.Even more, the United States has a plan to establish a military warehouse in China, to store a variety of weapons, so the U.S. will not need to transport equipment, just need to transport soldiers, and then used directly, if that there is a war and the Soviet Union. Just this plan interrupted, when the Soviet Union ended.

 

[fatman17]

The government: After the 18th Amendment, a party head has become so strong that he can even unseat a sitting PM of his party and if he is also the president, enjoying immunity, as is the case these days in Pakistan, the system can be termed anything but democracy. In the present dispensation, Pakistan, in my view, is gradually becoming a dynastical monarchy with only one difference – in the older days the monarchs used brute force to overcome opposition, our president uses his ‘charm and skills’ to buy off opposition. No matter how damaging this dispensation is for the Pakistani nation, it suits the Americans as they have to ‘deal’ with one man, the pattern they follow in most of the Middle-Eastern countries, and hence their all out support.

The military establishment: General Musharraf’s failure to deliver, blunders at the fag-end of his tenure, emergence of other power-centres, performance related issues and other weaknesses have adversely affected military establishment’s ability to influence events and, since relevance and ability are inter-related, the military establishment is losing relevance, at home, as well as, amongst international players. Besides, a deliberate attempt is being made by the US Administration to undermine Pakistan’s military establishment because of its stance on relations with India and future dispensation in Afghanistan so that they could directly deal with the Pakistan government.

these 2 comments in another 'op-ed' basically outline whats brewing in washington!

 

[LaBong]

On the contrary, I am pointing out the reality of the India-Soviet quid pro quo relationship. Indians generally acknowledge, the "special" relationship with Russia over the decades, regardless of any window dressing now and then.

Yes Indo-Russia friendship was and is special which was built on mutual respect, here friendship is the keyword. We didn't bend out to Russia at their whim.

India-USSR Relations 1947-71: (From Ambivalence to Steadfastness) PART-I - Shri Ram Sharma - Google Books

It doesn't allow me to cut/paste, but go to the third paragraph where India broke ranks with the nonaligned countries and voted with the communist block. Of course, India has the usual doublespeak ready to excuse it's actions.

So India abstained from the first and voted against the resolution which says election should be carried out under UN auspices as we were opposed to same thing happening in Kashmir. All other NAM abstained from the second one as well. How does it amount to braking rank with other NAM, we off course had to take into consideration our interest first.

Yes, and the Russian military patronage of India increased multi-fold during the NAM years. But I am sure it's all just coincidence.

We were paying for those hardwares, Russia had to sell them to someone, didn't they? Once again let me ask you, when did Russian troopers operated from Indian land? How did India help in any of Russian misadventure?

The official statements of Obama, Clinton, Bush, Haig and others have been presented here before. We can't keep reeducating the Indians time and again. Feel free to scour the archives. Like I wrote, the focus here is the Pak-US relationship; the history lesson was a brief interlude.

Were Obama, Bush, Clinton from Cold Era? Do you want me to post declassified conversation between Kissinger and Chinese premier? Would you stop making a joke out of yourself with your re-educating tomfoolery?

No one denied that the US 'used' China during the Cold War. I specifically wrote "Brief interludes notwithstanding, there has been no change in the fundamental US doctrine towards the CCP -- the only variant has been debate about whether to achieve US objectives through containment or engagement."

In other words, US opposition to the CCP has been constant. It merely worked with the CCP for a while for joint goals, but American agenda has always been to undermine the CCP.

It's futile to argue with you when it has already been shown that US was friendly to China back in 70s and 80s.

What does that have anything to do with the discussion? Drifting again?

Well you said India has a price for cooperating with US, let me ask you what sort of cooperation did you mean?

The US was offering top of the line military technology to China in the 80s?

What top military technology is US offering to India?

 

[Developereo]

The key is that the U.S. global strategy calls for Pakistan to pay more, but the United States can not provide compensation, on the other hand, the U.S. economy is in decline, more and can not provide it because of the decline of American power, the United States more rely on the support of India, this is a trend all are decided, Pakistan's current and long-term interests are contradictory and the United States.

The US still has plenty of money. A billion dollars is still chump change for the US, although it is more than enough to buy all of Pakistan's elite.

United States can not provide the appropriate supplement, it can only rely on force to compel the United States is powerful, Pakistan can not resist, but Pakistan also has its own national interests, so some games are inevitable.

More than military force, the US's greatest weapon is the media and it is using it full force against Pakistan.

Breaking up is not easy, the Chinese have a saying, "上贼船容易下贼船难," meaning that it is easy to take the robber's boat, but you want to leave this ship from the robber's hand, it is not easy not to to mention that Pakistan is still a need in the United States, both economic and military, of course if you are determined to self-reliance as Iran, it would be no problem, just need to pay the price, such as sanctions and isolation, but not offensive, I do not think that Pakistan's political family and the military have this determination.

That is the unfortunate reality. The US is a superpower and, without oil, Pakistan can not afford to be too defiant. Some compromises may have to be made. Sad but true.

Most military equipment and technology is open, as long as the money, not just the United States, the West is the same.

Clandestine access is another thing. We are talking about aboveboard offers of military technology transfer.

Even more, the United States has a plan to establish a military warehouse in China, to store a variety of weapons, so the U.S. will not need to transport equipment, just need to transport soldiers, and then used directly, if that there is a war and the Soviet Union.

That's essentially a military depot. That's not the same as offering the technology to China for China's use at their discretion.

 

[huzihaidao12]

All are open, very open. Some common military is open, as long as you have the money, such as Super 7 project, FC1/JF17 origin.

 

[deckingraj]

On the contrary, I am pointing out the reality of the India-Soviet quid pro quo relationship. Indians generally acknowledge, the "special" relationship with Russia over the decades, regardless of any window dressing now and then.

It doesn't allow me to cut/paste, but go to the third paragraph where India broke ranks with the nonaligned countries and voted with the communist block. Of course, India has the usual doublespeak ready to excuse it's actions.

Yes, and the Russian military patronage of India increased multi-fold during the NAM years. But I am sure it's all just coincidence.

Who is saying our relations with Russia were/are not special??? First of all we need to understand NAM and then comment....NAM doesn't mean that throw diplomacy out...We did not want to be part of any block....We enjoyed great relations with many countries who were part of NATO and yet enjoyed absolutely great relations with USSR... ...Of-course we enjoyed great relations with certain countries and not so great with others.....Russian military patronage is still very high...However allignment with any military block is still a no-go area for India...

Relations with Russia - USA
Relations with Israel-Palestine
Relations with Iran-Saudi Arabia

NAM has helped us a lot man!!!....


[COLOR]In other words, US opposition to the CCP has been constant. It merely worked with the CCP for a while for joint goals, but American agenda has always been to undermine the CCP.[/COLOR]

Welcome to the world of diplomacy...I am friendly to you as long as you are of any use to me...US never bothered to look at us till we were worthy enough for them...and i have no doubt in my mind if we are of any threat to them then we will be punished in the best possible way...This is called serving national interests...There is a reason it is said "In diploacy there are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies"

 

[huzihaidao12]

The US still has plenty of money. A billion dollars is still chump change for the US, although it is more than enough to buy all of Pakistan's elite.

I think that in any case, Pakistan's elite may have some problems, but most are still patriotic, not to mention, just in Pakistan continue to exist, they can get more benefits, so they may be corrupt, but they will not look at Pakistan to the wreck, so everyone will sink, including them.

 

[Developereo]

Yes Indo-Russia friendship was and is special which was built on mutual respect, here friendship is the keyword. We didn't bend out to Russia at their whim.

Changing the issue again?

Nobody talked about 'bending'. The claim was that India-Russia were aligned against Pakistan-US. You claimed India was non-aligned, while any number of Indian analysts admit --as you just did now -- that there was a "special" relationship between India and Russia.

So India abstained from the first and voted against the resolution which says election should be carried out under UN auspices as we were opposed to same thing happening in Kashmir. All other NAM abstained from the second one as well. How does it amount to braking rank with other NAM, we off course had to take into consideration our interest first.

The point was that India voted with the communist block and did not abstain like other 'non-aligned' countries.

We were paying for those hardwares, Russia had to sell them to someone, didn't they? Once again let me ask you, when did Russian troopers operated from Indian land? How did India help in any of Russian misadventure?

Again, you are changing the definition of NAM. Nobody's talking about hosting bases. We are talking about the "special" relationship you admitted above. Indians claim the Soviets helped out in a big way in 1971. The Soviet Union was not in the habit of challenging the US military for random, non-aligned countries.

Were Obama, Bush, Clinton from Cold Era? Do you want me to post declassified conversation between Kissinger and Chinese premier? Would you stop making a joke out of yourself with your re-educating tomfoolery?

It's futile to argue with you when it has already been shown that US was friendly to China back in 70s and 80s.

Typical Indian intellectual dishonesty again. I wrote that it viewed China as the 'nemesis-in-waiting' during the Soviet era. My claim was that the US administration has always been opposed to the CCP, despite brief interludes of cooperation. These interludes were necessitated by geopolitics. As I have noted several times, US strategy varied between containment and engagement, but the goals never wavered. What you call 'friendly relations' were merely periods of 'engagement' to achieve US objectives.

I had posted a link to a PDF by an American author some time back that went into detail about this American dichotomy.

Well you said India has a price for cooperating with US, let me ask you what sort of cooperation did you mean?

Again, plenty of quotes from Obama and Hillary on google and even here. It's been hashed and rehashed.

What top military technology is US offering to India?

US wooing India with F-35 5th-Generation fighter offer - Times Of India

There's lots more, as Indians on def.pk love telling us...

 

[huzihaidao12]

Friends, do not underestimate your elite, they may not be satisfactory enough, but they are doing, we also provide some help as much as possible.

---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

Do not forget, the U.S. has provided F14 to Iran.It is the most sophisticated military equipment at that time.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I wrote that America viewed China as the 'nemesis-in-waiting' during the Soviet era.

Ideologically we were always rivals, even during the 70's-80's when we were allied together against the Soviet Union.

Today, China's only true ideology is pragmatism. However the USA kept the same ideology they had during the Cold War, albeit a much more watered-down version.

But I don't think the USA expected us to grow so fast. There was so much they could have done, to slow down our economic expansion, but instead they ended up feeding our economy.

In hindsight, they shouldn't have distracted themselves by waging so many wars in the Middle East.

 

[fatman17]

I think that in any case, Pakistan's elite may have some problems, but most are still patriotic, not to mention, just in Pakistan continue to exist, they can get more benefits, so they may be corrupt, but they will not look at Pakistan to the wreck, so everyone will sink, including them.

no they will be sipping mytai's in the west indies

 

[huzihaidao12]

Whether developing a closer relationship with China, or to join the SCO, they are all good moves. The United States is increasingly obvious, multipolarity is becoming a trend, do not wait too long.