The Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia Security Dialogue) : Updates and Discussions

Typical from these two. An alliance is 'taking advantage of'.
I think I agree that these two have some paranoia of West.
The only reason the USSR befriended India was because they wanted to expand down to the Indian Ocean, and they saw that the easiest way to do that was via Afghanistan and Pakistan. So it was useful to be friends with India.
Now, you are talking absolute dribble! Do you have some sources to back up your claim?
They are not really your friend and you should be very glad you never got them as a neighbour.
Nobody considers them as friend. It`s mutually beneficial partnership.
Being sandwiched between China, Pakistan and USSR/Russia is like a special version of hell for extremely dumb people.
lol! India isn`t sandwiched between pak-russia-china. learn some geography JFC.
 
What??? Can you explain more ??

We can control escalation in a war with China. But a war with Pakistan can go nuclear. If we are to deal with Pak, it can only be through violence, but the Americans have more options. If the Americans decide to take out Pak, the country will collapse within a year. They can even help aggressively denuclearise Pakistan.

Basically the Americans can solve our problem overnight. But they won't do it, 'cause they wanna use Pakistan to deal with India in the long run.
What is the "pakistani problem"? and how you want India to deal it with?

It's an enemy country. How do you think an enemy country should be dealt with?

How old are you?
 
but the Americans have more options. If the Americans decide to take out Pak, the country will collapse within a year.
You mean by stopping economic aid, IMF loans, down grading thier ratings, etc??
And then let radical mullahs take over those nukes.
They can even help aggressively denuclearize Pakistan.
Other than India, It is in nobody interest to denuclearize Pakistan.
Pakistan gives China and US leverage over India.
Internally, Pakistani military knows that world will not allow a nuclear nation(with significant population of radical Islamist) to fails also nuke helps in deterrence with India.
Aid will come to Pakistan under different names,banners but it will come,no matter what.
It's an enemy country. How do you think an enemy country should be dealt with?
They are already shooting themselves in their feet.
We, need to eat popcorn and watch .
How old are you?
Not relevant.
 
I think I agree that these two have some paranoia of West.

Now, you are talking absolute dribble! Do you have some sources to back up your claim?

Nobody considers them as friend. It`s mutually beneficial partnership.

lol! India isn`t sandwiched between pak-russia-china. learn some geography JFC.
Thing about it, why else would they invade Afghanistan?


Dugin soon began publishing his own journal entitled Elementy, which initially began by praising Franco-Belgian Jean-François Thiriart, belatedly a supporter of a "Euro-Soviet empire which would stretch from Dublin to Vladivostok and would also need to expand to the south, since it require(s) a port on the Indian Ocean."[45] Consistently glorifying both Tsarist and Stalinist Russia, Elementy also indicated his admiration for Julius Evola. Dugin also collaborated with the weekly journal Den (The Day), previously directed by Alexander Prokhanov.[40]
Jetray, randomradio and vstol jockey have repeatedly stated that "Russia are our friends," throughout this thread.

No, but it would have been if the USSR had succeeded in taking Afghanistan and then Pakistan. You'd have had two Communist monkeys on your back.
 
It is when it's unequal.

Like Jaishankar said, the West doesn't even acknowledge the official Indian map.
Because it isn't useful to revisit 75 year-old territorial changes. And sure, the ruler of Kashmir gave the territory to India formally, but he was not elected.

What we pointed out is also the reason why we were not aligned with the USSR. Same rules apply to the US.
Explain.
 
Thing about it, why else would they invade Afghanistan?

Nobody listens to Alexander dugin.
If you are saying that he has influence over Russia's foreign policy,then you have provide evidence.
USSR invaded Afghanistan because ruler of Afghanistan stop listening( being puppet) of USSR.
No, but it would have been if the USSR had succeeded in taking Afghanistan and then Pakistan. You'd have had two Communist monkeys on your back.
But, as of now we don't.
Because it isn't useful to revisit 75 year-old territorial changes. And sure, the ruler of Kashmir gave the territory to India formally, but he was not elected.
I am sure we are talking about disputed land between India and china.
 
Nobody listens to Alexander dugin.
If you are saying that he has influence over Russia's foreign policy,then you have provide evidence.
USSR invaded Afghanistan because ruler of Afghanistan stop listening( being puppet) of USSR.
Why did they install him in the first place though? Afghanistan was completely unimportant in the 1970s unless they were trying to reach the Indian Ocean. Dugin has been described as Putin's brain.

 
Why did they install him in the first place though?
Imperialism.
Afghanistan was completely unimportant in the 1970s unless they were trying to reach the Indian Ocean. Dugin has been described as Putin's brain.

"Dugin’s actual influence over Russian policy has been grossly overstated,” Samuel Ramani, an associate fellow at the United Kingdom-based Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies think-tank, told Al Jazeera.

“He has never really held an official title within Russia … and he isn’t that in touch with the current establishment, least of all Putin,” Ramani said.

He noted Dugin had always “wanted to go much further [on foreign policy] than Putin is willing to go”.

"Dugin’s influence over Kremlin thought is minimal, his influence on their current war effort is nonexistent. Is Dugin supportive of the invasion? Absolutely. But to think he is dictating it — that it is happening at his will, or inspired by his writings — is absurd. Dugin’s hold over the actual workings and policy of the Kremlin is nonexistent, and claims that he operates as a Rasputin-type figure, dictating Putin’s foreign policy, are fantasies. Most Russians will not have heard of the thinker until his daughter was killed in front of him."
 
You mean by stopping economic aid, IMF loans, down grading thier ratings, etc??
And then let radical mullahs take over those nukes.

None of that. Stop giving them forex, they will collapse and come to the negotiating table. Mullahs care only for their lives. If the army is gone, the mullahs will behave.

Pakistan is supposed to be under international economic sanctions.

Other than India, It is in nobody interest to denuclearize Pakistan.
Pakistan gives China and US leverage over India.
Internally, Pakistani military knows that world will not allow a nuclear nation(with significant population of radical Islamist) to fails also nuke helps in deterrence with India.
Aid will come to Pakistan under different names,banners but it will come,no matter what.

Only India's enemies want a nuclear Pakistan. There are plenty who don't.

They are already shooting themselves in their feet.
We, need to eat popcorn and watch .

Agreed. If there's a financial collapse, I'm not complaining. But if they are saved, then we have to break them ourselves.

Not relevant.

'Cause you are either ignorant if old or just naive if young. Worst case, both. No issues though.

You have to stop treating the US as our bum-chums. Every single person worth their salt in our strategic circles agrees that after Russia and China, it will be India's turn. It's also why we don't care about becoming allies with them and the fact is repeatedly reiterated time and again by different people in power to drive home that point very clearly.

"Only India's enemies want a nuclear Pakistan." Whoever wants Pak to hold nukes are our enemies. Neither Russia nor Israel, even Iran, want a nuclear Pakistan. So you can extrapolate from there.
 
Thing about it, why else would they invade Afghanistan?



Jetray, randomradio and vstol jockey have repeatedly stated that "Russia are our friends," throughout this thread.

No, but it would have been if the USSR had succeeded in taking Afghanistan and then Pakistan. You'd have had two Communist monkeys on your back.

Being friends and being allies are not the same. What we had was a relationship of convenience. The SU was simply happy that we weren't allies with the West.

It wasn't in India's interests for the SU to operate in the IOR either. It's just that we were not a strong enough player to influence anything back then. We didn't even 5 years ago, never mind during the Cold War.
 
Because it isn't useful to revisit 75 year-old territorial changes. And sure, the ruler of Kashmir gave the territory to India formally, but he was not elected.

It was a rule the Brits created, not Indians or Pakistanis. It was Britain's one last attempt to balkanise India. We didn't like this rule either, and we actually opposed it. It's why we later annexed territories either diplomatically or aggressively.

Through the efforts of Sardar Vallabhai Patel, about 562 princely states joined India. Before the Partition of India in 1947, about 584 princely states, also called “native states”, existed in India, which were not fully and formally part of British India,

Upon Independence, they were given the choice of either joining India or Pakistan or remaining independent. Through tact and diplomacy Sardar Vallabhai Patel managed to integrate many princely states within the Union of India.


Some examples of using violence.
From an Indian nawab:

From the Portuguese:


We are neutral. We don't do alliances. It's not in our interest at all. There's quite literally no advantage for India to be in an alliance with literally anybody. The only two enemies we have, it was they who decided to become our enemies.
 
Imperialism.
Bingo. Gain control, as per Eastern Europe pre-1991 so they could expand down to Indian Ocean and create a port there.
"Dugin’s actual influence over Russian policy has been grossly overstated,” Samuel Ramani, an associate fellow at the United Kingdom-based Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies think-tank, told Al Jazeera.

“He has never really held an official title within Russia … and he isn’t that in touch with the current establishment, least of all Putin,” Ramani said.

He noted Dugin had always “wanted to go much further [on foreign policy] than Putin is willing to go”.

"Dugin’s influence over Kremlin thought is minimal, his influence on their current war effort is nonexistent. Is Dugin supportive of the invasion? Absolutely. But to think he is dictating it — that it is happening at his will, or inspired by his writings — is absurd. Dugin’s hold over the actual workings and policy of the Kremlin is nonexistent, and claims that he operates as a Rasputin-type figure, dictating Putin’s foreign policy, are fantasies. Most Russians will not have heard of the thinker until his daughter was killed in front of him."






Nobody would have gone to the trouble of an assassination attempt otherwise.
 
It was a rule the Brits created, not Indians or Pakistanis. It was Britain's one last attempt to balkanise India. We didn't like this rule either, and we actually opposed it. It's why we later annexed territories either diplomatically or aggressively.
Yeah, so it's kind of arbitrary. Basically Britain could have split it 50:50, they you would have 5% less of J&K but you would be happy, because you wouldn't feel like Pakistan took it. What the West don't recognise is the value in opening an old would.


We are neutral. We don't do alliances. It's not in our interest at all. There's quite literally no advantage for India to be in an alliance with literally anybody. The only two enemies we have, it was they who decided to become our enemies.
You personally, are definitely not neutral.
Being friends and being allies are not the same.
They are if the friendship is real.
 
Yeah, so it's kind of arbitrary. Basically Britain could have split it 50:50, they you would have 5% less of J&K but you would be happy, because you wouldn't feel like Pakistan took it. What the West don't recognise is the value in opening an old would.

That was the plan. Our leaders didn't allow it to happen.

India was supposed to have a big hole in the middle.
1025px-Hyderabad_princely_state_1909.svg.png


By conspiring with Pakistan, the Nizam there screwed up, which allowed India to send its army in and take control.

You personally, are definitely not neutral.

I am personally more neutral than my country. On this forum, I am merely opposed to your views.

They are if the friendship is real.

:ROFLMAO:
 
Mullahs care only for their lives. If the army is gone, the mullahs will behave.
How can you so sure of that? it's delusional to believe that mullahs care about their lives or Pakistan's people lives.


"Ever since May 1998, when Pakistan first began testing nuclear weapons, claiming its national security demanded it, American presidents have been haunted by the fear that Pakistan’s stockpile of nukes would fall into the wrong hands. That fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home."

"Former President Barack Obama translated this challenge into carefully chosen words: “The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term,” he asserted, “would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Pakistan is supposed to be under international economic sanctions.
And With worry of Nukes falling into jihadist's hand, it won't be allowed.
Only India's enemies want a nuclear Pakistan. There are plenty who don't.
I was talking about big players like US, China. Russia( Don't care much) and Israel had to worry about Iranians/Hezbollah getting Nuke technology from failed Pakistani state.

But if they are saved, then we have to break them ourselves.
Pakistani Military Reputation is all time low in Pakistan. India meddling in Pak's domestic affair will strengthen their reputation. How is that in India's Interests?
'Cause you are either ignorant if old or just naive if young. Worst case, both. No issues though.
Then I guess, I am Naive Lol!
You have to stop treating the US as our bum-chums. Every single person worth their salt in our strategic circles agrees that after Russia and China, it will be India's turn. It's also why we don't care about becoming allies with them and the fact is repeatedly reiterated time and again by different people in power to drive home that point very clearly.
No one said US is going to be our Bum-chums.
However, I don't see US going to war with even china In order to maintain US economic might/ Diplomatic Dominance.
As, For undermining your near peer Competitor through block economy/ Sanctions/unfair Trade Deals will definitely remain in US playbook.
But War, NO.
 
How can you so sure of that? it's delusional to believe that mullahs care about their lives or Pakistan's people lives.


"Ever since May 1998, when Pakistan first began testing nuclear weapons, claiming its national security demanded it, American presidents have been haunted by the fear that Pakistan’s stockpile of nukes would fall into the wrong hands. That fear now includes the possibility that jihadis in Pakistan, freshly inspired by the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, might try to seize power at home."

"Former President Barack Obama translated this challenge into carefully chosen words: “The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term,” he asserted, “would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

And With worry of Nukes falling into jihadist's hand, it won't be allowed.

The mullahs won't get nukes. Even if they do get nukes, they won't be able to use them 'cause only the PA HQ will have access to the codes that can trigger them. It's the same reason why Ukraine returned the nukes to Russia.

Pretty much all of them can be 'persuaded' to return these stray nukes.

I was talking about big players like US, China. Russia( Don't care much) and Israel had to worry about Iranians/Hezbollah getting Nuke technology from failed Pakistani state.

Russia, UK and France don't want a nuclear Pakistan. US and China obviously want a nuclear Pak. That's their leverage over India.

If it wasn't for the existence of India, then both US and China will not want Pak to have nukes either.

Pakistani Military Reputation is all time low in Pakistan. India meddling in Pak's domestic affair will strengthen their reputation. How is that in India's Interests?

I am talking about the long term. Things are in our favour today, but that may not be the case in the future.

No one said US is going to be our Bum-chums.
However, I don't see US going to war with even china In order to maintain US economic might/ Diplomatic Dominance.
As, For undermining your near peer Competitor through block economy/ Sanctions/unfair Trade Deals will definitely remain in US playbook.
But War, NO.

It's difficult to say. Near-peer is the keyword. After WW2, the US used its economic heft to get its way. But they are losing that advantage. So now their only advantage is the military. If they begin losing there as well, things can get dicey for everybody. China won't be just a near-peer within the decade.

For the US, it's really important to keep the Chinese bottled at Taiwan. If Taiwan falls to China, then the US loses control over the entirety of the Western Pacific to China. The threat on Japan would expand. And things would get really bad for Korea too, where the Chinese can attempt a unification, challenging the US once again. The US won't be able to stop the unification even if they go to war. And if the US ends up withdrawing from their alliance obligations with SoKo, then that will be the end of America's global political power. 'Cause Japan will be next.

Taiwan gives the US the best possible advantage at playing defence with the least amount of escalation compared to defending SoKo or Japan. Meaning, both the US and China can go to war, but neither side will go nuclear over Taiwan. It's also the only place where the US can use its qualitative advantage spread over smaller numbers in a war that will very likely end quickly.
 
Because it isn't useful to revisit 75 year-old territorial changes. And sure, the ruler of Kashmir gave the territory to India formally, but he was not elected.
Going by that logic, no document signed with the Gulf countries should be honoured. Did you take your meds or what?

The logic that only a democratically elected person can sign a document goes against most documents you chaps have signed historically. Better not to go down this line of arguement.
 
Going by that logic, no document signed with the Gulf countries should be honoured. Did you take your meds or what?
That is your choice, but it isn't a practical one.
The logic that only a democratically elected person can sign a document goes against most documents you chaps have signed historically. Better not to go down this line of arguement.
The UK has been democratic for a long time. It doesn't help to revisit legacy agreements but the fact is that the status quo in Kashmir is just that, it's the way things are and have been for a long time. India trying to reclaim POK would be like Pakistan trying to reclaim Bangladesh. Both countries could be seen to have historical entitlements but either would end in mass bloodshed.