[What’s there to smile about?]
Posting this from New York.
There’s not an inkling anywhere in the media here about Narendra Modi’s “working visit” Feb 12-13 with President Donald J Trump — meaning there will be no state organised hoopla, piping of the visitor to the White House, etc. There’s business to be done and Trump is ready to shove the Indian PM into the corner. From what can be gleaned, there seems to be quiet confidence in Washington that Trump will, as he has in the domestic realm, have his way in the external world as well. With the Japanese Prime Minister Shiberu Ishiba standing unhappily by his side, Trump announced that trade would hereafter be conducted by America on strictly “reciprocal” basis with all countries. So Japan will be unable anymore to draw economic benefits as a treaty ally.
Modi is next in line to have his arms publicly twisted. Because Trump made it a point at the same press conference to first explain that hereon it will be tariff for tariff, and then to list the, primary targets. “I think that’s the only fair way to do it that way nobody’s hurt. They charge us, we charge them. It’s the same thing, and I seem to be going in that line as opposed to a flat fee tariff.” The old system with different countries having specific US tariff regimes to negotiate are over. The threat to impose tariffs on all imports was no empty campaign rhetoric.
Under the Reciprocal Trade Act that the US Congress is readying, foreign countries, Trump said in a campaign video, “will have two choices — they’ll get rid of their tariffs on us, or they will pay us hundreds of billions of dollars, and the United States will make an absolute fortune.”
“If India, China, or any other country hits us with a 100 or 200 percent tariff on American-made goods, we will hit them with the same exact tariff. In other words, 100 percent is 100 percent. If they charge us we charge them — an eye for an eye, a tariff for a tariff, same exact amount,” he stated at the press conference with Ishiba.
But where India is concerned, what is Trump really after?
It is clear India has disappointed the US Department of Defence and the strategic enclaves generally — the biggest supporters of a close relationship, with its standoffish attitude to military cooperation to obtain which Trump in his first term even coined the phrase “Indo-Pacific”. Other than hosting and participating in the bi-annual multinational Malabar naval exercise, New Delhi has done precious little to join the other Quad States (Japan, US and Japan) to strategically encircle and hinder China from realising it’s globe-girdling naval ambitions. In lieu of permitting the stationing of US carrier task force at an Indian base and otherwise to stage and embark American forces for operations in the proximal regions, which the Modi regime considers politically infeasible, it’d have been enough, many senior Indian naval officers in on the Indo-US policy dialogue claim, had the Modi government defined India’s strategic task and contribution to be, say, to actively and relentlessly press and pressure the Chinese naval forces west of Malacca to give the PLA Navy a pause.
Instead, Modi and his foreign minister, S Jaishankar have tried to once again pull off the old Indian diplomatic trick of playing the ends off against the middle and gaining from the willingness of major nations to afford New Delhi the necessary leeway to do this. Except, striving to keep so many balls in the air forever has made for a loopy foreign policy, especially because it has confused the US, China and Russia, in the main, that they are all equally the ends and the middle! These Big Three are nevertheless convinced they are being played. But the space India has exploited is precisely because the US and Russia are not willing to jerk India by pulling on the reins. That is, until now.
Trump is determined to end this, some experts here consider, artful Indian shilly-shallying. How much he succeeds will depend on whether Modi is willing to stand up for India’s vital national interests. The odds are — and this will be borne out by the outcome of the working visit — that like his predecessors and per his own record of two terms, he will succumb to Trump’s armtwisting, wishing all the while that he had the more manipulable Kamala Harris to deal with.
The main issues are these: Inadequate Indian military inputs into Quad to restrict China in the Indo-Pacific, large arms purchases from the US, the Russia arms and energy supply connection, and the Chabahar port in Iran at the centre of India’s North-South corridor project to attract Central Asian trade and commerce as alternative to the China-Pakistan economic corridor, and Tehran as a counterweight to the overwhelming sunni Muslim power in West Asia.
For all these issues Trump will push America as the answer.
He has already indicated he wants India to buy a whole lot of armaments from the US — most of them old hardware, with the potential Indian purchases seen as a means for American defence companies to clear their inventories of antique hardware discarded by the US and Western militaries that even Eastern European states are unwilling to accept as grant assistance. India in effect will part with tens of billions of dollars in hard currency to obtain a tech-wise incapable force. Recall the deal that fetched India the M-777 light howitzer that’s giving the Indian army no end of trouble? And the EMALS — electromagnetic launch system that was prioritised for Indian sale since 2015 and would have gone through had New Delhi not momentarily lapsed into common sense and rejected the 3rd carrier the Navy was gunning for at the expense of the nuclear-powered attack submarine. (Refer my May 2015 post — “US defence bait is potent but impractical symbolism”, https://bharatkarnad.com/2015/05/29/us-defence-bait-is-potent-but-impractical-symbolism/) Well, the Pentagon is preparing a list of more such items, with the Stryker nuclear battlefield combat vehicle at the top. Enamoured by this platform that its US counterpart, incidentally, opted out of, the Indian army will be hard put to find a role for it that is commensurate with its cost what with the availability of better more economical local options. (See my post “Stryker?! When local options are available”, https://bharatkarnad.com/2023/11/13/stryker-when-local-options-are-available/ )
For the Russian Smersh S-400 air defence system, Washington has long offered the less effective Patriot-3. And Trump has been touting American shale gas and oil for energy deficient countries relying on Russia, which alternative source Petroluem minister Hardeep Puri has already said the government is cottoning on to. The only question that remains is when will the point be reached when Moscow decides its interests are more effectively served by joining the Chinese bandwagon of arming Pakistan to the gills with first rate weapons systems that could paralyse India militarily because, truth be told, it won’t take much.
For the Chabahar port that India has invested in for strategic reasons and as the gateway to the sea for Central Asia, Trump will naturally bring up IMEC (India-Middle East Economic Corridor), which if chosen will leave India with no alternative or fallback communications line or geopolitical leverage.
If the Modi government had even the barest strategic sense and, more importantly, the guts, gumption and the will to stand up to Trumpian America (or, China for that matter), he would reiterate to Trump in the plainest possible terms what Jaishankar may have told his minions that concessionary terms for Indian exports of manufactures will accelerate China’s decline as the global workshop, that skilled Indian talent helps the likes of Elon Musk and the US to retain the technological edge even if at India’s expense, that Russia is both India’s and US’ friend and strategically helps by distracting the Chinese military at the Siberian end and that, in any case, India did quite well with Russian arms and can make do with them, once again should the ties with the US go south — a warning Trump cannot airily disregard.
As for the larger geopolitics, inclusive of Chabahar, India-Iran relations and Indo-Russian relations, Modi should have one response: An iron commitment as India’s contribution to Indo-Pacific security to hereon be militarily proactive vis a vis the Chinese Navy in the entire oceanic expanse west of Malacca, leaving two aircraft carrier task groups of the 7th Fleet out of Yokohama and its air complement to blunt the PLA Navy and its plans for the Taiwan Strait and the East Sea. Such an undertaking will immediately address Pentagon’s peeve about India doing less than nothing to help contain a galloping China, and to persuade Trump to let India be.
About allowing more Indian skilled talent into the US, the less Modi talks of the H1B visa the better. Everybody and his proverbial uncle in the leadership circles in the US and the West has about had it with the Indian PM’s pleadings to let in more Indian engineers and science grads as a way of pleasing his middle class voter base. The US’ intake of Indian STEMers will be whatever the American economy and system requires. The US is in a position to absorb what it needs because the best and the brightest from all over the world aree attracted to the promise it holds out. Instead of doing to the Indian government system what Trump is doing in Washington — taking an axe to the bloated government rolls, Modi is busy continuing to rely on the existing govt structure to deliver on his campaign rhetoric. Good Luck with that policy!
Because countries like Vietnam, that are following the Trumpian route to making the govt more receptive to the private sector, have already stolen a march over India, and will be beyond India’s ability to catch up with in the manufacturing sector. Time, therefore, for Modi to stop pushing the H1B stuff and regain a bit of self-respect for the nation. Or, there will be more humiliations in tow, like the C-17 returning the illegals in chains to Amritsar.
It is never too late for a pushback to Trump’s bullying. But that will require erecting guardrails for the India-US relations — something I have been advocating for several decades now (lately in a December 2023 post — “India needs to erect guardrails in its relations with America, https://bharatkarnad.com/2023/12/02/india-needs-to-erect-guardrails-in-its-relations-with-america/). It is what Jaishankar and his cohort in MEA are frankly incapable of doing, because they are all — virtually to a person — personally invested in good relations with America at any price, at any cost.
Security Wise 
The person you are addressing it to can’t read this and the one who can, is already prejudiced against you for consistently criticising him in your columns. Don’t be surprised if Modi soon latches on to Stryker deal (despite Air Force rejecting Javelin anti tank missile in trials) and a few F-15EX to top it.
The wisdom of Chinese who built on, though with less service life, but still Russian aero engines is also forgotten. After F-404 snub, they are still trying for F-414 deal. The Americans now pulled the plug on F-404 leaving Tejas MK1A in the lurch and thus are in the process of forcing India’s hand to import outdated 4.5 gen aircraft. In distant future (In 2040s), when AMCA will be nearing maturation they will pull the carpet beneath F-414, forcing India to import a few – then outdated – F-35.
This saga will go on !
Your observation of Russia having had enough with India and soon arming Pakistan with its latest inventory is also spot on. And the solutions how India should conduct its diplomacy are visionary. Alas ! There is nobody to listen to.
But the greater tragedy for the country is there is no replacement for Modi in sight even in next general election. So our best hope is that Modi would listen and learn.
Professor, you keep saying that India submits to the U.S. and Indian policy towards the U.S. is submissive. But contrary to what you say, reality has been different. India did not purchase the F18s, and Mr. Jaishankar was unable to influence their purchase, like you colourfully stated a few years back.
India has also pushed back on Khalistan and done so well. Again contrary to your statements.
Mr. Modi should learn from Trump on how to tame the bureaucracy. But we also need to see how trump executes.
strategically, India cannot antagonise both China and the U.S. at the same time. So even though the U.S. arm twists India, India needs to keep the U.S. on its side.
Also, the U.S. maybe overstating its economic might just like China. If this is true it will need India more to counter China. I do not expect the U.S. to have such an upper hand as you state.
India should take a more active role in the Indo Pacific role, but needs to insist on smoother engine and drone delivery plus smoother defence deal executions.
On tariffs, India will manage the U.S. well. Just look at what’s happening with Mexico, Canada and China. Trump blusters and bluffs much, let’s not overestimate his capacity to rile all nations and get what he wants. This is what China tried and failed. So no need to panic about US power and Indian genuflection!
Amit@ — That was F-16s Jaishankar might have peddled. But, for the IAF by then, it was infradig. It wanted the F-35! But settled for the Rafale.
@BharatKarnad Did the IAF really want the F-35? Now that Trump might try to sell it, will the IAF dump the contest to buy 114 jets and buy the F-35 instead?
@BharatKarnad Infradig because the PAF is also using the F-16 and the IAF didn’t want to use the same military hardwares like the PAF or any other reason?
this was for the naval planes, where the F18s and Rafales were being evaluated…ultimately India chose the Rafael M not the F18…
Amit@ — Jaishankar joined govt after his Tata stint, with Ratan Tata keen on producing F-16 under license
yes, but your article was about how India would select the F18 over Rafale M… and how Mr. Jaishankar would play his part on this…maybe also on the F16… but that is very unlikely to happen. The IAF won’t recommend this and Modi is not so subservient. Frankly the power gap between India and the U.S. is not as high as published. I think our think tanks should be doing a real assessment of U.S. and Chinese economic strengths. As that’s what will determine great power relations. India’s position is not as weak and U.S. and Chinese positions are not that strong.
Connect the dots, please. F-16 was pushed by Jaishankar, why? ‘Coz it’d get India closer to US, so would a F-18 super Hornet sale. The last point you make is precisely what I have been saying for years — India’s strengths are underestimated by GOI!
correction : army rejecting Javelin, not air force.
……there is nobody to listen to it….
Dear Dr Karnad , a very timely relevant article as usual from you. However one must say that we in India do not have much practical leverage when it comes to the US (or China) Trump as you mentioned in your article, for him QUAD / IMEC are for maximizing US interests. So we need to rethink our assumptions behind our policies towards US (or China)
@BharatKarnad The second link in this blogpost of yours – the Stryker blogpost https://bharatkarnad.com/2023/11/13/stryker-when-local-options-are-available/ is not available on your blog. Your blog says page not found/nothing found when I click on that link. Can you re-post it?
Just Google — Bharat Karnad – stryker. I did that to get to my post!
@BharatKarnad Is the true that US-made military hardwares are expensive and have a longer life and low maintenance cost and that Russian-made military hardwares are less expensive and have a shorter life and high maintenance costs?
True, different design per use philosophies
@BharatKarnad If that’s the case, then, shouldn’t India reduce its Russian-made arsenal and buy more of US-made military hardwares?
It is best to rely on oneself and until you have serviceable weaponry of your own to use, as China did, nuclear weapons as a dynamic deterrent. This is the case I have been making all along. Not doing so has what’s got US in the jam we are in
Professor, India is already behaving with the U.S. as if it has outlined guard-rails…Russian oil, discussions with France on engine Co development, hitting back at Khalistanis the U.S. and Canada etc. And not buying American airplanes under threat – like the F18 over Rafale M. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this reality means that you are trying to build a false narrative. I won’t call it propaganda, but definitely false narratives.
Await the outcome of Modi’s working visit with Trump
If you go through my entire oeuvre, as it were, national interest, hard power, hard realpolitik, and geostrategics have been my guiding lights in every little bit of my writing. The consistency and coherence of my views have never been refuted, or even contested. If you deem this propaganda, or false narrative, well,…
Professor, many people refute some of your views in these columns. So let’s acknowledge that. Also, when you narrate your views some of which are false, it becomes a false narrative. No one is questioning your national security intentions. But you do not acknowledge certain facts which makes it hard to accept some of your views.
This blog is catholic enough to permit views contesting my views, which is different from refuting them as that requires evidentiary info. Would appreciate your avoiding casual accusations of “false narrative”.
Professor, your campaign against the EAM can be called a false narrative. This is not a casual remark. It is based on your unjustified criticisms amd documentary evidence. Mr. Jaishankar is one of the most competent ministers in the current cabinet. Maybe you should direct your invective against the Defence Minister who is responsible for how the MoD runs. However, do appreciate your willingness to engage with criticisms against you. Does help the learning process and engage a wider audience.
Jaishankar, I have long maintained, is Modi’s foreign policy henchman and does what he his bid by the PM. It is not the thrust of Modi’s policy that I criticise so much as the details that Jaishankar works into its conduct. If you cannot see this as continuum, but insist on every post as new offering, then it is tiring, and ‘am ending this correspondence.
Thank you for so emphatically and publicly proving right Dr. Karnad’s views on the incorrigibly selfish and pathetic pattern of behaviour of US-based NRIs and PIOs.
Nice try with the Overton window shift – painting minimal, survivalist, public financial bankruptcy and mass poverty-avoiding, incrementalist GOI actions that were broadcast in plain sight of the apex predators and the entire j̶u̶n̶g̶l̶e̶ vishwa with a Satyagraha ‘hapless moral-force’ toned b̶l̶e̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ voice-over from comms, as if they were some kind of hard-nosed, steely-eyed, ‘red line boundary’-enforcing, ‘Dvaidhibhava duplicity’ accountability-inducing, escalation-control game-theoretised sequence of 4D-Chaturanga Raja Mandala alliance-cementing tactical negotiation process manoeuvres straight out of Harisena’s Prayag Prashasti on Samudragupt. No one’s buying the gaslighting any more.
The last time, for your pro-US, brain-drain cheer-leading comment, giving you the benefit of doubt I imputed agyana as motive. With this set of comments, you leave no choice but to assign instead malice, deducing from anumana first principles. Time to look in the mirror perhaps? Conflict of interests? Dual loyalties?
Professor I’ve gone through your whole oeuvre and understand the consistent themes that run through your books since 1993. Unless someone is motivated and has been specifically assigned the job to come and give rebuttals to howsoever you logicize, some of your points are irrefutable. Otherwise what demerit one could possibly find when you aver :
“If the Modi government had even the barest strategic sense and, more importantly, the guts, gumption and the will to stand up to Trumpian America (or, China for that matter), he would reiterate to Trump in the plainest possible terms what Jaishankar may have told his minions that concessionary terms for Indian exports of manufactures will accelerate China’s decline as the global workshop, that skilled Indian talent helps the likes of Elon Musk and the US to retain the technological edge even if at India’s expense, that Russia is both India’s and US’ friend and strategically helps by distracting the Chinese military at the Siberian end and that, in any case, India did quite well with Russian arms and can make do with them, once again should the ties with the US go south — a warning Trump cannot airily disregard.
As for the larger geopolitics, inclusive of Chabahar, India-Iran relations and Indo-Russian relations, Modi should have one response: An iron commitment as India’s contribution to Indo-Pacific security to hereon be militarily proactive vis a vis the Chinese Navy in the entire oceanic expanse west of Malacca, leaving two aircraft carrier task groups of the 7th Fleet out of Yokohama and its air complement to blunt the PLA Navy and its plans for the Taiwan Strait and the East Sea. Such an undertaking will immediately address Pentagon’s peeve about India doing less than nothing to help contain a galloping China, and to persuade Trump to let India be.”
While I have no inhibitions in confessing I’ve been pro-Modi and pro-US till recently and still occasionally press a like when expatriates greet Modi on his jaunts abroad – overawed that I am with his oratory and the American tech – now the water is crossing above the cranium.
Here Trump has jacked up the price of F-414 powerplant if media reports are credible, after a year long – and still counting – delay in the delivery of F-404, defence experts have empirically proven Whapp to be superior than the Stryker, Javelin has been debunked by the Army forcing yankees to ask for re-trial, Russians have offered a viable 177S engine (6000 hrs service life) with tech-transfer and local production among other options, and still as if in complete disregard of reason, Modi is set to fall head over heels tomorrow for the two deals, just to placate Trump.
BJP sympathisers employ some noticeable stratagems by now to deflect the criticism away from the government : blame HAL not the government, put the onus on Defence Minister despite Jaishankar being in the lead most of the time, raise supply chain issues despite US deliberately putting a spanner in the Tejas works and so on.
So I would request you to take the least umbrage and continue to do your work that is appreciated by many if not most.
@BharatKarnad
i absolutely agree with what gagandeep is saying please sir continue your work
eagerly waiting for your new title too
Dear Dr Karnad , My first impression on Mr Modi current trip to Washington is that he capitulated to Mr Trump. India agrees to be top importer of super-costly US energy as well as hyper-costly US weapons imports. The cherry on top of the cake was the Trump declaration of India agreeing to buy US F-35 jets. QUAD and IMEC were just PR stunts in the first place whose real objective was to ensure India imports more from the US. This in addition of the fact that Trump is now seeking a grand deal with China means that QUAD and Indo-pacific were bondoogles and ultimately what matters is US selling away Asia to China. I would love Your thoughts on my impression.
@BharatKarnad
professor trump has offered 2 squadrons of F35 for the IAF transfer of technology is highly unlikely
what do you think will IAF and modi government grab these jets?
Hope IAF has enough residual sense not to accept F-35 — an absolute lemon of a combat aircraft — look up my writings on the subject by googling “Bharat Karnad – F-35”! Its downtime in USAF is huge. Moreover, this aircraft needs immensely greater sensor and communications support than India has.
professor when you posted your reply I was typing my views. F-35 of 2025 is no longer an F-35 of 2015. Block 4 upgrades have resolved most of the problems. Its availability is 69 percent and quality comes with a price.
Gagandeep@ — But I reiterated it in an interview to 2023 Reuters — the essential transfer conditions have changed little. Moreover, the F-35 India gets will not have the jet engine the US fleet is being re-equipped with, and none of the advanced avionics, etc
yeah i just read some of your old articles on this topic and certainly even the USAF is frustrated because of the enormous high cost these jets brings on the table it will be a operational nightmare for IAF without any doubt
i fear that if IAF goes ahead with these aircrafts(1-2 squadrons) they will kill AMCA in the similar way they killed HF 24 Marut that had paved way for jaguar low level fighters
what are your views on this
Of course.
Professor, it’s anybody’s guess what will happen with the F35 offer. At least there are some in the IAF that want the F-35. But I believe if India does not get the tech it wants and the know why like you have mentioned in your books, India will feed the U.S. its Sarkari tarkari and drag negotiations out. I doubt the F21 will ever make it to the IAF. More likely there will be P8is and possibly the restart of the C17 lines. Trump might blow hot and cold, but Indian bureaucracy will dole out its tarkari
@BharatKarnad You say that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet is a lemon. Then, what do you have to say about all the nations which invested money in it and have bought it? They must have seen something good and worth their money and investment.
Most NATO investor states didn’t get what they paid for — source codes, but can do nothing about it.
@BharatKarnad Israel isn’t a NATO state, yet, it gets to modify the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets it got from the USA as per its requirements. So, does that mean that the USA gave the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets source code to Israel?
seems to be so.
@BharatKarnad Qatar is a state sponsor of terrorism and it is home to a US military base. For hosting a US military base, was it made a Major Non-NATO Ally and since the UAE doesn’t seem to be hosting a US military base, therefore it was made a Major Defense Partner. Am I right or wrong on this here?
right
Professor Trump has offered 40 odd F-35 to India, but I suspect the sale will be linked to procurement of F-21 aircraft first. I have mixed emotions to the announcement.
On the one hand, F-35 will address India’s immediate security concerns. 40 F-35 given in United States Air Force configuration can wipe out whole Pakistan Air Force and will also stop increasingly belligerent Chinese in their trenches.
On the other hand, it has put paid to our hopes of having an indigenous 5th generation fighter (AMCA). But things were not moving at desired pace on AMCA earlier either. From 2010 to 2018 we had mouths ajar looking to build with Russia, Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). So we just kept sitting on our haunches with designs of AMCA. Even when it was clear in 2018 that we are going ahead with AMCA, redtape took over and Cabinet Committee on Security approval came only in 2024.
Now though we are working on some sub-systems of AMCA and even tasted success there, but the bothersome question is do we have the requisite infrastructure to go the whole hog with as complex a project as AMCA ? We have recently imported two forging presses of 15000 and 20000 tonnage, but don’t we need more, again for which we will be looking askance towards US of A ?
I know your usual reaction will be to brush the above ifs with a broom of nonchalance and advise going indigenous, but can India afford a near term threat to its sovereignty by not importing a fifth generation fighter given that China already has two and Pakistan won’t wait long to import one or two of its own (Chinese J-35 and Turkish KAAN) ?
Even regarding F-414 engine, I have another take. India has designed its Tejas Mark II and AMCA arround F-414. Comprehensive wind tunnel testings and Critical Design Reviews have been done that has taken us years. I don’t think India at this stage can afford to even think of other engine, dance to the tunes of USA even though we might have to.
I know you might say it’s better to be late than sorry later on, but still, think about it. A risen China is glowering at us. We can’t afford to get the north east and Kashmir cut from us, just because we were hanky panky about a certain indigenous fifth generation fighter and becoming a so called Super Power.
F-21 as leasd-in to F-35 at the expense of LCA was always on the US card.
Re: a “glowering” China — India can glower right back by forward deploying nuclear weapons in a short fuse stance (as advocated in my 2018 Staggering Forward). India has to We have to learn to fight with what it has rather than at every turn looking for outside weapons and aid to get itself out of trouble.
@BharatKarnad
professor your proposal of deploying ADM is very risky
the terrifying scenario is that if the Chinese detect even 1 percent radioactivity considering dust and earth are the best absorbers of nuclear gamma rays we will then see retaliatory tactical nuclear strikes on Indian forces on our side of the border
india should avoid any nuclear exchange with china until and unless our thermonuclear weapons are proven credible and deployed which will happen in future but might take decades
would love to know your opinion
As always argued about Indian outlook and policy — all risk-averse and no gain.
@Prof Karnad.
Should forward deploy tactical nukes (if at all we have a proven one) on Parlay, Prithvi and Agni 2.
Jets are as easily flying ducks as aircraft carriers are sitting ducks. It is mattering less whether you have F22s, F35s, Tejas, Rafales or Sukhois.
Missile regiments, Drones, SSBNs, SSNs, Air Defense & Space Assets is the way to go – and thankfully India has strengths here.
Professor, here is an article which highlights the top ten GDPs…
https://money.howstuffworks.com/largest-economies-in-the-world.htm#google_vignette
US GDP is stated to be ~30.4T. In 2021 published gdp of the US was $23.6T. CAGR works out to be ~6.5%… yet US GDP growth has been between 2-3% in the time frame… you see how deceptive this is? Same article lists China’s GDP as 19.5T. Complete phoney baloney! The world is being deceived by these two countries!
Reality is that both Chinese and US GDPs are much lower. And the U.S. needs India to contain China. I expect U.S. India relations to improve under Trump. If US Russia relations improve, then we get into a fluid game between these four countries. If Russia and China bond, the India and the U.S. bond. It’s just basic economic and military logic.
@Amit
And don’t forget these are nominal GDP figures. True story lies somewhere between nominal GDP and GDP Purchasing power parity.
Unless of course one believes that a well trained Indian soldier with a gun is 1/10th that of US solider just because the salary of Indian solider is 1/10th in dollar terms.
Amit@ — There is no deception, you are getting confused due to convention. GDP figures are nominal while the growth figures are always ‘real’ meaning inflation adjusted. So the CAGR of 6.5 % you worked out is correct, but you have to subtract inflation rate from this to get ‘real’ GDP growth.
@ltanium that’s another trope that’s being bandied about these days by govt sympathisers. “We don’t have quality aircraft, because aircraft matter less in today’s war and air defences more.”
Had that been the case Israeli F-35 wouldn’t have bombed daylights out of Iran (with all sorts of air defences and latest Russian radars). Wasn’t it for USA that held their hand, they would have burrowed out Iranian nuclear reactors too using American Bunker Busters.
The Russia-Ukraine war that is being cited as a case study to support this view had none of the aircraft that would rival F-22, F-35 or for that matter J-20. In fact in case of a near peer threat like China where MQ-9 Reapers will be the first casuality, a true blue stealth aircraft like F-35 can make easy incisions early on in war. Especially when you have topography to support as does exist on the India-China border. Even Rafales will benefit from it.
And to second that I would say Bharat Karnad is still crying hoarse for India to procure big bulky bombers as they can shoot from stand-off ranges !
Another cliche that has been deliberately made to take roots in Indian media is “We don’t have big aircraft carriers because carriers are prone to hypersonic missiles”, that when China’s globe girdling hypersonic missile missed its target by 12 or was it 24 miles. Are Chinese and Americans fools that are investing in 10 big carrier navies.?
@Gagandeep
Last time I checked Iran air defense were all either local made or the now obsolete S300. Real test will be F35, F22 vs tiered air defence systems like S400 or S500 Prometheus. There is a reason why US gets real mad and threatens CAATSA on whoever buys S400. There that’s food for thought.
On the point of strategic long range bombers, I strongly disagree with whoever embraces it including Prof Karnad. I think the air wing of the nuclear triad is passé leaving behind only the land based missiles and SSBN launched SLBMs as the “dyad” with true nuclear string.
In the end it would be foolish for India to compete on conventional technology considering the poor quality of engineering talent and very little defense industrial base. Just see the QA problems in HAL!
Rather it should leverage its strengths in unconventional and strategic armaments where it holds serious edge.
ICBMs, Tactical nuclear, Air defense, SSBN+SLBM, Quasi ballistic, MLRS, Supersonic, Hypersonic ….. These are all agile maneuverable and fast systems that can effectively take on super sophisticated incoming systems.
Why else do you think Philippines, Indonesia are paying premium for Brahmos? Food for thought again. I am backing up assertions with evidence.
@ltanium
I will restrict myself to your argument that S-400 or S-500 can target F-35. Bomber part, Prof Karnad will handle himself though I concur with him that India should have strategic bombers even though they be Russian.
Tighten the seatbelt and let us see.
The S-400’s longest-range SAM against a Fighter aircraft is 48N6M(E2) with a range of 250 km. 40N6E with 400km range is designed for AWACS/bomber-like targets.
As per the manufacturer, the 91N6E which is the primary Search radar for S-400 can detect a 4 m2 target from 390 km. The F-35’s RCS is -40 dB or 0.0001 m2
Using the radar equation, 91N6E can detect F-35 from 27 km. But this is not the range a S-400 can engage the F-35. For that, the Fire-control radar 92N6E Gravestone must be able to track it. Now, the Gravestone radar can track a 4 m2 target from 250 km. Against F-35, it corresponds to 17.6 km.
It’s worth noting that in reality the background noise for the F-35 will be orders of magnitude higher than a 4 m2 target – this is something the radar equation doesn’t take into account. So the actual range of S-400 against the F-35 will be much less than the above figures. Then you have F-35’s powerful EW and cyber warfare capabilities
When you consider those factors it won’t be a surprise if the S-400’s engagement envelope shrinks to a single digit against the F-35. But the majority of F-35’s standard AGMs for SEAD – from JSOW-ER (560 km range and carried internally), SDB ( greater than 110 km) to AGM-88E (HARM) have over 5 times the targeting range of S-400. So the F-35 will bomb the S-400 much before it has seen the hell coming.
The performance of the S-500 would be somewhat better.
The other part of your argument is why the USA doesn’t want to fly the F-35 in the vicinity of S-400. This is because F-35’s RCS data is not known to countries like Russia. A good software engineer with knowledge of radars will tell you that using a $40 program you can simulate the RCS of an F-35 against various wavelengths and amplitudes including L-Band and X-band radars. The USAF is not so foolish as to disclose the RCS data of F-35 by displaying them without radar reflectors in peace-time or by flying them in close proximity to threats like S-400.
So your Wunderwaffe S-400 and S-500 in actual face-off will not hold water against high tech aircraft like F-35 and F-22.
As a parting shot, according to Kopp’s estimations, for even L-Band radars – which Russians make quite a heavy weather of – to be effective, the F-35 would need an L-Band RCS of over 0.1m2. It corresponds to 74 km which is well within the range of AMRAAM-120D.
@Gagandeep
I get all the params, specs and math. Indians have this penchant to use hifi terms, glorious words and fancy maths. But what works out on paper will not work out in real life.
What do you know about how its stealth features achieve the low radar cross section in actuality?
Or the true efficacy of the radar absorbing material?
Or the actual system performance of the counter electronic warfare capacity?
Or the QA behind the system integration of the plane?
How does it perform if the AWACS system is degraded or out?
What happens if ASAT takes down supporting satellites?
Real test is how it performs in ACTUAL combat. Not theoretical math or the rhetoric behind the marketing material; Case in point – see the malfunction of Patriot system in Saudi Arabia. That did not work out as much as it was advertised, did it now?
There are real reasons why Turkey defied the entire NATO to get hold of S400; As was the case for IAF advising the Indian Govt. to acquire S400 at ANY cost despite CAATSA.
Not that F35 vs S400 will play out in India, China, PAK scenario- so that comparison is really moot.
America’s primary objective vis-a-vis India is to atrophise our R&D, manufacturing, military and cultural muscles. Crippling our R&D ecosystem by dumping their equipment achieves larger aim of making a dependency out of us. Liu He had rejected the trade deal precisely because it sought to contain and cap the Chinese high-tech R&D. Instead of sloganeering, Chinese went on a whole-of-nation approach to bridge and surpass the Western technological edge. We, on the other hand, have been burning money at the altar of democracy to service and maintain the inutile masses. We’re not serious about acquiring power, and it shows in our aversion to unchained ourselves from this democratic disorder.
Indians seek approval; Chinese, in contrast, seek power.
@Ranveer
India is like a big chicken with a gun.
Easily scared, easily pushed to the corner, seeks approval, submits under pressure; But ruffle it’s feathers too much and it will pull the trigger and fires warning shorts to finally discover it’s strength, position and power.
it then goes back to sleep and wakes up the next day being a big chicken all over again.
@Ranveer
“Indians seek approval; Chinese, in contrast, seek power.”
I had a Chinese friend who made two very incisive observations about Indians that have always stayed with me: (1) The lack of a unified language in India, specifically the failure to embrace Hindi, will continue to bind the Indian intellect to the Western-controlled conceptual frameworks crafted to maintain its subordinate position. and (2) A mind accustomed to subservience will prioritize Western validation over enacting decisive, albeit difficult, strategies.
As long as our minds are enslaved in the occupier’s conceptual framework we can not “unchained ourselves from this democratic disorder.”
@Amit
Big countries can never be friends. US naturally only wants India to be only a client state.
In the same vein China wants Russia to be its client state although Russia China axis is the biggest US foreign policy blunder of 21st century.
India is on its own to defend itself. And that is the way it should be. Best that can be hoped for is transactional and technological relationship between the countries.
@Itanium, agree that big countries can never be friends. But I’m very skeptical that the U.S. and Chinese economies are as big as they state them to be. Given this, the U.S. cannot contain China on its own and absolutely needs India for this purpose. If the U.S. is really a $30T economy, maybe it can walk and chew gum and does not require anyone – an attitude displayed by the Biden administration. However, I’m increasingly beginning to think the the Biden administration was reckless. Trump will be more realistic and will leverage India on China. He will bargain hard, but so will India. I don’t believe India is a sell out nation.
@Amit
I agree – I think you make a very insightful observation on waning influence of US. On this score I tend to agree with S Jaishankar that we are truly entering a multipolar world with military and economic ascension of China and India.
Again I agree that India is not a sellout nation – New Delhi is not stupid.
But there are certain behaviors that superpowers exhibit which India doesn’t.
Case in point:
I am sure there are more, but these are some of serious problems that must be overcome.
@Itanium, yes, the true economic strength lies somewhere between nominal and PPP. My calculation is for military capes, it’s 2.8x – so $20B in Indian cape is like $56B. Also, while India is much closer to the U.S. and China gdp wise, it does not have strong core capabilities in industry. So it needs to rely on the very nations who try to subdue it. For this reason, it has to suck up to the U.S. as U.S. companies invest in India and teach Indians how to do advanced chip design and other R&D. India is using western R&D to build its own R&D. On its own it invests nothing! There are just too many issues with India.
@Amit
“So it needs to rely on the very nations who try to subdue it”
Hat tip! Smart observation again.
Its not a bad thing after all. One can build body muscles only by pulling weights against resistance, not by going with the flow.
In a way its good if reality inflicts pain on the Indian system time and again; That will prod GOI into taking concrete action to acquire capabilities and plug the gaps;
Just like NSG spawned local rare earth exploration,
or the missile denial begot the triumphantly successful IGMDP
and cryo sanctions spawned full suite of ISRO space rockets.
Sir, Trump has floated the idea of cutting defence spending by half if Russia, China concur.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/trump-floats-deal-with-russia-china-to-cut-defence-spending/articleshow/118292422.cms
China’s foreign minister has already demurred. What do you make of it ? Shouldn’t war mongering be reduced on Indian pages too ? Shouldn’t we rather focus on becoming Ram-rajya than a Super Power ? The issue had been tackled head on by you in ‘Why India is not a great power’.
Gagandeep@ — Try not be delusional about Ram Rajya, etc
Also, Sir, what do you make of progress on 1,2,3 deal ? Will Trump foist same Westinghouse reactors on India ? Indian govt seems to have taken a U-turn of liability clause also after standing firm for a decade. Though I don’t want to jump the gun and let the details of legislation and reactors trickle through
The aim of the 123 Ag was always to revive the US nuclear industry on the back of the sale to India of the Westinghouse AP 1000 light water reactors
@BharatKarnad Can you please give your learned and knowledgeable opinion on this news report which was published in the The Economic Times yesterday on Sunday, February 16, 2025 at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-may-take-rafale-route-to-buy-us-f35-fighter-jets-govt-likely-to-opt-for-limited-numbers-may-require-special-monitoring-clauses/articleshow/118308940.cms
As per this news report, India might buy 36 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, just like it bought 36 Dassault Aviation Rafale fighter jets.
It also says that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets will be pitched as a stop-gap arrangement as the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft [AMCA] fighter jets aren’t expected to enter service before 2036.
Since India has already bought 36 fourth-generation Dassault Aviation Rafale fighter jets and if its buys 36 more fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, this will mean that India has 72 news fighter jets. So, that leaves only 42 fighter jets to be bought because the latest Multi Role Fighter Aircraft [MRFA] requirement is for 114 fighter jets.
So, in this case, since Donald Trump is the new US President and PM Narendra Modi wants to be on his good side and become more pro-USA and develop closer relations while Trump is in office, after buying 36 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II figher jets, will Modi buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets as the remainder 42 fighter jets from the 114 intended for the Multi Role Fighter Aircraft [MRFA] requirement?
And is this whole Multi Role Fighter Aircraft [MRFA] thing all show for all the contestants when Modi has kind of decided to buy the fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets instead of the fourth-generation Dassault Aviation Rafale fighter jets?
IAF’s equipment profile makes no sense, F-35 will worsen it.
@BharatKarnad By IAF’s equipment profile, do you mean the diverse foreign-origin aircraft from the former USSR/now RF, France including the Anglo-French Jaguars?
@BharatKarnad Why will the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets that India might get won’t have the same engines like the one the US Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets?
India not a priority ally.
@BharatKarnad What about India being a Major Defense Partner [MDP] of the USA? Will it help? One more thing, the UAE was also designated a Major Defense Partner of the USA. How is a Major Defense Partner of the USA different from being a Major Non-NATO Ally [MNNA] of the USA? Are MDP and MNNA inferior or superior to each other? Any chance of Trump making India a MNNA?
Professor, given US shenanigans with supplying India with military platforms and technologies, India should just go with the Su-57. Doesn’t make sense to go for F-35s even though some in the IAF may want it. Of course, developing the Kaveri is paramount, but hopefully, with the current new funding for engine development, this is not delayed further. Let’s see if India can resist U.S. pressure on F-35s.
hello sir …Good morning sir…i would like to ask a question on recent visit by modi to washington….as one analyst c rajamohan says in foreing policy piece “On the face of it, a United States that pivots to Asia is welcome in India. Trump, however, has added some new wrinkles to U.S. China policy. His eagerness to “get along” with Xi is sending mixed signals across Asia. On the one hand, Republican China hawks occupy key positions on Trump’s national security team. During the administration’s engagement with Modi and other visitors from Asia over the last few weeks, Washington has hardened its position in relation to the Indo-Pacific and China.
On the other hand, Trump appears to be leaving the door open for a big, beautiful deal with Xi. Could Trump consider a grand bargain with China in Asia, much in the manner he is attempting one with Russia in Europe? India is less vulnerable than Japan, South Korea, and, most obviously, Taiwan to a big shift in U.S. policy on China, but New Delhi’s economic and security challenges would certainly become bigger. When an Indian reporter sought to bait Trump into talking tough on China during the joint press conference with Modi, he refused. Instead, he reaffirmed his desire to get along well with Xi. Trump pointed to India’s border conflict with China, offering to help diffuse it if asked.
There is always a faction in New Delhi that thinks an accommodation with Beijing is right around the corner—and that India must keep pushing for it. As much as this might be another prong in a multialignment strategy, it is unrealistic for the time being, given the massive asymmetry in power that lets China enjoy the upper hand. While Beijing could make a few minor adjustments in relations, it has little strategic incentive to ease New Delhi’s problems, and this structural condition is unlikely to dissipate in the near term. That leaves India to focus on building stronger ties with the United States even as it pursues multialignment. India’s answer to a potential U.S.-China detente lies in doing even more with Washington—for only Washington is able and likely willing to help strengthen India’s comprehensive national power. Modi and Trump have created the template for doing so.”
so my questions are 1) Wats ur opinion sir on this above strategy as he says at the end that the answer to USA china detente is to close ranks even more with Washington
2)Will Washington help in building up” India’s comprehensive national power “??..in other words , in wat areas or technologies usa can help india ?..given mood in usa to block critical technologies to any power , will it part with india those critical technologies?..also there is a talk in india that usa doesnt want “second china” (india) to be build up to challenge usa..
thanks sir…regards
Get close to US to mitigate the effects of Trump-Xi deal? Can anything be sillier?
@ltanium
First, let’s handle your suspicion of Patriot missile and faith in S-400 before I come to other questions, mostly hypothetical, raised by you. Size of the warhead and quality of the seeker of either of the two missiles can tell a great deal on which of them you can have greater trust going into war.
First a bit on warhead !
Anti-aircraft missiles use fragmentation warheads where you have the warhead detonating in proximity to the aircraft and releasing thousands of tungsten pellets or steel rods designed to cut through the relatively fragile airframe of an aircraft.
The size of an anti-aircraft missile’s warhead depends on their accuracy or how close the missile can get to the target, which in turn depends on the manoeuvrability of the missile and that is something greatly affected by the missile’s weight. In general, lighter the missile, the more manoeuvrable it is and the closer it can get to the target at the interception point – requiring a smaller warhead to be lethal. As the missile gets bigger and heavier it starts affecting their agility and manoeuvrability which ultimately limits how close they can get to a manoeuvrable target (Fighter aircraft) at an interception point. Put it short, further away from the target a missile detonates bigger the warhead it requires in order to be lethal.
Weighing under 100 kg short-range missiles like AIM-9x are manoeuvrable enough to get within a meter or two of their target(s) and thus, requiring a small warhead of 9 kg. BVR missiles like AMRAAM would get several meters to their target(s) requiring a slightly bigger warhead of 20 kg. Then comes the longer range SAMs like PAC-2 GEM-T weighing 6 times that of an AIM-120 (914 vs. 160 kg) which along with its bigger size requires a 90 kg warhead in order to be effective.
SAMs by design require a much bigger motor, carry more fuel and are bigger in size since they have to accelerate from zero speed and altitude unlike an AAM (air-air missile) enjoying a head-start from launch aircraft’s speed and altitude. To negate their size and loss in maneuverability they require much bigger warheads.
With that being said, there’s no sensible reason for a SAM requiring 180 kg warhead as is the case with S-400’s 48N6E missiles (200–250 km range), at least not in the 21st Century. Consider that SAMs like SM-6 which is arguably the longest range SAM with greater than 400 km range carry a 64 kg warhead which is probably the largest warhead you’d find on a modern Western SAM (PAC-2 actually dates back to 1990s). The reason why Russian SAMs often have substantially bigger warheads is mainly because Russian SAMs for the most part are substantially bigger than their Western counterpart (For instance upgraded 48N6E3 missile of S-400 weighs 1800 kg as compared to 914kg for PAC-2 and even 1500kg for two stage SM-6 ) That kind of ruins a missile’s accuracy to say the least and hence the massive warhead.
Then comes the guidance !
Unlike the West, Russia doesn’t have any long or medium-range SAMs with Ku or Ka-band seeker which offers considerably better resolution than X-band. That’s ignoring a Ka-band AESA seeker as in PAC-3. Part of the missile’s accuracy also depends on the seeker’s resolution – the difference between being able to just distinguish the target from the background and and to be able to identify specific ‘features’ on your target on the other hand.
It’s also worth mentioning that modern Patriot missiles, the PAC-3 and PAC-3MSE transitioned to hit-to-kill (kinetic) warheads and carry a small ‘Lethality Enhancer’, 408 g fragmentation warhead for anti-aircraft role. So instead of detonating in proximity to their targets as conventional SAMs, PAC-3 interceptors pick a point on their target (usually the warhead of a RV) and steer itself to directly ram into that point.
Although against highly manoeuvrable targets like Fighter aircraft a direct impact may not always be possible and that’s where the small Lethality Enhancer comes into play. Since PAC-3 can get really close to an aircraft it only needs a tiny warhead.
Most Western SAMs designs over the past 20 years emphasised kinetic warheads to make space to carry a bigger motor or more propellant – indirectly increasing the missile’s range.
From PAC-2’s 90 kg fragmentation warhead to PAC-3’s kinetic warhead, in the last 30 years SAMs have come a long way in terms of accuracy and size of warhead. The days of long-range SAMs carrying massive warheads are long gone, at least for those that have moved beyond 1990s technology unlike Russia.
Rest, when Turkey and India signed up for S-400, F-35 was beset with some problems and was getting very bad press. It is a mature platform now. As for Radar Absorbing Paint, RCS and EW capability of F-35 I hope you don’t expect me to personally go and inspect F-35 before answering you back. Specs for S-400 and F-35 have been taken as claimed by their respective manufacturers.
And if an American satellite can be hit with an ASAT, do you expect America to spare its adversary. The reality is the F-35 can act as a very powerful sensor node for even other weapon systems in the theatre. Its sensors are even more powerful than conventional AWACS.
@Gagandeep
Gosh! It is so hard to reply considering my time constraints – but probably its worth trying here. You say I am hypothetical! In fact its probably you who are hypothetical. How can I be the one when I am insisting on real world results (or lack of it)?
With respect to SAM, you are overhyping the importance of hit to kill. A fragmentation explosive can expand at a rate anywhere from Mach 4 (poor quality) to Mach 21 (high quality). Which current or future aircraft can
evade it if it comes within blast radius of the SAM warhead? Re-entry vehicles and ballistic missile defence is another game altogether – one where gravity fundamentally aids the invading missile and actively hurts
the interceptor missile. So that is a separate thread for discussion.
And you have to compare PAC-2 (Mach 4.5/160km/900kg) to longer range S-400 missiles like 48N6 and 40N6 (250km/Mach6/1800kg and 400km/Mach 8/ 1900kg respectively). But notice the difference in speed
and ponder over what that could mean to an incoming aircraft that can fly at 1.5Mach.
And you have to compare shorter range hit to kill PAC-3, MSE(35Kms/Mach 4.8/320kg and 45km, Mach 4.8, 380kg)
with 9M96E & 9M96E2 (40km/Mach 6/ 400kg, 120km/Mach 6/420kg). They both are a bit heavier (not significantly so)
but definitely have higher range than PAC-3.
As I said fragmentation explosive speed is probably fully sufficient to outrun any incoming aircraft if exploded at appropriate proximity.
Do note that hit to kill 77N6 add on to S400 is already under development.
You can see above this four missile tiered air defence system throws the entire spectrum of speed+range
and maneuverability tradeoffs making it a statistically difficult system to overcome. But I duly note that perhaps
S400 must be tested more in real world scenario before we can award it full certificate.
“If an American satellite can be hit with an ASAT, do you expect America to spare its adversary.”
It is a question of what America can really do, its not a rhetorical question. Once the technological advantage vanishes due to AWACS or Satellite degradation, you are set back two generations and have to win
the war by throwing humans on ground and making them toe artillery and missiles.
You will get into a game of attrition with enormously large Chinese, Russian or NK Army. Not that I would ever support communist states – I want America to win here, but we must ground our talks in reality.
So “sparing its adversary” is not a simple matter of putting a leash on the dog and throwing it out in the cold.
@ltanium
Speed after a certain limit and weight of the missile will both cost it its maneuverability which has sought to be addressed by Russians with a heavy warhead. It is not a very sophisticated means of intercepting an aircraft.
New generation missiles like SM-6 with 1500 kg weight and more than 400 km range are two stage missiles. So the first stage falls off and the dead weight of the missile doesn’t cost it its maneuverability. That is why it requires a 64 kg warhead.
Then PAC-3, SME missiles are fully integrated with THAAD and F-35. THAAD has a speed of 8.5 Mach and range of 200km because it has to encounter RVs. So you see American systems have the best of both worlds, where speed is needed they have speed and where maneuverability is needed they have maneuverability.
Add superior seekers to top that !
Anyway, you have made your point and I have made mine. So let us leave it to the readers for individual preference. But I wanted to debunk the common perception here that in S-400 Russians have invented some extraordinarily superior system that Americans lack.
@Gagandeep
Fair enough to say we should stop here!
The summary of my argument was that ballistic missiles cannot be reliably stopped even by highly maneuverable missiles and for stopping conventional fighter aircrafts they are an over kill. Hence the value in India using independent tiered systems like S400/S500.
As per why F35 is a bad idea, I am just going to invoke @Prof. Karnad as I highly agree with him.
Once again India being no where capable of matching US high-tech industrial base, and being too big to be a client state of US, is better off using unconventional and asymmetric methods to deal with China.
i.e. Use air-defence network to neutralize air force on one hand and use rocket forces for offensive posturing.
Case in point: Pralay missiles with IAF in the future may be equipped with tactical nukes deter Chinese air bases.
Dsko Dr Karnad , it seems that our F-35 purchases are against even suggestions made by Mr Elon Musk who has strongly criticised the whole F-35 project as a
Tumm saalaa Kaalaa log (you bloody black people) look what Trump has done to you;
On February 13, US President Donald Trump threatened the BRICS nations that they could face 100 per cent tariffs from the United States “if they want to play games with the dollar.” He said that the BRICS is dead
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/trump-claims-brics-india-china-broke-up-threatened-150-tariffs-undermining-dollar-2683205-2025-02-21#?utm_source=Story_hp&utm_medium=Story&utm_campaign=home_Story
Professor, here is an article which highlights how Trump is doing what a realist would do. Get Russia on its side and focus on China. Realists have been harping for years on how foolish the Biden admin policy was. I finally feel good about what the U.S. is trying to do.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/reverse-nixon-donald-trump-ukraine-russia-warputin-xi-jinping/articleshow/118455140.cms
If Russia and the U.S. make up, China will be isolated. Chinese strategy was also foolish – they should have focused on the U.S. and not antagonised India. But I now expect China to make up to India. Unlikely they will continue to remain foolish and be against India.
This leads to a true multi polar reality. Something akin to what was in the 1700s and 1800s. Interesting times ahead!
Sir
USS Nimitz is retiring cvs68
should India buy it (assuming we get a good deal on it )?
(also b1 bombers are retiring , will that also be viable ? since we are thinking about getting that soviet white swan )
Nimitz No. B-1 a conditional Yes/No!
Professor,
This is a comment related to your previous article on aircraft carriers, and investment in power projection platforms. Given India’s growing economy and capability to fund military capabilities, perhaps one can look at what the U.S. is doing to learn. While the U.S. has a lot more economic muscle to find its military, the thinking there is to develop multi layered military capabilities.
Drones and missiles for asymmetric fighting capabilities as the first line of offence and defence. Stealth aircraft and SSN capabilities as the second line of military capabilities to neutralise the enemy’s defence. And thirdly, power projection platforms like aircraft carriers that come in after enemy capabilities have been neutralised or diminished.
of course the U.S. is a superpower and can afford to spend, but India will be a regional power too and will have the capacity to spend as well. Something to consider over the long term.
Layered capabilities make sense. But, as you said, funding is the real problem in India
Visit any famous temple from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. You see how much cash 💰 economy prevails there.
Go to any private school/college for admissions, you will again see the power of cash donations.
Visit any private hospital, cash reigns there as well.
Not even the best economist in the world can determine the real size of Indian economy, where majority of transactions (oh I forgot to add the sale/purchase of land above) are in cash.
India is a super rich country, which won’t wage any war. Existing armaments are more than enough.
China is happy slowly grabbing up Indian land. Pakistan in league with the Indian establishment happy with minor insurgency to keep the masses busy with Hindu-Muslim rhetoric.
Indian army happy with their salaries and perks.
Why do they need all these expensive gadgets and equipment when the last war they fought (Summer 2020) with China was with sticks and stones?
allowing starlink will be another disaster for india which will be used to fuel disruptions by anti nationals