Tweet
667,
The pak strategy in afg has been to isolate Indian access. Had gilgit still been a part of India, it would have given a land route. The afghans understand well that they are a hostage to the pak blackmail. The Paks understand that the afghans will ally with India the first change they get but the lack of GB makes it unviable.
Understand that the Paks are a nuclear power and this one facet alone changes americas entire fundamental position wrt approaching Pakistan. It limits their ability to maneuver, to the point where they even refuse to acknowledge that they got played (See ISI agents involvement in 911 and osama being found in abbotabad). There's very little the Americans can do (holding the tiger by the tail situation).
Pre-1947, the christian british understood well that they were also foreigners who couldn't ally with Hindu India. So they allied with the other foreigners(Muslims) to rule India. The muslims were getting raided by the Marathas and tribal militias and they were reduced to pockets of old Delhi and hyd. In this situation, this alliance of two foreigners was a natural consequence and it eventually ended in 1857. Some people get confused and think that democracies are natural allies. Remember that two civilizations cannot exist without conflict.
The paks were originally befriended by the Americans to counter the soviets. In the 50s, the paks managed to get the Americans to promise an intervention in case India threatened the survival of the nation state. After the collapse of the soviet union, the paks took on the role of a counterbalance against India with US blessings.
The rise of China and global jihad has changed the dynamic. After 911, the Paks understood that they could flex their muscles against the Americans by pledging strategic allegiance to the Chinese. Shia iran and others too understood that nuclearisation(like pak) offers an effective and ideal deterrence against the west and it can change their fortunes.
Due to the cascading effect, India has abandoned its policy of NAM and embraced multi-allignment, relying particularly on russia and other veto powers that have shown ability to withstand american pressure.
The American power is on a continuous decline globally. They have already lost the trade war because of their inability and refusal to undervalue the US dollar. The global trading currency should have been replaced to yuan by now but hasn't because of american political pressure.
In afganistan, the pashtuns privately acknowledge that they cannot entirely counter pak blackmail and have instead chose to agree to paks strategic demands. After spending more than a decade closely working alongside the ISI, the pashtuns have learned a few things along the way. One in particular, they have learned diplomacy(the art of telling lies).
The pak strategy in afg has been to isolate Indian access. Had gilgit still been a part of India, it would have given a land route. The afghans understand well that they are a hostage to the pak blackmail. The Paks understand that the afghans will ally with India the first change they get but the lack of GB makes it unviable.
Understand that the Paks are a nuclear power and this one facet alone changes americas entire fundamental position wrt approaching Pakistan. It limits their ability to maneuver, to the point where they even refuse to acknowledge that they got played (See ISI agents involvement in 911 and osama being found in abbotabad). There's very little the Americans can do (holding the tiger by the tail situation).
Pre-1947, the christian british understood well that they were also foreigners who couldn't ally with Hindu India. So they allied with the other foreigners(Muslims) to rule India. The muslims were getting raided by the Marathas and tribal militias and they were reduced to pockets of old Delhi and hyd. In this situation, this alliance of two foreigners was a natural consequence and it eventually ended in 1857. Some people get confused and think that democracies are natural allies. Remember that two civilizations cannot exist without conflict.
The paks were originally befriended by the Americans to counter the soviets. In the 50s, the paks managed to get the Americans to promise an intervention in case India threatened the survival of the nation state. After the collapse of the soviet union, the paks took on the role of a counterbalance against India with US blessings.
The rise of China and global jihad has changed the dynamic. After 911, the Paks understood that they could flex their muscles against the Americans by pledging strategic allegiance to the Chinese. Shia iran and others too understood that nuclearisation(like pak) offers an effective and ideal deterrence against the west and it can change their fortunes.
Due to the cascading effect, India has abandoned its policy of NAM and embraced multi-allignment, relying particularly on russia and other veto powers that have shown ability to withstand american pressure.
The American power is on a continuous decline globally. They have already lost the trade war because of their inability and refusal to undervalue the US dollar. The global trading currency should have been replaced to yuan by now but hasn't because of american political pressure.
In afganistan, the pashtuns privately acknowledge that they cannot entirely counter pak blackmail and have instead chose to agree to paks strategic demands. After spending more than a decade closely working alongside the ISI, the pashtuns have learned a few things along the way. One in particular, they have learned diplomacy(the art of telling lies).
Comment