US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to discuss promoting “a durable peace between Israel and Iran,” the State Department said in a statement, according to Reuters. Both leaders "agreed to continue working together to strengthen Pakistan-US relations, particularly to increase trade", said a statement released by the Pakistan government.
 |
| Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio |
The call came after Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire to end what President Donald Trump described as a "12-day war". It is yet another indication of Pakistan's close ties with both Tehran and Washington. Pakistan strongly condemned Israel's "unprovoked attack" and the US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. It also shows Washington’s growing engagement with Islamabad at a time when the Trump administration is exploring a new diplomatic initiative with Tehran, possibly “as early as next week”. President Trump met Pakistan’s army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir at the White House last week where they discussed Iran, which Trump said Pakistan knew about better than most other countries.
Earlier in May this year, President Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary Rubio arranged India-Pakistan ceasefire after 4 days of fighting between the two South Asian neighbors. Testifying before the US Congress earlier this month, the US Central Command Chief General Michael Kurilla described Pakistan as a “phenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world”. This statement coincided with the Washington visit of the Indian parliamentary delegation led by Shashi Tharoor. Tharoor's delegation's aim was to "isolate Pakistan" after the Pahalgam militant attack in Kashmir which India blamed on Pakistan without presenting any evidence.
Pakistan also enjoys close ties with China and Russia. China-Pakistan friendship has meant significant diplomatic support and massive investment in infrastructure, as well as the state-of-the-art military hardware for the country's armed forces. Russia, too, has drawn closer to Pakistan. It has recently agreed to invest in a modern steel plant in Karachi where an abandoned Soviet-era steel mill stands today.
 |
| Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Defense Ministers |
At a recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Defense Ministers meeting in China, nine member countries(China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Iran and Belarus) rejected India's attempt to insert a reference to Pahalgam in the joint statement. Earlier, India distanced itself from SCO's joint condemnation of Israel’s attacks on Iran. India also abstained from voting on a UN resolution regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, specifically related to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. This decision continues India's pattern of abstaining on resolutions criticizing Israel.
While India claims the mantle of the "Global South" leadership, its actions do not align with its ambition. On the other hand, Pakistan's policies and actions are much more aligned with those of the BRICS nations. Pakistan is not currently a member of the BRICS yet, but both China and Russia have publicly expressed support for its inclusion as a full member.
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
South Asia Investor Review
Pakistan Downs India's French Rafale Jets in a Major Aerial Battle
Has Modi Succeeded Diplomatically or Militarily Against Pakistan After Pahalgam?
Has Pakistan Destroyed India's S-400 ADS?
Prof Mearsheimer on International Geopolitics in South Asia
Pakistan Navy Modernization
West's Technological Edge in Geopolitical Competition
Modi's India: A Paper Elephant?
Pahalgam Attack: Why is the Indian Media Not Asking Hard Questions?
Ukraine's Lesson For Pakistan: Never Give Up Nukes!
Pakistan Economy Nears Trillion Dollars
Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability
Riaz Haq Youtube Channel
VPOS Youtube Channel
24 comments:
OPINION - Türkiye’s Asia Anew initiative: Strengthening ties with Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan
Türkiye is positioning itself in three crucial geographical, geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geostrategic hubs, where these countries act as 'key allies' in the Southeast and South Asia region
Md. Nazmul Islam |
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/opinion/opinion-turkiye-s-asia-anew-initiative-strengthening-ties-with-malaysia-indonesia-and-pakistan/3483433
Nations such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Pakistan perceive Türkiye as a reliable ally, believing that if they were to face external challenges, Türkiye would be among the first or possibly the only country to offer support
-----------
What makes Asia a priority, and why were Malaysia, Indonesia, and Pakistan chosen?
In recent times, global politics has been shifting significantly, largely due to China’s rise and its strategic influence, particularly in Asia. The USA's response to China’s expansion further underscores the region’s growing geopolitical importance. Additionally, initiatives such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, or BRICS, alongside the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), or AUKUS, highlight why Asia remains a focal point for international politics, especially for nations aspiring to attain great power status.
Given this perspective, it is obvious that Türkiye, following its crucial role, advocacy, and support, if needed for Syria, Azerbaijan, Somalia, or Qatar, is on the path to becoming an emerging great power. However, to achieve this goal, Türkiye needs more reliable partners and strong allies. In this context, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Pakistan stand out as strategic choices, offering Türkiye the necessary support and opportunities to establish a stronger presence in the region.
Strategically, the geopolitical significance of these three countries explains why Türkiye has chosen to strengthen its cooperation with them. Türkiye is positioning itself in three crucial geographical, geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geostrategic hubs, where these countries act as "key allies" in the Southeast and South Asia region. The entire partnership is founded on a mutually beneficial ‘win-win’ cooperation.
Türkiye aims to prioritize expanding trade and economic ties, followed by enhancing defense cooperation through this partnership. Malaysia and Indonesia are particularly strategic choices for Türkiye due to their significant geoeconomic and geostrategic positions, as both hold strong economic influence globally and regionally. While the partnership initially focused on economic collaboration, both Malaysia and Indonesia have shown a keen interest in deepening defense relations. Türkiye already has a strong defense presence in these countries, with ASELSAN operating a branch in Malaysia and BAYKAR recently signing a major defense partnership with Indonesia during the latest visit. This demonstrates a shared commitment to expanding collaboration beyond trade to include cultural, educational, and broader economic cooperation.
Pakistan’s inclusion is also crucial due to its significant geopolitical role for Türkiye, particularly in shaping its future role in international politics. As highlighted by President Erdogan’s recent visit, Türkiye is seeking not only to expand trade with Pakistan but also to establish a stronger geostrategic and geo-security presence in Central and West Asia. Looking ahead, Türkiye’s growing engagement in Central Asia will be more effective with a solid foothold in Pakistan. To achieve this, Türkiye should prioritize forging a robust defense pact with Pakistan, which could later be expanded to include countries like Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Such a strategic alliance would bolster Türkiye’s regional leadership while allowing it to maintain an independent stance without being drawn into the power struggle between the USA and China.
We only know too well that the US will use Pakistan to its own benefit and dump them when they’re no longer needed.
IM: "We only know too well that the US will use Pakistan to its own benefit and dump them when they’re no longer needed"
If you read the post in its entirety, you will see that Pakistan also has close ties with China and Russia as well; particularly warm and close with China. Also Turkey and Azerbaijan. SCO stands with Pakistan, not India, as seen at the recent SCO defense ministers meeting in China.
Recent Indian aggression against Pakistan has shown that Pakistan has a lot of good friends who have rejected false Indian claims in spite of Delhi’s best efforts.
Rabia Akhtar
@Rabs_AA
When a leading analyst like Ashley Tellis argues that India’s Pakistan obsession is self-defeating and strategically incoherent, it’s worth paying attention. His Foreign Affairs piece lays bare how New Delhi’s fixation on outmaneuvering Pakistan continues to undercut India’s ability to confront its real challenge: China.
Modi’s government is only the latest in a line of Indian leaderships that have struggled with this. As Tellis points out, India’s strategic autonomy mantra and its reluctance to align squarely with the United States has long been framed as a multipolar ideal. Yet this posture has delivered neither security nor the great-power status India seeks.
If India has not managed a fundamental shift despite two decades of deepening U.S. ties, what exactly would it take for such a redirection to happen? Until then, India remains caught in a cycle of balancing illusions, unable to transcend its own Pakistan complex and unwilling to fully anchor its future in a coherent grand strategy.
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1939684438503264528
----------------
Will the Modi government’s policies and beliefs thwart India’s international ambitions?
https://www.youtube.com/live/pnev9iJ3LZI
India believes it could be a rival of China in 25 year’s time. But is that likely? India wants to be a superpower by 2050. But is that a realistic ambition? In other words, is Viksit Bharat achievable? Ashley Tellis, The Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes India’s economic performance, its foreign affairs strategies and the authoritarian and illiberal practices of the Modi government could thwart India’s proud ambitions. That’s the message of his recent essay in Foreign Affairs magazine. But what are his reasons for coming to this conclusion?
-------------
India’s Great-Power Delusions
How New Delhi’s Grand Strategy Thwarts Its Grand Ambitions
Ashley J. Tellis
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/india/indias-great-power-delusions
Since the turn of the century, the United States has sought to help India rise as a great power.
In military terms, it is the most significant conventional power in South Asia, but here, too, its advantages over its local rival are not enormous: in fighting in May, Pakistan used Chinese-supplied defense systems to shoot down Indian aircraft. With China on one side and an adversarial Pakistan on the other, India must always fear the prospect of an unpalatable two-front war. Meanwhile, at home, the country is shedding one of its main sources of strength—its liberal democracy—by embracing Hindu nationalism. This evolution could undermine India’s rise by intensifying communal tensions and exacerbating problems with its neighbors, forcing it to redirect security resources inward to the detriment of outward power projection. The country’s illiberal pivot further undermines the rules-based international order that has served it so well.
Post
See new posts
Conversation
Harmeet KKaur
@HarmeetKKaur
"The emperor is naked!"
Modi 3.0
Modi’s Hollow Vishwaguru persona,
Diminished at Home, Diminished abroad .
Hartosh Singh Bal and Sushant Singh, discuss how Narendra Modi’s projected image as a “vishwaguru” is visionless and merely a spectacle aimed at his nationalist fanbase in India.
The Reflection of Modi’s diminished status in his third term, both in the BJP and vis-à-vis the RSS.
Modi’s role, from State Elections to Operation Sindoor, is now far smaller than the Prime Minister once insisted on.
Objective analysis by Hartosh Singh Bal and Sushant Singh, Calm and collected demeanour .
https://youtu.be/VYcQBSEtJdA?si=HP2Nzgdh-MMqm2_o
Rabia Akhtar
@Rabs_AA
If it still takes an official statement by India’s Foreign Minister to convince Quad partners about India’s counterterrorism compulsions, then Ashley Tellis was right, India’s Pakistan obsession is a domestic compulsion, not a shared global concern. May 2025 should have clarified who provoked whom. That it didn’t, says more about how unconvinced India’s partners remain of its actions than about any imagined consensus on Pakistan.
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1940114049657614515
-----------
Sadanand Dhume
@dhume
Pretty unambiguous statement here from Jaishankar in Washington. Bottomline: For the Quad to work for India the grouping will have to take on board Indian concerns about Pakistan-backed terrorist groups.
https://x.com/dhume/status/1940083684025028766
-----------------
Dr. S. Jaishankar
@DrSJaishankar
My remarks to the press before Quad Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Washington DC.
https://x.com/DrSJaishankar/status/1940050732662845466
Salam Sir
I hope you are doing well, Sir pls dont take me wrong but I have been saying this since last several years. Pakistan can play a vital role not just in this region of South Asia but also in middle East. Even American government recognizes the importance of Pakistan.
But the problem is that the same old attitude of the authorities and government of Pakistan of accusing and criticising Isreal just because of what it's military forces are doing in Gaza and Palestine will not help.
Off course and obviously I am not in favor of what Isreal does in Gaza and Palestine , everyone irrespective of his caste, religion, ethnicity condemns the horrific actions that Isreali forces take against innocent Palestinians.
But does this mean that government and people of Pakistan should become emotional on this matter of Palestine and Isreal and should go to an extreme of not even recognizing Isreal as an independent Jewish state within middle East?
The question is that how will Pakistan play a role of intermediary between Is real and Iran and how will Pakistan bring peace between them if Pakistan doesn't even recognize Is real, forget about even having a diplomatic relations with Isreal?
Dear Sir
This is exactly what America specially President Trump and it's administration wants, they want Pakistan to have diplomatic relations with Isreal so that both can have at least a dialogue on the issues of Palestine and Isreal.
Now after the war of Iran and Isreal, America choose Pakistan in the entire Muslim world to settle the matter between Iran and Isreal as an intermediary.
America know that Pakistan at the moment is the only fully functional democracy in entire Muslim world.
America knows that mashallah Pakistani authorities are diplomatically experienced and knowledable enough to have some sort of settlement between Iran and Isreal.
Thanks
Salam Sir
Pls take the example of Jordan, an Arab Muslim country, it has a peace agreement with Isreal. Isreali tourists visit Jordan and vice versa.
Turkey which is a Muslim country and it has brotherly relations with Pakistan also has diplomatic relations with Isreal and I think they also have trade relations with each other. Turkish tourists visit Isreal and vice versa.
Even President of Turkey knows what Isreali forces are doing in Palestine and Gaza and on some occasions he has criticised Isreal for all this but on the other hand they continue to have diplomatic relations with Isreal.
Why can't governnent of Pakistan take same approach?
Thanks
Dear Sir
Since last many decades what Indian forces are doing in Kashmir every Pakistani knows, I have never seen Pakistanis ever being emotional to an extent that they have cancelled relations with India.
Since partition of 1947 till now, Pakistan and India both continue to have diplomatic and to some extent trade relations with each other inspite of the 3 or 4 wars that were fought between them over issue of Kashmir.
When ever the journalists, experts and current affairs analyst in Pakistan get chance they appear on local news channels and even condemn what Indian forces are doing in Kashmir and many people in Pakistan even protest on the streets against Indian forces for what it does in Kashmir on Kashmir day.
Can't Pakistan take same approach on the matter of Isreal?
Can't Pakistan change its attitude towards Isreal?
Thanks
Dear Sir
Trust me I am not a supporter of Isreal and I have even criticised them on social networking platforms for what it's forces are doing in Palestine and Gaza but the problem is that if we continue to condemn Isreal like this and boycott its products then how will this help resolve issues between Isreal and Palestine?
Even Javaid Ahmed Ghamidi Sarah who is an intellectual Islamic Scholar of Pakistan who is now residing in America with his team of Al Madrid Institute of Islamic Sciences and is well respected amongst the Pakistani community of America for his great in depth study and research of Islamic literature specially of the Islamic history has himself said few times that if Pakistan would have recognised Isreal and if Pakistan would have had diplomatic relations with Isreal then maybe many issues would have resolved.
Pls know that their are few journalists like Ahmed Quraishi in Pakistan who even support that their should be some sort of diplomatic relations of Pakistan with Isreal.
Thanks
Going Underground
@GUnderground_TV
🚨IS INDIA🇮🇳 A TROJAN HORSE WITHIN BRICS?
‘I think that India has been a problem for the BRICS. I think perhaps the major problem for the BRICS is India. India is an outlier. I don’t want to exaggerate, but some people even say that India’s a sort of Trojan horse inside BRICS.
I wouldn’t go that far, but I do think that Modi has shown some strange things from my perspective. How can he support Israel? How can he have a good relationship with Netanyahu when Netanyahu and Israel are doing what they’re doing?
What does that say about India? How do the Indian people feel when they see their government supporting a genocide in Gaza and silent on unilateral attacks against Iran by the US and Israel?
I understand what the motivations of India are. You know, also India fears China and feels the need to maintain a certain proximity with the US.
But that has become a major factor of weakness inside the BRICS grouping, in my opinion.’
-Prof. Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr., former Vice President of the New Development Bank, on the latest episode of Going Underground ahead of the BRICS+ Summit in Rio
FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇
https://x.com/GUnderground_TV/status/1941419967640928505
Dear Sir Riaz
Thanks for all this post I have some important questions, as you know
Pakistan Airforce caused such a great damage to the military setups and millitary assets inside India and shot down some Indian fighter jets. I saw a video of some Indians who have given interviews on podcasts to local Indians soon after this incident, these Indians feel so insecure and suffer from such complex that Indian guests invited on these podcasts whether news reports, analysts or journalists all started underestimating Pakistan by calling it a failed state and said that PM Modi and BJP government should be ashamed of themselves that under their rule, India was defeated by PAF and Pak millitary.
Some of the Indian podcasters have gone even to an extent of saying that Pakistan is not ahead or even equal to India in economic growth, ,entertainment ,AI and other fields.
Sir my question is that is India really ahead of Pakistan in Artificial Intelligence? Can you pls throw some light on this?
Another important question Sir don't you think that when PAF conducted the operation inside India, along side of this operation parallel their was a cyber attack taking place on many websites and online contents and resources of Indian millitary,Indian government and banks in India and this cyber attack was carried out by the cyber wing and team of Pakistan millitary and Defence and definitely it must be having some computer science graduates from various universities of Pakistan who either must be doing bachelors or masters in cyber security .
Sir don't you think that in cyber war fare Pakistan has taught a great lesson to India and now based on this historical achievement of Pakistan in digital and cyber war fare, the ranking of Pakistan should improve further I'm " GLOBAL CYBER SECURITY " index?
Thanks
‘Now there is a threat from three fronts’: The emerging alliance of China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and the concerns of General Anil Chauhan
https://fukatsoft.com/b/public/BlogView/now-there-is-a-threat-from-three-fronts-the-emerging-alliance-of-china-pakistan-and-bangladesh-and-the-concerns-of-general-anil-chauhan
Where is India Failing?
Manoj Joshi believes that “India should stop using issues like terrorism for domestic politics.” He adds, “The Modi government needs to separate foreign policy from domestic political agendas. For example, the G-20 summit was portrayed as a huge achievement, but we need less showmanship and more concrete actions on the ground. Even Bhutan did not support Operation Sand Dune.” Defense analyst Uday Bhaskar thinks that CDS General Anil Chauhan has presented a significant assessment of India's complex security challenges. He says, “Indian strategic planners had so far been focusing on two-front threats, but now they may be dealing with a three-front challenge. China seems to be successfully drawing Bangladesh into its camp alongside Pakistan. This possibility wasn’t seriously considered before the likely departure of Sheikh Hasina.” Rahul Bedi adds, “Trump’s stance has boosted Pakistan’s credibility. The U.S. invited Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir for lunch at the White House. Ten days later, Pakistan’s Air Chief also visited the U.S. It is being speculated that America might even resume arms supplies to Pakistan.”
How did Pakistan suddenly become so important for America?
Rahul Bedi says, “Pakistan’s geographical location is considered highly strategic. It shares borders with China, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Central Asian countries. This makes it a critical location. Moreover, Balochistan has rare earth minerals, which are in global demand. After Operation Sand Dune, it became clear that aside from Israel, no one supported India. International organizations condemned terrorism, but not Pakistan.” When asked whether India has made any mistakes in this situation, Bedi replied, “A prominent Indian diplomat told me that India talks a lot but does very little in practice.” “India has a strong army and navy, but when officials from countries like Japan and the U.S. come and observe things on the ground, the reality looks very different,” he added. Professor Sreeradha Datta Pathak, who teaches China Studies at O.P. Jindal University, also believes that Bangladesh joining China and Pakistan raises the security threat for India. She says, “China is working to make the Lalmonirhat air base in Bangladesh operational again, which would be a serious threat to Indian security. Naturally, India is preparing for this.” “We can’t just wait for a change of government in Bangladesh. China is trying to keep India entangled with its neighboring countries to avoid facing any direct challenge,” she emphasized. However, Professor Pathak does not believe that Pakistan’s global reputation has improved. She states, “We can't expect too much from the U.S. The West’s stance on terrorism has always been like this. Israel was the only country that said India had the right to defend itself. Unfortunately, we were part of a BRICS resolution that condemned Israel.”
Trump's renewed interest in Pakistan has India recalibrating China ties | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trumps-renewed-interest-pakistan-has-india-recalibrating-china-ties-2025-07-21/
NEW DELHI, July 21 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's lunch meeting with Pakistan's military chief prompted a private diplomatic protest from India in a warning to Washington about risks to their bilateral ties while New Delhi is recalibrating relations with China as a hedge, officials and analysts said.
The meeting and other tensions in the U.S.-India relationship, after decades of flourishing ties, have cast a shadow in trade negotiations, they said, as Trump's administration weighs tariffs against one of its major partners in the Indo-Pacific.
India blames Pakistan, especially its military establishment, for supporting what it calls cross-border terrorism and has told the U.S. it is sending the wrong signals by wooing Field Marshal Asim Munir, three senior Indian government officials directly aware of the matter told Reuters.
It has created a sore spot that will hamper relations going forward, they said.
Pakistan denies accusations that it supports militants who attack Indian targets and that New Delhi has provided no evidence that it is involved.
U.S.-India ties have strengthened in the past two decades despite minor hiccups, at least partly because both countries seek to counter China.
The current problems are different, said Michael Kugelman, a Washington-based senior fellow at the Asia Pacific Foundation think tank.
"The frequency and intensity with which the U.S. is engaging with Pakistan, and seemingly not taking Indian concerns into account, especially after India's recent conflict with Pakistan, has contributed to a bit of a bilateral malaise."
"The concern this time around is that one of the triggers for broader tensions, that being Trump's unpredictability, is extending into the trade realm with his approach to tariffs," he said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's office and India's foreign ministry did not respond to a request for comment. The foreign ministry has previously said that it had "taken note" of the Trump-Munir meeting.
A U.S. official said they do not comment on private diplomatic communications and that the United States enjoys strong relationships with both India and Pakistan.
"These relationships stand on their own merits, and we do not compare our bilateral relationships with one another," the U.S. official said.
LUNCH AT THE WHITE HOUSE
The U.S. seems to have taken a different tack on Pakistan after a brief conflict broke out between the nuclear-armed rivals in May when India launched strikes on what it called terrorist targets across the border in response to a deadly attack on tourists from the majority Hindu community in Indian Kashmir the previous month.
After four days of aerial dogfights, missile and drone attacks, the two sides agreed to a cease-fire.
Hindu-majority India and Islamic Pakistan have skirmished regularly and fought three full-scale wars since independence in 1947, two of them over the disputed Kashmir region.
A few weeks after the May fighting, Trump hosted Munir for lunch at the White House, a major boost in ties with the country, which had largely languished under Trump's first term and Joe Biden. It was the first time a U.S. president had hosted the head of Pakistan's army, considered the most powerful man in the country, at the White House unaccompanied by senior Pakistani civilian officials.
Indian leaders have said Munir's view of India and Pakistan is steeped in religion. "Tourists were murdered in front of their families after ascertaining their faith," Indian foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in May, referring to the Kashmir attack.
Trump's renewed interest in Pakistan has India recalibrating China ties | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trumps-renewed-interest-pakistan-has-india-recalibrating-china-ties-2025-07-21/
"To understand that, you've got to also see...you have a Pakistani leadership, especially their army chief, who is driven by an extreme religious outlook".
Pakistan says it is Modi who is driven by religious extremism, and that his brand of Hindu nationalism has trampled on the rights of India's large Muslim minority. Modi and the Indian government say they do not discriminate against minorities.
Munir's meeting in the White House added to India's chagrin over Trump's repeated insistence that he averted nuclear war between the two nations by threatening to stop trade negotiations with them. The comment drew a sharp response from Modi, who told Trump that the ceasefire was achieved through talks between army commanders of the two nations, and not U.S. mediation.
In the days following his June 18 meeting with Munir, people from Modi's office and India's national security adviser's office made separate calls to their U.S. counterparts to register a protest, two of the officials said. The protest has not been previously reported.
"We have communicated to the U.S. our position on cross-border terrorism, which is a red line for us," said a senior Indian official. "These are difficult times ... Trump's inability to understand our concerns does create some wrinkle in ties," he added, seeking anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
Trump and Munir discussed continuation of a counter-terrorism collaboration, under which the U.S. has previously provided weapons to Pakistan, a non-NATO U.S. ally, and talked about ways to further strengthen ties, a Pakistani readout of the meeting said.
That raised concern in New Delhi that any arms Pakistan receives from the U.S. could be turned on India if the neighbours end up in conflict again, two of the officials said.
HARDER STANCE
Despite what used to be public displays of bonhomie between Trump and Modi, India has been taking a slightly harder stance against the U.S. in recent weeks, while trade discussions have also slowed, the Indian officials and an Indian industry lobbyist said.
Modi declined an invitation from Trump to visit Washington after the G7 meeting in Canada in June.
Earlier this month, New Delhi proposed retaliatory duties against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization, showing trade talks were not going as smoothly as they were before the India-Pakistan clashes.
India, like other nations, is trying to figure out a way to deal with Trump and is recalibrating ties with China as a hedge, said Harsh Pant, foreign policy head at India's Observer Research Foundation think tank.
"Certainly there is an outreach to China," he said. "And I think it is mutual...China is also reaching out".
Last week, India's Jaishankar made his first visit to Beijing since a deadly 2020 border clash between Indian and Chinese troops.
India is also making moves to ease restrictions on investments from China that were imposed following the 2020 clash.
The thaw comes despite India's prickly relations with China and Beijing's close ties and military support to Pakistan.
But New Delhi's concern about Trump's own engagement with China, which has ranged from conciliatory to confrontational, appears to have contributed to its shift in stance on Beijing.
"With an unpredictable dealmaker in the White House, New Delhi cannot rule out Sino-U.S. rapprochement," said Christopher Clary, an associate professor of political science at the University at Albany, New York.
"India is troubled by Chinese help to Pakistan and growing Chinese influence elsewhere in India's near abroad, such as Bangladesh. Yet New Delhi has largely concluded that it should respond to creeping Chinese influence by focusing its pressures on its nearest neighbours and not on China."
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
“Trump has thus ended—or at least paused—the U.S. policy of strategic altruism. If successive U.S. leaders refrained from asking, ‘What can India do for us?’ the current administration is shouting this question from the rooftops.”
https://x.com/clary_co/status/1947341177919050202
-------------------
Milan Vaishnav
@MilanV
In a new
@ForeignAffairs
essay, I argue that Washington’s era of “strategic altruism” toward India is over. Now, in a more uncertain world, it is India that must take the long view—and extend strategic altruism toward the United States
https://x.com/MilanV/status/1945525287489265753
-------------
How India Can Placate America
In a Reversal, It’s Time for New Delhi to Be Generous With Washington
Milan Vaishnav
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/south-asia/how-india-can-placate-america
Over the past quarter century, few countries have commanded as much sustained attention from U.S. foreign policy officials as has India. Since the George W. Bush administration, the United States has placed India not just at the heart of its approach to Asia but at the center of its global strategy.
This enduring partnership rested on an unspoken doctrine of strategic altruism. U.S. policymakers believed that supporting India’s rise—economically, militarily, and diplomatically—would pay dividends for the United States in the long term. A stronger, more prosperous India would open markets for American companies, bolster regional deterrence against China, and serve as a democratic counterweight to authoritarianism in Asia. India’s ascent was perceived not as a threat but as an opportunity. Because India’s rise aligned with American goals, Washington made substantial investments in India without demanding immediate returns. That long-term bet endured across both Democratic and Republican administrations—including President Donald Trump’s first term.
But Trump’s return to office could mark the end of this approach. The second Trump administration is driven not so much by transactionalism as it is by an insatiable desire to burnish its dominance in virtually all its foreign relationships. Its dealings with India have been no exception.
To preserve the relationship, it now falls to India—not the United States—to practice strategic altruism: making concessions to, generating deliverables for, and limiting what it asks of a U.S. administration primarily concerned with maintaining the upper hand. For a country committed to strategic autonomy and “multialignment,” this is an uncomfortable proposition. Nevertheless, it may be India’s best bet for weathering Trump’s second term and positioning itself for a more favorable future.
IN A GIVING MOOD
The United States’ policy of strategic altruism toward India was most clearly articulated in Foreign Affairs in 2019 by former U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill and the South Asia scholar and former National Security Council member Ashley Tellis. Blackwill and Tellis argued that, beginning at the turn of the century, U.S. foreign policy officials realized it would be inherently beneficial for the United States if India emerged as a fast-growing, democratic, and militarily capable power in Asia. With Beijing emerging as a strategic competitor, Washington came to see New Delhi not only as a natural partner but as an Asian power with a shared interest in preventing China from dominating the region and undermining the rules-based international order. A stronger, more prosperous India could serve as a counterweight to an assertive, authoritarian China.
How India Can Placate America
In a Reversal, It’s Time for New Delhi to Be Generous With Washington
Milan Vaishnav
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/south-asia/how-india-can-placate-america
U.S. foreign-policy makers believed that the long-term strategic convergence with India outweighed the inevitable frictions the two countries might experience on other issues, such as climate change, trade, or reform of the multilateral system. As the authors wrote: “Generous U.S. policies were not merely a favor to New Delhi; they were a conscious exercise of strategic altruism. When contemplating various forms of political support for India, U.S. leaders did not ask, ‘What can India do for us?’ They hoped that India’s upward trajectory would shift the Asian balance of power in ways favorable to the United States.”
To preserve the relationship, India must now be generous to the United States.
Although strategic altruism was never enshrined in official doctrine, it underpinned U.S. policy toward India for two decades. To be sure, successive U.S. administrations placed their own stamp on the budding partnership. The George W. Bush administration prioritized a landmark civil nuclear deal in 2005 that was approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2008, eventually removing India from the ranks of nuclear pariahs. The Obama administration perceived India as a linchpin in its “pivot to Asia” and a crucial protagonist in its vision of a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” Trump’s first term, despite its volatility, maintained continuity. Following China’s reckless incursions in 2020 along the disputed border in the rugged Himalayan region separating the two countries, India began to shed long-standing caution about antagonizing Beijing. This paved the way for the rejuvenation of the Indo-Pacific partnership known as the Quad (bringing together Australia, India, Japan, and the United States) and expanded bilateral defense and diplomatic collaboration between India and the United States. The Biden administration strengthened these partnerships and added a new element—an ambitious new framework for collaborating with India on critical and emerging technologies that resulted in joint initiatives on semiconductor manufacturing, codevelopment and coproduction of sensitive defense systems, and increased collaboration on space exploration and research.
Strategic altruism encountered speed bumps in the first Trump administration, when the president’s “America first” rhetoric left little room for magnanimity. But Trump’s penchant for transactionalism was tempered by several factors. First, several cabinet officials in the first Trump term were members of the traditional Republican foreign policy elite for whom the challenge posed by China, and India’s intrinsic utility to the United States in helping deal with that challenge, were hugely important. Their presence insulated India from the full brunt of Trump’s mercurial tendencies.
Second, the COVID-19 pandemic suspended normal diplomatic activity, drawing attention away from points of friction in the bilateral relationship that might have received more attention in the Trump White House. Instead, India’s generic pharmaceutical industry emerged as a critical asset during the pandemic and made New Delhi a more sympathetic partner for Washington, especially given that India also experienced significant pandemic-related deaths and dislocation.
Third, China’s risky 2020 border gambit offered a pretext for India and the United States to deepen cooperation in the sensitive areas of intelligence sharing, defense coproduction, and space collaboration. After years spent nudging India to align its cautious public messaging about China with its more strident private rhetoric, the United States found it was pushing on an open door. U.S.-Indian relations emerged from Trump’s first term in better shape than U.S. ties with many (if not most) other countries—reinforcing the notion that Democrats and Republicans agreed on India even when they agreed on little else.
How India Can Placate America
In a Reversal, It’s Time for New Delhi to Be Generous With Washington
Milan Vaishnav
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/south-asia/how-india-can-placate-america
WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?
With Trump’s victory in the November 2024 presidential election, many in India believed the country was well positioned to manage his return, given the experience of his first term. It has slowly become clear to Indian policymakers, however, that while Trump 1.0 was unpredictable, Trump 2.0 is unbound.
The second Trump administration is driven by an unyielding conviction that the United States has been badly taken advantage of, especially by its so-called allies and partners. Trump and his lieutenants claim that the United States has borne a disproportionate share of the burden in its myriad partnerships with little reciprocal benefit. Unlike its first iteration, this administration has fewer foreign policy veterans who believe in India’s intrinsic value as a bulwark against China.
In addition to skepticism about partnerships, the current administration’s incoherence about China has left India on uncertain ground. Although it is still early days, this Trump administration’s China policy is strikingly muddled. In Washington, it is an open secret that the administration has not one China strategy but many. Competing factions and schools of thought vie for influence. Trump’s team includes skeptics who downplay the China threat, hard-liners who champion Biden-era curbs on investment and technology, and dealmakers (possibly including Trump himself) who dream of a personal détente with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In New Delhi, Indian officials struggle to parse the mixed signals.
In this Trump administration, few officials believe in India’s intrinsic value.
Trump has thus ended—or at least paused—the U.S. policy of strategic altruism. If successive U.S. leaders refrained from asking, “What can India do for us?” the current administration is shouting this question from the rooftops. Indeed, it is instructive that the administration has conditioned a broader dialogue with New Delhi on India acceding to several key demands.
First, as part of its policy of “reciprocal tariffs,” the Trump administration has threatened India with an across-the-board 26 percent tariff unless it delivers generous trade and market access concessions. India has emerged as one of the most enthusiastic suitors of a trade pact with the United States, with a tentative deal expected to be reached before the president’s new, arbitrary August 1 deadline. Although this “early harvest” deal may outline only basic terms, officials on both sides hope for a formal pact by this fall’s Quad summit in New Delhi.
Second, the administration has publicly pressed India to increase purchases of U.S.-made defense equipment. Although India has long relied on Russian arms imports, it has meaningfully diversified its portfolio of new purchases over the last decade, increasing the military equipment it buys from the West—notably from France, Israel, and the United States. In a February meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump floated the possibility of granting India access to buy cutting-edge F-35 stealth fighter jets, an offer normally restricted to the closest U.S. allies. India currently buys more arms from Russia and France than from the United States. Although it is unlikely that the United States could become India’s preferred military supplier even if New Delhi were so inclined—cost considerations alone would rule this out—Trump’s team believes India has been slow to accelerate the purchase of U.S. weapons.
How India Can Placate America
In a Reversal, It’s Time for New Delhi to Be Generous With Washington
Milan Vaishnav
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/south-asia/how-india-can-placate-america
Finally, the administration has also implored India to do more on energy. It wants India to buy more U.S. liquid natural gas and oil, and India seems to be complying. In 2025 alone, India has more than doubled its oil imports from the United States. Washington is also lobbying New Delhi to amend its liability laws to allow for foreign firms to invest in the country’s civilian nuclear sector—the prime reason why the celebrated U.S.-Indian civil nuclear deal has never been consummated. Although the ink on the bilateral accord has long dried, India’s onerous regulations regarding liability issues continue to stymie American investment in Indian nuclear reactors.
RETURNING THE FAVOR
With strategic altruism in Washington on ice, India faces a new reality: New Delhi may have to swallow the bitter pill of making sacrifices today for the promise of security and prosperity tomorrow. In this reversal, it is India—not the United States—that must embrace delayed reciprocity, delivering tangible benefits without expecting short-term returns. For a country that has long prized strategic autonomy, this posture is an uncomfortable departure, although perhaps a necessary one. In the short term, it allows India to withstand the Trump storm in the hopes that either the current administration tempers its transactionalism or that it is eventually followed by a more traditional, strategically minded administration. Over the long run, India’s need for a strategic partnership with the United States remains as vital as it has been for the past quarter century.
That is because India requires significant foreign capital to help finance its ambitious domestic transformation. Although India’s trend growth of roughly 6.5 percent is robust by global standards, it is inadequate given the country’s development goals and the urgent needs of its burgeoning, young, and rapidly urbanizing workforce. To realize the Modi government’s vision of attaining developed-country status by 2047—an aspiration that implies a $30 trillion economy—India will require a massive influx of investment. At present, foreign direct investment inflows into India are muted; last fiscal year, India recorded its lowest level of net FDI inflows in at least two decades. For India to return to double-digit growth rates, renewed investment from the United States will be paramount.
India also needs American support in matters of security. The conflict with Pakistan in May underscored that India was fighting not one neighboring adversary but two; Pakistan used Chinese weapons systems to repel Indian attacks, relied on Chinese satellite imagery of Indian assets, and received real-time intelligence from Beijing on battlefield movements. India’s strategic vulnerability to China has only grown in recent years. Both countries remain locked in an unresolved standoff in the mountains of Ladakh, China has expanded its military infrastructure in the border region, and Beijing continues to encircle India through economic and military advances across South Asia. Despite its rhetoric of strategic autonomy, India cannot deter China alone; its defense posture and economic resilience hinge on American partnership to varying degrees.
How India Can Placate America
In a Reversal, It’s Time for New Delhi to Be Generous With Washington
Milan Vaishnav
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/south-asia/how-india-can-placate-america
So, too, do India’s technological ambitions. India boasts world-class engineering talent, but it lacks the necessary resources and infrastructure to be an industry leader in the rapidly expanding field of artificial intelligence. In February 2026, India will host the next global AI summit. U.S. officials have privately suggested that this gathering could be an opportunity for large U.S.-based tech giants to unveil major investments in state-of-the-art AI infrastructure across India. Indeed, much of India’s tech talent has found a home not in India but in the United States. Often dismissed as a source of “brain drain,” the migration corridor between the two countries—the sixth largest globally—also brings substantial gains. In the last fiscal year alone, India received over $135 billion in remittances from around the world, nearly 30 percent of which originated in the United States.
DOMESTIC PRESSURES, GLOBAL IMPERATIVES
Within India, adopting a policy of strategic altruism toward the United States does carry risks. Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has long cultivated a muscular, nationalist image in contrast to the dovish, secular Indian National Congress. Concessions to Trump risk undercutting that image, especially given recent accusations that Modi yielded to White House pressure to finalize a cease-fire with Pakistan in May.
On the substance of its concessions, here, too, India will have to tread carefully. Energy and defense purchases may not be the stuff of mass political campaigns, but issues related to farmers and agriculture are. If India makes significant market access concessions to cater to American agricultural interests, Modi’s government will come dangerously close to touching the third rail of Indian politics. This is why India is more likely to offer the United States tariff relief on products such as ethanol, almonds, wine, and spirits rather than on staples such as rice, wheat, or dairy products.
With India’s economy punching below its weight, however, Modi’s inner circle realizes the status quo is no longer tenable. In recent years, India has raised tariffs, steadfastly remained outside mega-regional trade pacts, and subsidized domestic industry to stimulate investment. Collectively, these protectionist measures have failed to trigger an economic takeoff. If Modi can deftly use Trump as a foil—framing domestic tariff cuts as a tactical move to placate a capricious U.S. president—he can unlock trade reforms that better integrate India into global supply chains and yield long-term economic gains.
If anybody has the latitude to make such concessions to a bullying Washington, Modi does. Although the Modi-led BJP suffered a temporary setback in last year’s general elections, it remains dominant. In regional elections held over the past year, the ruling party decisively defeated opponents in key states, defying predictions of “peak Modi.” Few elected leaders enjoy Modi’s political space to take the high road with Trump. If he does so, he might succeed in insulating the U.S.-Indian relationship from the tumultuous present to reap the benefits of a more congenial future.
Some Indian strategists rightly worry that it takes a dangerous leap of faith to bet on the United States returning to moderation in 2028. But the alternative—strategic estrangement—could come at an even greater cost. In an era of global uncertainty, strategic altruism may be the highest form of self-interest India can exercise.
Rabia Akhtar
@Rabs_AA
Secretary Rubio’s meeting with Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister reflects the evolving contours of a relationship shaped by shifting geopolitical currents from economic convergence to regional stability concerns. Amid great power realignments and renewed global uncertainty, Pakistan’s steady engagement signals a broader strategic maturity, tested in crises, affirmed in diplomacy. His closing recognition of Pakistan’s role in “preserving regional stability” marks a shift in how Islamabad’s strategic posture is being read. As a net security stabilizer in a volatile region, Pakistan’s restraint in moments of escalation during the May 2025 crisis is beginning to resonate as a deliberate strategic choice and not just as a circumstantial necessity or incidental. And that is an important recognition.
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1948883273515462912
----------------
Secretary Marco Rubio
@SecRubio
Met with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister
@MIshaqDar50
today to discuss expanding bilateral trade and enhancing collaboration in the critical minerals sector. I also thanked him for Pakistan’s partnership in countering terrorism and preserving regional stability.
https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1948807676496150888
---------------
Secretary Rubio meets Pakistan FM Dar U.S. and Pakistan deepen ties with focus on stability | AnewZ
https://anewz.tv/world/world-news/11200/us-and-pakistan-deepen-ties-with-focus-on-stability/news
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday praised Pakistan's role in promoting regional stability and discussed deeper cooperation on counterterrorism, trade, and critical minerals during a meeting in Washington with Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar.
“The two also discussed prospects for deepening bilateral counterterrorism cooperation, including countering ISIS-K, and the upcoming U.S.-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue in Islamabad this August,” the State Department said in the readout of the meeting.
Rubio emphasized the importance of strengthening trade relations and exploring joint opportunities in the critical minerals and mining sectors.
Ishaq Dar later described the meeting in a post on X as a “comprehensive discussion on the full spectrum of bilateral relations.” He reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to a long-term partnership with the U.S., highlighting mutual interests in economic, trade, investment, and cooperation.
Ishaq Dar also said they exchanged views on major regional and global issues. He thanked the U.S. for its 'constructive role' in helping facilitate the Pakistan-India ceasefire earlier in May.
Pakistan army chief visits China, 1st since Trump meeting
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/pakistan-army-chief-visits-china-1st-since-trump-meeting/3641989
This marks first visit by Pakistani army chief to Beijing after recent conflict with India in May
China will always make Pakistan a priority in its neighborhood diplomacy, top diplomat Wang Yi tells Munir
ISLAMABAD / ISTANBUL
Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, visited China, where he met with top political and military leaders Thursday, marking his first trip since his unprecedented meeting with US President Donald Trump last month.
This was also Munir’s first visit to Beijing following a recent armed clash with India in May that left dozens dead and six aircraft downed.
During his visit, Munir met with Vice President Han Zheng and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, said a Pakistani military statement on Friday.
Talks focused on regional security, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and broader geopolitical cooperation.
They reaffirmed their commitment to sovereign equality, multilateral cooperation, and long-term regional stability.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang and Munir met on Thursday in Beijing, where the Chinese top diplomat lauded the Pakistani military "as a staunch defender of national interests and a firm supporter of China-Pakistan friendship."
"China and Pakistan are ironclad friends and all-weather strategic cooperative partners (and) China will, as always, take Pakistan as a priority in its neighborhood diplomacy," Wang told Munir, according to a readout of the meeting released by the Chinese foreign ministry.
Hoping that the Pakistani military "will continue to make efforts for the development of China-Pakistan relations, Wang told Munir, Beijing "is ready to work with Pakistan to... make due contributions to peace and stability in the region."
Extending support to Pakistan in "resolutely combating all forms of terrorism," Wang said he hopes that the Pakistani military "will continue to make all-out efforts to ensure the safety of Chinese personnel, projects and institutions in Pakistan."
Munir held further meetings with Gen. Zhang Youxia, vice chair of China’s Central Military Commission, and senior People's Liberation Army (PLA) officials at the PLA Army Headquarters in Beijing. The discussions were “focused on strengthening counterterrorism efforts, joint training, and defense modernization,” said the Pakistani military statement.
The Chinese military leadership "reiterated full confidence in the strength of the bilateral defense partnership and acknowledged Pakistan’s pivotal role in promoting regional peace," it added.
Munir also lauded China’s “unwavering support and emphasized Pakistan’s dedication to deepening military-to-military ties across all domains.”
Arnaud Bertrand
@RnaudBertrand
This is a funny and very revealing exchange: https://x.com/TristanNodalo/status/1947700345905549342/video/1
Filipino President Marcos, undoubtedly the most committed US vassal in Asia, doubles down on his commitment to the US in front of Trump, saying "there's no need to balance the relationship between the US and China" and that his "strongest partner has always been the US."
Trump immediately rebukes him, saying he "doesn't mind if [Marcos] gets along with China because we're getting along with China very well," and telling Marcos that getting along with China is "doing what's right for his country," would "make the Philippines great again" and "wouldn't bother me at all."
Now there are two ways to read this.
Either Trump is being disingenuous and in fact wants to continue traditional US foreign policy of containing China through regional alliances, and his public comments are merely rhetoric designed to appear reasonable while privately maintaining pressure on Marcos to choose sides in the US-China competition.
Or he does in fact represent a shift in US foreign policy whereby he accepts the reality of a multipolar world where containment is impossible and vassals like Marcos are therefore costs without much strategic benefit, from whom America won't require the anti-China alignment that defined the alliance system. In fact, in a multipolar world, as Trump is saying, it makes more sense for the US to "get along with China very well" and treat Beijing as a co-equal power rather than maintaining the expensive pretense of global hegemony.
I personally think it's becoming more and more obvious the latter is the case, as I argued in my recent article:
https://open.substack.com/pub/arnaudbertrand/p/has-america-in-fact-already-withdrawn?r=4r0pw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1949086436587618421
------------
Marcos returns 'empty-handed' as Trump says he doesn't mind if Philippines gets along with China - Global Times
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202507/1339053.shtml
uring a meeting with visiting Philippine President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos on Tuesday, US President Donald Trump told media, "I don't mind if he gets along with China, because we're getting along with China very well." The comment was seen by the media as catching Marcos off guard, interpreting it as a stunning message to the Philippine president regarding China.
When asked how he plans to balance his country's relationships between the US and China, Marcos said there was no need to balance. "Our strongest partner has always been the US," Marcos said.
However, in response, Trump said "We're getting along with China very well. And I don't mind if the president dealt with China, you know, because I think he has to do what's right for his country."
"I've always said, you know, make the Philippines great again. Do whatever you need to do, but [if] you're dealing with China, wouldn't bother me at all," Trump said.
Marcos is hoping that his meeting with Trump will help secure Manila's status as a key Asian ally and lead to a more favorable trade deal before the August 1 deadline, Reuters reported. The Associated Press also noted that the Philippine president's three-day visit underscores the importance of the US-Philippines alliance at a time when tensions between China and the Philippines remain high over disputes in the South China Sea.
The Hindustan Times described Trump's message to Marcos as "stunning."
Trump also said he will probably visit China "in the not too distant future," in answer to a question during his meeting with Marcos, per AP.
Post a Comment