Does the Establishment realize that Pakistan's future is with China?

[nahtanbob]

TL;DR: "India doesn't care about Pakistan but Pakistan and China are obsessed with India."

Thank you for proving my point that your grasp of geopolitics is limited to Indian jingoism and has no connection to actual reality.

those are your words not mine

 

[Enigma SIG]

Pakistan is a burden that China has to carry for its strategic needs, had it not been for that they wouldn’t even bat an eye. They have to throw money at a dead horse to try and get it past the finish line. In the business world we call that a “sunk cost”.

Sunk cost is something that you might get mileage out of in the long run. With Pakistan fully bending to Uncle Sam, Pakistan giving bases to USA for a China encirclement isn't out of the question.

 

[Olympus81]

As per Imran Riaz Khan (anchor), Bajwa told a certain journalist, during the initial phase of CPEC, the Nooners ate up $9bn out of the total $19bn investment.

Not sure what to make out of this claim.

 

[VCheng]

It contradicts your claim that the US supported Pakistan's nuclear program as a balance of nuclear deterrence in South Asia.

Absolutely not. It serves US interests to keep the subcontinent stable, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons help serve that interest.

 

[WotTen]

Absolutely not. It serves US interests to keep the subcontinent stable, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons help serve that interest.

Then you should head over to D.C. to educate the American administration on their own policies.

The explicitly stated doctrine of US foreign policy is nuclear non-proliferation. By your logic, the US supports Iran getting nuclear weapons to balance Israeli nukes because it will keep the region 'stable'.

It is amusing to see you cook up word salad after word salad contradicting yourself.

 

[beijingwalker]

China friendship with Pakistan is driven by mutual antipathy towards India. Quit pretending otherwise. The writing is on the wall when China and India work out an understanding. On one hand India and China are massive peer competitors. On the other hand they have too much at stake to openly fight each other. It is not a matter of if they reach an understanding but when and under what circumstances.

Unlike caparicious US-Pakistan relationship, time tested China-Pakistan friendship has been steadfast, non interrupted for 70 years already, how many 70 years a person can live? this fact explains everything.

 

[WotTen]

yeah! it also knows that the Chinese are as corrupt and crooked as the Pakistanis. the only difference is that if they do commit any misdeed in China they will get vanished but they are free to do what they like in countries like Pakistan and sri lanka.

Most businessmen will take the best deal given to them, whether they are Chinese, Pakistani, American, or Indian.

It is Pakistan's job to have powerful and efficient oversight mechanisms to guard against corruption. The fact that Pakistan does not have such institutions is a conscious decision made over the last 70 years by the corrupt power structure,

Unlike caparicious US-Pakistan relationship, time tested China-Pakistan friendship has been steadfast, non interrupted for 70 years already, how many 70 years a person can live? this fact explains everything.

There is nothing wrong with China basing its relationship on self-interest. It would be silly to expect any country to do otherwise. Pakistan's job is to find common ground and promote Pakistani interests in that relationship.

The difference between China and America is that America has powerful interest groups which are pathologically anti-Pakistan, whereas there is no such built-in bias in the China-Pakistan relationship.

 

[VCheng]

Then you should head over to D.C. to educate the American administration on their own policies.

The explicitly stated doctrine of US foreign policy is nuclear non-proliferation. By your logic, the US supports Iran getting nuclear weapons to balance Israeli nukes because it will keep the region 'stable'.

It is amusing to see you cook up word salad after word salad contradicting yourself.

Except that Iran is a known exporter of terror against Israel, and Pakistan is not, so your false equivalence simply does not exist. Try entertaining more nuanced thoughts than what your pre-determined one-track mind can hold, and it may be a revelation.

 

[WotTen]

Except that Iran is a known exporter of terror against Israel, and Pakistan is not, so your false equivalence simply does not exist.

LOL, but the US accuses Pakistan of aiding the Iranian nuclear weapons program and, according to you, the US is supportive of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. And that's before we even talk about the Pressler Amendemnt and other actions by the US.

Always amusing to see the disconnect between your beliefs and reality.

Try entertaining more nuanced thoughts than what your pre-determined one-track mind can hold, and it may be a revelation.

The only revelation here is that you don't understand the US stance on nuclear non-proliferation.

 

[VCheng]

LOL, but the US accuses Pakistan of aiding the Iranian nuclear weapons program and, according to you, the US is supportive of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.

Always amusing when you fail to see the contradictions in your own logic.

USA did stop proliferation by Pakistan pronto, didn't it? Pakistan can still keep its own, but not help others get them. Pretty simple to understand, even for you.

 

[WotTen]

Pakistan can still keep its own, but not help others get them.

Pressler was also the sponsor of the Pressler Amendment, which banned most economic and military assistance to Pakistan unless the president certified on an annual basis that[37] "Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device and that the proposed United States assistance program will reduce significantly the risk that Pakistan will possess a nuclear explosive device."

Pretty simple to understand, even for you.

I can read English. Can you?

 

[VCheng]

unless the president certified on an annual basis

Seems like a useful loophole built-in.

 

[WotTen]

Seems like a useful loophole built-in.

A loophole only to serve America's timing of sanctions: The sanctions were imposed on Pakistan in 1990 after Pakistan's services in the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad were not needed.

 

[RoadRunner401]

Pakistan failed to capitalize on our good relationship with the US in the early decades and we have failed to do the same with China.

Sorry, what? 1962 Chinese literally give you Kashmire, but you act against it on the advise of Americans...


1962 Pakistani ally USA helps India against China and tells Pakistan to back off.


1971 aircraft carrier leaves to help Pakistan 2022 its still haven't made it yet.

1990 India is almost bankrupt, Americans pump $40 Billion dollars of cash liquidity into Indian credit markets and save India from bankruptcy..

Pakistan literally destroys her economy and radicalizes its population to please Arabs and USA, we get loans at draconian conditions and put on FATF plus asked to do more

Not going to mention soya beans for f sola (F16) and complete refusal to supply or sell any weapon in Pakistan that will give her an edge over India

Pakistan army officers(decision makers only) are given training in united states(what training). ask the ones in GHQ who are openly standing against the interest of Pakistan what kind of tanning they have...

Please feel free to tell me when does your good relationship theory with the Americans kick in...

HATE TO BREAK THIS TO YOU, YOU NEVER HAD GOOD REALTIONS WITH AMERICANS. AMERICANS HAVE BEEN INDIAN ALLIES FROM DAY ONE...

 

[VCheng]

A loophole only to serve America's timing of sanctions: The sanctions were imposed on Pakistan in 1990 after Pakistan's services in the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad were not needed.

Of course. America's actions must serve America's interests. Just like Pakistan's actions serve its interests. See how logical international geopolitics can be if one is capable of understanding a few basic principles.