Opinion: The time for equivocating about a nuclear-armed, Taliban-friendly Pakistan is over

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

no they have not, I have asked @krash to get me permission to explain. if I get it I'll post about the new satanic game if not keep on going with your "taliban are mighty superpower killers" fantasies

Explain it but leave out the controversial parts.

 

[VCheng]

Precisely: The terms and resources. But for Uncle Sam, it would be far less than the $30-50 billion per year being spent in Afghanistan lately.

Actually, the Pakistan-Managing-Afghanistan role would be also for China. And for Russia too.

Let us see what develops from the NSA's repeated trips to USA, plus other channels in play.

 

[Meengla]

Let us see what develops from the NSA's repeated trips to USA, plus other channels in play.

Yes.
Contrary to most on PDF, I think USA doesn't have just one power center and even coherent long term policies. There are different power centers beyond the apparent Congress/Senate/Presidency. The personality of the US President matters a lot--otherwise, years of Obama's hard work on Iran wouldn't vaporize when Trump arrived. That's just one example. Add in multiple lobbies and interest groups and even personalities of 2nd or 3rd tier leadership and you'd see major decisions made based on them; Robert McNamara in Vietnam fiasco. But America can afford tactical and even strategic defeats without taking too much of a hit. And that's not changing in at least short term. But that's a different topic.

What is relevant to this discussion is: How much there is consensus in the political circles about just wash their hands off the Eurasian Continent and focus on China in the Pacific? How far can the 'Pivot' to the Pacific go at the expense of Eurasia? How relevant is the continental force-projection of India now when it is probably apparent than India can't even take on Pakistan let alone a Pakistan-China combine? India and it's resources could be much more useful in Oceans. Perhaps that's what Shehkar Gupta is saying in his recent video about 'forgetting Pakistan and Afghanistan' and looking to the oceans--I haven't seen that video.

I don't think anyone say with confidence what America's policy viz a viz Pakistan going to be until at least after the withdrawal. But it could very well be contrary to what this thread is saying. There could well be another transactional security setup given to Pakistan as was given to Pakistan against communism in the 1950s/60s.

 

[VCheng]

I don't think anyone say with confidence what America's policy viz a viz Pakistan going to be until at least after the withdrawal. But it could very well be contrary to what this thread is saying. There could well be another transactional security setup given to Pakistan as was given to Pakistan against communism in the 1950s/60s.

I have said all along that I am sure that both countries will come to a mutually beneficial arrangement going forward.

 

[Path-Finder]

Yes I do see his past and that's what it is, the past. The bigger picture has changed a fair bit. They're in turmoil i.e. the warmongers.

I give up.

 

[maverick1977]

Yes.
Contrary to most on PDF, I think USA doesn't have just one power center and even coherent long term policies. There are different power centers beyond the apparent Congress/Senate/Presidency. The personality of the US President matters a lot--otherwise, years of Obama's hard work on Iran wouldn't vaporize when Trump arrived. That's just one example. Add in multiple lobbies and interest groups and even personalities of 2nd or 3rd tier leadership and you'd see major decisions made based on them; Robert McNamara in Vietnam fiasco. But America can afford tactical and even strategic defeats without taking too much of a hit. And that's not changing in at least short term. But that's a different topic.

What is relevant to this discussion is: How much there is consensus in the political circles about just wash their hands off the Eurasian Continent and focus on China in the Pacific? How far can the 'Pivot' to the Pacific go at the expense of Eurasia? How relevant is the continental force-projection of India now when it is probably apparent than India can't even take on Pakistan let alone a Pakistan-China combine? India and it's resources could be much more useful in Oceans. Perhaps that's what Shehkar Gupta is saying in his recent video about 'forgetting Pakistan and Afghanistan' and looking to the oceans--I haven't seen that video.

I don't think anyone say with confidence what America's policy viz a viz Pakistan going to be until at least after the withdrawal. But it could very well be contrary to what this thread is saying. There could well be another transactional security setup given to Pakistan as was given to Pakistan against communism in the 1950s/60s.

Four, Executive, Pentagon, CIA, Congress

 

[waz]

I give up.

No worries.

 

[Wood]

Pakistan has China's strong backing, so they will likely not be effective, hence may not be likely to happen in the first place.

I agree that sanctions are not likely to happen. But this is the case simply because there is no reason for western countries to sanction Pakistan at this point. Sanctions are usually made when there are specific objectives in place. Now that NATO has said goodbye to Afghanistan, there is nothing left to gain.

However, I do not agree this China backing as a reason for ineffective sanctions. You will notice today that Pakistan's primary export partners are the NATO countries and not China. In fact, Pakistan has a substantial trade surplus with western nations that need cheap goods from low income countries. China on the other hand does not have this need. In fact, very few countries have the capability to manufacture goods that are cheaper than what the Chinese could manufacture. Case in point, check the China - Pakistan trade balance.

 

[Nasr]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1429938995983753216

There are "War Hawks" in Washington DC, and then there is John Bolton. In all honesty, if this guy somehow stumbled his way into the Oval Office as a President. I can guarantee you that for the 4 or 8 years this confounded rascal is President of the U.S, america will be in non-stop wars with every country on the planet that opposes america. This dude is the knucklehead-bully version of Zbigniew Brzezinski. If the moon had human life indigenously living on it, bet your bottom dollar that John Bolton would've bombed and invaded the moon too.

He's one Class-A, Scum!!!

 

[CrazyZ]

Haven't heard anything hostile from official USA leaders. Most of them blame the previous Afghan regime for the debacle.

Most anti-Pakistan rhetoric comes from lobbyists or folks far from power. Either way USA can not have a complete break with Pakistan for logistical and counter terrorism reasons. Pragmatic cooperation will continue.

 

[VCheng]

I agree that sanctions are not likely to happen. But this is the case simply because there is no reason for western countries to sanction Pakistan at this point. Sanctions are usually made when there are specific objectives in place. Now that NATO has said goodbye to Afghanistan, there is nothing left to gain.

However, I do not agree this China backing as a reason for ineffective sanctions. You will notice today that Pakistan's primary export partners are the NATO countries and not China. In fact, Pakistan has a substantial trade surplus with western nations that need cheap goods from low income countries. China on the other hand does not have this need. In fact, very few countries have the capability to manufacture goods that are cheaper than what the Chinese could manufacture. Case in point, check the China - Pakistan trade balance.

It is not just the trade aspect, but the potential availability of China's trillions helping Pakistan tide over any fiscal issues any sanctions might cause.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

John Bolton is an idiot of previous Trump regime. Think of him as Major Gaurav of USA.

 

[CrazyZ]

I'm seeing reports of the complete opposite. Boris Johnson may ask the G7 to help the assist the region with development aid (Pakistan specifically being referred too). Economically squeezing the region with sanctions only worsen the migration crisis. Europeans are trying to be pragmatic.

 

[Wood]

It is not just the trade aspect, but the potential availability of China's trillions helping Pakistan tide over any fiscal issues any sanctions might cause.

That will just be survival. The economy of developing countries cannot thrive and grow without favorable trade with NATO countries.

 

[VCheng]

That will just be survival. The economy of developing countries cannot thrive and grow without favorable trade with NATO countries.

That may have been the case, but China is an economic powerhouse now, without a doubt. One must keep that in mind.