"... would like a word with you" is hardly high quality discourse, but OK: Kashmir is really an example of what I mean about the likelihood that the BJP will h

"... would like a word with you" is hardly high quality discourse, but OK: Kashmir is really an example of what I mean about the likelihood that the BJP will have trouble achieving things on the kind of timescale that Trump was working to. It's an awful, very-long-term conflict in disputed territory, is it not? Things move forward and backwards. It does not surprise me that I was instantly downvoted for alluding to Trump when defending against the idea that India is going to become an enemy of the free world. I guess it's because some readers think I am "politicising" it. But you surely shouldn't automatically get to other a democratic nation of 1.4 billion people without reference to the elephant in the room -- that the USA was very recently (perhaps even still is) only one presidential term away from becoming an enemy of the "international rules-based order". You only have to look at how Trump proposed to deal with Tiktok, or how he mysteriously abruptly exempted ZTE from some sanctions, to understand what I mean -- let alone the even bigger elephant in the room, that he successfully downgraded GOP 2016 platform language about the defence of Ukraine and literally coerced Ukraine's leadership with the threatened withholding of congressionally-approved support. The reality is that this discussion about potential threats to the free world or rules-based international order simply can't be one-sided like this. It's an absurdity.