6 ms·

> India openly allied with the Soviets, so we took the other side. I’m afraid you have it backwards. India and the Soviet Union signed a treaty only after the

• JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > India and the Soviet Union signed a treaty only after the US sent its seventh fleet towards India during the 1971 India-Pakistan conflict New Delhi and Moscow were transferring technology in “steel, defense, railways, construction equipment, metal & mining [and] petrochemicals” by the time “Khrushchev announced that the Soviet Union supported India's stance on the Kashmir conflict against Pakistan and over Portuguese coastal enclaves such as Goa” in 1955 [1]. The MiG-21 was co-produced in India in the 1960s. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India–Soviet_Union_relations#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India–Soviet_Union_relations...
  • ra7 3y ago
    Technology transfer and verbal support is nothing like coming to a country’s rescue during a war. An official treaty was only signed during the events of 1971 war. US-Pakistan mutual defense treaty dates back to 1954.
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Technology transfer and verbal support is nothing like coming to a country’s rescue during a war Co-producing warplanes is as good as a treaty. Right in front of leaders visiting each others’ capitals. Bottom line is India never courted the West. Pakistan did. Neither drove the other into anyone’s arms; American relations in Pakistan were focussed on the Middle East, India’s in the Soviets with China. When the theatre shifted to India v Pakistan, the table was already set and everyone assumed their places.
      • ra7 3y ago
        > Co-producing warplanes is as good as a treaty. Not really, no. One is a financial commitment, the other is a military commitment. They're very different. India never courted the West because Pakistan already had close relations with them. The order matters since your argument is US aligned with Pakistan only because India aligned with Soviet Union. US had its own motivations (obviously) around curtailing Soviet influence in Afghanistan.
        • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
          > One is a financial commitment, the other is a military commitment. They're very different. The U.S. co-producing nuclear submarines with Australia isn’t a military commitment? > your argument is US aligned with Pakistan only because India aligned with Soviet Union This was never said? We didn’t ally with India because it was allied with the Soviets. We have no problem allying with both sides of a regional spat e.g. Israel & Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Greece and Japan & Korea.
          • ra7 3y ago
            > The U.S. co-producing nuclear submarines with Australia isn’t a military commitment? I mean troop commitment. Will the US send a naval fleet to Australia if the latter is attacked?
            • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
              > Will the US send a naval fleet to Australia if the latter is attacked? You’re kidding, right? Of course we would. (Unless it’s chickenshit business, like Indonesia and Oz getting into a coast guard squabble over migrant boats.) When you co-produce weapons, you send high-ranking technical advisors and expensive kit that needs guarding. This is why e.g. deploying a ballistic missile radar isn’t just plopping down a radar. It involves deploying troops around it. We have defence treaties with countries whom we don’t trust enough to co-produce with. Co-production is a big deal.
  • splintercell 3y ago
    Please read the declassified telegram of Nixon administration and his own views on the conflict.