
Caught between American and Chinese patronage
In a test of nerves, both India and Pakistan are locked in an ongoing military standoff to test each other's resolve. This resolve is built in a broad strategic environment driven by the two great powers, China and the United States.
Both powers hold the major cards and drive the moves on the regional chessboard on which both India and Pakistan act as pawns. Both India and Pakistan play a subordinate role to these larger regional and global powers in their bilateral relationship as well as in the regional conflicts.
The US views the geopolitical competition in the region as a competition between the free and the regressive vision of the world. But that is the US version of the competition; the Chinese version is different.
China views a definite shift in the balance of power between itself and the US, which has continued for the last few decades but has now reached a culminating point. Today, China views this balance of power as a strategic stalemate — a state in which both countries wield comparable power.
The US supports India's leadership role in the region as a counterweight to China and to prevent China from reordering the Indo-Pacific region to its advantage. This American patronage of India is as good a reality as the Chinese patronage of Pakistan. It is in this context that one must view the current grand strategies of not only the US and China but also of Pakistan and India as the subordinates of these two great powers.
Put simply, any grand strategy is the use of power by any state to secure its interests. When the strategic interests of Pakistan and India are aligned with those of China and the US, respectively, then there is sound logic in believing that the grand strategies of both Pakistan and India are part of the overall regional grand strategies of the two great powers.
The US grand strategy in the region encompasses: preventing Asia from being dominated by a single or collation of hegemons; using India to strengthen the US strategic standing in the region; supporting India in its 'act East policy' by helping it expand its leverage over the Indian Ocean Rim States; and preventing a large-scale conflict between Pakistan and India.
China's grand strategy in the region is built around the concept of preventing any damage to its economic rise in the region. Both China and India are rising powers, and both rely on seaborne trade and import of energy as two big aspects that sustain their economy, and both rely on transiting Indian Ocean.
Hence, dominating the Indo-Pacific is not a choice but a built-in strategic necessity for China as a shield against America's growing presence and interest in the region, and for India as an American ally to prevent that from happening. In the immediate context, China faces an economic warfare unleashed by the current Trump administration. China confronts this American strategy with its famous strategic approach of biding time. It is allowing the American tariff war to run its course with expectations that it will falter as the US faces domestic economic upheaval.
Broadly speaking, even in the era of the bipolar world, the world did not witness the two great powers the US and the Soviet Union - directly clashing with each other. Given this precedent, it is unlikely that any other two great powers — like the US and China — will clash with each other now. Both the US and China will continue to purposefully employ the instruments of power at their disposal to compete and contest each other, and the two most relevant instruments of power to extend their interests seem to be diplomatic and economic.
Not so in the case of India and Pakistan. Sitting on the brink of a conflict, the two countries need to remind themselves of all the proxy wars that were fought during the Cold War era, which only furthered or damaged the interests of the Soviet Union or the US. Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan are just the three examples of what became of the nations that fought the proxy wars on behalf of those great powers. The time to learn that lesson is now.
The grand strategies of the US and China in the region are dominated by the economic component of their strategies. The ideological component dominates the grand strategies of India and Pakistan, which does little else but drive them towards a collision course. Both these countries espouse political, security and ideological doctrines that are at odds with how China and the US pursue economic growth as the main pillar of their grand strategies.
The US views the return of the great power competition as its motive to execute its 'pivot to Asia' strategy, as it is here that the two other great powers, China and Russia, with revisionist tendencies, reside. The American support for India is unquestionable and will not be held back. China will also not allow Pakistan to be subjected to Indian military blackmail.
Unlike China, which allows the US tariff war to take its course, Pakistan cannot afford to allow the Indian military pressures and its security strategy against Pakistan to run its course. Pakistan's declared policy of quid pro quo plus against the Indian threat is the most important deterrent that prevents the Indian strategy from furthering, as it fears the Pakistani retaliatory response.
If India does try to initiate a limited war, then the response by Pakistan will drive the war into an unlimited strategic time and space, something that both the US and China would not wish to see. War from there will not deescalate but only escalate as the Indian notion of viewing Pakistan as a state that will comply under Indian military pressure and military operations is built on a wrong premise.
The strategic audience of this brewing conflict is no longer just the Indians and the Pakistanis; it is now the entire world, and there is much at stake for the world to allow this conflict to take place.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
US Treasury chief Bessent accuses India of profiteering on Russian oil purchases
WASHINGTON: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday accused India of profiteering from its sharply increased purchases of Russian oil during the war in Ukraine, saying Washington viewed the situation as unacceptable. Bessent told CNBC in an interview that Russian oil now accounted for 42% of India's total oil purchases, up from under 1% before the war, and contrasted that with longtime buyer China, whose Russian oil purchases had increased to 16% from 13%. 'India is just profiteering. They are reselling,' Bessent said. 'What I would call Indian arbitrage - buying cheap Russian oil, reselling it as product has just sprung up during the war - which is unacceptable,' he said. U.S. President Donald Trump this month announced an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods as a punishment for New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil, bringing the total additional tariffs announced since he took office to 50%. Trump has credited the Indian tariffs as piling pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to work toward ending the war in Ukraine, but has stopped short of imposing similar tariffs on China over its purchases of Russian oil. US adviser Navarro says India's Russian crude buying has to stop Bessent, asked about the Trump administration's failure to move ahead with similar tariffs on China, said the situation was 'completely different' given that Beijing was a longtime buyer and had not engaged in the kind of 'arbitrage' done by India. U.S.-India relations have been strained by Trump's tariffs after months of forecasts by the U.S. president and other officials that they were close to reaching an agreement with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government on a trade deal that would have lowered the tariff rate. India on Tuesday temporarily suspended an 11% import duty on cotton until September 30, a move seen as a signal to Washington that New Delhi is willing to address U.S. concerns on agricultural tariffs. It came after the abrupt cancellation of a planned visit by U.S. trade negotiators to New Delhi from August 25-29.


Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump says Putin ‘tired' of war, but possible he doesn't want to make a deal
WASHINGTON: U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he hoped Vladimir Putin was going to 'be good' and move forward toward ending the war in Ukraine, but conceded it was possible the Russian president doesn't want to make a deal. 'I don't think it's going to be a problem, to be honest with you. I think Putin is tired of it. I think they're all tired of it, but you never know,' Trump said in an interview with the Fox News 'Fox & Friends' program. Trump spoke the day after hosting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and European leaders at the White House for talks on his peace efforts, a meeting that followed his summit with Putin in Alaska last Friday. 'We're going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks … It's possible that he doesn't want to make a deal,' Trump said, adding that Putin faced a 'rough situation' if that were not the case. US would help assure Ukraine's security in a peace deal, Trump tells Zelenskiyy After Monday's talks, Trump had said that he had called Putin to help set up a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Zelenskiy that would be followed by a trilateral meeting to include himself. Trump said in the Fox News interview he thought relations between Putin and Zelenskiy might be 'a little bit better' or else he would not have pursued their one-on-one meeting. He also cited his own warm relationship with Putin even as he acknowledged the potential for a deal to fall through. 'I hope President Putin is going to be good, and if he's not, it's going to be a rough situation. And I hope that…President Zelenskiy will do what he has to do. He has to show some flexibility also,' Trump said. On security guarantees for Ukraine that Kyiv and its allies are seeking as part of any peace settlement, Trump said that while Europe was willing to commit troops in some form, the United States would not, although it could provide other assistance. 'There'll be some form of security. It can't be NATO,' he said. 'They're willing to put people on the ground. We're willing to help them with things, especially, probably, if you could talk about by air.' Asked what assurances he could give that the U.S. troops would not be on the ground defending Ukraine's border, he said: 'You have my assurance. You know, I'm president.'


Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Focus on security guarantees as Ukraine summit leaves path to peace unclear
LONDON/KYIV: Ukraine and its European allies have been buoyed by Donald Trump's promise of security guarantees for Kyiv to help end the war in Ukraine but face many unanswered questions, including how willing Russia will be to play ball. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hailed Monday's extraordinary summit at the White House with the U.S. president as a 'major step forward' towards ending Europe's deadliest conflict in 80 years and towards setting up a trilateral meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin and Trump in the coming weeks. Zelenskiy was flanked by the leaders of allies including Germany, France and Britain at the summit and his warm rapport with Trump contrasted sharply with their disastrous Oval Office meeting in February. But beyond the optics, the path to peace remains deeply uncertain and Zelenskiy may be forced to make painful compromises to end the war, which began with Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 and which analysts say has killed or wounded more than 1 million people. Russian air attack cuts power to parts of Poltava region, Ukraine says While the Washington talks allowed for a temporary sense of relief in Kyiv, there was no let-up in the fighting. Russia launched 270 drones and 10 missiles in an overnight attack on Ukraine, the Ukrainian air force said, the largest this month. The energy ministry said Russia had targeted energy facilities in the central Poltava region, home to Ukraine's only oil refinery, causing big fires. 'The good news is that there was no blow-up (at the White House). Trump didn't demand Ukrainian capitulation nor cut offsupport. The mood music was positive and the trans-Atlantic alliance lives on,' John Foreman, a former British defence attache to Kyiv and Moscow, told Reuters. 'On the downside, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the nature of security guarantees and what exactly the U.S. has in mind.' Ukraine's allies were to hold talks in the so-called 'Coalition of the Willing' format on Tuesday to discuss the way forward. NATO chiefs of defence will also discuss security guarantees for Ukraine on Tuesday, a source close to the matter said, without mentioning further details. Zelenskiy said on Tuesday his officials were working on the content of the security guarantees. Russia has made no explicit commitment to a meeting between Putin and Zelenskiy. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday that Moscow did not reject any formats for discussing the peace process in Ukraine but any meeting of national leaders 'must be prepared with utmost thoroughness'. 'It doesn't smell like peace yet. I think Putin will not go for it, he is not that kind of person,' said a 63-year-old resident of Kyiv, Oksana Melnyk. 'I really wanted it all to end peacefully, but, unfortunately, a lot of our people died and it is very bitter.'