US-China war seems inevitable as Washington seeks support from these countries, countries are, India also is...
Now, it is worth a mention that why has America out such a question to its two allies? The first thought that comes to mind is a possible armed conflict between America and China on the issue of Taiwan especially when the world is already witnessing the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas conflict, and Iran-Israel tensions?
China and America have been at odds on the Taiwan issue for a long time and Washington has always portrayed itself as the sole saviour of the island nation. Under the Taiwan Relations Act (1979), the US provides Taiwan with defense equipment and support to ensure its security. What does the US demand from its two allies?
The US policy towards Taiwan has been of 'strategic ambiguity', that is, it does not make it clear whether it will intervene militarily in the event of an attack on Taiwan. This policy has been formulated to stop China and control tensions. In recent years, the US has increased arms sales to Taiwan. Apart from this, through alliances like QUAD, the US has tried to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. But now the US is becoming vocal and asking questions.
According to a report in the Financial Times, top diplomat in the Ministry of Defense, Elbridge Colby, has said that this question is also a message for China. It says that the USA is demanding these countries to increase defense spending and make concrete plans for a possible conflict, so that the strategy of deterrence can be made effective. The geographical location and military capabilities of Australia and Japan can be important in the Taiwan conflict, especially in the context of AUKUS and other defense agreements. AUKUS is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. What do Australia and Japan say over America's question?
Both Australia and Japan are close military partners of the US, but the people and governments of both countries are cautious about getting caught in a major war. For this reason, they are avoiding making any open commitment in this matter and are talking about maintaining peace and status quo in the region.
However, this demand of America is making both the countries uncomfortable, as they want to balance trade and diplomatic relations with China. Australia has refused to answer 'hypothetical questions', while Japan has also said that it is difficult to answer such questions based on future circumstances. Why is Australian PM in China?
Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is on a visit to China. He has said that Australia's largest export partner is China and China wants to take this trade friendship forward.
According to experts, the Taiwan issue is the biggest military 'flashpoint' of the present time, where the possibility of conventional or nuclear war is considered the highest. Although most analysts believe that the possibility of war has definitely increased, but at present its possibility is low. Both China and America know that war over Taiwan would mean disastrous for the global economy and stability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 minutes ago
- First Post
How EU's new sanctions on Russia reveal West's colonial hangover
The new EU sanctions are not about hurting Russia anymore—they are about telling India how to behave read more The EU hasn't banned the purchase of Russian oil altogether. It has merely imposed a price cap, while pressuring others, like India, to stop refining or shipping that same oil. Image: REUTERS On July 18, the European Union (EU) imposed its 18th round of sanctions on Russia since the Ukraine war began. Among the fresh targets was an unexpected name: the Vadinar oil refinery in Gujarat, India, operated by Nayara Energy, in which Russian oil giant Rosneft holds a 49 per cent stake. Not stopping there, the EU went further to designate the Indian flag register itself, signalling that ships flying the Indian tricolour could be targeted if they are suspected of transporting Russian oil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD And yet, in a peculiar twist of logic, the EU hasn't banned the purchase of Russian oil altogether. It has merely imposed a price cap 15 per cent below the prevailing market rate, allowing itself to continue energy imports from Russia while pressuring others, like India, to stop refining or shipping that same oil. What does this imply? The EU wants to buy Russian oil, just not if it's touched by Indian hands. This is not a geopolitical strategy grounded in consistency or fairness. It reeks of hypocrisy. The Sham of Sanction Morality Since the war in Ukraine broke out in 2022, Western capitals have scrambled to impose sanctions on Russia, penalising its banks, banning technology exports, freezing assets, and restricting energy exports. The intention was to cripple Russia's war machine by starving it of funds. However, as months passed, the West itself quietly resumed or continued many of these same transactions under different guises. India, like any rational state, saw an opportunity in discounted Russian crude. As Western buyers moved away (at least on paper), India ramped up its purchases, now exceeding one million barrels per day. This oil, heavily discounted, has helped New Delhi manage inflation, stabilise its energy supply, and ensure growth for 140 crore citizens. This pragmatism hasn't gone unnoticed in Washington and Brussels. But instead of acknowledging their own continued dependence on Russian energy, particularly natural gas, the West has targeted Indian refiners, shippers, and institutions. The new EU sanctions are not about hurting Russia anymore. They are about telling India how to behave. The underlying assumption is simple: the West sets the rules; the rest of the world must follow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Energy for Whom? Let's dissect the numbers. In 2022 alone, the EU paid over $120 billion to Russia for fossil fuels. This included oil, natural gas, and coal. Compare this with India's total bill: about $50 billion—less than half of Europe's. Who, then, is fuelling the Russian economy? Spain and Belgium were among the top LNG importers from Russia. Germany, after shutting down pipeline imports post-Ukraine invasion, began receiving Russian LNG via its ports. Italy has also continued to buy Russian-origin oil, sometimes routed through third countries. Even the United States, which claims moral superiority, continues importing vital commodities from Russia. Case in point: uranium. Nearly 20 per cent of the uranium used in American nuclear power plants still comes from Russia. So much for an embargo. When national interests are involved, moral grandstanding takes a back seat. India Pushes Back India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has not taken this duplicity lying down. Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal responded firmly: 'Securing the energy needs of our people is understandably an overriding priority for us.' That's the crux. In an energy-starved country with burgeoning demand, fuel isn't just an economic issue; it's a developmental necessity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, too, asserted that India is well-prepared to navigate sanctions, noting that India today buys oil from over 40 countries compared to just 27 in the past. Diversification, not dependency, has been India's guiding principle. Moreover, the MEA has expressed serious concern over reports of the United States planning a 500 per cent tariff on countries continuing to buy Russian oil, an undeclared threat aimed squarely at India. The very idea that a sovereign country could be penalised for making independent choices that benefit its people is absurd, but it reveals the West's real aim: control. Nato's Hypocrisy: The Case of Turkey If these sanctions were truly about punishing Russian partners, why is Turkey, another country buying Russian oil and even hosting the TurkStream gas pipeline, not under similar fire? Turkey, a NATO member, bought Russian S-400 missile systems in 2019. The US did impose minor sanctions on Turkish defence entities, but Ankara remains a Nato member and continues to transact with Moscow. The Western world makes exceptions for Turkey because of its strategic geography. India, by contrast, is expected to follow the West's orders or face consequences. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sovereignty Is Not for Sale The EU's latest move sanctioning an Indian refinery and targeting Indian-flagged vessels isn't about stopping Russian oil. It's about sending a message to India: fall in line, or be punished. This is an affront to Indian sovereignty. The Vadinar refinery processes oil not just for India but for international clients, including European ones. Europe has happily purchased refined products from India, even when they originated from Russian crude. So Europe pays India for processed fuels while penalising India for importing the crude used to make them. It is hypocrisy of the highest order. India's position is clear. It is not buying oil to finance a war. It is buying oil to power its economy. And unless the West is willing to completely cut off its energy ties with Moscow, which it won't, it has no moral authority to lecture India. The Global South and the New Multipolarity This episode illustrates a broader truth: the era of unipolar Western dominance is fading. Countries like India, China, Brazil, and others in the Global South are asserting their economic sovereignty and refusing to toe Western lines blindly. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India has extended humanitarian aid to Ukraine, spoken to both Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin, and consistently called for dialogue. But it has also made it clear: national interest comes first. We will not compromise our energy security because the West wants a moral trophy. This is not just an issue of oil. It is an issue of global fairness. The West cannot continue creating a two-tier system where its interests are sacrosanct and others' interests are expendable. A Test of Global Leadership If the EU and the US want to lead, they must do so by example. Leadership isn't about coercion. It's about consistency and integrity. You cannot ask India to stop doing what you continue to do behind closed doors. It is time to call out the Western bluff. The sanctions regime, as it stands, is neither effective nor equitable. It is simply a mechanism to enforce Western will under the guise of international morality. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India must stay the course—firm, unyielding, and self-assured. We don't owe anyone an explanation for prioritising our people's needs. We are not a vassal state. We are a rising power. And we will decide our path, not Washington, not Brussels. Conclusion The EU's 18th round of sanctions has exposed more than it has achieved. It has revealed the moral bankruptcy of a West that wants to have its oil and lecture others, too. For India, this is not just a diplomatic challenge. It is a test of resolve. We must never forget: the ultimate responsibility of any government is to its people. As long as Russian oil provides a reliable and affordable option, we should not be cowed into abandoning it. Let the West fix its reactions before pointing fingers. India stands for peace, yes. But India also stands for sovereignty. And that is not negotiable. The writer is a technocrat, political analyst, and author. He pens national, geopolitical, and social issues. His social media handle is @prosenjitnth. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Israel's Rebuke = Hamas' Gift': Netanyahu, U.S. Fire Back After 28 Nations Tell IDF To End Gaza War
In a rare and sweeping rebuke, 28 nations — including key U.S. allies like the UK, France, Canada, and Australia — have united in a joint statement demanding an immediate end to Israel's military offensive in Gaza. The signatories condemned the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza, slammed Israel's proposed "humanitarian city" as a veiled forced displacement plan, and demanded a permanent ceasefire. Israel and U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee rejected the statement, calling it a gift to Hamas. As Trump's envoy heads to Europe for truce talks, the EU has also warned Israel of an escalating starvation crisis. The global pressure on Netanyahu's government is growing — but will it shift the tide?#GazaCeasefire #Netanyahu #IsraelPalestine #28Nations #EUWarning #GazaWar #HumanitarianCrisis #MiddleEastConflict #CeasefireNow #DiplomaticPressure Read More
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
United States says it will withdraw from UNESCO
The United States on Tuesday announced its decision to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, citing concerns about 'anti-Israel rhetoric' and the promotion of 'divisive' agendas. President Donald Trump had pulled out of the organisation in 2017 as well during his first term, a decision that his successor Joe Biden had reversed. US Department of State Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said on Tuesday that Washington's continued involvement in UNESCO was 'not in the national interest' of the country. UNESCO is a body of the United Nations that promotes world peace through international cooperation in culture, arts, education and sciences. Bruce accused the organisation of advancing 'divisive social and cultural causes'. 'UNESCO…maintains an outsized focus on the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist, ideological agenda for international development at odds with our America First foreign policy,' she said. The spokesperson also criticised the body's 2011 decision to admit Palestine as a member state, calling it 'highly problematic' and a contributor to 'anti-Israel rhetoric within the organisation'. Washington is an ally of Israel and acts as a guarantor of the country's security. Both the US and Israel had stopped financing UNESCO after it voted to include Palestine as a member state. In a social media post, Bruce said that 'going forward, US participation in international organisations must make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous'. The decision will take effect at the end of December 2026, her statement added. This is the third time US has pulled out of UNESCO. The country first withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan's administration, citing the international body's mismanagement, corruption, and advancement of Soviet Union interests. The US rejoined the organisation in 2003. Today, the United States announced our decision to withdraw from UNESCO. Like many UN organizations, UNESCO strayed from its founding mission. Going forward, U.S. participation in international organizations must make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. — Tammy Bruce (@statedeptspox) July 22, 2025 UNESCO says withdrawal was 'anticipated' Responding to Washington's announcement, UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay said that she 'deeply regretted' Trump's decision to once again withdraw from the international body. 'This decision contradicts the fundamental principles of multilateralism, and may affect first and foremost our many partners in the United States of America,' she said. Azoulay said that the announcement, although regrettable, was anticipated and added that UNESCO had prepared for it. The organisation had undertaken major structural reforms and diversified its funding sources since 2018, she added. 'UNESCO's overall budget has steadily increased,' she said, adding that the US now accounts for just 8% of its funding, compared to 40% for some other UN bodies. She added that the organisation is now better protected in financial terms due to support from other member states and private donors. The purpose of the international body is to welcome all the nations of the world, and the US is and will always be welcome, Azoulay said. 'We will continue to work hand in hand with all of our American partners in the private sector, academia and non-profit organisations, and will pursue political dialogue with the US administration and Congress,' her statement added.
