Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey: US president Donald Trump is selectively joining hands with India's enemies due to...
US President Donald Trump
US President Donald Trump was recently in news as he had claimed of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during the recent tensions between the two countries after India conducted 'Operation Sindoor' where it attacked nine terror camps located in PoJK and Pakistan killing more than hundred terrorists. However, US President Trump is again in spotlight as the close associates of President Trump is reported meeting various leaders from across the world not known for being pro-India.
A recent report has indicated that Donald Trump's son Donald Trump Jr.'s college friend Gentry Beach visited Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey very recently. Donald Trump's close aid meeting leaders of Turkey, Bangladesh and Pakistan
It has also been reported that Pakistan Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif hosted Gentry Beach twice after which Beach heaped praises on Pakistan.
Similarly, Gentry Beach also visited Muhammad Yunus, who is the chief advisor to the interim government of Bangladesh. The close associate of Trump had reportedly promised Dhaka to bring huge FDI in oil and gas exploration, aerospace, defense and real estate.
Last but not the least, Gentry Beach was in Istanbul on April 17 days before the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. During the meeting, Beach signed an agreement with a Turkish group Terra Holding to set up a joint venture for oil and mining in Dubai and also proposed to make Turkey the next factory of the world instead of China. Why Trump administration is aligning with anti-India countries
Although there is no specific reason behind the move by the Trump close aid, various reasons including resources, market for US goods and minerals could drive the administration towards the 'enemies' of India in Asia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Remaining S-400 defence system coming on time, says Russian envoy as he cites India-Pakistan conflict
Russian deputy ambassador Roman Babushkin to New India on Monday said India will receive the remaining regiments of the S-400 strategic air defence missile system by 2026, as scheduled. The S-400 missile system performed well in India's Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, intercepting Pakistani drones and missiles. There have been talks of an additional batch of the missile system. 'We heard that S-400 performed very efficiently during the situation between India and Pakistan,' Roman Babushkin told news agency PTI. Acknowledging that India and Russia have a long history of collaboration, Roman Babushkin said the air defence systems, 'according to what we are experiencing, the situation in Europe, here, this is one of the promising topics of our partnership in defence preparation in general'. "As far as my knowledge goes, the contract for the remaining S-400 units will be according to the schedule. We are open for a promotion of this partnership for the discussion of the expansion of dialogue on air defence system... I think it will be done in 2025, 2026," he added. India inked a $5.43 billion contract with Russia in 2018 for five regiments. Of the five, three have been deployed along the western and northern fronts, bordering Pakistan and China, respectively. India had received the first regiment in December 2021, while the second and third were delivered in April 2022 and October 2023, respectively. Re-christened as 'Sudarshan Chakra', the S-400 can detect, destroy hostile strategic bombers, jets, spy planes, missiles and drones at a range of 380 kilometres. Going by information shared by the Indian government, the acquisition was to be completed by 2023, The New Indian Express reported, citing unnamed sources. The S-400 system's delivery schedule got delayed due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict which affected supply chains and production, the report added. 'The S-400 Missile is a potent system in terms of its operational capability to provide a continuous and effective air defence system to a very large area. With the induction of this system, air defence capability of the nation will be significantly enhanced,' the ministry of defence had said in a statement in 2021. The S-400 system is capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously, including aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, at varying ranges and altitudes. It consists of three main components: missile launchers, a powerful radar, and a command centre. It is capable of targeting aircraft, cruise missiles, and even high-speed intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The S-400 is seen as a major threat by NATO members due to its impressive long-range capabilities. It can engage almost all types of modern combat aircraft.
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump Unleashes Biden 'Clone' Bombshell; Outrage Erupts Over ‘Execution' Claim
Donald Trump has reignited controversy with a shocking late-night post on Truth Social, implying that Joe Biden was "executed" in 2020 and replaced by engineered lookalikes. The post contained no context, just a link to a bizarre claim filled with phrases like 'soulless robots' and 'bio-engineered doubles.' While Trump didn't explain further, the internet exploded with divided reactions, critics slammed him as a conspiracy theorist, while loyal supporters echoed the wild claim. The uproar comes days after Trump publicly called Biden 'vicious' and 'not very bright,' urging Americans not to feel sorry for him. Meanwhile, Biden faces a deeply personal battle after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. His team has confirmed it's serious, but treatable through hormone therapy.
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
