Bapa Rao
37.3K posts
@hydertext
RT doesn’t mean endorsement. “Like” just means “not hate.”
There is a certain genre of writing that substitutes accusation for argument. It begins by assigning motive, then arranges facts,real, distorted, or imagined, to fit that conclusion. The recent commentary on my views on India-Pakistan relations follows that familiar script. Let me state the essentials clearly. To argue that India must combine deterrence with engagement is NOT to diminish the reality of terrorism, nor to excuse it. It is to recognise how serious nations manage adversaries. India has, across governments and decades, done precisely this, responding firmly to terror while retaining channels of communication where necessary to prevent escalation and miscalculation. This is not sentimentality. It is statecraft. The suggestion that engagement grants “impunity” rests on a false binary, that one must either talk or act. In practice, states do both. To collapse that complexity into a moral accusation may make for forceful prose, but it does not make for sound policy. The caricature of a women’s caucus is equally misplaced. It is not proposed as a substitute for national policy, nor as a solution to entrenched conflict. It is a modest Track II initiative, one of many possible avenues, to widen dialogue, reduce hostility, and explore areas where cooperation may still be possible. Such efforts do not require approval from those who see every form of engagement as capitulation. Invoking the suffering of victims of terrorism to argue against any form of dialogue is particularly troubling. Their loss demands seriousness, not rhetorical deployment. Accountability is not strengthened by narrowing the space for thought. The claim that an idea is discredited because it is welcomed by a Pakistani voice is also a curious standard. If the merit of an argument is to be judged by who agrees with it, then independent judgment itself is surrendered. Ideas must stand or fall on their own logic. Beyond the rhetoric lies a more fundamental question: what is India’s end game with Pakistan? If it is to reduce Pakistan to rubble, that is fantasy dressed up as toughness. It is not going to happen, and any attempt to move in that direction would risk catastrophe for the entire region, not least for India. Nuclear geography is a stern schoolmaster. It does not indulge chest-thumping. The real end game has to be containment, deterrence, internal strengthening, and selective engagement. In plain words: India’s objective should be to make Pakistan’s use of terror too costly to sustain, while preventing the relationship from sliding into permanent uncontrolled escalation. That means four things. First, raise the cost of terrorism. Through intelligence, border management, diplomatic isolation where warranted, calibrated military response when necessary, and relentless exposure of the infrastructure of proxy violence. No illusions there. Second, deny Pakistan veto power over India’s future. We should not let our growth, our diplomacy, our regional ambitions, or our internal confidence be held hostage by a single hostile neighbour. The greatest strategic answer to Pakistan is a stronger, more cohesive, more prosperous India. Third, manage the conflict, not romanticise it. There will be no grand reconciliation in the near term. But neither can every interaction be reduced to rage. Ceasefire mechanisms, back channels, water safeguards, crisis hotlines, and limited functional engagement are not signs of softness. They are instruments of control. Fourth, keep open the possibility of a different future without betting on it. That is where dialogue belongs. Not as wishful thinking, not as “aman ki asha” balloon releases, but as disciplined statecraft. You talk not because you trust, but because you must understand, signal, warn, probe, and occasionally de-escalate. So the end game is not rubble. It is a Pakistan that is deterred, constrained, denied easy success, and unable to derail India’s future. Fury is a mood. It is not a policy.
We are launching the 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞’𝐬 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐥 (𝐏𝐏𝐁)! Ideology: • Boseism • National Communism • Indian Patriotism • Bengali Nationalism • Dengism • Scientific Outlook on Development • Three Represents Political Position: Far-left Religion: Atheism
BREAKING: 🇺🇸 🤡 Hegseth says regime change has occured in Iran but they are just “NOT AWARE OF IT” What a pathetic clown.
Dear Mr. Armin Papperger, CEO of Rheinmetall, When you referred to Ukrainian drone manufacturers as “Ukrainian housewives with 3D printers” you revealed just how deeply the European defense establishment still fails to understand the nature of modern warfare. This is not about emotion. It is about battlefield reality. Here are the facts your industry refuses to acknowledge: In 2025 alone, Ukrainian drones carried out 819,737 confirmed strikes. They caused 90 percent of all Russian combat losses, more than all other weapons systems combined. TAF alone produces up to 100к FPV drones monthly. In any given 90-day period, my company’s products alone achieve more confirmed strikes than your entire fleet of equipment has across its full combat history in every conflict. And most importantly, I built this company and achieved these results in two years, not fifty. Think about that. Our drones generate more kinetic effect in three months than your flagship platforms have in half a century. Why? Because the battlefield has changed, and your business model has not. •Russian electronic warfare has made GPS-guided Western munitions such as Excalibur and GMLRS nearly ineffective. •Expensive and complex systems designed for wars with air superiority and traditional peer-to-peer combat have become easy prey for drones costing $500, attacking them from above. •The cost-to-effect ratio has been turned upside down: one 120 mm Rheinmetall shell or one anti-tank missile costs more than a dozen of our drones, and yet our drones still win. This is not a “Lego game.” It is industrial Darwinism in real time. We iterate every week. We print parts in basements and ship 100к strike systems per month, while your engineers still require three to five years and hundreds of millions of euros in certification costs for even a minor upgrade. The war in Ukraine is not a temporary anomaly. It is the first true drone-industrial war. And it has already proven that outdated European platforms, no matter how expensive or “serious” they may seem, are becoming less and less relevant unless they integrate the very technologies you mock. So when you say, “this is not innovation,” I hear something else: “We do not want to admit that the future is being written in Ukrainian workshops, not in Düsseldorf boardrooms.” #MadeByHousewives is trending for a reason. Because these “housewives” destroy more enemy equipment every month than entire European armies do in full campaigns. And they do it while your industry continues to sell 20th-century solutions at 21st prices. The invitation remains open, Mr. Papperger. Stop laughing at the kitchen table. Come and learn how tomorrow’s war is actually being fought. Because the next time someone asks, “Who needs tanks in the age of drones?”, the answer may be simpler than you think: Whoever still believes in 1979 will lose to whoever is building in 2026. With respect, but with facts, Oleksandr Yakovenko “Ukrainian housewives” Founder TAF
Nirupama is one of our best Diplomats. What she says we should appreciate as it comes from rich experience and wisdom of one of the highly successful domain experts. A flourishing democracy encourages public discourse with differing views not slander or personal remarks. But care a damn Nirupama! Ignore and keep writing.
My opinion piece just published : How India and Pakistan can step back from the brink of war - The Washington Post washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
