via twitterfeed |
|
|
RajeevSrinivasa @dhume01 yes, we differ. i felt bilateral movement still handicapped by non-prolif fundies in Dem party. agree tho that india has to step up |
dhume01 @RajeevSrinivasa Shall have to agree to disagree. To me old non-proliferation agenda clearly superceded by bilateral relationship. |
RajeevSrinivasa @dhume01 in my humble opinion, it did not, or it was lost in the noise about UNSC-like stuff. didnt emphasize india's legit afghan interests |
RajeevSrinivasa @dhume01 pressure still on for cap, rollback, eliminate; backdoor NPT, CTBT, FMCT, loss of strategic deterrent all possibilities |
RajeevSrinivasa @dhume01 a strong signal that US getting away from 'india is the problem in afghan' and 'if you give kashmir to pak, all will be fine' memes |
via twitterfeed |
|
dhume01 @RajeevSrinivasa No chance India will sign NPT. Indians who worked on NSG etc. issue in MEA are pleased.On DAE, I agree with you. |
RajeevSrinivasa @dhume01 faint noises about SC, but no endorsement: weak. call for role east asia interesting: mirrors earlier call for china for s asia |
RajeevSrinivasa @dhume01 NSG etc will require NPT signature as non-weapons state, and in nuke sellers interest. agree re blacklist, but DAE still suffers |
dhume01 @RajeevSrinivasa And support for India in NSG (and other regimes) + high tech for ISRO, DRDO and BSL are substantive by any measure. |
dhume01 @RajeevSrinivasa : Support for UNSC seat (global ambition) and for Indian role in Afpak (regional pre-eminence) are symbolic but important. |
RajeevSrinivasa really? i found the visit low in substance. RT @dhume01 : WSJ.com: Opinion Asia: A Deeper U.S.-India Relationship http://on.wsj.... |
No comments:
Post a Comment