US National Security Strategy document is hawkish on China and soft on India

The US National Security Strategy document was released a few days ago by the White House. I read media reports that said the document regarded China merely as an economic competitor, not an existential threat. And that India did not seem to matter.

The reports are wrong. The report is  hawkish on China and - this will gladden Indian hearts- it does see India as a counter-weight to China in the region.

Let me first highlight the positions the document takes with respect to China:

1. China has emerged as a threat to the rules-based international order.

President Trump single-handedly reversed more than three decades of mistaken American assumptions about China: namely, that by opening our markets to China, encouraging American business to invest in China, and outsourcing our manufacturing to China, we would facilitate China’s entry into the so-called “rulesbased international order.” This did not happen. 

2. No change in the US policy of preserving Taiwan's independence

 Given that one-third of global shipping  passes annually through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the U.S. economy. Hence deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preservingmilitary overmatch, is a priority. We will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.

2. Restrictions on trade with China will continue, both through tariffs and through export controls.

Since the Chinese economy reopened to the world in 1979, commercial relations between our two countries have been and remain fundamentally unbalanced. .......Going forward, we will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.Trade with China should be balanced and focused on non-sensitive factors.

 If that is not hawkish, I don't know what is.

The tone towards India is distinctly friendly.  

1. India remains an important partner in preventing  China's dominance in the Indo-Pacific region.

We must continue to improve commercial (and other) relations with India to encourage New Delhi to contribute to Indo-Pacific security, including through continued quadrilateral cooperation with Australia, Japan, and the United States (“the Quad”).

2. The economic partnership with India too is important 

President Trump’s May 2025 state visits to Persian Gulf countries demonstrated the power and appeal of American technology. There, the President won the Gulf States’ support for America’s superior AI technology, deepening our partnerships. America should similarly enlist our European and Asian allies and partners, including India, to cement and improve our joint positions in the Western  Hemisphere and, with regard to critical minerals, in Africa.

Not exactly effusive about India but friendly in tone. At least India is spared the harsh comments the document for America's allies in Europe. 

Standoff with China: India's options limited

 The government's critics accuse it of meekness in the face of China's land grab in Ladakh. The fact of the matter, as many security experts have testified, is that China has appropriated chunks of Indian territory. What is not stated as explicitly is that India's military and diplomatic options in responding to Chinese belligerence are limited, as an article in The Wire makes clear, citing a recent paper by two US analysts.

There are three options. One, take on the Chinese and throw them out before they consolidate. This is a huge challenge in the Himalayan heights given that defenders have an enormous advantage. Two, seize Chinese territory that can then be exchanged for ours. We haven't quite attempted this: the territory we have moved into at Pangong is our own. The third is to accept the fait accompli. This would mean more Chinese aggression down the road.

It does appear that, faced with a superior economic and military power, our options are limited. Some hawks says we should make it costly for China to embark on such adventures by mobilising in a big way along the border. But this raises costs for us too- and China can outlast us, given the strength of their economy.

Any suggestions, anybody?

(Thanks to SM Deshpande for the pointer to the Wire article)

Depsang is a headache for India

 The present standoff with China in Ladakh has had one positive: the large number of insightful military analyses it has spawned.

India has been on the defensive in Ladakh ever since China upped its belligerence a few months ago. There is an impression that our moves in the southern part of Pangong lake have changed the scenario and China is seriously rattled.

It may be that the Pangong thrust has moved things to our advantage in that area. But the real problem for us is Depsang where, as military analyst Sushant Singh points out, China blocks access to 900 sq kms of our territory. That blockage is a real headache because it could limit India's access to Siachen Glacier and give Pakistan a chance to mount an attack on it. As Singh points out, it is not that the PLA and the Pakistani army can link up. However, acting in collusion, they can pose a serious threat to our positions. Singh notes that the defence minister was conspicuously silent on Depsang in his recent speech to Parliament.