The top Pentagon official said clearly  that India will not be guaranteed to get a waiver from sanctions if it is purchased the defence systems and weapons from Russia, in a high-level conversation between New Delhi and Washington

 

According to the sweeping sanctions on Russia, imposed by the United States, if any country contracted with its intelligence and defence sectors, had to face secondary U.S. sanctions. In case of National security interests, a new defence bill will be paid to the president for granting the authority of waivers.

 

Pentagon’s top Asia official, Randall Schriver said, “ there was an impression that we are going to completely protect the India relationship, insulate India from any fallout from this legislation no matter what they do. ”

He said at a think tank event, “ I would say that is a bit misleading. We would still have very significant concerns if India pursued major new platforms and systems.”

 

He added, “ I can’t sit here and tell you that they would be exempt, that we would use that waiver, that will be the decision of the president if he is faced with a major new platform and capability that India has acquired from Russia.”

 

According to Schriver, the United States is concerned about the planning of India for purchasing the S-400 surface-to-air missile system from Russia. Later this year, Russia is planning to sign a deal with India on the matter of sale.

Mattis said on Tuesday, the United States was also bothered with the matter of purchasing the Russian missile defence system by Turkey as it cannot be featured into Nato.

Related Articles
Next Story
Going Viral
16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on  Border Wall Issue

16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on Border Wall Issue

by Haimantee Ghosh February 19, 2019
Sixteen United States indicted the US President Donald Trump’s administration over his decision to announce a national emergency to sponsor a wall on the Southern border with Mexico, claiming the move breached the constitution. The litigation, filed in a federal court in California, explained the order by the US President was contradictory to the Presentment Clause which figures out the legal proceedings and the Appropriations Clause, which defines Congress as...