YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Can America Win Back India's Trust? Trump's Former NSA John Bolton Answers

Can America Win Back India's Trust? Trump's Former NSA John Bolton Answers — Transcript

by Hindustan Times · 4,942 words · 764 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:05[music]
0:10>> Hello and welcome back to The Hindustan
0:11Times podcast. I'm your host Shashank
0:13Mattoo reporting from Washington, D.C.
0:15The India-US relationship, it can be
0:16fairly said now, is in a state of
0:19crisis. We've had tariffs damaging the
0:21Indian economy, the deaths of Indian
0:22sailors in the US Iran war, Trump's
0:25growing closeness to Pakistan, and the
0:27rising anti-Indian rhetoric that we've
0:29all seen coming out of the United
0:30States. All of this has led to a massive
0:32upsurge in anger in India against the
0:35United States. But despite that, you
0:37have a high-profile meeting taking place
0:39between Prime Minister Modi and
0:40President Trump on the sidelines of the
0:42G7, and it seems there are people on
0:44both sides in India and the United
0:46States who are determined to preserve
0:48this partnership, who understand that
0:49this relationship is important. But that
0:51leaves us the question about where
0:52exactly we are in the India-US
0:54relationship, and where both sides
0:56stand. Joining me now to unpack this
0:58relationship and where we are right now
1:00is Ambassador John Bolton, former US
1:02National Security Advisor to President
1:04Trump in his first term, and one of the
1:05men who built the US-India relationship.
1:07Ambassador Bolton, thank you so much for
1:09joining us here on HD. You played an
1:11extremely key role over the years in
1:13building the US-India relationship. Is
1:15it fair to say now, in your assessment,
1:17that we are in a state of crisis?
1:20>> Well, I think it's
1:21I wouldn't necessarily describe it as
1:23crisis, but it's certainly very fraught.
1:25There's no doubt about it, and
1:27I hope I hope we can find ways through
1:29it. I'm sure we can cover all the
1:31different issues, but it is a fact that
1:34I think
1:35Trump and Modi have a good personal
1:37relationship, and certainly where
1:39Trump's concerned,
1:41personal relationships between the
1:43leaders
1:44are important. I I think the ties
1:46between the two countries below the
1:47level of leader are also good and
1:50growing, and in fact, it's the ups and
1:52downs in the relationships between the
1:54leaders that sometimes make it look like
1:57the relationship is in more trouble than
1:59it is because I think at the at the more
2:01basic level of commerce and trade and
2:03interaction on a whole variety of
2:07ways and means these things are
2:09improving albeit with some bumps in the
2:11road.
2:12>> Can I ask you something about the first
2:14Trump administration? Of course, you
2:15were national security advisor then and
2:17that was a point of time where the
2:19India-US relationship improved
2:20substantially. In fact, when President
2:22Trump came back to office, people
2:23thought that
2:25you know this would be a very friendly
2:26administration to India precisely
2:28because of the record that was built up
2:29in the first administration. Now, there
2:31seems to be the sense that India is just
2:34much less of a priority for the
2:36president. We have not seen anything
2:37major come off the major technology
2:39partnership between India and the United
2:40States. We've seen of course the deaths
2:42of Indian sailors. There was a response
2:44to that from the US government that was
2:46seen as extremely insensitive to the
2:47sentiments of you know the families but
2:49also the Indian public. Of course, this
2:51conversation about Trump's closeness to
2:53Pakistan. Across the board, it seems
2:55that while Washington may want a good
2:57relationship with India, it isn't
2:59necessarily committed to a good
3:00relationship with India or making the
3:02hard choices that it takes to build that
3:03relationship. Can I ask you about Do you
3:05think something has changed? Has India
3:06been deprioritized for Washington?
3:08>> Well, I think it it is a variety of
3:10factors in play. As you say, let's take
3:12trade to begin with.
3:14In in the first term, I and many other
3:17people were trying to get more progress
3:20made with the Asian security quad
3:23initially a project of Prime Minister
3:25Shinzo Abe of Japan but obviously
3:28involving Japan, India, Australia, and
3:29the US. We didn't make as much progress
3:33as I wanted to because Trump was so
3:35focused on talking about trade and and
3:38he had trade disputes with Australia, he
3:40had trade disputes with Japan, he had
3:42trade disputes with India.
3:44And we never had really time I think to
3:47to engage on more strategic issues.
3:49That's gotten worse in the second term
3:52beginning in April of 2025 with the
3:54so-called liberation day tariffs. I
3:56mean, my view on that is is fairly
3:59fairly straightforward. I'm opposed to
4:00all these tariffs. I don't think they
4:02make any sense for the United States,
4:05let alone for most of the countries
4:07they're being imposed upon. I think
4:09there are problems in international
4:10trade in the world. I would say China is
4:12the principal problem with international
4:14trade in the world for a whole variety
4:16of of reasons. But what Trump did was
4:19declare war on everybody, all almost
4:22every trading partner of the United
4:23States had, which to me made no sense
4:25whatsoever. And then specifically in the
4:28case of India, when we came to questions
4:31like the reaction to purchases of
4:35sanctioned Russian oil, Trump's response
4:39was to
4:41really disproportionately penalize
4:43India. Didn't didn't increase the
4:45tariffs on China at all or on Pakistan.
4:48And and I think that was a that's a very
4:51significant mistake. So I can certainly
4:53understand how those trade tariff
4:56related factors have damaged the
4:58relationship. I think as I say, there's
5:01actually a pretty simple way to correct
5:03this, which is just abolish all of the
5:05Trump tariffs. That obviously won't
5:07happen in his term, but I think
5:10the odds of a successor president,
5:12Republican or Democrat, are
5:15much more likely, maybe not as quickly
5:17as we would prefer, but much more likely
5:18to see the end of those tariffs. So
5:20that's that's one major area. There are
5:22obviously others as well.
5:24>> Right. You know, if I could ask you
5:25ambassador about Pakistan, this is a
5:27country that you've dealt with a great
5:28deal. And I think when you talk to
5:30people in Delhi, when you talk to people
5:32on the street, the sense sometimes is
5:33that this is becoming one of those major
5:35irritants, has been for a long time, but
5:37it's really becoming again one of the
5:38major irritants in the US-India
5:40relationship. And when I came to
5:41Washington, and I was talking to people,
5:43the sense was that look, there are
5:45enough people in Washington who
5:47recognize the past Pakistan's role in
5:49Afghanistan. Many people convinced here
5:51in Washington that Pakistan was
5:53responsible in part for
5:55helping lose America the Afghanistan
5:57war. But now it seems that President
5:59Trump seems to have forgotten that
6:00history or is putting it to the wayside.
6:03Could I ask you a little bit about that?
6:05Is America forgetting history a little
6:06bit when it comes to its relationship
6:08with Pakistan?
6:09>> Well, Trump doesn't know any history. So
6:11So you don't have to worry about him
6:12forgetting it. He never never learned it
6:14in the first place. I I I thought in the
6:16George W. Bush administration we made a
6:18very
6:19significant point of progress when when
6:22as as the phrase was used at the time we
6:25had de-linked India and Pakistan. That
6:27is to say in US relations we treated
6:29each on their own merits.
6:32And behavior toward one was not
6:34dependent on behavior toward the other.
6:36I think I think that's the right way to
6:38do it. I think it's consistent with the
6:40strong long-standing Indian position
6:44that relations with Pakistan are a
6:46bilateral matter between
6:49Pakistan and India and and others can
6:51stay out of it. And and I understand
6:53that and I think that's a correct
6:55approach for the for the US to take.
6:57I think what's happened here has
6:59surprised a lot of people in Washington.
7:03And it goes back to the point I made a
7:04moment ago of this notion Trump has that
7:07you can sum up relationships between
7:10states
7:11by the relations between heads of state.
7:13So General Munir getting very good
7:15advice from somebody told Trump early on
7:18he would nominate him for the Nobel
7:20Peace Prize. And this is one of Trump's
7:22major motivating factors in the second
7:25term. And
7:26Munir has played on that and
7:29very successfully to to advance
7:32Pakistani interest.
7:34Trump has has also
7:37I think made diplomatic missteps when
7:39referring to the uh resolution of uh of
7:43conflict between India and Pakistan over
7:46terrorist attacks from Pakistan into
7:48India, he basically took credit for
7:51resolving it. And I I can tell you from
7:53an analogous uh incident back in 2019,
7:57uh we were in Hanoi at the time for
7:59Trump to meet with Kim Jong Un, and
8:01there was terrorist attacks uh emanating
8:03from Pakistan into India. We we were
8:06concerned about it. Uh Mike Pompeo, the
8:09Secretary of State, and I stayed up much
8:11of the night in Hanoi talking to folks
8:13in uh
8:14uh India and Pakistan and back in
8:16Washington, and uh uh it uh the issue
8:20was resolved between uh New Delhi and
8:22Islamabad. That That's what happened. It
8:24wasn't because of anything we did. Uh we
8:26were we were there to be helpful to the
8:28extent we could, and we certainly didn't
8:30run out the next morning and take credit
8:32for it. I think I think this is an
8:33example of Trump
8:35just not understanding the background of
8:38things and uh not not really caring,
8:40unfortunately. It's not a reflection, I
8:42think, of any broader sentiment in the
8:44United States about Pakistan. I'm I'm
8:47have to say I'm concerned at the moment
8:49as we look at the situation in the Gulf
8:51and the Strait of Hormuz about uh
8:54mediation being carried out by by
8:57countries that uh that also have a stake
8:59in it and the and the role and the
9:01background of uh of all this of China.
9:04So, it's uh
9:05I think this is uh uh largely this
9:08question of uh uh of a tilt toward
9:11Pakistan, as some call it. I think it's
9:12largely a question of the aberration of
9:14Trump himself.
9:15>> Right. And the question, of course, that
9:16a lot of people are asking is, "Okay,
9:18where does the American relationship
9:20with Pakistan go under President Trump
9:22uh from here on out?" Is it, for
9:24example, uh possible that Washington
9:26will consider weapon sales uh to
9:28Pakistan again as was his policy um uh
9:30for decades in the past? Because that is
9:32a significant area of concern. And do
9:34you also see, Ambassador, how the
9:36American closeness to Pakistan in the
9:38Trump administration makes India trust
9:40America less.
9:41>> Well, I think I think the the issue of
9:43how to deal with Pakistan, in my view,
9:46is heavily colored by the Chinese
9:49efforts to use Pakistan as a surrogate.
9:51And we see this in a lot of ways, the
9:54construction of an oil terminal
9:57in Pakistan so that oil from the Middle
9:59East can
10:00come out of the Strait of Hormuz or come
10:02out of wherever it's coming from
10:04and not have to go through the Indian
10:06Ocean and the Strait of Malacca, but can
10:07go to this
10:09port in Pakistan, be offloaded there,
10:11and then and then sent by pipeline north
10:14through Pakistan, and then east across
10:16Chinese territory.
10:18And I think the weapons relationship
10:21between China and Pakistan is very
10:23troubling, too, and and something that
10:25uh
10:26is disturbing to the US from a strategic
10:30point of view, and obviously disturbing
10:32to India as well. So, I think it's
10:34important to be careful here,
10:36and I think you've got a situation as
10:38well in Pakistan. Obviously, the
10:40military has had a
10:43dominant role in Pakistan since
10:45partition. I don't think anybody
10:47disputes that. It's now not even
10:49pretending not to be in control. And
10:52it's been the consistent US position
10:54that that a democratically elected
10:56Pakistani government, understanding the
10:59military's often referred to as the
11:01steel skeleton in Pakistan, but a
11:03democratically elected government is
11:05what we prefer. Obviously, we're not
11:08there at this point.
11:09>> Could I ask you a little bit about Iran
11:10now, just to shift gears a little bit
11:12because because we've just had
11:14the ceasefire in the conflict. It's been
11:17shaky, but so far, at least we haven't
11:19seen an active resumption of
11:21hostilities. Could I ask you a little
11:22bit about the impact that the Iran war
11:24has also had on the US-India
11:25relationship because what the war did,
11:27of course, was it did send energy prices
11:30uh
11:31rising everywhere around the world, led
11:32to shortages in India which of course
11:35directly affected Indian citizens. The
11:36deaths of the three Indian sailors in
11:39the US Navy strikes. Of course there was
11:41a sense that when it came to handling
11:42the matter sensitively, I think the
11:44State Department put out when it came to
11:46conversation between Secretary Rubio and
11:47Dr. Jaishankar on this very question. It
11:50was a very harsh statement sort of
11:51saying that look yes these people have
11:52died but you can't violate a US blockade
11:55on Iran. So again one of those in a time
11:58of a fraught relationship as you said
12:00the US Iran war does not seem to have
12:02hurt the relationship. Could I ask you
12:04to maybe comment on what you see the war
12:07as playing a role in the in the India US
12:09relationship?
12:10>> Well there's there's a lot to criticize
12:13in Trump's conduct of the war. Number
12:15one I to this day don't know what his
12:16objectives were.
12:18I I make no bones about it. I've said
12:20for decades there will never be peace
12:22and stability in the Middle East while
12:23that regime remains in power in Tehran.
12:26Was Trump trying to change the regime?
12:28It sounded like it at the beginning but
12:30he denied it later and I think that's
12:33part of the the problem and part of the
12:34reason we're in a
12:36a very difficult dangerous stage now is
12:39that he didn't think all this through.
12:40Another another thing that Trump didn't
12:42do before
12:43launching military activity was consult
12:46with our friends and allies. Didn't
12:48consult with NATO. We didn't consult
12:50with the Gulf Arab states. We didn't
12:52consult with countries in the
12:54Indo-Pacific that
12:56rely heavily on exports of oil from the
12:59Gulf to say
13:01you know not to reveal the detailed
13:02plans of what we're about to do but to
13:04say this very serious and
13:07we're we're looking at taking steps that
13:09could affect you. Let's talk about how
13:11we're going to deal with that. He didn't
13:12do any of that. He didn't do a lot of
13:14other things either. He didn't consult
13:15with the opposition inside Iran probably
13:18the biggest mistake of all to find out
13:19what help they needed what we could give
13:21them how they could participate if this
13:23this really were an effort to change the
13:26regime.
13:27Uh so, this is now uh
13:30come to a memorandum of understanding
13:33that Trump signed not for any
13:34geostrategic reasons, but because he
13:37wanted oil to flow out of the Gulf into
13:40global markets to bring the price at the
13:42pump of gasoline in the United States
13:44down. That is the motivating factor.
13:48And and yet that is not occurring. You
13:51know, Iranian oil is coming through
13:52because the blockade has been lifted,
13:54but oil from the Gulf Arab side is now
13:57still restricted a little bit, but not
13:59nearly pre-war production. So, the the
14:02global spot market prices have come way
14:04down because because people are
14:06optimistic. I wouldn't be so optimistic,
14:08actually. I think there's more to worry
14:09about here.
14:11But, I'm still not sure we've done
14:12enough uh to work with countries
14:14affected by it. And uh you don't have to
14:17sign up to the entire coalition and all
14:19of its activities, but but not to take
14:21into account the impacts that we we uh
14:25we we are seeing uh it is just uh a
14:28violation of diplomacy 101. Now, on on
14:31the deaths of the three Indian sailors,
14:34uh
14:35look, it's uh it's a tragedy. There's no
14:37doubt about it. It it clearly was not
14:40handled well. I I would just say this,
14:42the the the fact of the blockade was
14:44well known.
14:45Um
14:46uh and when you're in a situation like
14:49that, the captain's responsibility of a
14:51commercial vessel
14:53uh is to think of his good ship and
14:55crew.
14:56And the captain was given an order uh
14:59to stop heading toward Iran, to go to
15:02the parking place out in the Gulf of
15:03Oman where a lot of ships were interned.
15:06And he didn't do it.
15:07Uh he was given several warnings and uh
15:10and told what we would do, which is fire
15:13into the engine room of the ship and
15:15disable it. And then we would take it
15:16over to the parking lot. And that that
15:19is what happened.
15:21Uh it's it's uh it it a it it obviously
15:24we understand the humanitarian concern
15:26in India. I would put more
15:27responsibility on the captain for not
15:30considering his responsibilities.
15:33Uh,
15:34commercial vessels can't fight warships.
15:36It's it's it's a lose proposition and he
15:38should have known that.
15:40>> Question I wanted to ask you more
15:41broadly about the conflict is that the
15:44criticism in India is that over the last
15:4615-20 years we have given up a
15:49relationship with Iran in favor of
15:52closer ties with the United States. We
15:54also saw before this conflict there was
15:55a sense in this with this commentary in
15:57India that India very clearly aligned
15:59itself with the United States and Israel
16:03during this conflict with Iran and the
16:05sense now is that we've had the deaths
16:07of these sailors, we've got energy
16:09prices skyrocketing and of course
16:11at the same time there's the sense that
16:14Washington and Israel were not
16:15fundamentally able to achieve their aims
16:17in the first place. So, what was the
16:18point of aligning with America first
16:20place did this not fundamentally hurt
16:22our interest and this in the minds of
16:25many critics of the US-India
16:26relationship is what happens when you
16:28get too close to Washington. Your view
16:30on this.
16:31>> Well, I think the the the question of
16:33Iran
16:35is one that does have global
16:37implications and and we can start with
16:40their support for international
16:42terrorism. They have for three or four
16:44decades now been the world's leading
16:47sponsor of
16:48terrorism and it's the They're not the
16:50only source of revenue and weapons and
16:53training and intelligence for terrorist
16:54groups, but certainly a lot comes from
16:57Iran and their their their efforts
17:00around the world really I think are a
17:02major threat to stability not just in
17:04the Middle East, but but
17:06internationally. Uh, and and their
17:08pursuit of nuclear weapons
17:11in advancing this really it's an
17:13ideological agenda uh, the Middle East
17:17and and more broadly uh, is very
17:19troubling, too. It It If If Trump had
17:22been able to define his goals more
17:24carefully, if what this a military
17:26action was intended to be was uh, as the
17:30Israelis put it, a mowing the lawn of
17:33Iranian capabilities, uh, that that I
17:36think people would have seen uh, the the
17:39uh,
17:39uh, the the the the understanding of
17:42what we were up to and and what the
17:44limits of it were. But But he didn't do
17:46that. And this is I I think uh, as I
17:49said before, this reflects confusion in
17:51his own mind. This is a real problem for
17:53the United States and for others uh, who
17:56who say, "Well, we can't even understand
17:59what the United States is doing." There
18:01are many cases where we understand what
18:02they're doing. We may not agree with it,
18:04but at least we understand it. Here,
18:06because of the nature of Donald Trump,
18:09uh, I think uh,
18:11internationally it's not well
18:12understood. It's not well understood in
18:13the United States, either. And And that
18:16that's a that's a big problem for Trump
18:18politically, especially among
18:19Republicans. So, it's uh, I don't think
18:22you should read Trump's problems as as
18:25uh, indicating uh, a broader American
18:29uh, lack of interest in the relationship
18:31with India uh,
18:32or in dealing effectively with this
18:34regime in Iran. Uh, and it's uh, uh,
18:38>> [clears throat]
18:38>> it's a matter that I don't I don't think
18:40it's going to be fixable as long as
18:42Trump is president. I don't I don't want
18:44to minimize uh, the downside of his
18:47erratic uh, and and unpredictable
18:50behavior. But it's not it's not
18:53something that that has support in the
18:55country as a whole. And if he had
18:57thought about the uh, potential that uh,
19:00that the Iranians would try and close
19:02the Strait of Hormuz, uh, then then he
19:05might have gone about it in a different
19:06way. It He He says he was surprised that
19:09they closed the Strait of Hormuz. That
19:11would make him the only person in the
19:12world surprised that they tried to do
19:15that. This has been a problem, potential
19:17problem, ever since the Ayatollahs took
19:19over in 1979.
19:21>> Let me ask you, just to switch gears, on
19:23um China because I think this is another
19:25significant um area of doubt or perhaps
19:28concern with the US-India relationship.
19:30And that is that for the longest time
19:31the relationship uh between the United
19:33States and America, it was felt that the
19:36the strategic bedrock of that was our
19:37shared concern about the strategic rise
19:40um of China. Now it seems like the Trump
19:42administration has a much uh softer,
19:45much less competitive view of its
19:47relationship with China. And therefore,
19:49it seems like India and forums like the
19:51Quad, which were built very
19:52painstakingly over the course of um the
19:55last decade, they seem to have lost some
19:56value uh for Washington. Could you give
19:58us your sense of where the Trump
19:59administration is on China?
20:01>> Well, it's uh it's it's hard to say
20:03because it depends on what Trump's
20:05thinking is on any given day. He he uh
20:08uh he he's very concerned about the
20:10Chinese trading practices and and the
20:13the subsidies and unfair competition
20:15that they engage in, but he's also
20:17captivated by Xi Jinping. This this
20:19again is another example of the idea
20:22that if he's if he's got a good personal
20:24relationship with Xi Jinping,
20:26everything's fine in China-US relation,
20:28which it's not manifestly. Uh and I
20:31think that Trump is very impressed by
20:34pageantry. I I was with him uh in uh
20:37uh the UK in 2018 when uh Prime Minister
20:40Theresa May was giving him a lunch at
20:42the Chequers and he talked about his
20:442017 visit to China and he said Trump
20:47said, "You know, they gave me the
20:49biggest welcome they have ever given any
20:51foreign leader in all of Chinese
20:53history."
20:54And everybody around the table just
20:56remained silent because what do you say
20:58to that? That's what affects Trump. Uh
21:01and I think uh among uh members of
21:04Congress, House and Senate, Republican
21:06and Democrat, concern about China is one
21:08of the rare things that has strong
21:10bipartisan support. And
21:13and and the way Trump reacts to China
21:15really does not make Republicans or
21:18Democrats very happy. So again, I think
21:21the underlying interest here of
21:24India and the United States facing the
21:26problems that China causes remain
21:29basically the same. And I I'd like to
21:31see ways to make progress even as Trump
21:34kind of flits around above above the
21:36level of of hard policy discussion.
21:39>> Right. Can I ask you just two final
21:41questions? One was on something that we
21:43saw that made a lot of news, which is
21:44the United States Indo-Pacific Command
21:46dropping the Indo from its prefix and of
21:49course going back to its original name,
21:51which was US Pacific Command. Now of
21:53course this sounds
21:54very technical jargon if a general
21:56audience perhaps you could explain the
21:58significance of that decision, but also
22:00it seemed that when in 2018 the Trump
22:03administration was responsible for
22:04naming the command the US Indo-Pacific
22:06Command. The idea was that look, it
22:08signifies the value of India, the value
22:11of the Indian Ocean to us, to our
22:13broader strategy. And of course as I was
22:15saying, this broader sense of concern
22:17that the relationship with India has
22:19been deprioritized in Washington. This
22:21sort of confirms a lot of those fears
22:23that you know by dropping the Indo from
22:25the Indo-Pacific Command, it seems like
22:27a signal of where Washington's head is
22:29at. Could you break down the change
22:30because it happened during your time in
22:32office, but also um
22:35what that means on the ground for US
22:36commitment to the Indo-Pacific versus
22:38relationship with India?
22:40>> Right. Well, the Pentagon has the world
22:41divided into commands. There's the North
22:44American Command, there's the Southern
22:45Command, the European Command, and
22:48previously there was the Pacific Command
22:50or PACOM, which covered
22:52everything from the West Coast of the
22:55United States, the West Coast of the
22:57Americas, all the way across Pacific and
23:00the Indian Ocean. So in in the first
23:03Trump term, recognizing the geographic
23:05reality of of the command's
23:08responsibility, but also to signify that
23:11it was bigger than the Pacific, we
23:13changed it to
23:14Indo-Pacom. And I thought it was a good
23:16idea at the time. I still think it's a
23:18good idea. I think it's just a
23:20a a childish uh mistake to change it
23:24back. And uh
23:26uh it it's
23:28I predict it will change back again when
23:30we get another president as it should.
23:32So, it's it's a you know, it's a Defense
23:35Secretary Pete Hegseth apparently made
23:37the decision.
23:39I don't know what he thought he was
23:40doing,
23:41but I would just hope people would say
23:43it's not part of some grand design to
23:46downplay US-India relations because
23:48there isn't any grand design in the
23:50Trump administration. It's all ad hoc,
23:52seat-of-the-pants decision-making.
23:55And and it's just we were right when we
23:56changed the name in 2018 to Indo-Pacom,
23:59and we just should have left it that
24:00way.
24:01>> Right.
24:02May I just ask very quickly as a
24:03follow-up because to a lot of people
24:04what it seems like is
24:06you know, China has had its problems
24:07with the idea of the Indo-Pacific,
24:10just very concept of it. And of course
24:12and of course groupings like the Quad.
24:14And it seems that the sense that some
24:17people are getting is that America's
24:18decision to remove drop the Indo from
24:21Indo-Pacific Command was a sign that
24:23look, they don't want to step on China's
24:25toes too much. And if you also see at
24:27the same time the fact that there has
24:28not been a Quad leaders summit uh for
24:30the last 1 and 1/2 years. Both of those
24:32things coming together seems like
24:35America's sort of saying, "Look, we want
24:36a much more stable relationship with
24:38China. We don't want a competitive
24:39relationship. So, we're going to make
24:41these superficial changes that reassure
24:43China." Do you think that's what's going
24:44on or is that overreading into it?
24:46>> No, I think that gives the Trump
24:47administration too much credit. I I just
24:49I just think it's a series of unrelated
24:52things. I mean, the concept we were
24:53advancing, again, this this is not a US
24:55concept. It was from Shinzo Abe
24:58who talked about a free and open
25:00Indo-Pacific and and I think that
25:02remains the objective of of everybody in
25:05the quad and many many many others in
25:07the region and China may not like that
25:10either but but that's that is the
25:12concept that I think all of our
25:14interests are based on and that's not
25:15going to change just because of Donald
25:17Trump.
25:18>> A last question then Ambassador which is
25:19that where do we go from here? Because
25:21the word trust I think is used a lot in
25:23the India-US relationship and how that
25:26seems to have been lost. So the question
25:28of course is can America rebuild that
25:30lost trust and if it can how does
25:33[snorts] that happen?
25:34>> Well, I think we can. I mean I I think
25:37it's it's it's obviously hard to
25:39separate the president from the country
25:42and the people but but Trump is an
25:44aberration and I think his behavior
25:46demonstrates it
25:48almost across the board on any given
25:50day.
25:51I I agree. I think decades of effort by
25:54the US and the and the relationship with
25:57India have suffered as a result and
26:00so I think it's on the part of those of
26:03us in the US who think this relationship
26:05is important to try and minimize
26:07whatever additional damage he may do
26:10and then when he's out of office try and
26:12rebuild it. So what I what I recommend
26:15to friends around the world is grit your
26:16teeth and remember that there's a future
26:19after Donald Trump's administration is
26:21over and keep in mind the big picture
26:24threats and challenges that we face that
26:27also are are permanent fixtures of of
26:30the environment.
26:32>> Ambassador John Bolton we've talked
26:33about the US-India relationship,
26:35the US-Pakistan relationship, the Iran
26:37war, China, the Indo-Pacific and the
26:39quad. Thank you so much for this excuse
26:41me wide-ranging conversation for sharing
26:43your thoughts as well as your experience
26:44and hopefully our readers our viewers
26:46take something away from this. Thank you
26:48so much again Ambassador Bolton for
26:49joining us here on the Hindustan Times
26:50podcast.
26:51>> Well, thank you very much for having me.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Can America Win Back India's Trust? Trump's Former NSA John Bolton Answers by Hindustan Times, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 4,942 words across 764 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.