With no clear progress on a India-US trade deal and the likelihood of new tariffs taking effect as early as August 1, Bolton warned that such measures could significantly damage bilateral relations.
He noted that the White House’s ad hoc and often unilateral trade moves not only alienate partners like India but also hinder broader strategic goals. Any short-term gain from tariff threats, he suggested, would come at the cost of long-term diplomatic and security collaboration.Below are the excerpts of his interview with CNBC-TV18 –
Q: Let me begin by asking you about US actions to stop Russia. They have not stopped Vladimir Putin so far. What options does President Trump really have with Russia at this point?
A: The six months that he has devoted to trying to get a cease fire show just how determined that Moscow is to pursue this war. It’s increased its military activity. There are still prospects of further offensives this summer, sanctions that have been imposed on Russia have not really slowed it down, and the war in Ukraine on the ground obviously continues. So what Trump is basically threatened if by about the beginning of September, there’s not a serious cease fire in place that he would consider tariffs and secondary sanctions against Russia, most people including people in the Kremlin, think that’s a pretty hollow threat.
My view is what Trump is really trying to do is find a way to extricate himself from the Ukraine-Russia war. He did the right thing by authorising the deployment of Patriot missile air defence systems, which will begin fairly shortly. But he has made no longer term commitment to supplying Ukraine with military assistance. What Trump sees on this is that his effort at diplomacy has failed, and he would like to extricate himself from the Ukraine war.
Q: You mean to say Ambassador Bolton that we could see within next few weeks that President Trump may not want America to have nothing to do with this war?
A: He has been very careful not to make any long-term commitments for continuing assistance to Ukraine. Now, action in Congress is moving in the direction of authorising more, and it’s possible that Trump will continue to supply munitions, ammunition, military intelligence, but I don’t think his decision on the Patriots, for example, indicates a wholesale reversal of his view that he is not taking any sides in the war.
I think he’s just trying to satisfy the humanitarian concern that many of the Russian attacks, ballistic missile and drone attacks have been against civilian population centres. But he knows that people look at what’s happened on the diplomatic front, they recognise he didn’t come close to his campaign pledge about resolving the war in 24 hours. And when he sees failure like that, his instinct is to try to move away from it.
Read Here | India, US may hold 6th round of bilateral trade talks in August: Govt sources
Q: When you say extricate and move himself away from the Russia, Ukraine war and attempts at diplomacy, what does that exactly mean?
A: It could mean a cut off of military assistance to Ukraine and basically a cessation of Trump’s efforts to get a cease fire or a permanent solution. He might come back to it later in his second term. But in the near term he has got a lot of other things on his plate, including, in particular, the tariff disputes that you mentioned a moment ago, with every one of our major trading partners.
Q: He started off a major trade war with Europe as well, and at the beginning of the of the administration, he even went on to say that Europe has to look out for itself. They have to fund their own security, they must increase their defence budgets, which the your which the EU has now committed to doing, but the kind of relations that US and EU have had in the last six months how is that going to impact Europe and US-EU relations over the next five to 10 years?
A: It’s going to have a very negative relation. I think that there’s very widespread agreement in the US, across the political spectrum, that we hope NATO Allies would spend more in our collective defence effort. That’s not a view that’s unique to Trump, but by declaring trade war on the on the European Union, but also Britain, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, India, China, essentially every other country in the world Trump has really done the US a great deal of damage. And it’s not just the economic damage, the cost of the tariffs or the uncertainty that has been interjected into the economic system.
It is the loss of trust, goodwill, reliance, our effort to build closer relations with not just close allies already, but many other countries around the world. I don’t think he sees that damage, but I think our businesses do, and it’s going to have very long, lasting consequences.
Q: Let me also ask you about US, China relations. How do you think US China relations are going to progress from year on or could they worsen?
A: They are likely to worsen. You mentioned the deal that was struck on the importation into the US of critical minerals like rare earths, and the reciprocal action being reduction on controls of computer technology to China. We will see how long that lasts. But the rest of the trade relationship is also still very much up in the air, and the August 1 deadline that applies to most reciprocal tariffs has a counterpart with China in early August the deadline for resolving the dispute that Trump has created with the tariffs also comes due.
We are at a period, perhaps the next 30 days, on tariffs, where it is going to be very active. And obviously countries are watching each other. China wants to see what progress the EU makes. The EU is watching China. People are watching India so there’s a lot of uncertainty and hesitation and of course, that has its own negative economic effect, as companies defer decisions because they don’t know what the lay of the land will do.
Q: In terms of the role that China is likely to play in the Indian subcontinent, and generally, the kind of ambitions that China has – how would you weigh in and give your views?A: China is in the process of trying to increase its influence all around its broad Indo-Pacific periphery. We can see it intruding its ships more into the territorial waters of Japan, not just the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea, but Japan itself. We know about the threats to Taiwan. We know what’s happening in the South China Sea. We know the increased Chinese efforts to exert influence in Pakistan and the threat posed along the line of actual control with India. I think this broadening Chinese threat should tell countries along its periphery that they should act in concert to try and deter aggressive Chinese behaviour.
That’s why I thought for quite some time that efforts at closer US Indian relations are so important. Why the Asian Security quad with Japan and Australia could be important. To me, this is just about the last time you want to have a trade dispute between the United States and India. It just just counter acts, the natural tendency to think we would have better cooperation on security matters if we are having a trade war between us at the same time
Q: Talking about US India relations, what does Donald Trump really want from India. There was a lot of positive messaging on the possibility of trade deal between India and the United States. Currently, there is no status, whether there will be an interim deal before the August 1 or we will have a deal by September or October. Where do you think India United States relations are going and does this administration and Donald Trump and his inner circle really consider India to be that buffer, the bulwark against China?
A: Unfortunately, I don’t think there is enough strategic thinking in the White House to give you a clear answer to that question. These issues are siloed on the trade side, Trump listens to a certain group of people, and it’s if he doesn’t realise that, sitting in New Delhi, for example, it’s the issues are not siloed. They want to know why we are having these disputes on trade issues at the same time, on security issues there should be closer cooperation. Trade is always difficult, whether it’s between adversaries or friends, lots at stake for the countries involved, and you need to work through it in a responsible fashion.
I don’t think Trump’s threats about tariffs and other remedies against India or any of our other close trading partners make any sense. But that’s the way he’s proceeding, and the net effect of it will be damaging to the United States and make it harder for India and the US to cooperate on some of these important strategic issues.
Q: I would like to ask you a trade deal between India and US may or may not happen. How do you think either of the scenario will impact the US approach to India?
A: It will complicate things if I understand the state of the trade negotiations between India and the US, which I don’t think many people do, it does not look like there will be a deal by August 1, certainly not a comprehensive deal. Even the deals that have been announced with the United Kingdom, for example, are really headline deals. Many of the important details remain to be worked out. I think it’s impossible, in the 10 days we have left until August 1 that we are really going to see a lot of comprehensive breakthroughs.
And if Trump does what he says he is going to do, which of course, is always open to question, but if he goes according to his plan, he will simply announce what the tariffs are going to be, and they will go into effect on August 1 or shortly thereafter. I think that will be very damaging, certainly with respect to US India, discussions and relations, but with almost all of our close allies.
Q: You feel that any India US trade deal before the August 1 looks impossible at this juncture?
A: It could be that enormous progress is being made behind the scenes, but that’s not what I am hearing. These are complicated issues. As I say, a lot’s at stake for both countries. Normally a big trade deal would take a year to negotiate, and people are trying to do it in just a few months. It’s very haphazard. It’s put a lot of uncertainty into the international economy, and the uncertainty alone is having a negative effect.
Q: Let me move on and ask you about the Middle East, we had seen us backing Israel in the war against Iran. What has that really led to? Iran has initiated talks with European countries, also China, on the nuclear issue. US and Iran are going to be talking this week. Are we going anywhere in terms of putting curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme.
A: The US and Israel have put some pretty substantial curbs on it by very successful bombing raids. They have not totally and completely obliterated the programme, as Trump said, but I am confident that the damage has been very extensive, and when you combine that with the setbacks that Iran has seen to its terrorist proxy groups like Hamas Hezbollah and the Houthis that have been significantly damaged, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, a key Iranian ally, and now the damage done internally to the nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, the regime is in deep trouble. I think we can see evidence of that so, but at the same time, they have shown no indication whatever, they are prepared to give up the nuclear weapons programme.
I don’t see anything coming diplomatically in the next weeks, and at some point, the Europeans are going to have to decide whether, given Iran’s intransigence on the nuclear front, they go to the Security Council and invoke the snapback mechanisms that the Council resolution approving the 2015 nuclear deal put into effect. They’re looking at September 1 as a deadline, so that’s really very close in terms of the issues at stake here.
Q: Speaking about the Middle East, how do you think President Trump’s approach the Middle East will impact us relations there in the next five years?
A: What’s most important is what’s happening in the war unleashed by Hamas against Israel on October 7. Israel’s position is much stronger. Iran’s is much weaker. The US is stronger, the possibility of more Abraham Accords between the Gulf Arab States and Israel are very real.
If we could get to greater peace and stability in the region, which probably won’t come until the regime in Tehran is overthrown, but if we could get greater peace and stability, then the concept of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) would be much more likely to come into play. So there’s a lot of emphasis on the region as is typically the case in American foreign policy, because it has an impact on India, it has an impact on Europe, has an impact on us.
Q: I would also like to ask you about whether there has been any significant policy change vis-à-vis Pakistan. The US President has been speaking since the conflict between India and Pakistan, almost on a weekly basis, he speaks about how he stopped the war between India and Pakistan through the use of trade deals. Pakistan army chief, general Munir, was at the White House recently for a lunch with Donald Trump. The US is also negotiating a trade deal with Pakistan and Donald Trump seems to always speak about Pakistan and India in the same breath. Has anything changed in the White House visiting Pakistan?
A: Trump has badly misunderstood what happened in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attack in Kashmir. It was the two sides that figured out they wanted to bring the escalation to a halt, but general Munir has offered to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He beat Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu, who also offered to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. People may laugh at this, but it’s a big objective of Donald Trump personally, so that that may have something to do with it.
Q: What according to you, is the biggest foreign policy challenge for Donald Trump as of now, biggest national security challenge and foreign policy challenge?
A: I think unquestionably, for the United States really the threats posed by China along its periphery, the axis that Beijing is forming with Moscow. It’s not complete. It’s not finished. It’s still underway, but looks like the Sino-Soviet alliance of Cold War days. But this time, Beijing is very much in charge, and Beijing looks at its efforts to achieve hegemony in what they call a whole of society approach, not just militarily or geopolitically, but economically and socially as well. Dealing with that threat from Beijing under its current regime is our biggest challenge, and really the biggest challenge the world as a whole will face.
Also Read | Tariff talks may drag on, but no US recession in sight: Ned Davis strategist
