Should India try to join NATO?

[LETHALFORCE]

Try to stay on topic of India in NATO take UNSC discussion to another thread

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

On topic: I hope India tries to join NATO, instead of the SCO.

Though geography might be an issue.

 

[utubekhiladi]

Though geography might be an issue.

and what would be that? please share your points.

 

[Armand2REP]

India in the SCO?

Luckily, China has a veto in both the SCO and the UNSC.

The importance of organisations with missions are the following...

1) NATO
2) UN backed by NATO
3) EUFOR
4) CSTO
5) AUFOR
6) ANZUS

SCO ranks at the bottom below any nation with a US defence pact with teeth. The ethnic cleansing in Kyrgyzstan showed it was Russia/CSTO that runs Central Asia, not SCO. And very badly at that....

 

[LETHALFORCE]

There would be no geography problems India could be a contact country like Australia or Japan and possibly form an Asian NATO the sides have already been laid out or India could simply provide logistics or bases for NATO for future operations against rogue nations.

http://www.asiaviews.org/index.php?...id=2:regional-news-a-special-reports&Itemid=9

Gates visit to build US logistics pact pressure

The Acquisitions and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA), renamed the LSA at the request of the Indian government, also goes by the term Nato Mutual Support Act. It was basically brought into force to enable logistics support between the US and Nato member nations. The agreement has been signed in various forms by the US with 90 countries. It facilitates the exchange of logistic support in the form of food, fuel, ammunition, equipment and transport. The participating governments do not commit themselves to military action but, as the sources said here, to facilitate military action through logistics support. The mechanism established under the agreement functions on the basis of reimbursement in cash or in kind.

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

SCO ranks at the bottom below any nation with a US defence pact with teeth. The ethnic cleansing in Kyrgyzstan showed it was Russia/CSTO that runs Central Asia, not SCO. And very badly at that....

Then I wonder why the Indian government officially declared that it wanted to join the SCO:

India seeks full membership of SCO - Times Of India

Though I hope other Indians think the same way as you do, and ask the Indian government stop its efforts to join the SCO.

Better for India to join NATO, if they can.

 

[utubekhiladi]

 

[Armand2REP]

Then I wonder why the Indian government officially declared that it wanted to join the SCO:

Why not, it costs practically nothing to join as SCO has a pathetic $30 million budget and an equally pathetic influence in world affairs with ZERO missions.

 

[A chauhan]

The kind of remarks as uttered by the prada guy are typical of indian nationalists, and they clearly show that these people are not really interested in the well-being of their majority impoverished country men, hence we can conclude that all their professed love for india is fake in its essence.

So why don't you love your own country, stop your military technology projects, and forget your dream to win a war against US. Why do you guys compare your country with US and why you hate US?

 

[Aruni]

I hate to agree with Yan Luo Wang, but he/she has a fair point. China will never (read again, never) agree to India's membership of any club of which it is a prominent veto-welding member- be it the UNSC or the SCO. One of China's key foreign policy goals is to keep India down as a second rate power while the Middle Kingdom emerges in all its glory.

Secondly, I just laugh at Indians believing that Indo-Chinese relations are "improving". On what basis? Foreign trade? India's foreign trade with China is a pittance (I think it is around £50 billion last time I looked) compared to China-Japan or China-US. That gives us no leverage over China. Border disputes? Those remain to be unsolved. The committees keep meeting- I think they have met 11 times since their creation- but no solution is even formulated, let alone implemented. This is the same ludicrous 1962 style Hindi-Chini bhai bhai logic that led to our humiliation in that war, and will also lead to a de ja vu if we are not careful.

China is nobody's friend, last of all India's. China's eyes are fixed on fulfilling what it believes to be its destiny- to make the Middle Kingdom the centre of the world once again. Part of that strategy is methodically eliminating all potential competitors, including India. The "string of pearls" has been a wildly successful policy- Pakistan, Myanmar, even Nepal and Sri Lanka are all cosier to Beijing than to Delhi. Once China's military capabilities are strong enough- they will assert their position over the border issue.

They know we stand alone.

 

[p2prada]

Why not, it costs practically nothing to join as SCO has a pathetic $30 million budget and an equally pathetic influence in world affairs with ZERO missions.

SCO helps secure central Asian oil and gas reserves.

NATO does nothing except force us to choose sides. We don't want that to happen. We have friendly relations with both US and Russia along with China. Choosing NATO would mean gaining nothing.

If we ever fight a war against China, NATO would be the first to abandon us, sanction us and then force us to declare a ceasefire. No way no how mateys.

 

[civfanatic]

I hate to agree with Yan Luo Wang, but he/she has a fair point. China will never (read again, never) agree to India's membership of any club of which it is a prominent veto-welding member- be it the UNSC or the SCO. One of China's key foreign policy goals is to keep India down as a second rate power while the Middle Kingdom emerges in all its glory.

Secondly, I just laugh at Indians believing that Indo-Chinese relations are "improving". On what basis? Foreign trade? India's foreign trade with China is a pittance (I think it is around £50 billion last time I looked) compared to China-Japan or China-US. That gives us no leverage over China. Border disputes? Those remain to be unsolved. The committees keep meeting- I think they have met 11 times since their creation- but no solution is even formulated, let alone implemented. This is the same ludicrous 1962 style Hindi-Chini bhai bhai logic that led to our humiliation in that war, and will also lead to a de ja vu if we are not careful.

China is nobody's friend, last of all India's. China's eyes are fixed on fulfilling what it believes to be its destiny- to make the Middle Kingdom the centre of the world once again. Part of that strategy is methodically eliminating all potential competitors, including India. The "string of pearls" has been a wildly successful policy- Pakistan, Myanmar, even Nepal and Sri Lanka are all cosier to Beijing than to Delhi. Once China's military capabilities are strong enough- they will assert their position over the border issue.

They know we stand alone.

It's funny that you mention deja vu as the basis of your argument, when it was the NATO countries themselves who acted against India during the 1971 war. Can you tell me which country sent the 7th Fleet into the Bay of Bengal to prevent further Indian military action against Pakistan? Even the Royal Navy, which was apparently stuck in the 19th century mentality, tried to do so. Without Soviet intervention on our behalf, the war might have had a different ending.

I don't trust the West anymore than I trust China. If a conflict broke out, NATO would be the first to run away from the subcontinent, if we're lucky. If we're unlucky, they will openly act in their interests even if it means acting against India, as they have before. I place improvement of Sino-Indian relations as a higher priority because we share the same neighborhood and have one of the longest borders in the world, and it is in both India's and China's benefit to have friendly relations.

The "String of Pearls" are meant to secure energy supplies in transit through the Indian Ocean, and therefore does not include Nepal (which, btw, has reintroduced its "India First" foreign policy). India has friendly relations with all the "Pearls" except Pakistan. As of now, the PLAN (Chinese Navy) is not capable of exerting Chinese power in the Indian Ocean, much less face off with the Indian Navy. The "String of Pearls" poses absolutely no military threat to India.

 

[Armand2REP]

SCO helps secure central Asian oil and gas reserves.

SCO doesn't do anything as their policy is "non-interference" which is saying nicely it is neutered.

NATO does nothing except force us to choose sides. We don't want that to happen. We have friendly relations with both US and Russia along with China. Choosing NATO would mean gaining nothing.

If you don't want to choose a side then sit by yourselves. No need to join an alliance. Joining the SCO is effectively doing nothing as it says in the charter they will do nothing.

If we ever fight a war against China, NATO would be the first to abandon us, sanction us and then force us to declare a ceasefire. No way no how mateys.

India would never be allowed into NATO as its mission is about protecting the West from external threats. It used to be Russia but now it is a crusade against Islam which is the only excuse they can find to keep it relevant.

 

[niharjhatn]

The kind of remarks as uttered by the prada guy are typical of indian nationalists, and they clearly show that these people are not really interested in the well-being of their majority impoverished country men, hence we can conclude that all their professed love for india is fake in its essence.

LOL wtf are we 'nationalists' supposed to do then? Continually focus on the negatives that will take decades to effectively eradicate? We aren't talking about administering a flu vacc or something.

Poverty has fallen dramatically from what it was previously. If we hadn't been invaded by Muslims, if we hadn't been exploited by the British, India would be a different country.

Your comment seems to question the whole purpose of DFI - which raises the question of why you bother to post on a defence forum for a nation with "majority impoverished country men"!

 

[p2prada]

SCO doesn't do anything as their policy is "non-interference" which is saying nicely it is neutered.

I don't mean in the military sense. I meant India will have easier access to oil blocks in the CAR without having to go through multiple bureaucratic hurdles as is the case now.

 

[Aruni]

It's funny that you mention deja vu as the basis of your argument, when it was the NATO countries themselves who acted against India during the 1971 war. Can you tell me which country sent the 7th Fleet into the Bay of Bengal to prevent further Indian military action against Pakistan? Even the Royal Navy, which was apparently stuck in the 19th century mentality, tried to do so. Without Soviet intervention on our behalf, the war might have had a different ending.

I don't trust the West anymore than I trust China. If a conflict broke out, NATO would be the first to run away from the subcontinent, if we're lucky. If we're unlucky, they will openly act in their interests even if it means acting against India, as they have before. I place improvement of Sino-Indian relations as a higher priority because we share the same neighborhood and have one of the longest borders in the world, and it is in both India's and China's benefit to have friendly relations.

The "String of Pearls" are meant to secure energy supplies in transit through the Indian Ocean, and therefore does not include Nepal (which, btw, has reintroduced its "India First" foreign policy). India has friendly relations with all the "Pearls" except Pakistan. As of now, the PLAN (Chinese Navy) is not capable of exerting Chinese power in the Indian Ocean, much less face off with the Indian Navy. The "String of Pearls" poses absolutely no military threat to India.

Oh God! This is typical of some of the new generation macho "India is a superpower already" people who can barely walk but they want to run first.

India chose Soviet Russia during its so-called "non-aligned" period between 1947 and 1991, and therefore NATO and the West owe us absolutely zilch. In 1971 India was a supposedly neutral power leaned towards the USSR, so of course the US and its allies tried to deter us from intervening in Bangladesh.

You don't trust the West because you don't know anything about it. People who live in the West understand it more than you. The West's strategic priorities and India's are very much similar. India is also much more similar to the West than Russia or China- these countries are dictatorships and their polity is nothing like India's. This is why the US has a 60% favourable rating amongst Indians interviewed in a recent poll (was it Gallup?). You are not representative of what India believes in. Indians like the US.

I am not saying abandon the years of investment successive governments have made in Russia. Of course not. We can continue our bilateral relationship and close military co-operation. But the time has come to accept the fact that we are not making the most of our foreign policy options. The nuclear deal with the US was a good step in the right direction. More of the same is needed.

You are correct in saying that NATO currently has no interest in intervening in an Indo-Chinese war. But foreign policy is not designed keeping today in mind. It is aimed at making sure our interests are preserved today, 5 years from now, 15 years from now and 25 years from now. It is called having a VISION. We should work at our relationship with the West at every level- political, diplomatic, economic and military- so that in 10 years' time the West sees us as a dependable ally with plenty to offer. If we are able to secure the military umbrella protection of NATO, that would be a big kick in the teeth for the mandarins at Beijing.

I am certain that the Chinese foreign policy wonks have planned very carefully about how to "solve" its border disputes with Japan, Vietnam, Russia and India. For some, there would be carrots (e.g. Russia) and for others there would be a BIG STICK (e.g. India). And why? Because we have no credible allies in this world. However, what these wonks would not have calculated would be an Indian alliance with NATO. At a stroke this would put India in the same league as Japan- attacking India would mean attacking NATO. That might persuade them to be a little bit more serious about the border dispute rather than give ceremonial nods to it now and then whilst gleefully sharpening the knife to stab us with, as they did in 1962.

You are in a dreamland. No wait, change that to cuckoo land when you talk about the string of pearls

It is well-known that China has managed to penetrate all our neighbouring countries and now carries equal if not more clout in every single capital. Why does Myanmar sell them gas? Why are they talking about Chinese investment being more important than the one made by "bully" India? Why the murmurs about a Chinese base in the Bay of Bengal?

If you are so complacent about your enemies, how will you analyse the threat they pose and design a counter-attacking strategy? In your deluded mind you have won before the game began.

As I said, wake up and smell the coffee. China is coming. We can either pretend they aren't, and then wail that "Umreeka has abandoned us" when they whip us. Or we recognise the threat and start working seriously by building our own military capabilities (which to an extent we are doing), improve our diplomatic standing (which we have thus far failed to do) and build some serious alliances (cue: join NATO).

 

[Ray]

Whatever for?

They are a redundant organisation as it is!

 

[Ray]

The kind of remarks as uttered by the prada guy are typical of indian nationalists, and they clearly show that these people are not really interested in the well-being of their majority impoverished country men, hence we can conclude that all their professed love for india is fake in its essence.

Taking that you have a point, what do you think India should do for its impoverished countrymen?

Twiddle their thumbs so that India becomes an autonomous region of the Peaceloving people's country, China?

I don't know what is a Indian 'nationalist'. What is it anyway?

 

[The Messiah]

Any other county we can call our "friend" now? Russia? They're more interested in flogging their military kit to Beijing (and selling us a dodgy Gorshkov) than working together with us on common strategic goals. Is there a single country we can call our ally? No, because Nehruvian non-alliance has failed us miserably.

You don't make friends and then join a club. You join it TO make friends. Nobody owes India anything. India will have to show itself to be a potential ally of NATO (and that it can offer NATO something in quid pro quo) first. But the benefits are massive. In a stroke we will be able to remove the massive dagger that hangs on our head- China.

You can shout yourself hoarse that the Indian armed forces can deal with it, but let me tell you that we have a tendency to under-estimate what the Chinese military build up is like- the sheer scale of it. Nuclear arsenals are meaningless because nobody would use them in fear of retribution. China does not want to occupy India, but I believe it plans to settle the border dispute with India in a short but decisive military campaign around 25-30 years from now with the dual aim of wresting control of Arunachal but more importantly, humiliating India and truncating its geopolitcal growth once and for all.

China's day of reckoning will come, as was the case with Imperial (and then Nazi) Germany in the 20th century. And when it does look our way, I want to make sure we have some friends to stare back with us. Right now, we stand alone. And even Churchill needed a Roosevelt to stand up to Hitler after the fall of France.

Russia is the closest which can be called as a friend. Infact non-alliance has helped us if you weren't so ignorant about many other events. If we were fully dependent on other countries do you think drdo, isro (yes they could be better/efficient but thats besides the point) etc would be where they are currently ? we'd be no more incompetent than the pakistanis that cant make shit and beg and whore themselves to get weapons which are still inferior to ours because the so called "nato-ally" doesn't get the latest weapons.

No country is a friend in global politics and each country has its own interests and the west's interest is to remain the superpower of the world and for that to remain it must keep other potential powers at bay. India would never be allowed to stand at a level playing field with the west if it jumped into bed with them.

Chinese will not start a direct war....they aren't idiots. Yes they'll use other means to reach there objectives but not a direct war. And in anycase i wouldn't trust the west because there reputation is well known. I mean how many times have they jumped ship in the middle east ? being an ally with iraq, then iran then iraq then invade iraq and thats only the gist of it.

Even if the chinese start a direct assault on India then the west will only help India if it somehow benefits them so if it benefits them to help us then they would even if India wasn't in nato (which sounds ridiculous btw...see the world map)

 

[roma]

Or we recognise the threat ....... and build some serious alliances (cue: join NATO).

partial quote


Oh you mean join NATO like pakistan joined CENTO ( NATO's proxy in the south asian region ) and receive "valuable" help like pak "received" in december 1971 ?

Or do you mean join the relevent part of NATO eg CENTO like when ZA Bhutto went fuming mad in the UN ( DEC 1971 ) and quit CENTO and since then (even before the iranian revolution ) CENTO has been dissolved ?

and in those days i had to listen to multiple pak citizens and friends rave and rant as to how "UMREEKA" royally played them out - receivin a great deal ( according to them) from pak while doing nothin in return

now ....... which did you prefer ?