China's Fast Growing Naval Might

Technologically, who is superior?

  • INS Vikrant

    Votes: 42 73.7%
  • Type-001A

    Votes: 15 26.3%

  • Total voters
    57

ForigenSanghi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
350
Likes
2,394
Country flag
Remember, the most important yhing always is your long term national interest,
Yes
which is the vontainment of China for peaceful future in India's neighborhood.
No.
That is the short term goal over the next 2 decades. The long term goal is the betterment of the lives of Indian people and providing them a quality of life second to none.

The west will never allow this and will invent a thousand rules to keep Indians and Africans (and even Chinese) from enjoying the same standard of living that they have enjoyed for the last 100 years.

For that India needs militaristic and economic deterrence against NATO. China is a small fry in the scheme of things. It has already shot itself in the foot with the one child policy and the cultural revolution. It may get comparatively rich but will never be a consumption and cultural hegemon like India has the potential to be. Realising that potential against a belligerent west is the real long term goal for India.
 
Last edited:

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,087
Likes
30,705
Country flag
It doesn't matter how bad USSR was for india they were a partner closet ally which pushed india to break some part of a artificial state of Pakistan which is most important strategic thing for india we have no nuclear threat from Bangladesh but from Pakistan this shit exists.
And let's come to reality biggest BIGGEST cancer is created by Americans who build taliban? Americans who build al-qeada and shit Americans.

Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with just over $500,000 in 1979, was increased dramatically to $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[1][3][4][5] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[6]

The US government covertly provided violent schoolbooks filled with militant Islamic teachings and jihad and images of weapons and soldiers in an effort to inculcate in children anti-Soviet insurgency and hate for foreigners. The Taliban used the American textbooks but scratched out human faces in keeping with strict fundamentalist interpretation. The United States Agency for International Development gave millions of dollars to the University of Nebraska at Omaha in the 1980s to develop and publish the textbooks in local languages.[98]

After the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, Mujahideen fighters, with the aid of Pakistan, slowly infiltrated Kashmir with the goal of spreading a radical Islamist ideology


Thousands of people thousands of troops and American funded taliban even hijacked a indian flight.

India on Friday, 24 December 1999, when it was hijacked and flown to several locations before landing in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen was accused of the hijacking with the support and active assistance from ISI.[



Indian Parliament should pass a law to fine Americans and Muslims umah OIC because of Muslims ideology and Americans weapons funding to terrorists we have lost so much.

 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Nope, its called "Middle Path" - Many Indians have walked on it successfully since eons!
Middle path? India slept with the Russians in the Cold War even while the USSR were purging their Baltic and Eastern European colonies! There's no such thing as middle path in international relations.

Perhaps Nehru has a lot to blame for what's India now. A naive sense of self-righteousness that even if China was already eating India's territory he would still be friendly with China since India's way is the middle way. The only thing that India does not proclaim the middle way is when it cones to Pskistan. But Pakistam is puny and inconsequential...
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Yes
No.
That is the short term goal over the next 2 decades. The long term goal is the betterment of the lives of Indian people and providing them a quality of life second to none.

The west will never allow this and will invent a thousand rules to keep Indians and Africans (and even Chinese) from enjoying the same standard of living that they have enjoyed for the last 100 years.

For that India needs militaristic and economic deterrence against NATO. China is a small fry in the scheme of things. It has already shot itself in the foot with the one child policy and the cultural revolution. It may get comparatively rich but will never be a consumption and cultural hegemon like India has the potential to be. Realising that potential against a belligerent west is the real long term goal for India.
Dude what have you been smoking? You fear NATO more than China? What the f#@$!

NATO will not invade India even if NATO exists for a million years! You do not even share a border with any NATO country!

That's what you get when you keep on listening, reading and watching Russian propaganda.

Make no mistake, China is the most voracious new power around. It does not respect its neighbors, it does not even respect its own people. China is greedy and if you give your finger it will take your whole arm!
 

Deathstar

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
2,333
Likes
7,357
Country flag
Middle path? India slept with the Russians in the Cold War even while the USSR were purging their Baltic and Eastern European colonies! There's no such thing as middle path in international relations.

Perhaps Nehru has a lot to blame for what's India now. A naive sense of self-righteousness that even if China was already eating India's territory he would still be friendly with China since India's way is the middle way. The only thing that India does not proclaim the middle way is when it cones to Pskistan. But Pakistam is puny and inconsequential...
Umm you are mistaken , we are founders of the non aligned movement. Alliance with Soviet union was out of compulsion as Pakistan had gone into American camp. We had to get close to SU due to Amriki hegemony
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
UK never wished to give independence to a nation from where its entire might used to come from. There were very high tensions & revolts in British Indian military and people. Indian communists had gained total public support were preparing for wars.

Managing the colony was far more difficult after WW2 moreover. US & USSR supported India on the principles of their own country (freedom and anti-imperialism). Initially, they both turned against India just after independence. US continued to be till 90s.

Indian nationalists and communists were allied to Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan and had their support to overthrow British regime.

UK didn't ever grant anything to India. It only drained money, manipulated history, stereotyped Indians, killed more Indians than Jews (and covered a lot of ugly crimes) and balkanized it in such a geography that there was not any hope for India to recover from it's economic stumbles, leave alone posing a threat to UK. This Kashmir quagmire and terrorist state of Pakistan is what UK has given to India. If India has any strategic, military or economic limitation, only British are to blame.

Only an idiot believes that India wouldn't have gained independence through revolts if UK didn't grant or any British soldier in India would have left alive by 400k fighters.

Most obviously when we were threatened of war after annexing our own territory from Portugal, pushed back by West with threats after neutralizing terrorists in 65 and were about get nuked by USA in 1971, we aren't going to badmouth a country who is backing us against them.
USSR actually helped to initiate military production and industrial installations too in India.

Actually if you're only open minded, especially with history the US was very close to India from WW2 and after WW2. Truman up yo Kennedy administrations kept on courting India. But Nehru the righteous want his middle road.... which when push comes to shove however turned towards the USSR (because Pakistan already attached itself to US).

India would have long ago benefited economically from closer relations with America, much like what's happening now. But the middle road always seems to lead to odd places.
 
Last edited:

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,087
Likes
30,705
Country flag
NATO the people think that they are not a enemy and bla bla but if they are not a enemy.
Then why government of india supports a MULTIPOLAR WORLD?
Protectionist world of nato is already dying wake UP.
India have already taken feel of nato wraith in 90s sanctions and shit.

 

Attachments

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Umm you are mistaken , we are founders of the non aligned movement. Alliance with Soviet union was out of compulsion as Pakistan had gone into American camp. We had to get close to SU due to Amriki hegemony

See my post above. The US from WW2 supported and insisted on Indian independence. Afterwards, successive US administrations wanted closer relations with India more than Pakistan. But India keeps on flirting with the high road, the road that lead to USSR since Pskistan was wise enough to make itself strategically important to the US when India was unwilling to do so.
 

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,087
Likes
30,705
Country flag
See my post above. The US from WW2 supported and insisted on Indian independence. Afterwards, successive US administrations wanted closer relations with India more than Pakistan. But India keeps on flirting with the high road, the road that lead to USSR since Pskistan was wise enough to make itself strategically important to the US when India was unwilling to do so.
Birth of NAM 2.0
Analysts often ask why India does not play larger roles in global disputes. New Delhi has often come close to answering such questions directly, specifically regarding the Middle East. In 2003, then-Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee warded off rumors that within his administration that were supporters of the call made by George W. Bush for India to send troops to Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration was expecting India to send up to seventeen thousand troops to be deployed around the Kurdish region of Mosul, the second-largest city of Iraq, today better known as the place from where Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the emir of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), used the Great Mosque of Al-Nuri to announce the so-called Islamic State, or the launch of the caliphate.

At the time there was, perhaps surprisingly when we look back, much public support for the idea of sending Indian troops into Iraq. Noted analysts such as C Raja Mohan and Sanjay Baru wrote in favor of such a deployment. In a piece titled “India’s decision time on Iraq” published in May 2003 in the prominent The Hindu newspaper, Mohan argued that an Indian deployment in northern Iraq would “signal to the world that New Delhi has finally broken out of the traditionally limiting political confines of the subcontinent.” However, after weighing the pros and cons, Vajpayee took a decision not to send the Indian military to join the United States and Britain in being part of the “war on terror.” Had Vajpayee gotten India involved in Iraq, it would have been a departure from India’s traditional non-interventionist and non-aligned posture and would have derailed one of the most successful diplomatic balancing acts undertaken by a state in the Middle East region. This diplomatic status quo that Vajpayee managed to protect was responsible for the successful evacuation of more than 110,000 Indians during the First Gulf War via the Jordanian capital Amman.

Over ten years before Vajpayee’s support of neutrality, another example of India’s positioning itself as a supporter of a multipolar political order in the Middle East was when New Delhi in January 1992 established official diplomatic relations with Israel. At the time this was a long-overdue policy correction that had been held hostage to an obsolete outlook toward the Israel–Palestine issue by Indian foreign policy. The formalization of ties with Israel—which already in 1992 had been developing strongly despite a lack of formal diplomatic outreach—gave New Delhi a third pole of power to navigate in the region, a pole whose very existence was cause for much of the region’s turmoil.

As such, India continues to this day to walk a tightrope in its diplomacy with the MENA region. This tightrope walking is not for the faint-of-heart, as managing full diplomatic relations with the contesting three poles of power in the region— namely Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel—can be challenging. All the same, the outcomes of such political maneuvering have been largely rewarding for New Delhi. Today, India thoughtfully engages with Middle Eastern actors while at the same time maintaining distance from regional fractures and conflicts, all of which has allowed India to have not just cordial relations across the region, but also fledging trade and migration.
NAM means non alliance 2.0.

Like it or not our aim is to build our capabilities instead of boosting on others wait for sometime till 2030.
@asianobserve what you have to say about this. :cruisin2:
 
Last edited:

nongaddarliberal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
3,939
Likes
22,313
Country flag
When it comes to China, India has no choice. We need to set up close cooperation with western countries i.e US and France, in defence and economy. No need to be a client state, but we need to cooperate closely. The situation in Asia is serious. Americans have already started the task of hurting China's economy but it won't be enough to stop them in their tracks. Only an Asia wide gang up against China, backed up by advanced technology and economic integration can solve this crisis.
 

ForigenSanghi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
350
Likes
2,394
Country flag
Dude what have you been smoking? You fear NATO more than China? What the f#@$!
Where did I talk about any fears? It seems like your internalised fear of China has made you misread my post. Read again, the only feeling my post conveys if ambition not fear.
NATO will not invade India even if NATO exists for a million years! You do not even share a border with any NATO country!
There was a time when Russia didn't share any border with a NATO country. Now it borders with 6 NATO countries with 7th in the making.
I hope, you know the point of military alliances is to maintain military supremacy. A supremacy that often gets used to further geo-political or economic goals. Like America did with making Japan ruin its economy under Plaza Accords.

That's what you get when you keep on listening, reading and watching Russian propaganda.

Make no mistake, China is the most voracious new power around. It does not respect its neighbors, it does not even respect its own people. China is greedy and if you give your finger it will take your whole arm!
As I said in my earlier post, China has shot itself in the foot with the one child policy and even more so with the cultural revolution. Its a small fly in the long run for India (regardless of the large a challenge it presents in the next couple of decades).

The real test will come when the west starts to look at India as a challenge rather than a tool to defeat china. The signals are very clear in the left wing western media where we have gone from cow-herders-living-in-filth to the second-coming-of-hitler in three years straight.

An assertive and powerful India is in no ones future plans except for India's.

As for the deep fear you feel of the chinese my pinoy friend, don't be too afraid. Life under chinese exploitation will not be any worse than that under American exploitation.
Just stop teaching the virtues of being exploited to others, especially to those who have been exploited for the last 500 years.
 
Last edited:

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
5,594
Likes
14,927
Country flag
Middle path? India slept with the Russians in the Cold War even while the USSR were purging their Baltic and Eastern European colonies! There's no such thing as middle path in international relations.

Perhaps Nehru has a lot to blame for what's India now. A naive sense of self-righteousness that even if China was already eating India's territory he would still be friendly with China since India's way is the middle way. The only thing that India does not proclaim the middle way is when it cones to Pskistan. But Pakistam is puny and inconsequential...
Lol India sided with Russia because that was the only country stood when US licking Paki Pussy and threatening India now and then to please Paki.

Also doesnt matter. Nehru did the right thing by not siding with US, otherwise we would have been at same level as Philippines as now- that is Christianized, deracinated and yet could not become another South Korea, Taiwan etc.

I know that - sucking to US and advertising its wares is your paid Job ... but me as someone who respects and wants Philippines to have spine , rise and shine sincerely - just think about what I said above when you go to sleep today. No I dont want you to argue here - just think about great civilization & culture you had and how it has been attacked denuded over the years.
 

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,087
Likes
30,705
Country flag
See my post above. The US from WW2 supported and insisted on Indian independence. Afterwards, successive US administrations wanted closer relations with India more than Pakistan. But India keeps on flirting with the high road, the road that lead to USSR since Pskistan was wise enough to make itself strategically important to the US when India was unwilling to do so.
It's not like I'm anti US or any thing US and india technically share same moral values.
But there is more lip service than real work. "it's not clear by US side either they want india as a friend or enemy in long term basis?"
Not only me but government of india have trust issues with American policies.
Be it in defence they cry when asked for some key technologies and all. Sometimes cannot even sell it.
This is one of the key reasons why we always deal with france and others.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Indo-US strategic relations started from 2010 now it's time to see this will stay to only honeymoon or there will permanent marriage. o_O:hmm:
 

nongaddarliberal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
3,939
Likes
22,313
Country flag
It's not like I'm anti US or any thing US and india technically share same moral values.
But there is more lip service than real work. "it's not clear by US side either they want india as a friend or enemy in long term basis?"
Not only me but government of india have trust issues with American policies.
Be it in defence they cry when asked for some key technologies and all. Sometimes cannot even sell it.
This is one of the key reasons why we always deal with france and others.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Indo-US strategic relations started from 2010 now it's time to see this will stay to only honeymoon or there will permanent marriage. o_O:hmm:
My argument is purely based on our pragmatic national interest. The new cold war is here. China will be America's number one concern for the next 20-30 years until it collapses. We need to ride that train and in the meantime work on our own technological independence and economic might. If the Chinese were even a little reasonable with India I wouldn't support ganging up against them. But they're not. They have made it abundantly clear that they will relentlessly undermine us. When it comes to a comprehensive strategy against China, it involves, trade, political alliances, military tech, energy, etc.We can work with France for military tech, but in all the other aspects of this complex fight, the US is the only viable partner with which we can work. We don't have the strength right now to seriously affect Chinese plans by ourselves.
 

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
6,087
Likes
30,705
Country flag
My argument is purely based on our pragmatic national interest. The new cold war is here. China will be America's number one concern for the next 20-30 years until it collapses. We need to ride that train and in the meantime work on our own technological independence and economic might. If the Chinese were even a little reasonable with India I wouldn't support ganging up against them. But they're not. They have made it abundantly clear that they will relentlessly undermine us. When it comes to a comprehensive strategy against China, it involves, trade, political alliances, military tech, energy, etc.We can work with France for military tech, but in all the other aspects of this complex fight, the US is the only viable partner with which we can work. We don't have the strength right now to seriously affect Chinese plans by ourselves.
Yeah all comes down to national interest . What's in our national interest.

If Chinese can support fake cancerous NAPAKI.
Then we can also support Americans.

But in this whole la la land we should also consider the fact that we are the ones who are having biggest disputed land borders with Chinese. We should not make Chinese extra hostile without gaining significant capabilities. Americans have that technology but they for now don't share that technology with India.

I'm pretty okay with only transactional relationship with Americans too.

We should use there influence and milk there resources.
There should be interdependent relationship with US and india. Not like a client state one.

The only thing which matters in diplomatic world is interest nothing else. Doesn't matter what happens but we should always support our agenda for MULTIPOLAR world not protectionist.

Much more than Americans we should focus on act east policy more Chinese will not be able to dominate indian ocean with ships but they will be able to create anxiety for india by making ports there diplomacy is influence is much more stronger we need to focus more on Asian nations. We need to create anxiety for Chinese too.just like every other power if Chinese need to become a super power they need to have a neighborhood which is peaceful just like what Americans have so that they can use there resources to challenge other powers.

Vietnam is our one of the strongest ally in asia.

India and China both have aim to dominate the asia.
Indian ocean is heart of Asia.
 
Last edited:

nongaddarliberal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
3,939
Likes
22,313
Country flag
Yeah all comes down to national interest . What's in our national interest.

If Chinese can support fake cancerous NAPAKI.
Then we can also support Americans.

But in this whole la la land we should also consider the fact that we are the ones who are having biggest disputed land borders with Chinese. We should not make Chinese extra hostile without gaining significant capabilities. Americans have that technology but they for now don't share that technology with India.

I'm pretty okay with only transactional relationship with Americans too.

We should use there influence and milk there resources.
There should be interdependent relationship with US and india. Not like a client state one.

The only thing which matters in diplomatic world is interest nothing else. Doesn't matter what happens but we should always support our agenda for MULTIPOLAR world not protectionist.

Much more than Americans we should focus on act east policy more Chinese will not be able to dominate indian ocean with ships but they will be able to create anxiety for india by making ports there diplomacy is influence is much more stronger we need to focus more on Asian nations. We need to create anxiety for Chinese too.just like every other power if Chinese need to become a super power they need to have a neighborhood which is peaceful just like what Americans have so that they can use there resources to challenge other powers.

Vietnam is our one of the strongest ally in asia.

India and China both have aim to dominate the asia.
Indian ocean is heart of Asia.
I agree with what you're saying. We have to have our own policy in Asia, but it happens to align well with America's strategy, so there needs to be synergy for maximum effect.

Economic integration with South East Asia and Japan is a must. All of these countries are anyway working towards their bilateral ties with the US, economically and militarily. I'm saying we should be more proactive in this alliance and be part of the decision making process when it comes to facing china. The Chinese gamed the WTO and other institutions to fit their agenda. We don't need to be crooks like them, but we can create an advantageous environment for ourselves.

As far as not being too hostile to China, they have already done everything possible to be hostile to us. Supporting Pakistan, giving them nuclear weapons, protecting their terrorists, blocking our bid of UNSC permanent seat, blocking our entry to NSG, trying to save Pakistan from FATF, etc. They only backed out from Doklam because they knew they'll lose. Otherwise they would have gone for military action. There is no point in maintaining neutrality with China. Time to return their favour. And they have already played all their cards. CPEC is an epic failure. Their economic colonialism in South East Asia is also unravelling. Now it's time for us to start creating trouble for their Indian ocean plans.
 

ForigenSanghi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
350
Likes
2,394
Country flag
I agree with what you're saying. We have to have our own policy in Asia, but it happens to align well with America's strategy, so there needs to be synergy for maximum effect.

Economic integration with South East Asia and Japan is a must. All of these countries are anyway working towards their bilateral ties with the US, economically and militarily. I'm saying we should be more proactive in this alliance and be part of the decision making process when it comes to facing china. The Chinese gamed the WTO and other institutions to fit their agenda. We don't need to be crooks like them, but we can create an advantageous environment for ourselves.

As far as not being too hostile to China, they have already done everything possible to be hostile to us. Supporting Pakistan, giving them nuclear weapons, protecting their terrorists, blocking our bid of UNSC permanent seat, blocking our entry to NSG, trying to save Pakistan from FATF, etc. They only backed out from Doklam because they knew they'll lose. Otherwise they would have gone for military action. There is no point in maintaining neutrality with China. Time to return their favour. And they have already played all their cards. CPEC is an epic failure. Their economic colonialism in South East Asia is also unravelling. Now it's time for us to start creating trouble for their Indian ocean plans.
All your points are correct but you do miss the finer issues with sitting in America's lap right away.

First, we mustn't become a pawn in this game that is going to be played. While America sits pretty like a king with Europe as its queen, it wants us to do the heavy lifting. Do you know the Australians with all the talk of "quad" are still thoroughly penetrated by chinese secret service, same for NZ and South Korea. We can not be the first ones to jump.

Second, we need to extract the maximum price from the Americans for our efforts in this game (if at all we play) starting with denuking the porkis, a favourable trade deal and possibly a UNSC seat as well.

Third, We need to be able to engineer such an outcome that we do not revert back to a unipolar world even with the possible collapse of chinese economy along with its hegemony. Important since we will be next on the list if the chinese are no longer a threat.

Untill we get our fair price, we should keep doing the tango with both America and SCO. Let the chinkis grow and America shiver. China's first victim will anyway be Vietnam or Philippines. Nothing much for us to worry about. The west will pay up.
 
Last edited:

Jameson Emoni

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
1,473
Likes
4,250
All your points are correct but you do miss the finer issues with sitting in America's lap right away.

First, we mustn't become a pawn in this game that is going to be played. While America sits pretty like a king with Europe as its queen, it wants us to do the heavy lifting. Do you know the Australians with all the talk of "quad" are still thoroughly penetrated by chinese secret service, same for NZ and South Korea. We can not be the first ones to jump.

Second, we need to extract the maximum price from the Americans for our efforts in this game (if at all we play) starting with denuking the porkis, a favourable trade deal and possibly a UNSC seat as well.

Third, We need to be able to engineer such an outcome that we do not revert back to a unipolar world even with the possible collapse of chinese economy along with its hegemony. Important since we will be next on the list if the chinese are no longer a threat.

Untill we get our fair price, we should keep doing the tango with both America and SCO. Let the chinkis grow and America shiver. China's first victim will anyway be Vietnam or Philippines. Nothing much for us to worry about. The west will pay up.
Nothing he said implies sitting on America's lap. That is your immature interpretation.
 

nongaddarliberal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
3,939
Likes
22,313
Country flag
All your points are correct but you do miss the finer issues with sitting in America's lap right away.

First, we mustn't become a pawn in this game that is going to be played. While America sits pretty like a king with Europe as its queen, it wants us to do the heavy lifting. Do you know the Australians with all the talk of "quad" are still thoroughly penetrated by chinese secret service, same for NZ and South Korea. We can not be the first ones to jump.

Second, we need to extract the maximum price from the Americans for our efforts in this game (if at all we play) starting with denuking the porkis, a favourable trade deal and possibly a UNSC seat as well.

Third, We need to be able to engineer such an outcome that we do not revert back to a unipolar world even with the possible collapse of chinese economy along with its hegemony. Important since we will be next on the list if the chinese are no longer a threat.

Untill we get our fair price, we should keep doing the tango with both America and SCO. Let the chinkis grow and America shiver. China's first victim will anyway be Vietnam or Philippines. Nothing much for us to worry about. The west will pay up.
Further rise of China will be a very serious issue. Lot to worry about. And please read my posts again, I said that we must secure a leading position in an Asian American alliance, and influence it to benefit us. Never said we should sit on America's lap and do whatever they say. No need to be Japan or South Korea. We are the only other Asian country with serious military might and a rising economy, so we have a lot more leverage than America's client states in Asia. We should keep it that way. But joint formulations and implementation of plans to undermine China is necessary, taking on board the Americans, South East Asians and Japanese. Otherwise we will be left hanging with unbearable Chinese influence throughout the rest of Asian including in the Indian Ocean. There is a difference between partnership and dependence. They should not be confused.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top