QUAD; The Concert of Democracies for Trade, Security & Diplomacy

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
his think tank Asia society sole purpose is to ensure CCP policies look palatable to western audience.
I have to look into it. But you have to give it to the Australians for a bold move against their biggest trading partner in signing up to AUKUS. China is overplaying its hands in the countries that should matter most to its ambitions, which to me is not a surprise. More so now that China has a clear Emperor for life - absolute power corrupts absolutely. Here we see the wisdom of democracy, as messy as it is.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
18,310
Likes
56,357
Country flag
I have to look into it. But you have to give it to the Australians for a bold move against their biggest trading partner in signing up to AUKUS. China is overplaying its hands in the countries that should matter most to its ambitions, which to me is not a surprise. More so now that China has a clear Emperor for life - absolute power corrupts absolutely. Here we see the wisdom of democracy, as messy as it is.
Australia too just as US & UK is a isolated island with not that much potential implications in case of a world war. Australia belongs to the group of "US colonies" whose statements and policies just synchronize with what suits Washington (rest of the group is of countries having issues with the US).

And since it is probably only major country with weak military, it makes sense for US to arm Australia to teeth.
Except Japan and Australia, there are no US colonies allies in Asia-Pacific. They all have their own pursuits and issues with US. India and Southeast Asia have their own pursuits and dreams while rest of countries are just mess.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Australia too just as US & UK is a isolated island with not that much potential implications in case of a world war. Australia belongs to the group of "US colonies" whose statements and policies just synchronize with what suits Washington (rest of the group is of countries having issues with the US).

And since it is probably only major country with weak military, it makes sense for US to arm Australia to teeth.
Except Japan and Australia, there are no US colonies allies in Asia-Pacific. They all have their own pursuits and issues with US. India and Southeast Asia have their own pursuits and dreams while rest of countries are just mess.

No 2 country will completely align in terms of national interests. If they do then they just became 1 country. The closest countries to aligning their national interests are the major English speaking countries.

But alliances that defeat powerful enemies do not need to be always the kind of AUKUS alignment of national interests. Looser alignments, or even "you're enemy is my enemy so let's work together to defeat him" kind of alignment, is enough to succeed at well-defined objectives. What is important is clear-eyed identification of common objectives and a dispassionate focus on how best to carry them out. History has a lot of these examples.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Make no mistake, China is the greatest danger to World stability. China is as much, if not more a threat to India and Asia, as to the West. China is scheming to inslave Indian neighbors (and a lot of strategic Asian countries) in debt and then swoop in to take strategic assets that it can use to contain if not control India, Asia and the rest of the World.

Chinese loans leave developing countries with $385 billion in hidden debts, study says
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
18,310
Likes
56,357
Country flag
No 2 country will completely align in terms of national interests. If they do then they just became 1 country. The closest countries to aligning their national interests are the major English speaking countries.
Those strictly belong to the Anglo-Saxon group of countries again separated and protected on islands.

US did not like UK at an equal pedestal even though it was in western bloc. They didn't spare Japan either (Plaza Accords).

So no. 1 will try to weaken no. 2 at once. Without exaggeration, India comes either second to US or close to UK and France overall firepower.
But alliances that defeat powerful enemies do not need to be always the kind of AUKUS alignment of national interests. Looser alignments, or even "you're enemy is my enemy so let's work together to defeat him" kind of alignment, is enough to succeed at well-defined objectives. What is important is clear-eyed identification of common objectives and a dispassionate focus on how best to carry them out. History has a lot of these examples.
That's an on sight arrangement which just happens and doesn't require such preliminary stages and settlements.
It may be tomorrow that if a war breaks out between China and the US, India tries to hit from Himalayan side. It doesn't mean there's a military alliance.

Most alliances (except NATO kind) are just pathetic jokes in themselves.
Any hesitation on India's part to effectively work with the West and its Asian allies in containing China will only benefit China.
India is a large country and holds a veru huge military. So, conflict with China doesn't put India's existence on stake unlike small countries who are completely dependent on west for security.

West will leave Asia-Pacific after turmoil once its interests are served. It's India in the end which always has to deal with China and its proxies on its border. We have hostile neighbors with nuclear weapons and dozens of militia groups being trained again us. We also have rift with Taliban. We can't just escape unlike US did from Afghanistan.

Also, history rather tells that west has been relatively warm to China and abandoning & sanctioning India in most cases in entire second half of 20th century from Laurel satellite scam (tech transfer), nuclear weapons to nuclear weapon test sanctions in 1998. Isolation of India after 1974 played a great role in India's all industrial, technological and economic development problems today. It was probably only third world country besides China to establish industries and institutions at large scale that swift and immediately pushed out of global economic and business orders by P5. India still is only country with militaristic and economic powers close to P5 despite many others acquiring nukes.

Collapsing or sidelining of China will only put India on radar since only China and India hold potential to match US industrial complexes, economic and military power in long term. And Australia acquiring nuclear submarines is actually an advanced preparation of that since India will outnumber UK, France and China in number of nuclear submarines within two decades. If US and China reach an agreement like G2, the second runner up will suppressed harder than China is being today.

So, when India doesn't sign a strict alliance with west, it is pragmatic, not hesitant. There is absolutely no need to hurry. India can sit and grow worrylessly till west and China are busy. US foreign policy is quite detrimental for its allies or those dependent on it.
What China wants above all is to deal with its targets individually.
China can't "deal" with either of India, USA, Russia or Japan. These are just too huge to be settled. China can only race to gain some more aspects of power. It's just war for them on all fronts.

Countries without capabilities will just end up serving US interests for their security, countries with their own capabilities will try to serve their own interests.

US interests here stictly is US dominance.
 

Pugilist

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
195
Likes
1,537
Country flag
Sensible piece below by Rory Medcalf in The Australian posted in its entirety.

Re Paul Keating (left wing labour leader) and all the comments in this forum previously about his article, to state it bluntly, he is an egotistical dinosaur and should not be taken seriously. In politics and now in his twilight years, he always had an overinflated sense of himself and his supposed intellect.

Regarding India, he in my opinion, still has a colonial mindset of sorts (as many from his generation still do). His entire outlook on India was shaped in the 1960s-1990s when India was a poor country. He either still sees India from these lens or simply cannot stomach that India is a rising country and will be the third superpower in the world in 20-30 years if it plays its cards right.



Our diplomatic task is daunting, but the mission is clear

Rory Medcalf




Australia’s strategic direction seems changed utterly.

A future Australian Defence Force of nuclear-powered submarines and advanced conventional missiles, an AUKUS technology partnership with London and Washington, and far-reaching plans to advance the global good with the US, Japan and India under the mantle of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue: the past few weeks have been a fire hose of national security news.

So great is the torrent that momentous developments – notably the nuclear submarines announcement – have drowned out the merely major ones.

For instance, on September 16 the Australia-US Ministerial Consultations joint statement by our foreign and defence ministers and their American counterparts signalled we will see more US forces in Australian air and naval bases. This is part of a wider distribution of American military presence in the Indo-Pacific to deter conflict with China.

That AUSMIN statement also declared “intent to strengthen ties with Taiwan” as a “leading democracy” and a “critical partner” – lines that once would have induced their own gasps in the business community and foreign affairs establishment.

It’s no surprise that much commentary has fixated on this as a transformational moment in Australia’s security posture and global geopolitics. The Morrison government decisively has chosen the US over China. Canberra’s defiance of Beijing is here to stay.

The Biden administration is committing to stop Chinese coercion in the Indo-Pacific. Britain, in its way, is now openly resisting China and pivoting to this region.

The Quad will provide core strength for global groupings to balance China’s power.

But European seriousness about joining such coalitions is suddenly strained by Australia’s abandonment of the French submarine deal.

All this may be so, even if all such propositions come with caveats. But another meaning of the past fortnight is precisely that it is not some dramatic departure.

Rather, now is a culmination of years of change in our strategic settings to prepare Australia for at least a decade of hazard and disruption.

That is, Australia now has in place most of the elements of a genuine Indo-Pacific strategy.

Australia has shaped an influential new vision of global order, where the idea of a vast maritime region of connectivity and shared principles empowers many nations to work together to prevent China’s bid for dominance.

Former prime ministers can comment all they wish, but there are currents of continuity with their own policies, more than some may acknowledge.

Malcolm Turnbull’s government led a pushback against Chinese infringements on sovereignty and a rules-based regional order, including by criminalising foreign interference, strengthening cyber defences and challenging Beijing’s breaches of international law in the South China Sea.

His choice of the French submarine option, whatever its merits or otherwise, was part of our wider build-up as a maritime power.

And Turnbull’s foreign policy emphasised new coalitions in the Indo-Pacific, enabling the revival of the Quad.

Much of the defence modernisation under Scott Morrison and Turnbull actually began with Tony Abbott, who also personally drove strengthened ties with India and Japan. It is a testament to the Australia-Japan partnership he fostered that Tokyo moved ahead with our wider Indo-Pacific alignment so quickly even after it lost to France the submarine deal Abbott had wanted with prime minister Shinzo Abe.

Julia Gillard’s government fell far short on defence spending, but the saving grace of her 2013 defence white paper was its pioneering role globally in affirming the Indo-Pacific as the world’s new strategic centre of gravity. She advanced relations with India, ending Labor’s ban on uranium exports.

Most substantially, in 2011 Gillard agreed to “force posture initiatives” allowing the deployment of US marines to Darwin and preparing for an air and naval presence.

With his 2009 defence white paper, Kevin Rudd envisioned Australia as a serious naval power – even if he failed to cost and begin the submarine ambitions he promised. He warned of China as a military danger longer before most of us were willing to countenance this.

John Howard revitalised the US alliance, and not only in the war on terror. He advanced ties with Japan, India and democratic Indonesia – and the modern global partnership with Britain now influencing AUKUS.

And Paul Keating? His antiquated, anti-Quad rantings overlook the fact Australia’s driving role in that fast-evolving institution, with an agenda spanning Covid-19 vaccines, environment, infrastructure, technology and, yes, security, is a practical manifestation of the activist middle-power diplomacy he once espoused.

Labor’s qualified support for AUKUS – and conversion to the Quad – confirm that government and opposition are now fairly much in the same boat in recognising our strategic problem and the chosen course.

And most of the public is on board. Stunningly, opinion polling from the Lowy Institute suggests that even most Greens voters disagree with their leader that a nuclear-propelled submarine fleet will make Australia less safe.

Relentlessly hard work lies ahead. The diplomatic task alone is daunting: salvaging relations with France, ensuring Britain stays the course, patiently working with the pragmatism of Asian partners, many of which deep down could benefit from a stronger Australia.

But the real odyssey will be at home. To succeed, the nuclear submarine ambition and the critical technology-sharing opportunities under AUKUS will require fundamental changes in the way our defence and science establishments do business.

This will require grimly dedicated focus from political leadership now and across governments to come.

Rory Medcalf is head of the Australian National University National Security College and author of Contest for the Indo-Pacific.

 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Those strictly belong to the Anglo-Saxon group of countries again separated and protected on islands.

US did not like UK at an equal pedestal even though it was in western bloc. They didn't spare Japan either (Plaza Accords).

So no. 1 will try to weaken no. 2 at once. Without exaggeration, India comes either second to US or close to UK and France overall firepower.

That's an on sight arrangement which just happens and doesn't require such preliminary stages and settlements.
It may be tomorrow that if a war breaks out between China and the US, India tries to hit from Himalayan side. It doesn't mean there's a military alliance.

Most alliances (except NATO kind) are just pathetic jokes in themselves.

India is a large country and holds a veru huge military. So, conflict with China doesn't put India's existence on stake unlike small countries who are completely dependent on west for security.

West will leave Asia-Pacific after turmoil once its interests are served. It's India in the end which always has to deal with China and its proxies on its border. We have hostile neighbors with nuclear weapons and dozens of militia groups being trained again us. We also have rift with Taliban. We can't just escape unlike US did from Afghanistan.

Also, history rather tells that west has been relatively warm to China and abandoning & sanctioning India in most cases in entire second half of 20th century from Laurel satellite scam (tech transfer), nuclear weapons to nuclear weapon test sanctions in 1998. Isolation of India after 1974 played a great role in India's all industrial, technological and economic development problems today. It was probably only third world country besides China to establish industries and institutions at large scale that swift and immediately pushed out of global economic and business orders by P5. India still is only country with militaristic and economic powers close to P5 despite many others acquiring nukes.

Collapsing or sidelining of China will only put India on radar since only China and India hold potential to match US industrial complexes, economic and military power in long term. And Australia acquiring nuclear submarines is actually an advanced preparation of that since India will outnumber UK, France and China in number of nuclear submarines within two decades. If US and China reach an agreement like G2, the second runner up will suppressed harder than China is being today.

So, when India doesn't sign a strict alliance with west, it is pragmatic, not hesitant. There is absolutely no need to hurry. India can sit and grow worrylessly till west and China are busy. US foreign policy is quite detrimental for its allies or those dependent on it.

China can't "deal" with either of India, USA, Russia or Japan. These are just too huge to be settled. China can only race to gain some more aspects of power. It's just war for them on all fronts.

Countries without capabilities will just end up serving US interests for their security, countries with their own capabilities will try to serve their own interests.

US interests here stictly is US dominance.

India has to sort out its priorities. Is it containing the US or containing China? If it's China then India must work with US and its allies. India, like the US, cannot effectively contain China alone. The dragon is already out of the cage.
 
Last edited:

Optimistic Nihilist

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 5, 2021
Messages
2,137
Likes
13,750
Country flag
I've been hearing so much about this "Second Cold War" delusions from MIC puppets and neocon war hawks in America since the end of the Afghan war. I guess they can't wait to get people killed and make billions of dollars in another criminal enterprise since the one in Afghanistan ended.

Now, it is "We will fight the Second Cold War with China and defeat them with our allies".

Of course Biden denies that the war with China is a war of aggression. He referred to "a new era of relentless diplomacy." But this is not diplomacy that leads to peace. It's a diplomacy of military provocation in Taiwan. And diplomacy is not coercing Australia to cancel its order of conventional submarines that are completely adequate if your purpose is defending your maritime property against invading navies, for nuclear-powered submarines that are only preferable if your purpose is offensive attack. That sends a message to China alright, but it’s not diplomacy or peace.

And diplomacy is not surrounding and sanctioning Russia nor is it the House Armed Services Committee asking the Secretary of Defense to enhance "the United States forward presence on NATO’s eastern periphery, to include assessments of possibilities for potential force structure enhancements at a minimum in Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states, along with options for enhanced deterrent posture in Ukraine."

At the close of the Cold War, Russia wanted to transcend the blocs and divisions, but America insisted on preserving them. Russia wanted to join a transformed international community freed of blocs and made up of equal partners who cooperated with each other; America offered Russia only an invitation to join an enlarged American led community as a defeated and subordinate member. Russia wanted to end the Cold War and transcend blocs; America wanted to maintain the Cold War and simply enlarge its bloc.

By 2012, Russia had realized that the only option America offered was losing the Cold War, not ending it. By 2014, Russia abandoned its last cold peace inhibitions, turned east and pivoted to China and Eurasia. In a new approach to trying to transform a unipolar world in which the US used international organizations to hypocritically support its own foreign policy instead of using its foreign policy consistently to support international organizations, Russia began to spawn organizations of nations with the same concern. In addition to the Eurasian Economic Union, and most notably, Russia joined the BRICS nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

BRICS, SCO and similar organizations are not and were never meant as new Cold War blocks. In fact, countries in these organizations are even "reluctant to become ‘anti-US’. They are not strategic actors like NATO or EU. Rather, they act as a voice in defense of general UN principles and international law abroad, against the so-called rules-based order – a code word for the arbitrariness of the Atlantic powers.

These organizations are important counterweights that attempt, by combining their influence, to balance the US and form a multipolar world. BRICS, for example, represents 44% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s economy.

More importantly, and virtually undiscussed in the west is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Like BRICS, its principle members are China and Russia, with the addition of India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and, as of September 2021, Iran. The SCO embodies 43% of the world’s population, a quarter of the world’s economy, almost a quarter of the planet’s territory and four of its nuclear weapons powers.

China is spreading out its relations through the Silk Road Economic Belt. Recent attempts by the US to seduce unaligned nations in Asia to abandon China for a new Cold War block against China have largely been spurned. Even Israel of all countries is bristling at US calls for a monogamous economic relationship and is continuing to flirt with China and forming lobbies. Israel has also long enjoyed a strong relationship with Putin.

The US, since the Obama administration, has sought to isolate Russia and China. Seven years ago, Obama famously declared that "Russia stands alone." However, after looking at multipolar promoting organizations like BRICS and the SCO, the real question is, "Considering the size of those economies and of their populace, who is being "isolated?"

If the US fights a new cold war, it won’t be fighting it against one country: the danger is much larger. China and Russia have formed what Putin has called "a relationship that probably cannot be compared with anything in the world." China and Russia have defined the principles of that relationship in the Treaty on Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation, in which the two nations commit not to enter into "any alliance or be party to any bloc . . . which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other. . .. " It is a relationship in which Russia and China do not have to follow each other, but they will also never go against each other. Chinese President Xi Jinping has classified China’s relationship with Russia as a "strategic partnership".

The biggest danger in this new standoff is that the US’s inflammatory Cold War rhetoric and provocative actions have now convinced China and Russia that what they are facing is a new Cold War: something that they neither accepted nor hoped for. Putin faced that reality first, having accepted it by 2014. The most significant recent change is that China has now accepted it. The Chinese view on the Second Cold War has shifted dramatically in the recent period. The shift is from being very skeptical and seeing it as yet another Western frame, to Beijing now accepting that frame. 2021 is probably the year that international politics has crossed the Rubicon.

The US has convinced its competitors and talked itself into a Second Cold War. But this time, faced with a strategic partnership between China and Russia that is like no other and very large multipolar promoting organizations like the SCO, America will not be fighting a single superpower that is economically and militarily outmatched like the last time.

Is it worth the risk? Because if the Afghanistan mess didn't demolish the US, starting a new war with China or Russia might very well do it.
 

Maharaj samudragupt

Kritant Parashu
Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
7,650
Likes
21,949
Country flag
India has to sort out its priorities. Is it containing the US or containing China? If it's China then India must work with US and its allies. India, like the US, cannot effectively contain China alone. The dragon is already out of the cage.
Well will usa help us to destroy Pakistan, if yes then only India should help and cooperate with usa against china.
 

Maharaj samudragupt

Kritant Parashu
Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
7,650
Likes
21,949
Country flag
After what happened during the 1965 war, we would be fools to trust them for something like this again.
Thats why , we ought to look out for actions.
Will thye sanction Pakistan, will thye recognise balochistan as legitimate disputed territory between kahn of kalat and pakistani government?
 

Covfefe

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2021
Messages
4,040
Likes
27,581
Country flag
I've been hearing so much about this "Second Cold War" delusions from MIC puppets and neocon war hawks in America since the end of the Afghan war. I guess they can't wait to get people killed and make billions of dollars in another criminal enterprise since the one in Afghanistan ended.

Now, it is "We will fight the Second Cold War with China and defeat them with our allies".

Of course Biden denies that the war with China is a war of aggression. He referred to "a new era of relentless diplomacy." But this is not diplomacy that leads to peace. It's a diplomacy of military provocation in Taiwan. And diplomacy is not coercing Australia to cancel its order of conventional submarines that are completely adequate if your purpose is defending your maritime property against invading navies, for nuclear-powered submarines that are only preferable if your purpose is offensive attack. That sends a message to China alright, but it’s not diplomacy or peace.

And diplomacy is not surrounding and sanctioning Russia nor is it the House Armed Services Committee asking the Secretary of Defense to enhance "the United States forward presence on NATO’s eastern periphery, to include assessments of possibilities for potential force structure enhancements at a minimum in Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states, along with options for enhanced deterrent posture in Ukraine."

At the close of the Cold War, Russia wanted to transcend the blocs and divisions, but America insisted on preserving them. Russia wanted to join a transformed international community freed of blocs and made up of equal partners who cooperated with each other; America offered Russia only an invitation to join an enlarged American led community as a defeated and subordinate member. Russia wanted to end the Cold War and transcend blocs; America wanted to maintain the Cold War and simply enlarge its bloc.

By 2012, Russia had realized that the only option America offered was losing the Cold War, not ending it. By 2014, Russia abandoned its last cold peace inhibitions, turned east and pivoted to China and Eurasia. In a new approach to trying to transform a unipolar world in which the US used international organizations to hypocritically support its own foreign policy instead of using its foreign policy consistently to support international organizations, Russia began to spawn organizations of nations with the same concern. In addition to the Eurasian Economic Union, and most notably, Russia joined the BRICS nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

BRICS, SCO and similar organizations are not and were never meant as new Cold War blocks. In fact, countries in these organizations are even "reluctant to become ‘anti-US’. They are not strategic actors like NATO or EU. Rather, they act as a voice in defense of general UN principles and international law abroad, against the so-called rules-based order – a code word for the arbitrariness of the Atlantic powers.

These organizations are important counterweights that attempt, by combining their influence, to balance the US and form a multipolar world. BRICS, for example, represents 44% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s economy.

More importantly, and virtually undiscussed in the west is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Like BRICS, its principle members are China and Russia, with the addition of India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and, as of September 2021, Iran. The SCO embodies 43% of the world’s population, a quarter of the world’s economy, almost a quarter of the planet’s territory and four of its nuclear weapons powers.

China is spreading out its relations through the Silk Road Economic Belt. Recent attempts by the US to seduce unaligned nations in Asia to abandon China for a new Cold War block against China have largely been spurned. Even Israel of all countries is bristling at US calls for a monogamous economic relationship and is continuing to flirt with China and forming lobbies. Israel has also long enjoyed a strong relationship with Putin.

The US, since the Obama administration, has sought to isolate Russia and China. Seven years ago, Obama famously declared that "Russia stands alone." However, after looking at multipolar promoting organizations like BRICS and the SCO, the real question is, "Considering the size of those economies and of their populace, who is being "isolated?"

If the US fights a new cold war, it won’t be fighting it against one country: the danger is much larger. China and Russia have formed what Putin has called "a relationship that probably cannot be compared with anything in the world." China and Russia have defined the principles of that relationship in the Treaty on Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation, in which the two nations commit not to enter into "any alliance or be party to any bloc . . . which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other. . .. " It is a relationship in which Russia and China do not have to follow each other, but they will also never go against each other. Chinese President Xi Jinping has classified China’s relationship with Russia as a "strategic partnership".

The biggest danger in this new standoff is that the US’s inflammatory Cold War rhetoric and provocative actions have now convinced China and Russia that what they are facing is a new Cold War: something that they neither accepted nor hoped for. Putin faced that reality first, having accepted it by 2014. The most significant recent change is that China has now accepted it. The Chinese view on the Second Cold War has shifted dramatically in the recent period. The shift is from being very skeptical and seeing it as yet another Western frame, to Beijing now accepting that frame. 2021 is probably the year that international politics has crossed the Rubicon.

The US has convinced its competitors and talked itself into a Second Cold War. But this time, faced with a strategic partnership between China and Russia that is like no other and very large multipolar promoting organizations like the SCO, America will not be fighting a single superpower that is economically and militarily outmatched like the last time.

Is it worth the risk? Because if the Afghanistan mess didn't demolish the US, starting a new war with China or Russia might very well do it.
US's war with China will be mostly on the economic and diplomatic fronts. For all the CGTN's propaganda videos, Chinese military has still a long way to go before they can come close to the Muricans. But Muricans don't fight with any major power directly. They undertake pitched battles, proxy wars, diplomatic alliances (bichchi gang like the Nato), and economic coercion. China is way behind in this game. It's vassals- Pakistan and N Korea are fairly irrelevant other than their nuclear nonsense. And the other influenced states like Sri Lanka, some of the African states - can be won back or become a ground for pitched battles. Ruskies won't want China to win a battle they couldn't and have an emergent expansionist superpower right next door. They will pretend to be together though- "king of good times".
Muricans will use India and Asean to make China weaker economically (all that internal consumption driven GDP growth pieces of CGTN are hogwash, you always need exports). Alliances like Aukus, Quad and some more bilateral ones(India-Japan, India-France, Aus-India) would ensure China's containment militarily.
 

Optimistic Nihilist

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 5, 2021
Messages
2,137
Likes
13,750
Country flag
US's war with China will be mostly on the economic and diplomatic fronts. For all the CGTN's propaganda videos, Chinese military has still a long way to go before they can come close to the Muricans. But Muricans don't fight with any major power directly. They undertake pitched battles, proxy wars, diplomatic alliances (bichchi gang like the Nato), and economic coercion. China is way behind in this game. It's vassals- Pakistan and N Korea are fairly irrelevant other than their nuclear nonsense. And the other influenced states like Sri Lanka, some of the African states - can be won back or become a ground for pitched battles. Ruskies won't want China to win a battle they couldn't and have an emergent expansionist superpower right next door. They will pretend to be together though- "king of good times".
Muricans will use India and Asean to make China weaker economically (all that internal consumption driven GDP growth pieces of CGTN are hogwash, you always need exports). Alliances like Aukus, Quad and some more bilateral ones(India-Japan, India-France, Aus-India) would ensure China's containment militarily.
Yeah, militarily the most it might go to, if things progress as they have up till now, is a few skirmishes over some islands.

The real conflict will indeed be in the economic area. That is where China poses the biggest threat to US.

While the Silk Road Economic Belt has an international power component, its primary use to China is opening the interior of China to world trade.

Without that, China's vast interior must go to its east coast ports, to transship to seagoing vessels that just go back around China to places near its own western interior. It is wasteful, and crippling to the development of China's remaining less developed regions.

China is finishing its own internal growth, not merely seeking influence on some -stans just past its immediate western border.

That may be what the US fears. China is so big that full development of the whole of it would be 4x the size of the US. China's internal market is also going to be the world's destination. This is going to be the biggest middle class in world history. Much like everyone catered to Americans in the 50s to 70s because they were the world's biggest market, everyone will cater to China for the same reason.

You can already see that happening in the tourism world: the tourists in EU are mainly from the east, especially the desired big spenders. The US is dreaming if it thinks EU is just going to give up on that trade.

As to what Russia will do, it's hard to predict. It would depend on how much America provokes them by the time the US and China enter a conflict. If the anger and frustration at US harassment and fear at a dominant USA eliminating its closet ally from the picture and turning its sights on them next is more than the apprehension of an expansionist China next door, Russia might very well go actively against the USA.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Well will usa help us to destroy Pakistan, if yes then only India should help and cooperate with usa against china.
I don't think it's in US' (or any country's) national interest to destroy Pakistan. It has nuclear weapons and a collapse of the current Pakistani state is going to be a major disaster for the entire World. It certainly is not in India's interest to see the collapse of Pakistan (be careful what you wish for). And I think the signals from Washington is clear (since the 1950s and 1960s actually), the US wants a closer relationship with India (it's India that has been trying to occupy the middle "high" ground).

In other words, the US does not "love" Pakistan over India. By strategic necessity and due to India's reluctance to work closer with the US, the US has to work with what it has, Pakistan.

What the US and India can agree on is China. China is threatening both US and Indian interests. Here the confluence of national interests is clear. India and the US therefore should be working on the China issue.
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
32,011
Likes
148,467
Country flag
I don't think it's in US' (or any country's) national interest to destroy Pakistan. It has nuclear weapons and a collapse of the current Pakistani state is going to be a major disaster for the entire World. It certainly is not in India's interest to see the collapse of Pakistan (be careful what you wish for). And I think the signals from Washington is clear (since the 1950s and 1960s actually), the US wants a closer relationship with India (it's India that has been trying to occupy the middle "high" ground).

In other words, the US does not "love" Pakistan over India. By strategic necessity and due to India's reluctance to work closer with the US, the US has to work with what it has, Pakistan.

What the US and India can agree on is China. China is threatening both US and Indian interests. Here the confluence of national interests is clear. India and the US therefore should be working on the China issue.
did India had a choice not to take a “moral high ground” regarding US up until collapse of USSR, perhaps there was no choice.

But when the opportunity presented itself in 1991, with two events happening simultaneously( GoI bankruptcy and USSR collapse) India did grab the chance and move away from old habits out of necessity.

the 1998 nuclear tests is the second waypoint in US india relationship, when US Gov recognised that there is no choice but to be engage with India.

Side note: Funny thing though is that India is trying to move away from socialism and US is moving towards socialism. but that’s for a different thread
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
did India had a choice not to take a “moral high ground” regarding US up until collapse of USSR, perhaps there was no choice.

But when the opportunity presented itself in 1991, with two events happening simultaneously( GoI bankruptcy and USSR collapse) India did grab the chance and move away from old habits out of necessity.

the 1998 nuclear tests is the second waypoint in US india relationship, when US Gov recognised that there is no choice but to be engage with India.

Side note: Funny thing though is that India is trying to move away from socialism and US is moving towards socialism. but that’s for a different thread

This is something I noticed here (I'm not sure if it's a national attitude in India), there's so much emotionalism and historical grievances. There's so much victimhood. I say chill and count your blessings (India has so much blessings to count). Somehow I feel this reflexive tendency to dig up the past and turn ut into a center piece in every talk about closer relations with the West is really counter productive.

Talking about post WW2 and Cold War alignment, if my history serves me right, the US, more than USSR, was very instrumental in pressuring UK (US' closest ally in WW2 and the Cold War) to grant and fast track India's independence. Then after India gained its independence, successive US administrations lobbied Nehru hard for closer relations. But Nehru then, as Indian establishment now, wanted to ride the high horse of moral superiority against the the colonialist West. Ironically, Nehru ended up in the embrace of hard imperialist USSR. Until now, the US is still courting India...

As to India becoming capitalist and the US becoming socialist, it's a matter of perception. Would you consider Finland a capitalist or socialist country (and the US is leagues away from Finland in terms of social and economic policies)? But you don't have to answer this OT question.
 
Last edited:

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
32,011
Likes
148,467
Country flag
This is something I noticed here (I'm not sure if it's a national attitude in India), there's so much emotionalism and historical grievances. There's so much victimhood. I say chill and count your blessings (India has so much blessings to count). Somehow I feel this reflexive tendency to dig up the past and turn ut into a center piece in every talk about closer relations with the West is really counter productive.

Talking about post WW2 and Cold War alignment, if my history serves me right, the US, more than USSR, was very instrumental in pressuring UK (US' closest ally in WW2 and the Cold War) to grant and fast track India's independence. Then after India gained its independence successive US administrations lobbied Nehru hard for closer relations. But Nehru then, as Indian esrablishment now, wanted to ride the high horse if miral superiority against the the colonialist West. Ironically, Nehru ended up in the embrace of hard imperialist USSR. Until now, the US is still courting India...

As to India becoming capiralist and the US becoming socialist, it's a matter of perception. Would you consider Finland a xapitalist or socialist country (and the US is leagues away from Finland)? But you don't have to answer thus OT question.
obviously your history is wrong.

US had no role in Indian independence.

Indian independence was in 1947, SEATO pact was signed in 1954 and CENTO pact was signed in 1955.

set aside your historical confirmation bias for a moment and think. considering pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1947, would India align with US after them making a security pact with rival Pakistan? does that sound logical to you?
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
32,011
Likes
148,467
Country flag
I'm surprised you don't know role of the Americans in Indian independence. There's so much material on this topic.

The USSR could not have pressured UK to grant India independence. The most effective pressure came from UK's principal ally, the US, and Labour Party.
Murican bleeding hearts in murican society is not same as US Gov policy. murican bleeding hearts were vocal during events preceding 1971 war too, that didn’t stop US Gov from sending seventh fleet.

I am not going to spoonfeed you Indian history. either support your assertion with a documented proof, or quit derailing this thread.
 

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
9,925
Likes
60,329
Country flag
I'm surprised you don't know role of the Americans in Indian independence. There's so much material on this topic.

The USSR could not have pressured UK to grant India independence. The most effective pressure came from UK's principal ally, the US, and Labour Party.
1633087489010.png
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top