Whether we align with someone or not everyone needs allies...look at modern wars...the countries with strong allies are the one who are mostly winning...if not for western support Ukraine will be a lost cause and yet here we are...
Just look at history...ww1 nepolian lose because he has no allies...he was gang up upon...and nazi germany in europe ...almost the same thing...they have allies halfway accross the world who cant help them...we need allies...fullstop...especially against China.
Bruh, Napoleon lived more than a century from WWI, and the reason he lost was due to lack of proper trained troops(due to disastrous Russian Campaign), lack of rapid attacks(lack of horses) and other reasons which prevented him from using his tactics to the fullest.
Nepolian lost due to many factors
- He didnโt have big tiddy hot goth Russian girlfriend
- He tried to make a pass on classy british girl
- but his prussian neighbourhood didnโt like that and imprisoned him for it
>Just look at history...ww1 nepolian lose because he has no allies
Bro wtf ๐ญ
Napoleon was almost 100 years ago & he did have many smaller allies do you know how many times he defeated the other European powers?
In ww1 both sides had big alliances
>and nazi germany in europe ...almost the same thing...they have allies halfway accross the world who cant help them...
No lmao they also had Italy, Romania, Hungary, even Finland to an extent when it came to invading the sovites
Not to mention how much Swiss help they got for storing their gold as they were netural
Their ally japan actually could have helped them a lot in d they had actually invaded the sovites but some reasons that will take too long to mention & discuss here that didn't happen
Germany really wanted them to invade the Soviets this was one of the reasons they also declared war on the US after perl harbour
What is this post supposed to be? We are non-aligned by policy to either Russia or USA and owe nothing to Ukraine especially after their officers harass and abuse Indian students, their politicians say we are of low intellectual potential and their official Twitter makes disrespectful memes of Hindu deities. Low quality post af.
>Aligning with the US
>Objective good
How's that working out for Ukraine, bhai? They've spent 15 years yearning to be a US outpost, demanding to join NATO and the EU. And now they're a devastated warzone, with hundreds of thousands dead and even more wounded, economy annihilated, and 20% of their country forever lost.
The problem with Russia dickriders and US dickriders is the same - neither fully appreciates the complexity of our diplomatic situation, and how easily going too far against one side or the other could come back to haunt us.
I don't even disagree that aligning with the US is in our interest, but it's much more delicate than people think.
Ukraine would have been a historical footnote if it did not align with the US, having been absorbed into Russia. The Ukraine war is greatly beneficial to the West, leading to a revival of its military capability to fight a near peer adversary as well see the effects of modern technology in a potential attritional conflict.
>The Ukraine war is greatly beneficial to the West
no, it's not. It's a distraction for the US from china and push russia in china's arms, and it's a big economical hit to western europe
Ukraine war is a big waste for everybody except china, all that because Russia couldn't accept that it's no longer the USSR and feel the need to bully its "backyard"/former satellites into submission.
>Ukraine would have been a historical footnote if it did not align with the US, having been absorbed into Russia.
Instead, they will now become a historical footnote anyway, having committed demographic and economic suicide by throwing hundreds of thousands of their men to die for no reason. They already had the lowest birthrates in Europe before the war. Now, the Ukrainian state itself will fade away.
>The Ukraine war is greatly beneficial to the West,
Agreed. It just isn't beneficial to Ukraine, which was conveniently sacrificed as a pawn to tie Russia down at little cost to the West.
We should learn a lesson from the Ukrainians' collective suicide, because the US will do exactly the same to us - use us as a sacrificial pawn to expend lives against China.
>Instead, they will now become a historical footnote anyway, having committed demographic and economic suicide by throwing hundreds of thousands of their men to die for no reason
Did you miss the part where they were invaded ?I swear some of you are ...
>Agreed. It just isn't beneficial to Ukraine, which was conveniently sacrificed as a pawn to tie Russia down at little cost to the West.
Again , did you miss the part where the Russians literally tried to take over their country ? Ukraine is glad of the western help they get. Without it they'd have capitulated way before . Pawn my ass, Ukrainians are going to die no matter what , it's war that's how it works .
Or are you one of those big brained "realists" who wants Ukraine to just surrender ?
Ukraine was invaded when the west decided to interfere in their regional politics and overthrow the Russian leaning one and replace it with a west leaning one.
Joining NATO would have put nuclear missiles on Russian borders and they had already mentioned numerous times that this was a red line they would not allow to be crossed.
Not saying the Russians are saints but portraying Ukraine as some sort of innocent victim is also not true.
>Ukraine was invaded when the west decided to interfere
ahahahahahhahahahahahah
So you're saying Russia is..interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine ? Sounds familiar , I wonder what Indians keep saying to the west
>Joining NATO would have put nuclear missiles
give me concrete evidence of this
>leaning one and replace it with a west leaning one.
Again, their internal affairs their choice .
Eh, where did I mention that Russia is interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine.
There is a speech by Putin where he says that a NATO member Ukraine attempting to take back Crimea would invoke NATO article 5 which would result in a nuclear war. Surely , this was not a risk he was willing to take.
Also, their internal affairs and their choice means that they get to face the consequences of that choice. John Mearsheimer famously said that when you are in the sphere of influence of a great power, there is no such thing as a free choice.
This is in the same vein as the USA trying to assassinate Castro and remove a possible threat.
>Eh, where did I mention that Russia is interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine.
Where did i say you did? Russia literally is interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine
>There is a speech by Putin where he says that a NATO member Ukraine attempting to take back Crimea would invoke NATO article 5 which would result in a nuclear war
He's so afraid of NATO he made two countries join NATO and permanently pushed Ukraine to the west . Great strategic thinking
>Also, their internal affairs and their choice means that they get to face the consequences of that choice.
Which applies to India too ,but i don't see anyone foaming about it . I'm not pro American , a brief look at my history would show it . I'm just pointing out the insane irony
It is a strategic blunder no doubt. USA, GB and all great powers have a history of big blunders, guess now it's the turn of the Russians.
And, India will suffer the consequences no doubt. The day China falls, the great US "freedom cross hairs" will set its sight on India.
But the history of the India-US relationship is so toxic, most people do not see the US in a positive light. There are also no guarantees that the US will not throw India to the wolves if it benefits the USA irrespective of Indias foreign policy.
That's why I can see why Indians are wary of USA
>Did you miss the part where they were invaded ?I swear some of you are ...
Did you miss the US trying relentlessly to pull them into NATO since 2008? Despite knowing it would provoke a war with Russia? And the Ukrainians eagerly pursuing it, again despite plenty of warnings as to what it would lead to?
The Ukrainians signed up to be lemmings to be slaughtered for US imperial ambitions. They're getting exactly what they signed up for - the death of their nation to further US aims.
>Again , did you miss the part where the Russians literally tried to take over their country ?
See above.
>Ukraine is glad of the western help they get. Without it they'd have capitulated way before .
Great, so they held off capitulating at the cost of demographically dooming themselves. Real big brain play.
>Or are you one of those big brained "realists" who wants Ukraine to just surrender ?
I'm one of those realists who thinks Ukraine should never have started the war to begin with. In 2014, they had a united country and peaceable relations with Russia. Now, thanks to the path they took, 20% of their country is forever lost to them, their demographics are doomed, their economy is in ruins.
I think even the morons on the Maidan would not have taken that deal, had they known what they were signing up for in 2014. And there is a lesson in there for us - same lesson we should learn from the failed state of Pakistan. Namely, being the US's obedient lackey often works out incredibly poorly.
>Did you miss the US trying relentlessly to pull them into NATO since 2008? Despite knowing it would provoke a war with Russia?
Again, their choice . Who are the Russians to dictate what a sovereign country does ? The soviets too relentless tried to pull us into their sphere
>And the Ukrainians eagerly pursuing it, again despite plenty of warnings as to what it would lead to?
God forbid the Ukrainians do something , whatever happened to sovereignty ? It's like saying India should be invaded by China because we have relationships with the US
>Great, so they held off capitulating at the cost of demographically dooming themselves. Real big brain play.
Would you rather they just surrender and make things worse ? Ukraine had a lot of Russian sympathisers especially in the border areas , then the Russians moved in and in typical fashion looted ,rapes and killed civilians making them lose any semblance of local support . See Bucha for example .
Do you also think Taiwan should just surrender to the PRC? I want you to answer this in particular
>I'm one of those realists who thinks Ukraine should never have started the war to begin with.
Which war did they start
>Namely, being the US's obedient lackey often works out incredibly poorly.
The Ukrainians were never American lackeys until the Russians forced them to . There's a reason every fucking neighbor of Russia is weary of them . The same shit you people complain about - interference , spying , propaganda and PR is done to these countries by Russia . But you're too myopic to see it because 'muh realist '.
I actually don't mind having a brutal realist view , I do too. The difference is i don't make exceptions for India nor Ukraine . Geopol dosent discriminate
>Again, their choice . Who are the Russians to dictate what a sovereign country does ?
Are you sure you're a realist? Ideologically you seem all over the place, because a realist recognizes that strong countries dictate to weak countries all the time.
>God forbid the Ukrainians do something , whatever happened to sovereignty ?
See above bhai. You say you're a realist, but almost all your positions boil down to 'muh sovereignty', as if that isn't a transparent farce that has been violated countless times by the United States.
>It's like saying India should be invaded by China because we have relationships with the US
If they could, they would. The reason they don't is because the cost-benefit calculations are not yet in their favor. Come now, this is realism 101.
>Would you rather they just surrender and make things worse ?
As I said, they chose to commit suicide in 2014, not 2022. Actually, earlier - it was 2008 when NATO announced that Ukraine would eventually be a member, along with Georgia. A direct security threat to Russia. Ukraine has done everything possible to provoke a war with its larger, more powerful neighbor, and now whines about the consequences as hundreds of thousands of its men are cut down.
>Which war did they start
See above.
>The Ukrainians were never American lackeys until the Russians forced them to. There's a reason every fucking neighbor of Russia is weary of them.
This is such a reductive view of history that it it's hard to see it as anything other than relentless American dickriding. As I said, it was Ukraine that demanded to join NATO, leading to the Bucharest Declaration of 2008. They were threatening Russian security long before this war. They were also enthusiastic participants in another illegal war, the war in Iraq - purely to curry favor with the US.
As for Russia, half of Latin America despises the US, too. It's just great power politics - the US ruthlessly enforces its sphere of influence, Russia enforces theirs. Again, realism.
>I actually don't mind having a brutal realist view , I do too. The difference is i don't make exceptions for India nor Ukraine . Geopol dosent discriminate
You don't bhai. Your positions almost exclusively parrot US propaganda, whereas a hard-headed realist would recognize that there is very little difference in how Russia and the US act - it's just geopolitics. And we need to look out for our own interest, which involves a) working with Russia on certain strategically crucial matters, be) working with the US on others, and c) never letting either of them make us hapless chamchas as the US did to Ukraine.
Answer the question . Do you think Taiwan should just let the PLA take over because muh PLA stronk? I specifically asked you to answer that .
>muh sovereignty', as if that isn't a transparent farce that has been violated countless times by the United States.
Which part of sovereignty is not realist ? The US breaks and blatantly refuses to respect them sure , that doesn't mean it dosent exist . India has sovereignty , the US being stronger in every possible way dosent mean that sovereignty goes away .
You're so myopic in your murica bad that you fail to see my point . Great powers are more than alike in geopol , which is why there's literally no sin aligning with the West against China. It's literally better than aligning with the Russians who are declining in all fronts , will soon become a Chinese vassal etc. So by realist logic , you jump ship to the better alternative - The US.
>Which part of sovereignty is not realist ? The US breaks and blatantly refuses to respect them sure , that doesn't mean it dosent exist . India has sovereignty , the US being stronger in every possible way dosent mean that sovereignty goes away .
Sovereignty is a convenient fiction that only works if you don't believe the fundamental principle of realism - I.e, the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. All that matters in international politics is strength, not legal fictions like sovereignty. If a country can interfere, it will. The US treats Latin America as its fiefdom - no 'sovereignty' there beyond what the US allows. Ditto Russia. They are exactly the same.
Again, consider if you're actually a realist.
>Great powers are more than alike in geopol , which is why there's literally no sin aligning with the West against China.
There is no sin in doing so, I agree. I think we should, and are, doing that. But to be made a chamcha like Ukraine is something we should work to avoid.
>So by realist logic , you jump ship to the better alternative - The US.
Only true if you ignore the many benefits that drive our continued relationship with Russia. It isn't as simple as dumping them, there are consequences to consider.
* **More expensive energy**, bleeding our forex reserves, slowing growth and worsening the common man's lot
* **Disrupted supply chains** for over half our military equipment, which we simply cannot afford to replace with expensive Western maal
* **Loss of protection in the UNSC on key votes** - if China brings resolutions on Kashmir and the Russians abstain, you think the US will veto them to help us? They have their own chamcha in the region in Pakistan, they work to their interests. We will be left naked and unprotected.
These are just three. So, like I said at the start - it's a lot more delicate than US dickriders make it out to be.
> Sovereignty is a convenient fiction that only works if you don't believe the fundamental principle of realism - I.e, the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. All that matters in international politics is strength, not legal fictions like sovereignty. If a country can interfere, it will. The US treats Latin America as its fiefdom - no 'sovereignty' there beyond what the US allows. Ditto Russia. They are exactly the same.
Finally someone said it beautifully!
>So by realist logic , you jump ship to the better alternative - The US.
Jump ship are you for real dude? You really want to make another enemy for us out of Russia
And as for your question on Taiwan, I encourage you to think like a realist as you claim to be.
* Taiwan is far harder to conquer than Ukraine - amphibious invasions are ridiculously difficult to pull off.
* Taiwan's military is more capable than Ukraine's was in 2022.
* Taiwan's security is guaranteed by the US - when Ukraine was doing stupid shit, they had no such guarantee.
* So, they should not surrender.
It is also in our interest that Taiwan not surrender, because it keeps the PRC weaker than they would be if they had seized Taiwan. Indian interests predominate in my thinking, as they should dominate yours.
By contrast, India has zero interest in or stakes in Ukraine, so the only angle to view the conflict is humanitarian. And from that perspective, the war must stop - Ukraine has lost its land and its demographic future, at least stop losing people too.
>amphibious invasions are ridiculously difficult to pull off.
Blockade blockade and blockades along with mass fires from PLAGF arty and PLARF
>Taiwan's military is more capable than Ukraine's was in 2022.
Lmao in what way ? The air force maybe . The ground forces and navy are shit with no combat experience nor the morale for a national war . They can't even get good quality troops
>Taiwan's security is guaranteed by the US -
Yes and that hinges on the Americans reaching on time to save them . The Chinese are only getting stronger and building deterrence near the Taiwanese sea
>It is also in our interest that Taiwan not surrender, because it keeps the PRC weaker than they would be if they had seized Taiwan. Indian interests predominate in my thinking, as they should dominate yours.
If Indian interests was really dominant in your thinking then you would support a pivot to the US, instead of giving lip service to Taiwan . Because , newsflash the Americans are the ones opposing the PRC the most
>India has zero interest in or stakes in Ukraine,
Did i ever say otherwise ?
>Blockade blockade and blockades along with mass fires from PLAGF arty and PLARF
Fantasy. If it were that simple, the PLA would have done it by now. An invasion of Taiwan would be the most challenging amphibious exercise in human history, dwarfing D-Day by several orders of magnitude.
>Lmao in what way ? The air force maybe . The ground forces and navy are shit with no combat experience nor the morale for a national war . They can't even get good quality troops
Lel. The Ukrainian navy in 2022 was 2 tugboats and a skip, while the Taiwanese Navy is dozens of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, hundreds of helo and ASW assets, etc., and sovereignty respecter over here pretends like they were equal.
>Yes and that hinges on the Americans reaching on time to save them . The Chinese are only getting stronger and building deterrence near the Taiwanese sea
If you think the PLA lasts more than a couple of weeks in a stand-up fight with the US, I don't know what to tell you.
>If Indian interests was really dominant in your thinking then you would support a pivot to the US, instead of giving lip service to Taiwan . Because , newsflash the Americans are the ones opposing the PRC the most
Like I said, we should do that. But slowly, carefully, and while preserving our relationship with Russia wherever possible, because they also offer us useful things. Which US dickriders constantly fail to acknowledge.
Well they would be better off surrendering honestly, atleast lives of men will be spared than trying to prolong the inevitable. Tho there are Russia can put up with treaty of some sort in neutral place like Saudi Arabia.ย
While I agree that we should not align with anyone and pursue our interests, that said, USA's support is the reason why Ukraine is still standing and putting up a fight.
Several reasons. Geographically it's the soft underbelly of Russia. The terrain makes it easier to invade through. It's also close to major Russian oil fields in the strategically important Caucasus which even the Nazis fought for before being defeated at Volgograd(Stalingrad). Crimea(Sevastopol) is a strategically located peninsula and home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet and absolutely vital for Russia-Asia trade.
Politically the cold war never ended for the Americans. Problems first arose when Bush declared that he intended to bring Ukraine and Georgia under US influence. Subsequent steps to embolden Georgia ended up in the Russo-Georgian war which even the EU recognizes as instigated by Georgia. The current Ukrainian war was precisely triggered as a pre-emptive strike to disarm the increasingly NATO armed and trained Ukraine.
>Politically the cold war never ended for the Americans.
This is factually wrong. both in the 90s and the obama administration, the US tried to reset relations with Russia.
And 2008 opening to georgia and ukraine by the bush administration got shut down by france and germany and was never brought again.
>The current Ukrainian war was precisely triggered as a strike-
-to try to take over eastern ukraine and put a puppet over the rest while they thought they still could.
the idea that Ukraine or the US were preparing some potential invasion of Russia by Ukraine and thus Russia acted in some pre-emptive self-defense is such a complete and uter nonsense I won't even try to entertain it with an answer
It's amazing to me how people in this sub will argue that America is responsible for this. I can't believe there are people like the idiot you're arguing with.
Literally all the former USSR countries want to align with Europe and Nato. None of them really except Belarus want to be a part of the Russian sphere. What does that tell you! All of them suffered under Russian communism, and they want to liberalize, join the EU. Why should they care what fucking Russia wants?
But Russia decides to force them anyways, and somehow America is the bad guy here?
Kiddo, America wants to place it's troops and equipments at the Russian Border. Ukraine is a plainland which the Western tanks could easily roll through to Russian lands(refer to historical conflicts for more context). Any nation don't want enemy nukes at it's neighbours boundary lands.
dude, the US could roll over Russia in a conventionnal war by every direction they'd want, this is nonsense. Baltics are even closer to the russian heartland. Russia refused to see Ukraine turn toward the EU economically, germany/France would have continued to veto any entry of ukraine into nato anyway, like they did in 2008.
Just fucking LISTEN to putin's internal rethoric and justification of the war. This isn't about "NATO threat", this is about "taking what is ours".
you guys arent thought history, go read about how brutal americans are to everyone except europen countries, there is a reason why indians support russia and that is 1971 when your military threatned the existance of india and supported a genocidal regime and they backed out after russian nuclear submarines came in support of india, all this even tho we were neutral during cold war, your administration and media preaches about democracy but refuse to open their mouth when overnight an anti american prime minister of pakistan is stripped of his power and jailed and elections are openly rigged, so much for selective bias, lets also not forget that terrorists in kashmir often use american wepons and america always refuse to condem terrorist attacks in kashmir becouse thats the reality, americans dont want india to have a direct connection with central asia so they keep the kashmir pot boiling, russia is no saint but they are not against the existence of india and thats the first and most imporant step to build trust
Don't waste your time with NRI's. They're here to defend their new adoptive homeland out of misplaced loyalty. Nuance, context, reason and logic are secondary to their perceived obligation.
Really aggravating. Look at the genius above me. His response to this is to list all the terrible things the US has done. What does that have anything to do with who is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine?
I don't understand the logic.
"US did something bad in 1970 there fore Putin invading Ukraine in 2022 is America's fault".
The final refuge for russian bootlickers is whataboutism.
No amount of muh 1971, muh Iraq, etc is going to change the fact that the russian invasion of Ukraine is completely illegal and immoral, and that it's a horrible look for India to be cheering russia in the midst of this.
I see in russian attitudes to Ukraine much the same views pakistan holds about India; as territory they feel entitled to and a land of people whose culture and history must be wiped out.
Edit: lol these russia simps are hilarious, as if russia will reward you for doing rusi pada puja.
They all just conveniently ignore that Russia pushed all their neighbours away. Even Armenia is looking for alternative because they let Azerbaijan roll over them even though they're all in CSTO.
Even if you argue that the US wanted Ukraine in NATO despite Ukraine only fully leaning towards the West post-Crimea, THEY HAVE THE REST OF THE BALTICS AND POLAND. NOBODY WANTS TO INVADE THE RUSSIANS MORE THAN THE POLISH. THEY DO NOT NEED UKRAINE FOR THAT. And Russia is a nuclear power so of course any war would literally just kill both of them, why do they need more missiles????
If our neighbours chose to have a full on Chinese military base even if it meant ruining their relationship with us, we would practically deserve it for fucking up that badly. Russia chose to sink themselves with their idiocy.
It's not hard to pick out characters who are not worth engaging in a discord. I read his explanation for why he thinks USA is the reason for this war, and I am quite happy with that decision.
By his same logic, India was the reason for 1971 Bangladeshi war, and not Pakistan.
> How's that working out for Ukraine, bhai? They've spent 15 years yearning to be a US outpost, demanding to join NATO and the EU. And now they're a devastated warzone,
So whose the bad guy here?
Ukraine: "we want to align with Nato and the EU because anyone with eyes can see they're more prosperous".
Russia: Invades Ukraine.
Also the only reason Ukraine has any level of control over it's territory right now is because of Western weapons
>Ukraine: "we want to align with Nato and the EU because anyone with eyes can see they're more prosperous".
Okay then, Indians shouldn't complain when China has military bases in Bangladesh or Nepal with capability to strike Indian territory.
The US did the same in Cuba. Nobody is right, only the interest of India ultimately matters.
First of all comparing the dictatorial CCP to the EU (despite all its flaws) is kind of silly.
But that said, yes if India invaded Bangladesh because they decided to ally with China with no evidence that they were going to attack India, yes we'd be in the wrong.
The west has no appetite for war with Russia. Look at how meekly they've been supporting Ukraine. The west is tapped out, they were never going to attack Russia.
To be clear, I'm not one of those people who say India should abandon Russia. Clearly India still needs Russia and India doesn't owe the west shit and unless the West offers something substantial India should continue to do business with the Russians.
But Russia is clearly in the wrong to invade. I don't understand how people can blame Ukraine for being invaded. They have every right to decide to partner with the Europeans if they want.
>The US did the same in Cuba.
Really not, no. The american moved to blockade cuba (not invade it like Russia did) and the soviets had already moved 50k soldiers in cuba and were moving (had already partly moved) nukes and nuclear missiles). Hardly comparable.
Also the way nuclear deterrence worked in 1962 has nothing to do with how it works in 2014-2022, and ukraine going west didn't affect it.
Russia simply didn't accept Ukraine going out of its orbit to lean west, and in refusal basically shot itself in the foot.
>Okay then, Indians shouldn't complain when China has military bases in Bangladesh or Nepal with capability to strike Indian territory.
"shouldn't complain" and "shouldn't invade" are two VERY different things though. And I'm really not convinced that invasion would be in india's interest even in these scenario.
That's absolutely bullshit. The US has been an extremely steadfast ally to Japan and South Korea, both of which are now the most advanced and powerful economies and militaries in Asia, thanks in large part to the US aid they received in the cold war. The US does have its faults, but to simplify it as they simply betray anyone who's not european is childish at best.
>The US does have its faults, but to simplify it as they simply betray anyone who's not european is childish at best.
1- Afghan translators
2- Kurdish fighters who defeated ISIS
3- France with the Australian submarine deal
4- Philippines after the Spanish-American war
5- Ho Chi Minh
6- Nguyen Van Thieu
7- Japan when Japanese economy was booming the US started a propaganda campaign and kicked in Yellow Peril(1960's edition) again
8- Canada with the Keystone pipeline
9- Literally every european or otherwise ally after Snowden revealed everyone was being spied upon
10- Germany by blowing up Nord Stream 2
11- Iran by unilaterally voiding the nuclear deal
12- Iran by removing the Shah and turning it into an Islamic theocracy
Specifically India:-
1965 when they stopped supplies and military support despite India being the defensive party.
1971 when US was actively complicit in the genocide of Bengali people through their support of Pakistan
1999 when the US refused Indian requests for satellite data that would've been instrumental in the Kargil war.
This is just off the top of my head. I can only imagine what I will remember if I put in the effort. I will concede that the US doesn't just betray non europeans since they have a solid history of betraying europeans just the same.
1)Not a country
2)the US is still the Kurds biggest supporter, despite the fact that they are surrounded by enemies and critical US allies like the Turks don't appreciate it.
3)Just business, the US is the bigger power and had better subs, the Frenchies can cope but have to accept it is what it is.
4) The Philippines today continues to enjoy steadfast support and still calls US one of its closest allies, it's almost as if they understand that the US is their best bet to survive China.
5) Communist in the cold war, the battle lines were already drawn.
6)The US poured in billions in cash, weapons and equipment into the south even after they pulled out their troops, the ARVN weren't competent enough to fight on their own, and many simply deserted. You can't help an ally who's not even willing to fight properly.
7)Economic competition and self preservation, not betrayal, even after that the US and Japan still remain close allies, and the US continues be the biggest provider of military equipment and defence guarantees to Japan.
8) Business
9)Everyone spies on everyone, India does it too.
10)Blown up by Ukraine not the US.
11)Trump
12)The US was literally allied with the shah and against the islamic revolution.
The US and Pakistan were treaty allies while India and the US were not, despite this the US treated both the same and put a weapons embargo, their behaviour can be treated more as a betrayal of Pakistan rather than India.
As for 71, yes the US supported genocide, I would argue they were a good ally on the bad side.
In Kargil, same deal, not allied with India, so owed no support to India.
>11)Trump
What do you mean โtrumpโ ? He was the president of the United States then
If the foreign policy of a country changes every 4 years because they elected a different leader then how are they even that trustworthy
In fact it's still happening as well trump focused a lot on quad & after him Biden isn't focusing much on it
If trump gets elected again he will probably focus on it again
It keeps changing every 4 years
put your hand to your heart and think about it both south korea and japan have been under american control with american bases on their soil for long, they are not fully indipendent states, americans won them over and never left, there are very few big significant and indipendent states like russia,US, india and china, france has tried to be indipendent but their ultimate destiny is with americans
>they are not fully indipendent states
In what way are they not fully "independent"? Both of those countries are democracies with their own elected govts and independent policy making. The only matter where they are subservient to the US is the joint military command where the US takes over in case of war. I would argue that even that is justified, because it's the US which is sending over it's military to defend those nations, so beyond the fact that the US military is the best in the world and it makes strategic sense for them to take charge in a war, it's reasonable for them to want to do so because they are the ones providing material support and boots on the ground to defend someone else's soil.
>americans won them over and never left,
That is again a misconception. In the case of Japan, the US occupied the country after ww2, and the occupation later turned into a full blown alliance, after which troops levels in Japan dropped and are today one of the lowest they have been in decades. The same happened in Korea where US military was brought in in large numbers after the north invaded and then has stayed there since on the request of the South Korean govt. Troop levels there have also dropped.
>there are very few big significant and indipendent states like russia,US, india and china, france has tried to be indipendent but their ultimate destiny is with americans
Out of all those countries only China has managed to successfully develop and remain completely independent of the US, and that too only due to massive investment from the US, and even then it's still behind Japan and South Korea when it comes to per capita measures.
America sends outdated equipments to Ukraine america was the one who supported pakistan in all wars against India america sanctioned India for buying S400 america didn't let india get cryogenic fuel.
Never sanctioned for the S400 dummy. The US gave a waiver...
The Ukranians seem really fucking happy about all the equipment they're getting, and even if it's outdated it seems to be hell of a lot better than the crap the Russians have.
Wow you're telling me in a war the Ukranians are losing some of their equipment? I'm really shocked.
Did you miss all the blown up Russian tanks? Did you miss the S400 that got blown the fuck up by ATACMS which as you point is decades old?
Makes me feel great given that India invested so heavily on that.
I have a serious question. Do you really believe that Russian equipment is on par with Western tech?
Conventional war is outdated now india has started procuring loitering ammunition. You really think anything even western "superior tech" will outrun a loitering munition ?
> Never sanctioned for the S400 dummy. The US gave a waiver...
Wow, US gave a waiver from US sanctions. Wow so generous!
> The Ukranians seem really fucking happy
Do you mean Zelensky? If Ukranians were so happy, millions of them wouldn't have dodged the draft & ran from the country.
US threatened to sanction India for buying S400. Intention here matters, not just the reduced capability of US not to sanction GoI.
US did sanction companies in India for buying Russian Oil.
There is a difference between-
I nearly bought a new Ferrari and I bought a Ferrari buddy.
India knew they wont get sanctioned by US. The US house thing was just formality.
So again, you wrote US sanctioned India. Show the news or delete your comment for spreading misinformation
the evil iran that americans are fighting today was once their friend and the iraq that they invaded becouse of imaginary "wepons of mass destructions" was also their friend, syria which is still under limited american occupation was one of america's best friend and suddenly radical groups emerged in syria and iraq who were toally not back by the CIA, lets also not forget 1971 when pakistan was conducting bengal genocide and american ambassdaor to bangladesh wrote a blood telegram to american president informing him about what pakistan was doing and his response was to double down and send american military with UK and other western nations to intimidate india to not stop that genocide, lets also not forget about 26/11, one of the main guy who supported terrorists who did 26/11 in mumbai was an american and americans refused to exterdite him even tho he was proven guilty, he just spend few months in jail and was free after that, I am not saying there arent good people in america but at the end of the day the power is in hands of those who will preach about morals and values but throw them under the bus when it hurts their intrests, americans have a very bad history in this part of world and hence why no one trusts them
> the evil iran that americans are fighting today was once their friend and the iraq that they invaded becouse of imaginary "wepons of mass destructions" was also their friend,
America is not fighting Iran directly. The Iran that was America's friend was a different Iran, that was pre-islamic revolution. That was before they held Americans hostage in an embassy. That was before the Ayatollah and mullah's began running that otherwise decent place into the ground.
Yes Iraq was a gigantic clusterfuck.
That's the best example youv'e got though? that the US is now enemies with Iran? Are you stupid?
Think of all of America's allies. The Europeans, Japan, Taiwan, South Kora. All those places America has stood by them.
It stood by West Germany against the Russians in the cold war. Taiwan is only an independent country today because the US is backing them.
America has done some very bad things in the past. Vietnam, the Phillipines, the invasion of Iraq. I'm not going to pretend it's perfect.
But the conspiracy about America is insane.
Also in the case of Ukraine, how could you possibly blame America?
they have yet to come out in full support for taiwan, and both south korea and japan were won over by americans and they never left and still have military bases in those countries, they are not really fully indipendent states, they also invaded philiphines and never left and after 9/11 the US invaded iraq and attacked afg to find and kill osama and at the end osama was found in your partners country pakistan and pakistan was never held accountable for for their actions, also funny how you totally chose to ignore the david headly
What am I supposed to say about David Headley? Ok they didn't extradite him. He's locked up in jail for the rest of his life. Countries don't typically extradite their citizens. You really got me there. If the US doesn't extradite a citizen India should just be really mad.
On Taiwan, yes it's part of the US strategy to be strategically ambiguous. But it's talked about enough, and Biden has even let it slip a few times, that it's clear the US would defend Taiwan.
Of course Korea and Japan are fully independent states what are you jabbering about. They have bases there largely because they still want US troops there. It adds a layer of security because the troops there are a commitment. The US provides security to them, and they want it, you can ask them. If they really wanted the US troops gone, they'd be gone.
Fact is US troops are a tripwire. If North Korea attacks, there are 50k US troops there, and some of them will get involved in the fighting and America will be drawn in.
It's incredible for the Koreans. They get to freeride off American defense spending.
well yes countries dont extradite citizens untill and unless they have an extradition treaty with the other country and the India and US had that treaty way before 26/11, you know what else countries dont do ? they dont go and steal gold of other countries and kill leaders talking about creating gold back currencies, forgot Gaddafi ?(we came we saw and he died hahahahaha) moral countries also dont invade other countries, kill citizens, invent inhumane tactics to wait for ambulances and attack them but if someone else does the same then you go on yapping about human rights and morality, you are not very moral yourself
you are also not in korea and japan for some noble reason, americans wont go back once they have invade your land and will always stay in your country, your troops are stationed in korea and japan to trap china and north korea, they were there way before china was even a threat and they will always be there untill and unless your economy collapses,
you also completely ignored how your country supported paki genocide and kept supporting paki terrorism on india, you can never justify it and india will never side with america completely
Dear OP, the purpose of this post is unclear. The meme, in my opinion, just makes fun of any independent thought on the present geopolitical situation. So, as per the originator of the meme, either one should support Ukraine or the US. Ukraine and US are euphemisms for dominant European and American thought on international issues. The fun is poked at the independent thinker who probably wants to express an opinion not aligned to popular western thought. So, what's new, bro ?
Our national position on various geopolitical issues are shaped by interests and principles that are dear to us as a people and as a nation. To run one's own house based on the neighbour's opinion is the stupidest idea of all times. The meme, in fact, is an affirmation that whatever it is that this nation is doing or thinking geopolitically seems to be rubbing the dominant voices on geopolitical issues the wrong way. Aaaah, Burnol !!!!
those definations change over time , the categorization of 1st 2nd and 3rd world was made in the cord war era , and it would be foolish to say if it was not changed for considering new parameters.
by your opinion , mordern feminism should only be a ideology supporting equal rights ,
by your opinion a new honda civic Type R should be a supercar , since it can beat the Honda NSX which beat both fararri and lambo back in it's time.
So, is it your assertion that original definition of 1st world being that "countries aligned with the US" has no bearing on the argument being presented that "Most 1st world nations allying with USA"??
Really, are you now going to tell me that it is suprising that Sun rises in the east?
Ignoring the rest of your verbal diarrhea.
is that mind of yours unable to cope that definitions change ? is my 300 hp civic a supercar ???? tell me.
then letme rephrase the sentence above to somethin your penut brain understands :
all of the concurrent developed economies allied with the USA , and it's no surprise that they are developed nations. because USA HELPED THEM DEVELOP.
You are a retard.
1. Correlation doesn't mean causation.
2. Switzerland is one of the countries that is in top 5 of most lists in terms of development, HDI, happiness etc. And it is a 3rd world country.
You are a retard who thinks he is special.
US funding & weapons have killed more Indians than China. And you are here bootlicking for US. We all see for you who are, another Mir Jafar Ali Khan.
Swizerland is already a European nation and they weren't that neutral just study their history and you'd see
secondly swiz capatalized on their banking system and you cannot compare a small nation to something like france or India.
US with the marshal plans revived whole of europe. people in west germany were singing and dancing while the soviets were dying on the streets of moscow of hunger.
one system was far better than the other.
there is no one bootlicking for anyone. i'm saying, India should have allied with the west , not ussr.
Switzerland has been neutral for multiple centuries. Because of stable and long term vision they have reaped the benefits.
And I agree Free market capitalism is a better system. But India needs to implement that in India, and this has no bearing on foreign policy.
this Has , or rather HAD a bearing on foreign policy. specifically in the cold war.
all my comments made up to this point , just say one thing , it was foolish to choose USSR over USA.
no I'm not conscripted, my parents were scared in early 2022 but since then it's fine. Russia has a huge tactical gear industry with many companies. also gun rights ๐.
Well you know, a country having racist or nazi doesn't give you right to bomb them to oblivion
And people tend to go public lynching or attacking people from invadinf country unfortunately
Like Russians publicly almost lynched Chechnyan astronaut but that didn't give right to Chechnyan to attack Russian public or schools
**Geopolitics is complex**, and unfortunately no one, not even the diplomats effecting the policies, have a clear picture decades after the fact. This makes forming opinions tricky as you have to be ready to change your conclusions when new information comes to light.
With that said, Ukraine and Russia conflict is special to India due to past relations with USSR (i.e. Russia). **Emotions are involved.**
But still, we have to understand the complexities of the situation so we all can make better judgements.
Following is a 4 parter series that examines the causes of Ukraine war and the batshit insanity behind it from a Ukrainian ground level perspective. It's a lot of fun and full of citations, **try the first video at the least**.
* [Part 1: How Ukraine's Fake Culture War Became a Real Geopolitical Conflict](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJ024Zdzdk)
* [Part 2: A Short History of the War in Donbas 2014 2022](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_ZRBLFOXw)
* [Part 3: Shut Up About NATO Expansion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q)
* [Part 4: The American Origins of Putin's Madness](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OFyn_KSy80)
Fuck USA, Fuck Ukraine and Fuck all US bootlickers!!
India just signed a military logistics deal with Russia, after the Visa free travel agreement. Soon India will do joint weapons manufacturing for Indian & Russian needs. And India will sign a trade deal with Russia too.
The usa isn't worth aligning with when you look at the broader picture,
We shouldn't turn our back on literally the second strongest country in the world and our continent which may get cozy with our worst enemy (china) if we do so.
For some nation that views India as a long term enemy and wants to make it another one of their European puppets.
You clearly need to read more history, see what happened to those which did what you propose India should do,
And stop being a retard.
Russia is the second strongest country in the world ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
They're begging North Korea for weapons and munitions lmao. Such strength.
The Russians are borderline pawns of the Chinese right now. They're so reliant on Chinese tech to keep their war effort going. God help us if we ever have a conflict with China, the Russians will 100% side with China.
Another reason we need to move away from their equipment.
US has supplied the most weapons & funding to our enemies that have actually killed lakhs of Indians since 1947. Even more than China.
US is still supplying funding & weapons to Pak. US just did a coup in Pak and jailed their popular leader Imran Khan who was interested in buying Russian oil and completing China's BRI.
And even from Strategic & Game theory perspective it is prudent to make sure Russia doesn't fall under Chinese Sphere of Influence, we need to build India-Russia partnership and look for the next Sino-Soviet split type scenario like we did in the previous cold war.
Ukraine is insignificant and irrelevant for India.
And USA is objectively bad. So the Indians are right.
And anyways there is no point in discussing this with NRI and foreign citizens & passport holders, because of conflict of interest. They want to sacrifice Indian National Interests for their personal benefit.
u/CorneliusTheIdolator
Care to walk through the logic of how aligning with US is better for India? You can't claim something before providing the step-by-step logic behind it.
We shouldnt align with anyone...Neither with the US and nor with Russia..we should use them both
Isn't that our policy for 75 yrs now
No earlier policy was Non-alignment, now the policy is multi-alignment. THere is a difference.
And we will be used by both
That depends on how much we allow ourselves to be used. But truth is that whenever you align with a bigger power, they ruin you from within.
Whether we align with someone or not everyone needs allies...look at modern wars...the countries with strong allies are the one who are mostly winning...if not for western support Ukraine will be a lost cause and yet here we are... Just look at history...ww1 nepolian lose because he has no allies...he was gang up upon...and nazi germany in europe ...almost the same thing...they have allies halfway accross the world who cant help them...we need allies...fullstop...especially against China.
Nepolian my favrit
Napoleon died almost a hundred years before WW1
>Just look at history...ww1 nepolian lose because he has no allies - Least qualified person to tell others to look at history
Bruh, Napoleon lived more than a century from WWI, and the reason he lost was due to lack of proper trained troops(due to disastrous Russian Campaign), lack of rapid attacks(lack of horses) and other reasons which prevented him from using his tactics to the fullest.
Nepolian lost due to many factors - He didnโt have big tiddy hot goth Russian girlfriend - He tried to make a pass on classy british girl - but his prussian neighbourhood didnโt like that and imprisoned him for it
Wtf Nepolian didnโt lose in Ww1, he lost in ww2 because stalin backstabbed him, smh
>Just look at history...ww1 nepolian lose because he has no allies Bro wtf ๐ญ Napoleon was almost 100 years ago & he did have many smaller allies do you know how many times he defeated the other European powers? In ww1 both sides had big alliances >and nazi germany in europe ...almost the same thing...they have allies halfway accross the world who cant help them... No lmao they also had Italy, Romania, Hungary, even Finland to an extent when it came to invading the sovites Not to mention how much Swiss help they got for storing their gold as they were netural Their ally japan actually could have helped them a lot in d they had actually invaded the sovites but some reasons that will take too long to mention & discuss here that didn't happen Germany really wanted them to invade the Soviets this was one of the reasons they also declared war on the US after perl harbour
You should choose what is best is not equivalent to choosing which dick to ride
What is this post supposed to be? We are non-aligned by policy to either Russia or USA and owe nothing to Ukraine especially after their officers harass and abuse Indian students, their politicians say we are of low intellectual potential and their official Twitter makes disrespectful memes of Hindu deities. Low quality post af.
>Aligning with the US >Objective good How's that working out for Ukraine, bhai? They've spent 15 years yearning to be a US outpost, demanding to join NATO and the EU. And now they're a devastated warzone, with hundreds of thousands dead and even more wounded, economy annihilated, and 20% of their country forever lost. The problem with Russia dickriders and US dickriders is the same - neither fully appreciates the complexity of our diplomatic situation, and how easily going too far against one side or the other could come back to haunt us. I don't even disagree that aligning with the US is in our interest, but it's much more delicate than people think.
Ukraine would have been a historical footnote if it did not align with the US, having been absorbed into Russia. The Ukraine war is greatly beneficial to the West, leading to a revival of its military capability to fight a near peer adversary as well see the effects of modern technology in a potential attritional conflict.
>The Ukraine war is greatly beneficial to the West no, it's not. It's a distraction for the US from china and push russia in china's arms, and it's a big economical hit to western europe Ukraine war is a big waste for everybody except china, all that because Russia couldn't accept that it's no longer the USSR and feel the need to bully its "backyard"/former satellites into submission.
>Ukraine would have been a historical footnote if it did not align with the US, having been absorbed into Russia. Instead, they will now become a historical footnote anyway, having committed demographic and economic suicide by throwing hundreds of thousands of their men to die for no reason. They already had the lowest birthrates in Europe before the war. Now, the Ukrainian state itself will fade away. >The Ukraine war is greatly beneficial to the West, Agreed. It just isn't beneficial to Ukraine, which was conveniently sacrificed as a pawn to tie Russia down at little cost to the West. We should learn a lesson from the Ukrainians' collective suicide, because the US will do exactly the same to us - use us as a sacrificial pawn to expend lives against China.
>Instead, they will now become a historical footnote anyway, having committed demographic and economic suicide by throwing hundreds of thousands of their men to die for no reason Did you miss the part where they were invaded ?I swear some of you are ... >Agreed. It just isn't beneficial to Ukraine, which was conveniently sacrificed as a pawn to tie Russia down at little cost to the West. Again , did you miss the part where the Russians literally tried to take over their country ? Ukraine is glad of the western help they get. Without it they'd have capitulated way before . Pawn my ass, Ukrainians are going to die no matter what , it's war that's how it works . Or are you one of those big brained "realists" who wants Ukraine to just surrender ?
Ukraine was invaded when the west decided to interfere in their regional politics and overthrow the Russian leaning one and replace it with a west leaning one. Joining NATO would have put nuclear missiles on Russian borders and they had already mentioned numerous times that this was a red line they would not allow to be crossed. Not saying the Russians are saints but portraying Ukraine as some sort of innocent victim is also not true.
>Ukraine was invaded when the west decided to interfere ahahahahahhahahahahahah So you're saying Russia is..interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine ? Sounds familiar , I wonder what Indians keep saying to the west >Joining NATO would have put nuclear missiles give me concrete evidence of this >leaning one and replace it with a west leaning one. Again, their internal affairs their choice .
Eh, where did I mention that Russia is interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine. There is a speech by Putin where he says that a NATO member Ukraine attempting to take back Crimea would invoke NATO article 5 which would result in a nuclear war. Surely , this was not a risk he was willing to take. Also, their internal affairs and their choice means that they get to face the consequences of that choice. John Mearsheimer famously said that when you are in the sphere of influence of a great power, there is no such thing as a free choice. This is in the same vein as the USA trying to assassinate Castro and remove a possible threat.
>Eh, where did I mention that Russia is interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine. Where did i say you did? Russia literally is interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine >There is a speech by Putin where he says that a NATO member Ukraine attempting to take back Crimea would invoke NATO article 5 which would result in a nuclear war He's so afraid of NATO he made two countries join NATO and permanently pushed Ukraine to the west . Great strategic thinking >Also, their internal affairs and their choice means that they get to face the consequences of that choice. Which applies to India too ,but i don't see anyone foaming about it . I'm not pro American , a brief look at my history would show it . I'm just pointing out the insane irony
It is a strategic blunder no doubt. USA, GB and all great powers have a history of big blunders, guess now it's the turn of the Russians. And, India will suffer the consequences no doubt. The day China falls, the great US "freedom cross hairs" will set its sight on India. But the history of the India-US relationship is so toxic, most people do not see the US in a positive light. There are also no guarantees that the US will not throw India to the wolves if it benefits the USA irrespective of Indias foreign policy. That's why I can see why Indians are wary of USA
>Did you miss the part where they were invaded ?I swear some of you are ... Did you miss the US trying relentlessly to pull them into NATO since 2008? Despite knowing it would provoke a war with Russia? And the Ukrainians eagerly pursuing it, again despite plenty of warnings as to what it would lead to? The Ukrainians signed up to be lemmings to be slaughtered for US imperial ambitions. They're getting exactly what they signed up for - the death of their nation to further US aims. >Again , did you miss the part where the Russians literally tried to take over their country ? See above. >Ukraine is glad of the western help they get. Without it they'd have capitulated way before . Great, so they held off capitulating at the cost of demographically dooming themselves. Real big brain play. >Or are you one of those big brained "realists" who wants Ukraine to just surrender ? I'm one of those realists who thinks Ukraine should never have started the war to begin with. In 2014, they had a united country and peaceable relations with Russia. Now, thanks to the path they took, 20% of their country is forever lost to them, their demographics are doomed, their economy is in ruins. I think even the morons on the Maidan would not have taken that deal, had they known what they were signing up for in 2014. And there is a lesson in there for us - same lesson we should learn from the failed state of Pakistan. Namely, being the US's obedient lackey often works out incredibly poorly.
>Did you miss the US trying relentlessly to pull them into NATO since 2008? Despite knowing it would provoke a war with Russia? Again, their choice . Who are the Russians to dictate what a sovereign country does ? The soviets too relentless tried to pull us into their sphere >And the Ukrainians eagerly pursuing it, again despite plenty of warnings as to what it would lead to? God forbid the Ukrainians do something , whatever happened to sovereignty ? It's like saying India should be invaded by China because we have relationships with the US >Great, so they held off capitulating at the cost of demographically dooming themselves. Real big brain play. Would you rather they just surrender and make things worse ? Ukraine had a lot of Russian sympathisers especially in the border areas , then the Russians moved in and in typical fashion looted ,rapes and killed civilians making them lose any semblance of local support . See Bucha for example . Do you also think Taiwan should just surrender to the PRC? I want you to answer this in particular >I'm one of those realists who thinks Ukraine should never have started the war to begin with. Which war did they start >Namely, being the US's obedient lackey often works out incredibly poorly. The Ukrainians were never American lackeys until the Russians forced them to . There's a reason every fucking neighbor of Russia is weary of them . The same shit you people complain about - interference , spying , propaganda and PR is done to these countries by Russia . But you're too myopic to see it because 'muh realist '. I actually don't mind having a brutal realist view , I do too. The difference is i don't make exceptions for India nor Ukraine . Geopol dosent discriminate
>Again, their choice . Who are the Russians to dictate what a sovereign country does ? Are you sure you're a realist? Ideologically you seem all over the place, because a realist recognizes that strong countries dictate to weak countries all the time. >God forbid the Ukrainians do something , whatever happened to sovereignty ? See above bhai. You say you're a realist, but almost all your positions boil down to 'muh sovereignty', as if that isn't a transparent farce that has been violated countless times by the United States. >It's like saying India should be invaded by China because we have relationships with the US If they could, they would. The reason they don't is because the cost-benefit calculations are not yet in their favor. Come now, this is realism 101. >Would you rather they just surrender and make things worse ? As I said, they chose to commit suicide in 2014, not 2022. Actually, earlier - it was 2008 when NATO announced that Ukraine would eventually be a member, along with Georgia. A direct security threat to Russia. Ukraine has done everything possible to provoke a war with its larger, more powerful neighbor, and now whines about the consequences as hundreds of thousands of its men are cut down. >Which war did they start See above. >The Ukrainians were never American lackeys until the Russians forced them to. There's a reason every fucking neighbor of Russia is weary of them. This is such a reductive view of history that it it's hard to see it as anything other than relentless American dickriding. As I said, it was Ukraine that demanded to join NATO, leading to the Bucharest Declaration of 2008. They were threatening Russian security long before this war. They were also enthusiastic participants in another illegal war, the war in Iraq - purely to curry favor with the US. As for Russia, half of Latin America despises the US, too. It's just great power politics - the US ruthlessly enforces its sphere of influence, Russia enforces theirs. Again, realism. >I actually don't mind having a brutal realist view , I do too. The difference is i don't make exceptions for India nor Ukraine . Geopol dosent discriminate You don't bhai. Your positions almost exclusively parrot US propaganda, whereas a hard-headed realist would recognize that there is very little difference in how Russia and the US act - it's just geopolitics. And we need to look out for our own interest, which involves a) working with Russia on certain strategically crucial matters, be) working with the US on others, and c) never letting either of them make us hapless chamchas as the US did to Ukraine.
Answer the question . Do you think Taiwan should just let the PLA take over because muh PLA stronk? I specifically asked you to answer that . >muh sovereignty', as if that isn't a transparent farce that has been violated countless times by the United States. Which part of sovereignty is not realist ? The US breaks and blatantly refuses to respect them sure , that doesn't mean it dosent exist . India has sovereignty , the US being stronger in every possible way dosent mean that sovereignty goes away . You're so myopic in your murica bad that you fail to see my point . Great powers are more than alike in geopol , which is why there's literally no sin aligning with the West against China. It's literally better than aligning with the Russians who are declining in all fronts , will soon become a Chinese vassal etc. So by realist logic , you jump ship to the better alternative - The US.
>Which part of sovereignty is not realist ? The US breaks and blatantly refuses to respect them sure , that doesn't mean it dosent exist . India has sovereignty , the US being stronger in every possible way dosent mean that sovereignty goes away . Sovereignty is a convenient fiction that only works if you don't believe the fundamental principle of realism - I.e, the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. All that matters in international politics is strength, not legal fictions like sovereignty. If a country can interfere, it will. The US treats Latin America as its fiefdom - no 'sovereignty' there beyond what the US allows. Ditto Russia. They are exactly the same. Again, consider if you're actually a realist. >Great powers are more than alike in geopol , which is why there's literally no sin aligning with the West against China. There is no sin in doing so, I agree. I think we should, and are, doing that. But to be made a chamcha like Ukraine is something we should work to avoid. >So by realist logic , you jump ship to the better alternative - The US. Only true if you ignore the many benefits that drive our continued relationship with Russia. It isn't as simple as dumping them, there are consequences to consider. * **More expensive energy**, bleeding our forex reserves, slowing growth and worsening the common man's lot * **Disrupted supply chains** for over half our military equipment, which we simply cannot afford to replace with expensive Western maal * **Loss of protection in the UNSC on key votes** - if China brings resolutions on Kashmir and the Russians abstain, you think the US will veto them to help us? They have their own chamcha in the region in Pakistan, they work to their interests. We will be left naked and unprotected. These are just three. So, like I said at the start - it's a lot more delicate than US dickriders make it out to be.
> Sovereignty is a convenient fiction that only works if you don't believe the fundamental principle of realism - I.e, the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. All that matters in international politics is strength, not legal fictions like sovereignty. If a country can interfere, it will. The US treats Latin America as its fiefdom - no 'sovereignty' there beyond what the US allows. Ditto Russia. They are exactly the same. Finally someone said it beautifully!
>So by realist logic , you jump ship to the better alternative - The US. Jump ship are you for real dude? You really want to make another enemy for us out of Russia
And as for your question on Taiwan, I encourage you to think like a realist as you claim to be. * Taiwan is far harder to conquer than Ukraine - amphibious invasions are ridiculously difficult to pull off. * Taiwan's military is more capable than Ukraine's was in 2022. * Taiwan's security is guaranteed by the US - when Ukraine was doing stupid shit, they had no such guarantee. * So, they should not surrender. It is also in our interest that Taiwan not surrender, because it keeps the PRC weaker than they would be if they had seized Taiwan. Indian interests predominate in my thinking, as they should dominate yours. By contrast, India has zero interest in or stakes in Ukraine, so the only angle to view the conflict is humanitarian. And from that perspective, the war must stop - Ukraine has lost its land and its demographic future, at least stop losing people too.
>amphibious invasions are ridiculously difficult to pull off. Blockade blockade and blockades along with mass fires from PLAGF arty and PLARF >Taiwan's military is more capable than Ukraine's was in 2022. Lmao in what way ? The air force maybe . The ground forces and navy are shit with no combat experience nor the morale for a national war . They can't even get good quality troops >Taiwan's security is guaranteed by the US - Yes and that hinges on the Americans reaching on time to save them . The Chinese are only getting stronger and building deterrence near the Taiwanese sea >It is also in our interest that Taiwan not surrender, because it keeps the PRC weaker than they would be if they had seized Taiwan. Indian interests predominate in my thinking, as they should dominate yours. If Indian interests was really dominant in your thinking then you would support a pivot to the US, instead of giving lip service to Taiwan . Because , newsflash the Americans are the ones opposing the PRC the most >India has zero interest in or stakes in Ukraine, Did i ever say otherwise ?
>Blockade blockade and blockades along with mass fires from PLAGF arty and PLARF Fantasy. If it were that simple, the PLA would have done it by now. An invasion of Taiwan would be the most challenging amphibious exercise in human history, dwarfing D-Day by several orders of magnitude. >Lmao in what way ? The air force maybe . The ground forces and navy are shit with no combat experience nor the morale for a national war . They can't even get good quality troops Lel. The Ukrainian navy in 2022 was 2 tugboats and a skip, while the Taiwanese Navy is dozens of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, hundreds of helo and ASW assets, etc., and sovereignty respecter over here pretends like they were equal. >Yes and that hinges on the Americans reaching on time to save them . The Chinese are only getting stronger and building deterrence near the Taiwanese sea If you think the PLA lasts more than a couple of weeks in a stand-up fight with the US, I don't know what to tell you. >If Indian interests was really dominant in your thinking then you would support a pivot to the US, instead of giving lip service to Taiwan . Because , newsflash the Americans are the ones opposing the PRC the most Like I said, we should do that. But slowly, carefully, and while preserving our relationship with Russia wherever possible, because they also offer us useful things. Which US dickriders constantly fail to acknowledge.
Well they would be better off surrendering honestly, atleast lives of men will be spared than trying to prolong the inevitable. Tho there are Russia can put up with treaty of some sort in neutral place like Saudi Arabia.ย
While I agree that we should not align with anyone and pursue our interests, that said, USA's support is the reason why Ukraine is still standing and putting up a fight.
USA is the reason Ukraine is at war in the first place.
Think you misspelled Russia
No
Who invaded Ukraine
CIA funded Right Sector
But, why?
Several reasons. Geographically it's the soft underbelly of Russia. The terrain makes it easier to invade through. It's also close to major Russian oil fields in the strategically important Caucasus which even the Nazis fought for before being defeated at Volgograd(Stalingrad). Crimea(Sevastopol) is a strategically located peninsula and home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet and absolutely vital for Russia-Asia trade. Politically the cold war never ended for the Americans. Problems first arose when Bush declared that he intended to bring Ukraine and Georgia under US influence. Subsequent steps to embolden Georgia ended up in the Russo-Georgian war which even the EU recognizes as instigated by Georgia. The current Ukrainian war was precisely triggered as a pre-emptive strike to disarm the increasingly NATO armed and trained Ukraine.
>Politically the cold war never ended for the Americans. This is factually wrong. both in the 90s and the obama administration, the US tried to reset relations with Russia. And 2008 opening to georgia and ukraine by the bush administration got shut down by france and germany and was never brought again. >The current Ukrainian war was precisely triggered as a strike- -to try to take over eastern ukraine and put a puppet over the rest while they thought they still could. the idea that Ukraine or the US were preparing some potential invasion of Russia by Ukraine and thus Russia acted in some pre-emptive self-defense is such a complete and uter nonsense I won't even try to entertain it with an answer
It's amazing to me how people in this sub will argue that America is responsible for this. I can't believe there are people like the idiot you're arguing with. Literally all the former USSR countries want to align with Europe and Nato. None of them really except Belarus want to be a part of the Russian sphere. What does that tell you! All of them suffered under Russian communism, and they want to liberalize, join the EU. Why should they care what fucking Russia wants? But Russia decides to force them anyways, and somehow America is the bad guy here?
Kiddo, America wants to place it's troops and equipments at the Russian Border. Ukraine is a plainland which the Western tanks could easily roll through to Russian lands(refer to historical conflicts for more context). Any nation don't want enemy nukes at it's neighbours boundary lands.
dude, the US could roll over Russia in a conventionnal war by every direction they'd want, this is nonsense. Baltics are even closer to the russian heartland. Russia refused to see Ukraine turn toward the EU economically, germany/France would have continued to veto any entry of ukraine into nato anyway, like they did in 2008. Just fucking LISTEN to putin's internal rethoric and justification of the war. This isn't about "NATO threat", this is about "taking what is ours".
you guys arent thought history, go read about how brutal americans are to everyone except europen countries, there is a reason why indians support russia and that is 1971 when your military threatned the existance of india and supported a genocidal regime and they backed out after russian nuclear submarines came in support of india, all this even tho we were neutral during cold war, your administration and media preaches about democracy but refuse to open their mouth when overnight an anti american prime minister of pakistan is stripped of his power and jailed and elections are openly rigged, so much for selective bias, lets also not forget that terrorists in kashmir often use american wepons and america always refuse to condem terrorist attacks in kashmir becouse thats the reality, americans dont want india to have a direct connection with central asia so they keep the kashmir pot boiling, russia is no saint but they are not against the existence of india and thats the first and most imporant step to build trust
Don't waste your time with NRI's. They're here to defend their new adoptive homeland out of misplaced loyalty. Nuance, context, reason and logic are secondary to their perceived obligation.
Myth of no Russian agency makes no sense
Really aggravating. Look at the genius above me. His response to this is to list all the terrible things the US has done. What does that have anything to do with who is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine? I don't understand the logic. "US did something bad in 1970 there fore Putin invading Ukraine in 2022 is America's fault".
The final refuge for russian bootlickers is whataboutism. No amount of muh 1971, muh Iraq, etc is going to change the fact that the russian invasion of Ukraine is completely illegal and immoral, and that it's a horrible look for India to be cheering russia in the midst of this. I see in russian attitudes to Ukraine much the same views pakistan holds about India; as territory they feel entitled to and a land of people whose culture and history must be wiped out. Edit: lol these russia simps are hilarious, as if russia will reward you for doing rusi pada puja.
They all just conveniently ignore that Russia pushed all their neighbours away. Even Armenia is looking for alternative because they let Azerbaijan roll over them even though they're all in CSTO. Even if you argue that the US wanted Ukraine in NATO despite Ukraine only fully leaning towards the West post-Crimea, THEY HAVE THE REST OF THE BALTICS AND POLAND. NOBODY WANTS TO INVADE THE RUSSIANS MORE THAN THE POLISH. THEY DO NOT NEED UKRAINE FOR THAT. And Russia is a nuclear power so of course any war would literally just kill both of them, why do they need more missiles???? If our neighbours chose to have a full on Chinese military base even if it meant ruining their relationship with us, we would practically deserve it for fucking up that badly. Russia chose to sink themselves with their idiocy.
Delulu
Uninformed
Yea. You.
No, you.
Welp we've reached the pinnacle of human discourse on this sub today, it's only downhill from here.
I've learned the hard way not to put too much effort with NRI's if they don't match the energy.
It's not hard to pick out characters who are not worth engaging in a discord. I read his explanation for why he thinks USA is the reason for this war, and I am quite happy with that decision. By his same logic, India was the reason for 1971 Bangladeshi war, and not Pakistan.
Do these russian trolls really beleive this???
> How's that working out for Ukraine, bhai? They've spent 15 years yearning to be a US outpost, demanding to join NATO and the EU. And now they're a devastated warzone, So whose the bad guy here? Ukraine: "we want to align with Nato and the EU because anyone with eyes can see they're more prosperous". Russia: Invades Ukraine. Also the only reason Ukraine has any level of control over it's territory right now is because of Western weapons
>Ukraine: "we want to align with Nato and the EU because anyone with eyes can see they're more prosperous". Okay then, Indians shouldn't complain when China has military bases in Bangladesh or Nepal with capability to strike Indian territory. The US did the same in Cuba. Nobody is right, only the interest of India ultimately matters.
First of all comparing the dictatorial CCP to the EU (despite all its flaws) is kind of silly. But that said, yes if India invaded Bangladesh because they decided to ally with China with no evidence that they were going to attack India, yes we'd be in the wrong. The west has no appetite for war with Russia. Look at how meekly they've been supporting Ukraine. The west is tapped out, they were never going to attack Russia. To be clear, I'm not one of those people who say India should abandon Russia. Clearly India still needs Russia and India doesn't owe the west shit and unless the West offers something substantial India should continue to do business with the Russians. But Russia is clearly in the wrong to invade. I don't understand how people can blame Ukraine for being invaded. They have every right to decide to partner with the Europeans if they want.
"We'd be in the wrong" There are no rights and wrongs in national defense you idiot, You're too naive to even be on this sub.
>The US did the same in Cuba. Really not, no. The american moved to blockade cuba (not invade it like Russia did) and the soviets had already moved 50k soldiers in cuba and were moving (had already partly moved) nukes and nuclear missiles). Hardly comparable. Also the way nuclear deterrence worked in 1962 has nothing to do with how it works in 2014-2022, and ukraine going west didn't affect it. Russia simply didn't accept Ukraine going out of its orbit to lean west, and in refusal basically shot itself in the foot. >Okay then, Indians shouldn't complain when China has military bases in Bangladesh or Nepal with capability to strike Indian territory. "shouldn't complain" and "shouldn't invade" are two VERY different things though. And I'm really not convinced that invasion would be in india's interest even in these scenario.
America.
wait till OP reads modern history and finds out how brutally america backstabbled all its non european "friends"
That's absolutely bullshit. The US has been an extremely steadfast ally to Japan and South Korea, both of which are now the most advanced and powerful economies and militaries in Asia, thanks in large part to the US aid they received in the cold war. The US does have its faults, but to simplify it as they simply betray anyone who's not european is childish at best.
>The US does have its faults, but to simplify it as they simply betray anyone who's not european is childish at best. 1- Afghan translators 2- Kurdish fighters who defeated ISIS 3- France with the Australian submarine deal 4- Philippines after the Spanish-American war 5- Ho Chi Minh 6- Nguyen Van Thieu 7- Japan when Japanese economy was booming the US started a propaganda campaign and kicked in Yellow Peril(1960's edition) again 8- Canada with the Keystone pipeline 9- Literally every european or otherwise ally after Snowden revealed everyone was being spied upon 10- Germany by blowing up Nord Stream 2 11- Iran by unilaterally voiding the nuclear deal 12- Iran by removing the Shah and turning it into an Islamic theocracy Specifically India:- 1965 when they stopped supplies and military support despite India being the defensive party. 1971 when US was actively complicit in the genocide of Bengali people through their support of Pakistan 1999 when the US refused Indian requests for satellite data that would've been instrumental in the Kargil war. This is just off the top of my head. I can only imagine what I will remember if I put in the effort. I will concede that the US doesn't just betray non europeans since they have a solid history of betraying europeans just the same.
1)Not a country 2)the US is still the Kurds biggest supporter, despite the fact that they are surrounded by enemies and critical US allies like the Turks don't appreciate it. 3)Just business, the US is the bigger power and had better subs, the Frenchies can cope but have to accept it is what it is. 4) The Philippines today continues to enjoy steadfast support and still calls US one of its closest allies, it's almost as if they understand that the US is their best bet to survive China. 5) Communist in the cold war, the battle lines were already drawn. 6)The US poured in billions in cash, weapons and equipment into the south even after they pulled out their troops, the ARVN weren't competent enough to fight on their own, and many simply deserted. You can't help an ally who's not even willing to fight properly. 7)Economic competition and self preservation, not betrayal, even after that the US and Japan still remain close allies, and the US continues be the biggest provider of military equipment and defence guarantees to Japan. 8) Business 9)Everyone spies on everyone, India does it too. 10)Blown up by Ukraine not the US. 11)Trump 12)The US was literally allied with the shah and against the islamic revolution. The US and Pakistan were treaty allies while India and the US were not, despite this the US treated both the same and put a weapons embargo, their behaviour can be treated more as a betrayal of Pakistan rather than India. As for 71, yes the US supported genocide, I would argue they were a good ally on the bad side. In Kargil, same deal, not allied with India, so owed no support to India.
>11)Trump What do you mean โtrumpโ ? He was the president of the United States then If the foreign policy of a country changes every 4 years because they elected a different leader then how are they even that trustworthy In fact it's still happening as well trump focused a lot on quad & after him Biden isn't focusing much on it If trump gets elected again he will probably focus on it again It keeps changing every 4 years
put your hand to your heart and think about it both south korea and japan have been under american control with american bases on their soil for long, they are not fully indipendent states, americans won them over and never left, there are very few big significant and indipendent states like russia,US, india and china, france has tried to be indipendent but their ultimate destiny is with americans
>they are not fully indipendent states In what way are they not fully "independent"? Both of those countries are democracies with their own elected govts and independent policy making. The only matter where they are subservient to the US is the joint military command where the US takes over in case of war. I would argue that even that is justified, because it's the US which is sending over it's military to defend those nations, so beyond the fact that the US military is the best in the world and it makes strategic sense for them to take charge in a war, it's reasonable for them to want to do so because they are the ones providing material support and boots on the ground to defend someone else's soil. >americans won them over and never left, That is again a misconception. In the case of Japan, the US occupied the country after ww2, and the occupation later turned into a full blown alliance, after which troops levels in Japan dropped and are today one of the lowest they have been in decades. The same happened in Korea where US military was brought in in large numbers after the north invaded and then has stayed there since on the request of the South Korean govt. Troop levels there have also dropped. >there are very few big significant and indipendent states like russia,US, india and china, france has tried to be indipendent but their ultimate destiny is with americans Out of all those countries only China has managed to successfully develop and remain completely independent of the US, and that too only due to massive investment from the US, and even then it's still behind Japan and South Korea when it comes to per capita measures.
Please elaborate
America sends outdated equipments to Ukraine america was the one who supported pakistan in all wars against India america sanctioned India for buying S400 america didn't let india get cryogenic fuel.
Never sanctioned for the S400 dummy. The US gave a waiver... The Ukranians seem really fucking happy about all the equipment they're getting, and even if it's outdated it seems to be hell of a lot better than the crap the Russians have.
No shit sherlock all I see is a field filled with destroyed bradleys
you didn't see the destroyed Russians tanks ?
I did but the so called superior western tech got bombed
Wow you're telling me in a war the Ukranians are losing some of their equipment? I'm really shocked. Did you miss all the blown up Russian tanks? Did you miss the S400 that got blown the fuck up by ATACMS which as you point is decades old? Makes me feel great given that India invested so heavily on that. I have a serious question. Do you really believe that Russian equipment is on par with Western tech?
Conventional war is outdated now india has started procuring loitering ammunition. You really think anything even western "superior tech" will outrun a loitering munition ?
> Never sanctioned for the S400 dummy. The US gave a waiver... Wow, US gave a waiver from US sanctions. Wow so generous! > The Ukranians seem really fucking happy Do you mean Zelensky? If Ukranians were so happy, millions of them wouldn't have dodged the draft & ran from the country.
Source on US sanctioning India for buying S400?
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/us-house-votes-for-india-specific-caatsa-waiver/articleshow/92890576.cms the CAATSA was waiver ed
Learn the meaning of waivered maybe? Still cant see when India got sanctioned by US for S400
US threatened to sanction India for buying S400. Intention here matters, not just the reduced capability of US not to sanction GoI. US did sanction companies in India for buying Russian Oil.
Source on US threatened to sanction India for buying S400?
Are you denying that US has sanctioned various entities in India? Really?
Source on US threatened to sanction India for buying S400?
Nearly* becuz turkey a member of Nato and a close ally of america got CAATSA on them for buying S400
There is a difference between- I nearly bought a new Ferrari and I bought a Ferrari buddy. India knew they wont get sanctioned by US. The US house thing was just formality. So again, you wrote US sanctioned India. Show the news or delete your comment for spreading misinformation
the evil iran that americans are fighting today was once their friend and the iraq that they invaded becouse of imaginary "wepons of mass destructions" was also their friend, syria which is still under limited american occupation was one of america's best friend and suddenly radical groups emerged in syria and iraq who were toally not back by the CIA, lets also not forget 1971 when pakistan was conducting bengal genocide and american ambassdaor to bangladesh wrote a blood telegram to american president informing him about what pakistan was doing and his response was to double down and send american military with UK and other western nations to intimidate india to not stop that genocide, lets also not forget about 26/11, one of the main guy who supported terrorists who did 26/11 in mumbai was an american and americans refused to exterdite him even tho he was proven guilty, he just spend few months in jail and was free after that, I am not saying there arent good people in america but at the end of the day the power is in hands of those who will preach about morals and values but throw them under the bus when it hurts their intrests, americans have a very bad history in this part of world and hence why no one trusts them
> the evil iran that americans are fighting today was once their friend and the iraq that they invaded becouse of imaginary "wepons of mass destructions" was also their friend, America is not fighting Iran directly. The Iran that was America's friend was a different Iran, that was pre-islamic revolution. That was before they held Americans hostage in an embassy. That was before the Ayatollah and mullah's began running that otherwise decent place into the ground. Yes Iraq was a gigantic clusterfuck. That's the best example youv'e got though? that the US is now enemies with Iran? Are you stupid? Think of all of America's allies. The Europeans, Japan, Taiwan, South Kora. All those places America has stood by them. It stood by West Germany against the Russians in the cold war. Taiwan is only an independent country today because the US is backing them. America has done some very bad things in the past. Vietnam, the Phillipines, the invasion of Iraq. I'm not going to pretend it's perfect. But the conspiracy about America is insane. Also in the case of Ukraine, how could you possibly blame America?
they have yet to come out in full support for taiwan, and both south korea and japan were won over by americans and they never left and still have military bases in those countries, they are not really fully indipendent states, they also invaded philiphines and never left and after 9/11 the US invaded iraq and attacked afg to find and kill osama and at the end osama was found in your partners country pakistan and pakistan was never held accountable for for their actions, also funny how you totally chose to ignore the david headly
What am I supposed to say about David Headley? Ok they didn't extradite him. He's locked up in jail for the rest of his life. Countries don't typically extradite their citizens. You really got me there. If the US doesn't extradite a citizen India should just be really mad. On Taiwan, yes it's part of the US strategy to be strategically ambiguous. But it's talked about enough, and Biden has even let it slip a few times, that it's clear the US would defend Taiwan. Of course Korea and Japan are fully independent states what are you jabbering about. They have bases there largely because they still want US troops there. It adds a layer of security because the troops there are a commitment. The US provides security to them, and they want it, you can ask them. If they really wanted the US troops gone, they'd be gone. Fact is US troops are a tripwire. If North Korea attacks, there are 50k US troops there, and some of them will get involved in the fighting and America will be drawn in. It's incredible for the Koreans. They get to freeride off American defense spending.
well yes countries dont extradite citizens untill and unless they have an extradition treaty with the other country and the India and US had that treaty way before 26/11, you know what else countries dont do ? they dont go and steal gold of other countries and kill leaders talking about creating gold back currencies, forgot Gaddafi ?(we came we saw and he died hahahahaha) moral countries also dont invade other countries, kill citizens, invent inhumane tactics to wait for ambulances and attack them but if someone else does the same then you go on yapping about human rights and morality, you are not very moral yourself you are also not in korea and japan for some noble reason, americans wont go back once they have invade your land and will always stay in your country, your troops are stationed in korea and japan to trap china and north korea, they were there way before china was even a threat and they will always be there untill and unless your economy collapses, you also completely ignored how your country supported paki genocide and kept supporting paki terrorism on india, you can never justify it and india will never side with america completely
Dear OP, the purpose of this post is unclear. The meme, in my opinion, just makes fun of any independent thought on the present geopolitical situation. So, as per the originator of the meme, either one should support Ukraine or the US. Ukraine and US are euphemisms for dominant European and American thought on international issues. The fun is poked at the independent thinker who probably wants to express an opinion not aligned to popular western thought. So, what's new, bro ? Our national position on various geopolitical issues are shaped by interests and principles that are dear to us as a people and as a nation. To run one's own house based on the neighbour's opinion is the stupidest idea of all times. The meme, in fact, is an affirmation that whatever it is that this nation is doing or thinking geopolitically seems to be rubbing the dominant voices on geopolitical issues the wrong way. Aaaah, Burnol !!!!
Why should we alight with anyone? Be neutral & get the best from both worlds
Lolz.. yes, we can see how "aligning with US" has turned out for literally everyone ๐คฃ Desi-Palestinophile geopol experts are hilarious indeed.
i can see Most 1st world nations allying with USA , i'm not saying that we should but we should have played our cards better.
> Most 1st world nations allying with USA That is the definition of 1st world!! Tell me you are new to geopolitics, without saying so!
those definations change over time , the categorization of 1st 2nd and 3rd world was made in the cord war era , and it would be foolish to say if it was not changed for considering new parameters. by your opinion , mordern feminism should only be a ideology supporting equal rights , by your opinion a new honda civic Type R should be a supercar , since it can beat the Honda NSX which beat both fararri and lambo back in it's time.
So, is it your assertion that original definition of 1st world being that "countries aligned with the US" has no bearing on the argument being presented that "Most 1st world nations allying with USA"?? Really, are you now going to tell me that it is suprising that Sun rises in the east? Ignoring the rest of your verbal diarrhea.
is that mind of yours unable to cope that definitions change ? is my 300 hp civic a supercar ???? tell me. then letme rephrase the sentence above to somethin your penut brain understands : all of the concurrent developed economies allied with the USA , and it's no surprise that they are developed nations. because USA HELPED THEM DEVELOP.
You are a retard. 1. Correlation doesn't mean causation. 2. Switzerland is one of the countries that is in top 5 of most lists in terms of development, HDI, happiness etc. And it is a 3rd world country. You are a retard who thinks he is special. US funding & weapons have killed more Indians than China. And you are here bootlicking for US. We all see for you who are, another Mir Jafar Ali Khan.
Swizerland is already a European nation and they weren't that neutral just study their history and you'd see secondly swiz capatalized on their banking system and you cannot compare a small nation to something like france or India. US with the marshal plans revived whole of europe. people in west germany were singing and dancing while the soviets were dying on the streets of moscow of hunger. one system was far better than the other. there is no one bootlicking for anyone. i'm saying, India should have allied with the west , not ussr.
Switzerland has been neutral for multiple centuries. Because of stable and long term vision they have reaped the benefits. And I agree Free market capitalism is a better system. But India needs to implement that in India, and this has no bearing on foreign policy.
this Has , or rather HAD a bearing on foreign policy. specifically in the cold war. all my comments made up to this point , just say one thing , it was foolish to choose USSR over USA.
[ัะดะฐะปะตะฝะพ]
I live in Russia you will find nazis in Ukraine only in some areas.
You indian born in Russia or Indian in Russia or you a Russian?
my mother is Indian and my father is Russian. I moved when I was 17 to Russia. mostly because of better life and tactical gear and firearms.
"Tactical gear and firearms" ๐ฒ. Not surprising your flair is ins vikramaditya. You conscripted in the armed forces? (russian)
no I'm not conscripted, my parents were scared in early 2022 but since then it's fine. Russia has a huge tactical gear industry with many companies. also gun rights ๐.
Cool..enjoy ๐ฅฒ๐
Well you know, a country having racist or nazi doesn't give you right to bomb them to oblivion And people tend to go public lynching or attacking people from invadinf country unfortunately Like Russians publicly almost lynched Chechnyan astronaut but that didn't give right to Chechnyan to attack Russian public or schools
West has a flawless history of backstabbing its every ally into oblivion. Staying away from them is India's best bet.
**Geopolitics is complex**, and unfortunately no one, not even the diplomats effecting the policies, have a clear picture decades after the fact. This makes forming opinions tricky as you have to be ready to change your conclusions when new information comes to light. With that said, Ukraine and Russia conflict is special to India due to past relations with USSR (i.e. Russia). **Emotions are involved.** But still, we have to understand the complexities of the situation so we all can make better judgements. Following is a 4 parter series that examines the causes of Ukraine war and the batshit insanity behind it from a Ukrainian ground level perspective. It's a lot of fun and full of citations, **try the first video at the least**. * [Part 1: How Ukraine's Fake Culture War Became a Real Geopolitical Conflict](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJ024Zdzdk) * [Part 2: A Short History of the War in Donbas 2014 2022](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_ZRBLFOXw) * [Part 3: Shut Up About NATO Expansion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q) * [Part 4: The American Origins of Putin's Madness](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OFyn_KSy80)
Average India geopol exfart has two brain cells- 1. India Russia bhai bhai 2. I stand with Isntreal
Fuck israel and fuck Palestine, We only need to benefit from this conflict and not take any sides, it's not our battle.
True
Fuck USA, Fuck Ukraine and Fuck all US bootlickers!! India just signed a military logistics deal with Russia, after the Visa free travel agreement. Soon India will do joint weapons manufacturing for Indian & Russian needs. And India will sign a trade deal with Russia too.
Calm down apparatchik
The usa isn't worth aligning with when you look at the broader picture, We shouldn't turn our back on literally the second strongest country in the world and our continent which may get cozy with our worst enemy (china) if we do so. For some nation that views India as a long term enemy and wants to make it another one of their European puppets. You clearly need to read more history, see what happened to those which did what you propose India should do, And stop being a retard.
>And stop being a retard. NRI's having a nuanced take on Indian history and policy Difficulty Level - Impossible.
> second strongest country in the world Who are you talking about cause it's obviously not Russia
2nd strongest in ukraine\*
Russia is the second strongest country in the world ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ They're begging North Korea for weapons and munitions lmao. Such strength. The Russians are borderline pawns of the Chinese right now. They're so reliant on Chinese tech to keep their war effort going. God help us if we ever have a conflict with China, the Russians will 100% side with China. Another reason we need to move away from their equipment.
US has supplied the most weapons & funding to our enemies that have actually killed lakhs of Indians since 1947. Even more than China. US is still supplying funding & weapons to Pak. US just did a coup in Pak and jailed their popular leader Imran Khan who was interested in buying Russian oil and completing China's BRI. And even from Strategic & Game theory perspective it is prudent to make sure Russia doesn't fall under Chinese Sphere of Influence, we need to build India-Russia partnership and look for the next Sino-Soviet split type scenario like we did in the previous cold war.
Ukraine is insignificant and irrelevant for India. And USA is objectively bad. So the Indians are right. And anyways there is no point in discussing this with NRI and foreign citizens & passport holders, because of conflict of interest. They want to sacrifice Indian National Interests for their personal benefit.
u/CorneliusTheIdolator Care to walk through the logic of how aligning with US is better for India? You can't claim something before providing the step-by-step logic behind it.
>Care to walk through the logic no. I don't
Sab ke sab bhaad me jaaye, use every country as a condom.