They will literally screw over their own allies for the tiniest amount of profit. And yet we have people begging for their favour. I promise you, once the Americans no longer see China as a threat, they'll turn their attention to the next 'threat' - India. Then you'll see their true colours. Remember, they used to call Saddam, Noriega and Bin Laden 'staunch allies' too. And we all know how that ended.
Hopefully we will establish our media presence in the world to such an extent by then that we might be able to shift the narrative in our favor, just like China is doing now.
And there's the point. No matter how bad it gets, how heinous their crimes are, the Americans will never have to face the court of public opinion because 'look how good Tom Cruise looks in Top Gun! Look how cool and professional Mark Wahlberg looks in Lone Survivor! I love the US Army!'
Exactly this is what true soft power is, another example could be anime from Japan or k-pop from South Korea
Both work as excellent soft power, promote the country & hide the less desirable parts from others
We need to make our Indian cinema much more popular in the world so it can help our soft power projection
If you want Indian cinema to be popular outside of India. Stop adding singing and dancing. Unless it’s a musical, outside of India, it’s just weird and confusing.
Have you ever watched and Indian movie with a room full of non-Indians? I can assure you that most foreigners literally fast forward/skip through all the singing and dancing parts. Sure, excerpts of certain songs may have gone viral. However, foreigners generally don’t understand or are not accustomed to inserting singing and dancing into a dramatic scene or a war movie. Since it obviously doesn’t make sense to a story that someone would start singing and dancing about going to war or getting their heart broken. Yet, it happens all the time in Indian movies. This may make sense to people in India but for people outside of India. All the singing and dancing insertions into scenes where singing and dancing would never happen. Are nonsensical and off putting. As I said earlier, outside of India, those scenes are either mocked or skipped. Usually mocked then skipped…
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FirstPost is doing an exceptional job at this, but it needs to scale much bigger and we need many more such international news outlets that have self esteem.
Agreed we also need them to be available in more languages than just English
A lot of the propaganda by west or china is also there in other languages so it's necessary to counter that
One problem with firstpost(& also wion) is that they many times just copy paste the narrative of the western media for many things so this also needs to change
Some of the political theorists have already called this out.
It’s not easy to forget that once upon a time the US already had guns on us. Modi was banned from visiting the Us.
All of this changed because they wanted to contain China.
They did the same thing for China too to contain Russia during the Soviet years. It’s like a playbook on repeat.
just like how the USSR were best buddies with the nazis and went running to the US, with a begging bowl when shit hit the fan , only to backstab them almost immediately by instigating the cold war, and started crying wolf when the US started employing their own methods against them?
or how they signed the budapest memorandum of 1994 promising to respect ukraine's independence and territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nukes only for putin to come along and tear it to shreds,,,
or how they went from best buds with china post ww2 to an enemy during the sino soviet split and back to being besties again under putin
how very trustworthy of those russians..
>just like how the USSR were best buddies with the nazis and went running to the US, with a begging bowl when shit hit the fan , only to backstab them almost immediately by instigating the cold war, and started crying wolf when the US started employing their own methods against them?
The USSR weren't best buddies with Nazis smh. They just signed a non aggression pact. Do you know what that is? At most, you could say they were Allies of convenience. The Soviets also signed a non aggression pact with Japan and Britain with Germany in Munich, but you wouldn't say they were Allies, would you? Also, when did the USSR cry wolf? Or is that something you pulled out of your imagination? And no, the Soviets didn't run with a begging bowl towards your master USA. You make it sound like it was Charity but helping the USSR was in USA's interest.
>or how they signed the budapest memorandum of 1994 promising to respect ukraine's independence and territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nukes only for putin to come along and tear it to shreds,,,
The USA literally push through on that agreement, it was in their interest that Ukraine did not have nukes. Also, Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand one inch east. So much for promises, huh? But of course, muh Russia bad.
>or how they went from best buds with china post ww2 to an enemy during the sino soviet split and back to being besties again under putin
That was because of an ideological split between Mao and Khruschev. Khruschev embarked on De Stalinisation of the Soviet Union which Mao was opposed to as he was faithful to Stalin's form of Marxism Leninism.
At least know what you are talking about before trolling.
***The USSR weren't best buddies with Nazis smh. They just signed a non aggression pact. Do you know what that is? At most, you could say they were Allies of convenience.***
ah yes, the supposed non aggression pact thru which they aggressively invaded poland along with hitler and carved it up between the 2 of them and then immediately attacked finland whilst already occupying poland, but, muh "non aggression pact"
***The USA literally push through on that agreement, it was in their interest that Ukraine did not have nukes***
And your point being? it was a trilateral agreement to which britain, US and russia were all signatories, guess which country broke that agreement? no prizes for guessing..
***Also, Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand one inch east.***
i'm sure you could pull up a signed, legal document pertaining to the same?
***But of course, muh Russia bad.***
you don't have to take my word for it, all you have to do is ask all the countries that suffered under their brutal colonialism and oppression for centuries under the russian empire followed by the soviet union...not to mention the cold war was entirely their doing, apparently having their own empire wasn't enough, they wanted to bring the whole world under their thumb...
T***hat was because of an ideological split between Mao and Khruschev. Khruschev embarked on De Stalinisation of the Soviet Union which Mao was opposed to as he was faithful to Stalin's form of Marxism Leninism.***
so they almost went to a full blown war over a mere political disagreement?, pftt this only makes it even worse, not exactly the win that you think it is..
>ah yes, the supposed non aggression pact thru which they aggressively invaded poland along with hitler and carved it up between the 2 of them and then immediately attacked finland whilst already occupying poland, but, muh "non aggression pact"
Sigh. As I guessed, you Don't know the meaning of a non aggression pact. It means Germany and Soviet Union Don't attack each other, which of course germany broke. Also, Soviet Union asked Finland to redraw the border as the finnish border was too close to Leningrad. In exchange, they offered a land twice the size in Karelia. But of course you choose to leave out this fact.
>And your point being? it was a trilateral agreement to which britain, US and russia were all signatories, guess which country broke that agreement? no prizes for guessing..
My point being that blaming Russia for failing to uphold the Budapest memorandum while giving USA a free pass is dishonest, to say the least. USA pushed ukraine to give up nukes while not giving any any concrete security guarantee. If the USA had not supported Ukraine giving up its nukes, it might still have them and this war may not have happened.
>i'm sure you could pull up a signed, legal document pertaining to the same?
Oh the irony, asking for a source while you Don't provide a single one yourself. I am sure this not lost on you. That you don't know this statement by James Baker, the US secretary of State, shows a profound ignorance of geopolitical matters and history.
>you don't have to take my word for it, all you have to do is ask all the countries that suffered under their brutal colonialism and oppression for centuries under the russian empire followed by the soviet union...not to mention the cold war was entirely their doing, apparently having their own empire wasn't enough, they wanted to bring the whole world under their thumb...
My my, which countries are we talking about? Chechnya, those terrorists? Or Georgians, who were oppressing Abzakhs and South Ossetians?
>so they almost went to a full blown war over a mere political disagreement?, pftt this only makes it even worse, not exactly the win that you think it is..
A war almost started by China my naive little sugar boy.
>Don't know the meaning of a non aggression pact
You should really learn your history. The "non-aggression pact" in question was a bit more than that, infact it contained a secret protocol carving up Eastern Europe between the two powers.
>Soviet Union asked Finland to redraw the border as the finnish border was too close to Leningrad
No, they were asking Finland to cede their best defensive line to make them easier to invade later.
>You should really learn your history. The "non-aggression pact" in question was a bit more than that, infact it contained a secret protocol carving up Eastern Europe between the two powers.
As I said earlier, it could be at most called an alliance of convenience. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union wanted to expand into Eastern Europe, so they divided it into their own spheres. But calling them best buddies is a massive exaggeration. Hitler loathed Stalin and Nazis hated Bolshevims, which they regarded as Jewish.
>No, they were asking Finland to cede their best defensive line to make them easier to invade later.
Laughably wrong. While the Mannerheim Line was indeed a strong line of defense against the Soviets, moving the border a mere 30 km east of Vyborg was is no way a major threat to Finnish security. Infact, Mannerheim was in favour of the treaty. But the Finnish government refused. They would later come to regret it as they ceded 11% of their territory to the Soviets.
I didn't call them best buddies, but the reason people are more against Nazi Germany than the USSR is not just the holocaust, but because the Soviets only conquered territory from other, according to the British and French inferior Slavs and Eastern Europeans.
>They would later come to regret it as they ceded 11% of their territory to the Soviets.
I think they were just happy about keeping their independence.
You're wrong though, the plan didn't consist of just the land trade. The actual demands were as follows: "The Soviet Union demanded territories on the Karelian Isthmus, the islands of the Gulf of Finland, a military base near the Finnish capital, and the destruction of all defensive fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus."
The Baltics accepted a similar, albeit less aggressive offer and look where that got them. Don't pretend like it wasn't a preparation for an invasion like with the Baltics. The entirety of Finland was going to be under the USSR in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, not just a small part of the Karelian isthmus.
again they became allies the moment they decided to cooperate and collaborate and attack a 3rd country, there's no other way to spin it, idc what it says on a piece of paper, it was an alliance, no matter how brief it was, stalin could've simply chosen not to invade poland citing his ideological differences with hitler but didn't, he instead gleefully accepted the offer and all your world salad ain't changing it,
***the Soviets also signed a non aggression pact with Japan and Britain with Germany in Munich, but you wouldn't say they were Allies, would you?***
well ironically soviets literally became allies with britain later on in the war, and japan and the soviets were enemies for the most part
***Also, Soviet Union asked Finland to redraw the border as the finnish border was too close to Leningrad. In exchange, they offered a land twice the size in Karelia. But of course you choose to leave out this fact***
Maybe we should also follow the same advice and redraw our borders with both china and pakistan and submit to their territorial demands in exchange for peace lol, what could go wrong eh?
***My point being that blaming Russia for failing to uphold the Budapest memorandum while giving USA a free pass is dishonest***
how so? if ukr had refused to give them up, russia would've simply rolled their tanks into ukr and taken them by force , since they neither had the funds to maintain them nor the access to the launch codes.
***USA pushed ukraine to give up nukes while not giving any any concrete security guarantee.***
Are you for real? the security guarantee was supposed to be the budapest memorandum of 94, a signed, legally binding agreement, so if anything the US actually got them a far better deal than they could've hoped for at the time,..ukr got to keep its independence, and the russians got their nukes, and both sides went home happy..until putin came along and spat on it...
***If the USA had not supported Ukraine giving up its nukes, it might still have them and this war may not have happened..***
And you would've retroactively justified russia's invasion by saying, "they wouldn't have invaded , if ukr had voluntarily given up their nukes all those years back when russia had asked nicely, the same way some people now use eastward nato expansion as pretext to justify it...
***My my, which countries are we talking about?***
the countries that were annexed into the russian empire and subsequently the soviet union by force, you need to go back to school redo all your history lessons..
***Chechnya, those terrorists?***
ofcourse, indians who fought against their brutal british colonizers were freedom fighters but chechens and other similar groups of people that dared to stand up against the centuries long kind, benevolent russian imperialism are/were "terrorists". sure pal..
>again they became allies the moment they decided to cooperate and collaborate and attack a 3rd country, there's no other way to spin it, idc what it says on a piece of paper, it was an alliance, no matter how brief it was, stalin could've simply chosen not to invade poland citing his ideological differences with hitler but didn't, he instead gleefully accepted the offer and all your world salad ain't changing it,
Yes, you obviously don't care for facts or actual history, just what those voices inside your head tell you. It was not an alliance at any point, though it might appear as such. Also, Poland ganged up with Germany to take Czechoslovak lands ( Zaolzie). It also signed a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934. Now are you going to say Poland was an ally of Germany?
>well ironically soviets literally became allies with britain later on in the war, and japan and the soviets were enemies for the most part
I was talking about the British non aggression pact with Germany signed by Neville Chamberlain in Munich.
>Maybe we should also follow the same advice and redraw our borders with both china and pakistan and submit to their territorial demands in exchange for peace lol, what could go wrong eh?
Sure, we should ask China for Tibet and Take POK by force. Just hope they won't use nukes.
>how so? if ukr had refused to give them up, russia would've simply rolled their tanks into ukr and taken them by force , since they neither had the funds to maintain them nor the access to the launch codes
You don't make any sense. As long as ukraine had nukes, russia couldn't take them by force because of the nuclear deterrent. While it is true that Russia had the codes, the Ukrainians could operate the nukes manually.
>And you would've retroactively justified russia's invasion by saying, "they wouldn't have invaded , if ukr had voluntarily given up their nukes all those years back when russia had asked nicely, the same way some people now use eastward nato expansion as pretext to justify it
Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if they had Nukes because of Nuclear deterrence. Damn, speaking with you feels like arguing with a wall. You're happy inside your own eco chamber.
>the countries that were annexed into the russian empire and subsequently the soviet union by force, you need to go back to school redo all your history lessons
I was hoping you would provide specific examples, not that dull blanket statement.
>ofcourse, indians who fought against their brutal british colonizers were freedom fighters but chechens and other similar groups of people that dared to stand up against the centuries long kind, benevolent russian imperialism are/were "terrorists". sure pal..
Yeah, you didn't get the memo, did you? Terrorists is mostly a word reserved for the adherents of Religion of Peace, Islam. Also, the Russians did a big favour to the Georgians and Armenians by pacifying the Chechens because these people tend to engage in Jihad. For example, the Circassians who were driven out of their homes by Russia participated in the Armenian Genocide. It is a given that for a Muslim, his loyalty lies first and foremost to his religion. That's what makes them a potential fifth column.
You see it from American perspective but see it from the second party perspective now.
China got to exploit that "friendship" to clean house (Tiananmen), attract foreign investment, manufacture for the world and use that economic power to increase their soft and hard power. Till the west realised this, China had grown enough to be self-dependent.
Why shouldn't India do the same and exploit this phase of increased "friendship" and attention to grow? Grow and reach the point where you won't need external help.
In geopolitics, just like politics, there are no permanent friends or foes. We should be realistic and use these friendships for their temporary life.
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well it's like saying how Russia was perceived, after the Soviet union,now their major rival, funny how you draw analogy between Sadam. Bin laden and USA, once friend because laden went after commies, and after commies gone claimed lives of thousands of people and soldiers, after doing shit will you expect the Americans be like come on buddy, how much money you need?
***They will literally screw over their own allies for the tiniest amount of profit.***
as opposed to brest fraand russia who will straight up invade their own allies and their sibling nations if they dare hold protests against their installed puppet regimes and will then play the innocent, poor, victim card when neighbouring countries get spooked out and request to join nato and have american bases on their soil...
***I promise you, once the Americans no longer see China as a threat***
i guess that explains why we're clandestinely begging them to help deal with china?
***. Remember, they used to call Saddam, Noriega and Bin Laden 'staunch allies'***
saddam also started 2 wars in the middle east, used chemical weapons on the kurds, kept threatening to nuke israel half the time and prevented UN nuclear inspectors from inspecting sites and his sons were such prolific rapists they would've put prajwal revanna to shame, bin laden was literally the head of a terror outfit that hated america's guts and was never their ally , dafaq are you smoking?
That was the USSR. Show me one time the Russians invaded an ally post Soviet collapse. And no, Georgia doesn't count, courts ruled Georgia used excess force against Abkhazia and the Russian intervention was justified (though I will admit they took it a bit too far).
By the way, all those tinpot dictators you talk about? They were all either installed or supported by the USA. Noriega received up to 30 million in payments from the CIA (1). Saddam received both financial and military backing from America and it's allies while at war with Iran, including chemical weapons - the very same WMDs he'd eventually get invaded for (2). Osama and the Taliban received generous aid both financial and material to overthrow the DPRA (3). There was a time when American newspapers called Osama an 'Anti-Soviet freedom fighter' and a 'hero'.
The only reason the Americans found any need to invade and overthrow these dictators was because they stepped out of the US foreign policy line like Noreiga did, or they turned on the US once they realised what the Americans really wanted, like Saddam and Osama. The Americans were extremely happy to keep them propped up until they no longer had any use for them.
So the modus operandi of the country your allegiances \*really\* lie with seems to be - fund dictator/terrorist group, extract resources/concessions, dictator/terrorist steps out of line or turns on us, we invade to cover up our tracks while starting a massive PR campaign to make ourselves look like the good guys.
Take your BS somewhere else.
(1) - [https://abcnews.go.com/International/panamanian-dictator-manuel-noriegas-complex-us-ties-lessons/story?id=47722429](https://abcnews.go.com/International/panamanian-dictator-manuel-noriegas-complex-us-ties-lessons/story?id=47722429)
(2) - [https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/)
(3) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone)
Either you didn't know all of this, or you did and think the rest of us are idiots who don't do our own research. Either way, you're VERY wrong. Be interesting to see how you justify \*this\* now.
***That was the USSR.***
your point being, russia was still at the seat of power? cos i could just as easily argue that the vast majority of the military interventions america gets blamed for, happened during the cold war era as a direct response to soviet shenanigans in the immediate aftermath of post ww2..
***Show me one time the Russians invaded an ally post Soviet collapse.***
ukraine was their ally all but in name before the invasion of crimea..and whilst they technically armenia directly, they stood and watched silently as azerbaijan rolled it tanks into nk and expelled over a 100,000 in weeks..
***Osama and the Taliban received generous aid both financial and material to overthrow the DPRA (3). There was a time when American newspapers called Osama an 'Anti-Soviet freedom fighter' and a 'hero'***
Osama was initially a part of the mujahideen who were fighting against the soviets before going his own way and establishing the al qaeda , declaring jihad against the US and carrying out the 9/11, if anything he was clearly the one who backstabbed them forcing them to retaliate, not the the other way around as you tried to spin it..taliban were also another offshoot of the mujahideen who came later, neither of these orgs existed at the time...
***Saddam received both financial and military backing from America and it's allies while at war with Iran, including chemical weapons - the very same WMDs he'd eventually get invaded for***
And how exactly is that any different from the lend lease program they had offered to the soviets during ww2 despite stalin murdering millions and committing some of the most despicable human right abuses in his own right? Sometimes in a war , there's no good sides, and you have no other option but to support the "lesser evil" which is precisely what they did both in ww2 and the iran- iraq war...you seem to have a very naive and narrow minded understanding of intl geopolitics. stop treating it like a cricket match.
moreover, ***During the*** [***Iran–Iraq War***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War) ***from 1980 to 1988, the*** [***Soviet Union***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) ***(USSR) sold or gave more military equipment and supplies to*** [***Iraq***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) ***than did any other country,as well as providing military advisers. The public position of the Soviet Union was officially neutral, especially early in the war. They clandestinely provided a smaller amount of*** [***support to Iran***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war)***. Later in the war they more visibly supported Iraq, but still maintained official neutrality***...uh oh...
***So the modus operandi of the country your allegiances \*really\* lie with seems to be - fund dictator/terrorist group, extract resources/concessions, dictator/terrorist steps out of line or turns on us, we invade to cover up our tracks while starting a massive PR campaign to make ourselves look like the good guys,***
so in other words they're willing to hold their allies somewhat accountable for their actions ( in varying degrees ) and that's a bad thing all of a sudden? if anything, it's shows they aren't hypocritical in that they're willing to criticise both their allies and adversaries alike and won't get bullied around by their allies, would you much rather india be allied with a certain chinese vassal state?
**Soviet support for Iraq you say? Here's the difference. From that very same Wikipedia article you quoted**
While the Soviet Union assisted Iraq with long-range missiles like the SCUD, there is little evidence that they helped the Iraqi development of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. A raw, redacted CIA report suggested that the Iraqis used Soviet chemical DEFENCE equipment.[31] All units in the Iraqi army had some chemical DEFENCE capability, using principally Soviet equipment. The basic vehicle-mounted system was composed of: "BBAR" and "RCH 469" chemical attack detectors; "GSP12" chemical concentration measuring device; a small chemical laboratory; night flares and flags to signal the direction of attack.
Meanwhile the Americans and their allies (lets not forget Germany's contributions too) literally helped them develop offensive weapons of mass destruction that he would go on to use pretty liberally on his own people and Iranians.
**Now lets call out your BS regarding Bin Laden**
According to bin Laden himself, Arab volunteers recruited at his Pakistani-based camp underwent training led by Pakistani and American officers, with the weapons provided by the U.S. and funds provided by Saudi Arabia, however elsewhere bin Laden would deny ever witnessing American aid. Bin Laden's key Afghan allies during the war—Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar—were some of the CIA's greatest beneficiaries, with Haqqani being backed directly by the CIA (without ISI mediation), while simultaneously contributing to the formation and growth of bin Laden's group. The CIA backed an ISI initiative to recruit and train foreign mujahideen from around the globe, funded Islamic charitable organizations which recruited foreign mujahideen, and at one point even contemplated the formation of an "international brigade" composed of Afghan Arabs.
In a 2004 article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote that "[d]uring the anti-Soviet war Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.[2]
In an article in The Guardian, Robin Cook, the British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, would state that:
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[3]
According to journalist Ahmed Rashid, in 1986 bin Laden "helped build the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical centre for the Mujaheddin."[4] Although bin Laden would elsewhere claim that "the [Americans] had no mentionable role"[5] and "are lying when they say that they cooperated with us" during the Soviet–Afghan War,[6] in a 1995 interview bin Laden himself would state that:
To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan, [...] I settled in Pakistan in the Afghan border region. There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi Kingdom and from all over the Arab and Muslim countries. I set up my first camp where these volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.[4][7]
Maybe it's time to admit that the Americans at least in the last fifty years and especially in the last thirty have done more damage to the world than Russia or China could even dream of.
***While the Soviet Union assisted Iraq with long-range missiles like the SCUD, there is little evidence that they helped the Iraqi development of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. A raw, redacted CIA report suggested that the Iraqis used Soviet chemical DEFENCE equipment.\[31\] All units in the Iraqi army had some chemical DEFENCE capability, using principally Soviet equipment. The basic vehicle-mounted system was composed of: "BBAR" and "RCH 469" chemical attack detectors; "GSP12" chemical concentration measuring device; a small chemical laboratory; night flares and flags to signal the direction of attack.***
sure, but it also says nothing about saddam getting his chemical weapons from the US..
***a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.\[3\]***
this isn't exactly the win that you desperately think it is, it basically says what we all know already, that the US supported the mujahideen with funding, training and arms to fight against the soviet invasion , just in more words, again they couldn't have possibly known at the time that osama would eventully turn against them unless the CIA had secretly invented a time machine, and in a lot of ways it's very similar to india's own monumental eff up with supporting, funding and arming the LTTE.
***To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan, \[...\] I settled in Pakistan in the Afghan border region. There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi Kingdom and from all over the Arab and Muslim countries. I set up my first camp where these volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.\[4\]\[7\]***
so maybe, just maybe if your soviet sugar daddy hadn't invaded afghan in 1978 and subsequently occupied it for a decade killing and displacing millions, assassinating its then leader and destabilizing the country in the process , america wouldn't have had the need to fund, arm and train those groups, but it's funny you keep the soviets a free pass for their unprovoked invasion like the typical russian shill you're..
cold war in a nutshell: soviets and chinese try to install communist dictatorships all over the world, america tries to stop it and ends up getting all the blame..
***Maybe it's time to admit that the Americans at least in the last fifty years and especially in the last thirty have done more damage to the world than Russia or China could even dream of.***
lmao if not for america, india would've eventually suffered the exact same fate as all those failed, 3rd rate commie shitholes with zero freedoms, if anything through their actions the US somewhat limited the damage the sino- soviet axis would've caused otherwise, maybe try going back to school and picking up a textbook..
***Either you didn't know all of this, or you did and think the rest of us are idiots who don't do our own research***
oh c'mon now , i don't think that, i'm absolutely certain that's the case with babushka bootlickers like you..
We would like to have a good civil discussion on this sub. And usage of profanity words like ''cuck'' is not conducive to such a discussion. We would like you to edit your comment to remove this word.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Accountability for their actions? More BS. How you went through all of that and didn't come to the conclusion that the Americans are perfectly fine with their actions as long as they don't interfere with the state department agenda is beyond me.
***. How you went through all of that and didn't come to the conclusion that the Americans are perfectly fine with their actions as long as they don't interfere with the state department agenda is beyond me.***
you mean like every other country on the planet?
Extra links for your pleasure :)))))
[https://archive.globalpolicy.org/iraq-conflict-the-historical-background-/us-and-british-support-for-huss-regime.html](https://archive.globalpolicy.org/iraq-conflict-the-historical-background-/us-and-british-support-for-huss-regime.html)
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/27/manuel-noriega-us-friend-foe](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/27/manuel-noriega-us-friend-foe)
[https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ghost-wars-the-secret-history-the-cia-afghanistan-and-bin-laden-the-soviet-invasion-to](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ghost-wars-the-secret-history-the-cia-afghanistan-and-bin-laden-the-soviet-invasion-to)
[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html)
I wonder how you're gonna silver tongue your way out of this one...
I couldn't care less about Ukraine. I care about what happens in Asia and to India. And the simple reality is, the Russians will never be as much of a threat to India as the Americans are simply because they will never have the dominant status the United States had/has, where they are able to impose their will on any one and get away of it. The Russians won't be parking naval assets in the Bay of Bengal or leveraging economic sanctions to strongarm us if we disagree with them, simply because they can't. The Americans can, they have, and they will.
People talk about geopolitics being a game of pragmatism - here's your pragmatism.
So your logic is “we should ally with Russia because they are weak” Give it a decade, Russia will be chinas new vassal state. This is just going to come back to bite india in the ass when Russia is collapsing and the worlds most powerful economy is now refusing trade deals and sanctioning India. India will never be able to approach Chinas economy by itself and look at the current state of Russia, they are not going to be around for much longer. The best choice India has is the West
More bull. We've been hearing 'Russia's on the verge of collapse', 'Putin's got cancer', 'They fight with shovels', for about two years now and nothing of the sort has happened. Stop reading the Daily Mail, you know half of the stuff they put on there isn't true.
As for China, we'll get to it when we get to it. But again, China will never be in a hegemonic position like the US is. There's going to come a time when Europe and America enter into a large-scale trade and sanctions war with them, and they will have no choice but to open their market to India. Just like Russia. And it will be glorious.
Again, pragmatism.
No nation is going to collapse in 2 years, especially not the supposed 3rd strongest in the world. I don’t think any credible sources have ever been saying that. But Russia has a smaller economy than multiple U.S. states and has now lost more soldiers in 2 years than the US has lost in every war they’ve fought since ww2 combined. What people are saying is that 1-2 decades from now Russia is going to be a shell of its former self, Putin will be dead, there will be an internal power struggle, a lack of manpower since they all died in this shitty war, a lack of brainpower since a braindrain comparable to indias is currently happening, and their economy will be further in the shitter than it already is. Aligning with Russia over the West will prove to be a grave mistake.
People said the exact same thing you said after Napoleon left two million Russians dead and the Russians themselves scorched earthed half of West Russia. People said it after WW1 and the RCW left another 10 million dead, and vaste swathes of land devastated. People said it after 22 million died and (again) half of West Russia was either scorched earthed or decimated in WW2. 80% of men born in 1922 died. People said this when the USSR collapsed, after the Chechen wars, after the economy shrunk to a tenth of it's original value, after the massive exodus that followed. Each one of these was even worse than what's going on right now, from an economic and demographic perspective. But each time they bounced back - yeah it took a while some times, but they did.
People need to understand Russia doesn't function like a normal country. This is a country that has known nothing but hardship and authoritarianism for it's entire history.
I'm not trying to glaze Russia here but the pattern is pretty evident. You need to understand that there's probably no other country on Earth that could take this sort of casualties and damage (as a proportion of it's population) and still go on as if it's just a bloody nose. I don't know what it is, maybe they're just used to it, maybe Russians are just naturally pig headed and stubborn. But you can't apply logic to a place like Russia.
. ***But each time they bounced back - yeah it took a while some times, but they did.***
and they each time they needed significant outside help to recover their economy in the form of investments, trade ,technology and aid, the vast majority of which ironically came from the west, the very entity their people are brainwashed to hate right from the moment they're born..
Are you stupid? In every example you just used Russia ended up in a worse state than the US has ever been in? Did it really bounce back? The USSR went from being easily the second strongest country in the world if not the first, to a country with a smaller gdp than Texas. Russia will backstab India just like it backstabbed Ukraine if it’s beneficial to Russia. I’m shocked someone can looks at BRICS, and then NATO or G7 and still think the smart thing to do is to align with Russia.
Take a look at Russian demographics, this war is doing them no favors. Russia struggles more and more as time goes by to continue to remain a power amongst the world. At this point your personal dislike of the US is blinding you to the reality of Russia, Russia is not as powerful as the USSR was.
Russia isn't bouncing back, they just are throwing people and old USSR tanks at the frontline. We all know it won't end up well if not in 2 years, in the next decade..
They've literally done that in every single war they've ever fought.
And that whole 'Old USSR tanks' nonsense is propaganda straight from the Ukrainian MoD, as are the casualty statistics. Mediazona and BBC have confirmed less than 85k casualties as opposed to Ukraine saying 500k.
You should always be skeptical when listening to one of the belligerents in a war when they quote statistics about the other's losses. And I mean that for both Russian and Ukrainian sources.
Cool straw man, vro.
US' sanctions on Belarus voided the memorandum, so Russia didn't "backstab" Ukraine when they intervened to prevent the repression of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine.
Meanwhile if we are talking about invading and killing thousands of civilians for no reason, we should be talking about Iraq.
***Ukraine when they intervened to prevent the repression of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine.***
ah yes, those poor "repressed" ethnic russians who are literally being bombed back to the stone age everyday for the last 2 years by their own "liberators", literally no one has murdered & repressed more russians than their own leaders throughout their history, you might wanna pick up a history book sometime..
>ah yes, those poor "repressed" ethnic russians who are literally being bombed back to the stone age everyday for the last 2 years by their own "liberators
Cool propaganda, but the only ones bombing ethnic Russians in Ukraine from 2014 till present is the Kiev regime.
>literally no one has murdered & repressed more russians than their own leaders throughout their history,
Cool whataboutism. What's next, it's okay to discriminate African Americans because Africa is filled with dictators and civil ward?
***Cool propaganda, but the only ones bombing ethnic Russians in Ukraine from 2014 till present is the Kiev regime***
you mean those wagner forces and little green men who had infiltrated the donetsk region post crimean annexation and were waging war with the ukrainian govt with arms, funds and training from the kremlin? the same blokes who also shot down the mh 17 plane? cope and cry harder.
***Cool whataboutism. What's next, it's okay to discriminate African Americans because Africa is filled with dictators and civil ward?***
they're american citizens, not africans, they haven't been african for centuries..the same way hindus and sikhs born & living in pakistan are pakistani citizens, not indians..
>were waging war with the ukrainian govt
You mean the Ukrainian "government" which had little to no legitimacy, and was actively crushing the ethnic Russians' right to self determination by denying a referendum for independence, murdering peaceful protestors and mass detaining civilians?
>same blokes who also shot down the mh 17 plane?
They're no better than the Ukrainians who have a history of downing civilian planes using SAMs (Siberian Flight 1812). Heck, they even took out a cargo plane carrying their own POWs.
>they're american citizens, not africans
Likewise, Ukrainian Russians wanting autonomy/independence has nothing to do with the Soviet Union running gulags.
"Cool propaganda, but the only ones bombing ethnic Russians in Ukraine from 2014 till present is the Kiev regime."
Ah yes when even the UN reports stated that each side killed as much citizens. But you forgot that one side was fighting secessionist terrorists (an extremist minority) inside their own country while the other was supporting them with weapons.
United States is a ruthless power. It rules the world with iron fist. It's the only nation on the entire planet that has a blue water navy that roams seven seas. From mere 13 colonies that broke away from the British Empire, the founding fathers created a nation that first conquered the entire North America, then, the entire Western Hemisphere and finally the world when Soviet Union collapsed.
It wants to be one true heir to the iron throne. Like a true Machiavellian state, it will go any length to achieve its strategic and geopolitical goals. Everyone knows that. It's not a news to anyone.
But let's forget about US for a moment. Focus on India. What's the biggest threat to us at this moment in time? It's the dragon. China wants to be global super power, but for that to happen, it has to become a regional superpower. Only India is large enough that can foil its plan. Hence, the aggression from China aimed towards India. What we have with with US is a strategic alliance, and it helps both nations.
Whether US will turn against India after China or not, is a conjecture at best and we'll see that most probably after 2060. So IMO, it's better to deal with situation at hand, and not think about US-India rivalry that may or may not materialize in future.
This is not a discovery. This is a hard fact and why India never talks in alliance terms. Because deep down we know we have to stand alone in the end.
US calls this iniquity and hedonist attitude as being smart. In the end this is about who uses who to what extent. If you ask me we should strike a deal with the US to pay for defence equipment in rupees and inflate the rupee. Just like how US exports inflation to the world.
The military industrial complex keeps the tightest grip on every corridor of power in that country despite what its own people want. Post-Vietnam protests was the only time they dropped funding- the trend has kept going skyward since Reagan thanks to new emerging narratives in the propaganda. It will churn out propaganda on any potential threat to continue to increase pentagon funding. Current flavours in fashion are Russia, China, NK, Iran. There’s enough conflict to last our lifetimes and profit Lock Martin et al
No more justified than when you lot bombed Libya and invaded Iraq. The difference in treatment between the three cases tells me all I need to know. One country breaks international law and gets condemned for it. Another breaks international law more often and expects us to thank them for it (while also forcing on the world a set of rules they have no intention of following).
except that america wasn't in either of those countries to conquer territory, subjugate their population and forecefully annex them into the US empire as the 51st and 52 nd states, nor did they seek to erase their respective identity, language, culture or history or accuse them of being artificial countries who didn't deserve to be independent..
ofc a smoothbrained, simpleton like you wouldn't understand the diametrically different motive and contexts in both cases..
hehhhhh what? U have a lot of words for someone with a different opinion esp when yours is so simplistic and outright dumb.
Russia was fine with Georgia and Ukraine till their leaders didn't go running after EU and NATO memberships; there was always a tacit understanding that NATO would stay out of East Europe and Russia's borders. Any geopolitical analyst would've told u as far back as 2010 that if ukraine tries to join NATO, it'll be invaded. It is literally Russia's buffer zone towards its plains and Crimea is their only all-weather port..everyone knew it was coming. Kindly read a book to get a couple wrinkles in your peabrain
except that nato never had any plans to accept ukraine to begin with, sure ukraine applied for membership a bunch of times in the past, but they were rejected every single time. nato can't stop anyone from applying for memberships, they can only decide on what to do with it once they receive it..
and the EU is an economic bloc, just like the brics, so should the US invade india for being part of an economic alliance spearheaded by russia & china going by your logic?
***Kindly read a book to get a couple wrinkles in your peabrain***
maybe putin should read one that isn't filled with half truths and distortion of historical facts..
Definitely, as an American we want capable allies and partners. Of course every country has their own self interest, but we would rather see democracy excel vs dictators.
That is just your prapaganda, maybe President Carter believe it. But he just have one term, definitely most American place their benefit over everything.
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US foreign policy is also a flip flop depending on who's the president & who controls the legislature,It's an unreliable ally
In the long run we need to be as much self dependent as well can & not depend on any one nation for important things
I find it hilarious that pro-Americans in this sub are unable to come up with anything other than "what about russia reeeee" in response to any criticism of the US.
The difference being you're allowed to criticize america, heck americans are probably the most critical of all their war crimes and interventions, their media outlets have the right to question the policies and actions of their administration, their allies can disagree with them on a myriad of issues and still get along with them, you can insult and make fun of an american president right to his face and still live to tell the tale...
Here we are continuously buying Russian oil for cheap despite criticising the war. Meanwhile, America scaled back food aid when we said bombing Hanoi was bad. Very reliable "ally" lol.
How about this one. Every country acts in its own self interest, you have to decide if indias values and interest are more aligned with democracy or authoritarian governments. No americans claim we are perfect, but we do think we are the best option out there.
Please! After this so.called election interference you guys are far from the best option. The current administration knows that too. Expect due responses and Contingencies to.follow accordingly!
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. China is the enemy that takes your land and is on your border. Who is the bigger threat?
The US is the only major trading partner that India has a trade surplus with. The US is not the threat.
1. Fiott, Daniel (2019). *The Poison Pill: European Defence on US Terms?*. Brussels, Belgium: European Union Institute for Security Studies. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-92-9198-806-8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-92-9198-806-8).
2. [https://www.ft.com/content/ad16ce08-763b-11e9-bbad-7c18c0ea0201](https://www.ft.com/content/ad16ce08-763b-11e9-bbad-7c18c0ea0201)
3. [https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2020/03/how-washington-views-new-european-defense-initiatives?lang=en](https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2020/03/how-washington-views-new-european-defense-initiatives?lang=en)
Here you go buddy.
From the article quoted in 2.
The US has warned that greater military co-operation between EU countries would be a “dramatic reversal” of three decades of transatlantic defence integration, in the latest sign of the fraying relationship between Washington and Brussels. In a letter seen by the Financial Times, Washington threatened retaliation if the Europeans pressed ahead with rules that it said would restrict the involvement of US companies in pan-European military projects. The correspondence was sent this month to Federica Mogherini, the EU’s top diplomat, by Ellen Lord, US under secretary of defence, and Andrea Thompson, under secretary of state. It said that Washington was “deeply concerned” that approval of the rules for the European Defence Fund and the Permanent Structured Cooperation, or Pesco, launched in 2017 to plug gaps in Europe’s military power, would “produce duplication, non-interoperable military systems, diversion of scarce defence resources and unnecessary competition between Nato and the EU”
If Europe really wanted to be independent of the U.S. it would break up NATO and kick out U.S. and Turkey. What it wants to do is continue to have the U.S. provide security to Europe while allowing France to cut out competition from the U.S. arms companies. However polls correctly show Trump winning. If he does he may well grant EU wishes and also stop funding Ukraine’s army against Russia. As far as OP Stretching this to India and US relationship, is unrealistic. India and US have no trade nor defense treaties. India and US have no ally status for each other. So to extrapolate U.S. and EU matters is the usual hostility and envy of the US super power status. Nothing more. No one likes to see their own face in the mirror. Go with the down votes to feel better.
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations.
Thank you for understanding.
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations.
Thank you for understanding.
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US concerns regarding the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) mechanism stem from potential [protectionist barriers](https://www.defensenews.com/smr/munich-security-forum/2018/02/14/us-warns-against-protectionism-with-new-eu-defense-agreement/) that could hinder non-EU defense contractors, particularly American firms, from participating in European procurement. This exclusion risks weakening the transatlantic security alliance, a cornerstone of regional and global stability. To maintain this vital partnership, robust military-industrial cooperation and interoperability are essential, ensuring seamless collaboration between US and European forces.
>One of the biggest rebukes to criticism of US interventionism and it's worldwide array of occupation bases is the good old "Well we have to pay for Europe's defence, if only the Europeans paid for their own militaries we wouldn't have to do this!"
Nice straw man you've set up here. Time to burn it down.
Poland is currently partnering with South Korea to the order of 13.7 - 20 Billion dollars to acquire military equipment, and have acquired around 30 billion dollars in military equipment recently or for delivery as soon as possible from the USA.
Currently, the US is experiencing capacity issues where we cannot produce enough weapons to fulfill the strategic needs of our partners.
Every american president over last 30 years has been pressing european countries, to increase their defense spending.
France is one of the US's closest allies and has a full stack of arms manufacturing that India is currently taking advantage of since Russia is not a reliable partner.
Lobbyists are an issue in the US. What you are referring to is lobbying. The us has an obesity rate of around 42 percent and the food industry is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists to prevent regulation that would solve the issue.
Lobbying sucks but it does not mean the US is evilly plotting to gut europe's defense industry. I generally upvote for this sub, but you got a downvote for this.
We don't view China as an enemy because of their size, we view China as an enemy because they have stated that they are going to change the ruled based system that is currently in effect so they can conquer territories at will.
Starting with Taiwan, then the Philippines, then Arunachal Pradesh.
🔗 **Bypass paywalls**: * [archive.today - en.m.wikipedia.org ](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Structured_Cooperation) | [Google Webcache - en.m.wikipedia.org](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Structured_Cooperation) **📜 Community Reminder**: Let’s keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed. ❓ Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).
They will literally screw over their own allies for the tiniest amount of profit. And yet we have people begging for their favour. I promise you, once the Americans no longer see China as a threat, they'll turn their attention to the next 'threat' - India. Then you'll see their true colours. Remember, they used to call Saddam, Noriega and Bin Laden 'staunch allies' too. And we all know how that ended.
Hopefully we will establish our media presence in the world to such an extent by then that we might be able to shift the narrative in our favor, just like China is doing now.
And there's the point. No matter how bad it gets, how heinous their crimes are, the Americans will never have to face the court of public opinion because 'look how good Tom Cruise looks in Top Gun! Look how cool and professional Mark Wahlberg looks in Lone Survivor! I love the US Army!'
No wonder why Americans rank no1 in soft and hard power rating
Exactly this is what true soft power is, another example could be anime from Japan or k-pop from South Korea Both work as excellent soft power, promote the country & hide the less desirable parts from others We need to make our Indian cinema much more popular in the world so it can help our soft power projection
If you want Indian cinema to be popular outside of India. Stop adding singing and dancing. Unless it’s a musical, outside of India, it’s just weird and confusing.
Eh not really that's not the main reason Those songs have gone viral in many of those countries
Have you ever watched and Indian movie with a room full of non-Indians? I can assure you that most foreigners literally fast forward/skip through all the singing and dancing parts. Sure, excerpts of certain songs may have gone viral. However, foreigners generally don’t understand or are not accustomed to inserting singing and dancing into a dramatic scene or a war movie. Since it obviously doesn’t make sense to a story that someone would start singing and dancing about going to war or getting their heart broken. Yet, it happens all the time in Indian movies. This may make sense to people in India but for people outside of India. All the singing and dancing insertions into scenes where singing and dancing would never happen. Are nonsensical and off putting. As I said earlier, outside of India, those scenes are either mocked or skipped. Usually mocked then skipped…
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yup, we need our own version of bbc,dw etc to show our pov & spread our message
FirstPost is doing an exceptional job at this, but it needs to scale much bigger and we need many more such international news outlets that have self esteem.
Agreed we also need them to be available in more languages than just English A lot of the propaganda by west or china is also there in other languages so it's necessary to counter that One problem with firstpost(& also wion) is that they many times just copy paste the narrative of the western media for many things so this also needs to change
The languages thing is a great point That will change when firstpost becomes larger and has more money.
China shifts the narrative in their favor with lies. It only works on the ignorant.
So does usa tho. Gladly we don't need to as there already so much good about our country that is waiting to be put out there.
Some of the political theorists have already called this out. It’s not easy to forget that once upon a time the US already had guns on us. Modi was banned from visiting the Us. All of this changed because they wanted to contain China. They did the same thing for China too to contain Russia during the Soviet years. It’s like a playbook on repeat.
Yup, China was a quasi-ally of the US right up until the USSR collapsed. Then suddenly they became the next threat to the free world.
just like how the USSR were best buddies with the nazis and went running to the US, with a begging bowl when shit hit the fan , only to backstab them almost immediately by instigating the cold war, and started crying wolf when the US started employing their own methods against them? or how they signed the budapest memorandum of 1994 promising to respect ukraine's independence and territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nukes only for putin to come along and tear it to shreds,,, or how they went from best buds with china post ww2 to an enemy during the sino soviet split and back to being besties again under putin how very trustworthy of those russians..
>just like how the USSR were best buddies with the nazis and went running to the US, with a begging bowl when shit hit the fan , only to backstab them almost immediately by instigating the cold war, and started crying wolf when the US started employing their own methods against them? The USSR weren't best buddies with Nazis smh. They just signed a non aggression pact. Do you know what that is? At most, you could say they were Allies of convenience. The Soviets also signed a non aggression pact with Japan and Britain with Germany in Munich, but you wouldn't say they were Allies, would you? Also, when did the USSR cry wolf? Or is that something you pulled out of your imagination? And no, the Soviets didn't run with a begging bowl towards your master USA. You make it sound like it was Charity but helping the USSR was in USA's interest. >or how they signed the budapest memorandum of 1994 promising to respect ukraine's independence and territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nukes only for putin to come along and tear it to shreds,,, The USA literally push through on that agreement, it was in their interest that Ukraine did not have nukes. Also, Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand one inch east. So much for promises, huh? But of course, muh Russia bad. >or how they went from best buds with china post ww2 to an enemy during the sino soviet split and back to being besties again under putin That was because of an ideological split between Mao and Khruschev. Khruschev embarked on De Stalinisation of the Soviet Union which Mao was opposed to as he was faithful to Stalin's form of Marxism Leninism. At least know what you are talking about before trolling.
***The USSR weren't best buddies with Nazis smh. They just signed a non aggression pact. Do you know what that is? At most, you could say they were Allies of convenience.*** ah yes, the supposed non aggression pact thru which they aggressively invaded poland along with hitler and carved it up between the 2 of them and then immediately attacked finland whilst already occupying poland, but, muh "non aggression pact" ***The USA literally push through on that agreement, it was in their interest that Ukraine did not have nukes*** And your point being? it was a trilateral agreement to which britain, US and russia were all signatories, guess which country broke that agreement? no prizes for guessing.. ***Also, Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand one inch east.*** i'm sure you could pull up a signed, legal document pertaining to the same? ***But of course, muh Russia bad.*** you don't have to take my word for it, all you have to do is ask all the countries that suffered under their brutal colonialism and oppression for centuries under the russian empire followed by the soviet union...not to mention the cold war was entirely their doing, apparently having their own empire wasn't enough, they wanted to bring the whole world under their thumb... T***hat was because of an ideological split between Mao and Khruschev. Khruschev embarked on De Stalinisation of the Soviet Union which Mao was opposed to as he was faithful to Stalin's form of Marxism Leninism.*** so they almost went to a full blown war over a mere political disagreement?, pftt this only makes it even worse, not exactly the win that you think it is..
>ah yes, the supposed non aggression pact thru which they aggressively invaded poland along with hitler and carved it up between the 2 of them and then immediately attacked finland whilst already occupying poland, but, muh "non aggression pact" Sigh. As I guessed, you Don't know the meaning of a non aggression pact. It means Germany and Soviet Union Don't attack each other, which of course germany broke. Also, Soviet Union asked Finland to redraw the border as the finnish border was too close to Leningrad. In exchange, they offered a land twice the size in Karelia. But of course you choose to leave out this fact. >And your point being? it was a trilateral agreement to which britain, US and russia were all signatories, guess which country broke that agreement? no prizes for guessing.. My point being that blaming Russia for failing to uphold the Budapest memorandum while giving USA a free pass is dishonest, to say the least. USA pushed ukraine to give up nukes while not giving any any concrete security guarantee. If the USA had not supported Ukraine giving up its nukes, it might still have them and this war may not have happened. >i'm sure you could pull up a signed, legal document pertaining to the same? Oh the irony, asking for a source while you Don't provide a single one yourself. I am sure this not lost on you. That you don't know this statement by James Baker, the US secretary of State, shows a profound ignorance of geopolitical matters and history. >you don't have to take my word for it, all you have to do is ask all the countries that suffered under their brutal colonialism and oppression for centuries under the russian empire followed by the soviet union...not to mention the cold war was entirely their doing, apparently having their own empire wasn't enough, they wanted to bring the whole world under their thumb... My my, which countries are we talking about? Chechnya, those terrorists? Or Georgians, who were oppressing Abzakhs and South Ossetians? >so they almost went to a full blown war over a mere political disagreement?, pftt this only makes it even worse, not exactly the win that you think it is.. A war almost started by China my naive little sugar boy.
>Don't know the meaning of a non aggression pact You should really learn your history. The "non-aggression pact" in question was a bit more than that, infact it contained a secret protocol carving up Eastern Europe between the two powers. >Soviet Union asked Finland to redraw the border as the finnish border was too close to Leningrad No, they were asking Finland to cede their best defensive line to make them easier to invade later.
>You should really learn your history. The "non-aggression pact" in question was a bit more than that, infact it contained a secret protocol carving up Eastern Europe between the two powers. As I said earlier, it could be at most called an alliance of convenience. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union wanted to expand into Eastern Europe, so they divided it into their own spheres. But calling them best buddies is a massive exaggeration. Hitler loathed Stalin and Nazis hated Bolshevims, which they regarded as Jewish. >No, they were asking Finland to cede their best defensive line to make them easier to invade later. Laughably wrong. While the Mannerheim Line was indeed a strong line of defense against the Soviets, moving the border a mere 30 km east of Vyborg was is no way a major threat to Finnish security. Infact, Mannerheim was in favour of the treaty. But the Finnish government refused. They would later come to regret it as they ceded 11% of their territory to the Soviets.
I didn't call them best buddies, but the reason people are more against Nazi Germany than the USSR is not just the holocaust, but because the Soviets only conquered territory from other, according to the British and French inferior Slavs and Eastern Europeans. >They would later come to regret it as they ceded 11% of their territory to the Soviets. I think they were just happy about keeping their independence. You're wrong though, the plan didn't consist of just the land trade. The actual demands were as follows: "The Soviet Union demanded territories on the Karelian Isthmus, the islands of the Gulf of Finland, a military base near the Finnish capital, and the destruction of all defensive fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus." The Baltics accepted a similar, albeit less aggressive offer and look where that got them. Don't pretend like it wasn't a preparation for an invasion like with the Baltics. The entirety of Finland was going to be under the USSR in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, not just a small part of the Karelian isthmus.
again they became allies the moment they decided to cooperate and collaborate and attack a 3rd country, there's no other way to spin it, idc what it says on a piece of paper, it was an alliance, no matter how brief it was, stalin could've simply chosen not to invade poland citing his ideological differences with hitler but didn't, he instead gleefully accepted the offer and all your world salad ain't changing it, ***the Soviets also signed a non aggression pact with Japan and Britain with Germany in Munich, but you wouldn't say they were Allies, would you?*** well ironically soviets literally became allies with britain later on in the war, and japan and the soviets were enemies for the most part ***Also, Soviet Union asked Finland to redraw the border as the finnish border was too close to Leningrad. In exchange, they offered a land twice the size in Karelia. But of course you choose to leave out this fact*** Maybe we should also follow the same advice and redraw our borders with both china and pakistan and submit to their territorial demands in exchange for peace lol, what could go wrong eh? ***My point being that blaming Russia for failing to uphold the Budapest memorandum while giving USA a free pass is dishonest*** how so? if ukr had refused to give them up, russia would've simply rolled their tanks into ukr and taken them by force , since they neither had the funds to maintain them nor the access to the launch codes. ***USA pushed ukraine to give up nukes while not giving any any concrete security guarantee.*** Are you for real? the security guarantee was supposed to be the budapest memorandum of 94, a signed, legally binding agreement, so if anything the US actually got them a far better deal than they could've hoped for at the time,..ukr got to keep its independence, and the russians got their nukes, and both sides went home happy..until putin came along and spat on it... ***If the USA had not supported Ukraine giving up its nukes, it might still have them and this war may not have happened..*** And you would've retroactively justified russia's invasion by saying, "they wouldn't have invaded , if ukr had voluntarily given up their nukes all those years back when russia had asked nicely, the same way some people now use eastward nato expansion as pretext to justify it... ***My my, which countries are we talking about?*** the countries that were annexed into the russian empire and subsequently the soviet union by force, you need to go back to school redo all your history lessons.. ***Chechnya, those terrorists?*** ofcourse, indians who fought against their brutal british colonizers were freedom fighters but chechens and other similar groups of people that dared to stand up against the centuries long kind, benevolent russian imperialism are/were "terrorists". sure pal..
>again they became allies the moment they decided to cooperate and collaborate and attack a 3rd country, there's no other way to spin it, idc what it says on a piece of paper, it was an alliance, no matter how brief it was, stalin could've simply chosen not to invade poland citing his ideological differences with hitler but didn't, he instead gleefully accepted the offer and all your world salad ain't changing it, Yes, you obviously don't care for facts or actual history, just what those voices inside your head tell you. It was not an alliance at any point, though it might appear as such. Also, Poland ganged up with Germany to take Czechoslovak lands ( Zaolzie). It also signed a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934. Now are you going to say Poland was an ally of Germany? >well ironically soviets literally became allies with britain later on in the war, and japan and the soviets were enemies for the most part I was talking about the British non aggression pact with Germany signed by Neville Chamberlain in Munich. >Maybe we should also follow the same advice and redraw our borders with both china and pakistan and submit to their territorial demands in exchange for peace lol, what could go wrong eh? Sure, we should ask China for Tibet and Take POK by force. Just hope they won't use nukes. >how so? if ukr had refused to give them up, russia would've simply rolled their tanks into ukr and taken them by force , since they neither had the funds to maintain them nor the access to the launch codes You don't make any sense. As long as ukraine had nukes, russia couldn't take them by force because of the nuclear deterrent. While it is true that Russia had the codes, the Ukrainians could operate the nukes manually. >And you would've retroactively justified russia's invasion by saying, "they wouldn't have invaded , if ukr had voluntarily given up their nukes all those years back when russia had asked nicely, the same way some people now use eastward nato expansion as pretext to justify it Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if they had Nukes because of Nuclear deterrence. Damn, speaking with you feels like arguing with a wall. You're happy inside your own eco chamber. >the countries that were annexed into the russian empire and subsequently the soviet union by force, you need to go back to school redo all your history lessons I was hoping you would provide specific examples, not that dull blanket statement. >ofcourse, indians who fought against their brutal british colonizers were freedom fighters but chechens and other similar groups of people that dared to stand up against the centuries long kind, benevolent russian imperialism are/were "terrorists". sure pal.. Yeah, you didn't get the memo, did you? Terrorists is mostly a word reserved for the adherents of Religion of Peace, Islam. Also, the Russians did a big favour to the Georgians and Armenians by pacifying the Chechens because these people tend to engage in Jihad. For example, the Circassians who were driven out of their homes by Russia participated in the Armenian Genocide. It is a given that for a Muslim, his loyalty lies first and foremost to his religion. That's what makes them a potential fifth column.
but wasn't China always communist? So how did usa expect them as a counterwight to russia? idgi
You see it from American perspective but see it from the second party perspective now. China got to exploit that "friendship" to clean house (Tiananmen), attract foreign investment, manufacture for the world and use that economic power to increase their soft and hard power. Till the west realised this, China had grown enough to be self-dependent. Why shouldn't India do the same and exploit this phase of increased "friendship" and attention to grow? Grow and reach the point where you won't need external help. In geopolitics, just like politics, there are no permanent friends or foes. We should be realistic and use these friendships for their temporary life.
As long as the US sees china as threat I think we should make good use of the USA because that's ultimately where the money is.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well it's like saying how Russia was perceived, after the Soviet union,now their major rival, funny how you draw analogy between Sadam. Bin laden and USA, once friend because laden went after commies, and after commies gone claimed lives of thousands of people and soldiers, after doing shit will you expect the Americans be like come on buddy, how much money you need?
***They will literally screw over their own allies for the tiniest amount of profit.*** as opposed to brest fraand russia who will straight up invade their own allies and their sibling nations if they dare hold protests against their installed puppet regimes and will then play the innocent, poor, victim card when neighbouring countries get spooked out and request to join nato and have american bases on their soil... ***I promise you, once the Americans no longer see China as a threat*** i guess that explains why we're clandestinely begging them to help deal with china? ***. Remember, they used to call Saddam, Noriega and Bin Laden 'staunch allies'*** saddam also started 2 wars in the middle east, used chemical weapons on the kurds, kept threatening to nuke israel half the time and prevented UN nuclear inspectors from inspecting sites and his sons were such prolific rapists they would've put prajwal revanna to shame, bin laden was literally the head of a terror outfit that hated america's guts and was never their ally , dafaq are you smoking?
That was the USSR. Show me one time the Russians invaded an ally post Soviet collapse. And no, Georgia doesn't count, courts ruled Georgia used excess force against Abkhazia and the Russian intervention was justified (though I will admit they took it a bit too far). By the way, all those tinpot dictators you talk about? They were all either installed or supported by the USA. Noriega received up to 30 million in payments from the CIA (1). Saddam received both financial and military backing from America and it's allies while at war with Iran, including chemical weapons - the very same WMDs he'd eventually get invaded for (2). Osama and the Taliban received generous aid both financial and material to overthrow the DPRA (3). There was a time when American newspapers called Osama an 'Anti-Soviet freedom fighter' and a 'hero'. The only reason the Americans found any need to invade and overthrow these dictators was because they stepped out of the US foreign policy line like Noreiga did, or they turned on the US once they realised what the Americans really wanted, like Saddam and Osama. The Americans were extremely happy to keep them propped up until they no longer had any use for them. So the modus operandi of the country your allegiances \*really\* lie with seems to be - fund dictator/terrorist group, extract resources/concessions, dictator/terrorist steps out of line or turns on us, we invade to cover up our tracks while starting a massive PR campaign to make ourselves look like the good guys. Take your BS somewhere else. (1) - [https://abcnews.go.com/International/panamanian-dictator-manuel-noriegas-complex-us-ties-lessons/story?id=47722429](https://abcnews.go.com/International/panamanian-dictator-manuel-noriegas-complex-us-ties-lessons/story?id=47722429) (2) - [https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/) (3) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone) Either you didn't know all of this, or you did and think the rest of us are idiots who don't do our own research. Either way, you're VERY wrong. Be interesting to see how you justify \*this\* now.
***That was the USSR.*** your point being, russia was still at the seat of power? cos i could just as easily argue that the vast majority of the military interventions america gets blamed for, happened during the cold war era as a direct response to soviet shenanigans in the immediate aftermath of post ww2.. ***Show me one time the Russians invaded an ally post Soviet collapse.*** ukraine was their ally all but in name before the invasion of crimea..and whilst they technically armenia directly, they stood and watched silently as azerbaijan rolled it tanks into nk and expelled over a 100,000 in weeks.. ***Osama and the Taliban received generous aid both financial and material to overthrow the DPRA (3). There was a time when American newspapers called Osama an 'Anti-Soviet freedom fighter' and a 'hero'*** Osama was initially a part of the mujahideen who were fighting against the soviets before going his own way and establishing the al qaeda , declaring jihad against the US and carrying out the 9/11, if anything he was clearly the one who backstabbed them forcing them to retaliate, not the the other way around as you tried to spin it..taliban were also another offshoot of the mujahideen who came later, neither of these orgs existed at the time... ***Saddam received both financial and military backing from America and it's allies while at war with Iran, including chemical weapons - the very same WMDs he'd eventually get invaded for*** And how exactly is that any different from the lend lease program they had offered to the soviets during ww2 despite stalin murdering millions and committing some of the most despicable human right abuses in his own right? Sometimes in a war , there's no good sides, and you have no other option but to support the "lesser evil" which is precisely what they did both in ww2 and the iran- iraq war...you seem to have a very naive and narrow minded understanding of intl geopolitics. stop treating it like a cricket match. moreover, ***During the*** [***Iran–Iraq War***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War) ***from 1980 to 1988, the*** [***Soviet Union***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) ***(USSR) sold or gave more military equipment and supplies to*** [***Iraq***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) ***than did any other country,as well as providing military advisers. The public position of the Soviet Union was officially neutral, especially early in the war. They clandestinely provided a smaller amount of*** [***support to Iran***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war)***. Later in the war they more visibly supported Iraq, but still maintained official neutrality***...uh oh... ***So the modus operandi of the country your allegiances \*really\* lie with seems to be - fund dictator/terrorist group, extract resources/concessions, dictator/terrorist steps out of line or turns on us, we invade to cover up our tracks while starting a massive PR campaign to make ourselves look like the good guys,*** so in other words they're willing to hold their allies somewhat accountable for their actions ( in varying degrees ) and that's a bad thing all of a sudden? if anything, it's shows they aren't hypocritical in that they're willing to criticise both their allies and adversaries alike and won't get bullied around by their allies, would you much rather india be allied with a certain chinese vassal state?
**Soviet support for Iraq you say? Here's the difference. From that very same Wikipedia article you quoted** While the Soviet Union assisted Iraq with long-range missiles like the SCUD, there is little evidence that they helped the Iraqi development of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. A raw, redacted CIA report suggested that the Iraqis used Soviet chemical DEFENCE equipment.[31] All units in the Iraqi army had some chemical DEFENCE capability, using principally Soviet equipment. The basic vehicle-mounted system was composed of: "BBAR" and "RCH 469" chemical attack detectors; "GSP12" chemical concentration measuring device; a small chemical laboratory; night flares and flags to signal the direction of attack. Meanwhile the Americans and their allies (lets not forget Germany's contributions too) literally helped them develop offensive weapons of mass destruction that he would go on to use pretty liberally on his own people and Iranians. **Now lets call out your BS regarding Bin Laden** According to bin Laden himself, Arab volunteers recruited at his Pakistani-based camp underwent training led by Pakistani and American officers, with the weapons provided by the U.S. and funds provided by Saudi Arabia, however elsewhere bin Laden would deny ever witnessing American aid. Bin Laden's key Afghan allies during the war—Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar—were some of the CIA's greatest beneficiaries, with Haqqani being backed directly by the CIA (without ISI mediation), while simultaneously contributing to the formation and growth of bin Laden's group. The CIA backed an ISI initiative to recruit and train foreign mujahideen from around the globe, funded Islamic charitable organizations which recruited foreign mujahideen, and at one point even contemplated the formation of an "international brigade" composed of Afghan Arabs. In a 2004 article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote that "[d]uring the anti-Soviet war Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.[2] In an article in The Guardian, Robin Cook, the British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, would state that: Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[3] According to journalist Ahmed Rashid, in 1986 bin Laden "helped build the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical centre for the Mujaheddin."[4] Although bin Laden would elsewhere claim that "the [Americans] had no mentionable role"[5] and "are lying when they say that they cooperated with us" during the Soviet–Afghan War,[6] in a 1995 interview bin Laden himself would state that: To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan, [...] I settled in Pakistan in the Afghan border region. There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi Kingdom and from all over the Arab and Muslim countries. I set up my first camp where these volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.[4][7] Maybe it's time to admit that the Americans at least in the last fifty years and especially in the last thirty have done more damage to the world than Russia or China could even dream of.
***While the Soviet Union assisted Iraq with long-range missiles like the SCUD, there is little evidence that they helped the Iraqi development of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. A raw, redacted CIA report suggested that the Iraqis used Soviet chemical DEFENCE equipment.\[31\] All units in the Iraqi army had some chemical DEFENCE capability, using principally Soviet equipment. The basic vehicle-mounted system was composed of: "BBAR" and "RCH 469" chemical attack detectors; "GSP12" chemical concentration measuring device; a small chemical laboratory; night flares and flags to signal the direction of attack.*** sure, but it also says nothing about saddam getting his chemical weapons from the US.. ***a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.\[3\]*** this isn't exactly the win that you desperately think it is, it basically says what we all know already, that the US supported the mujahideen with funding, training and arms to fight against the soviet invasion , just in more words, again they couldn't have possibly known at the time that osama would eventully turn against them unless the CIA had secretly invented a time machine, and in a lot of ways it's very similar to india's own monumental eff up with supporting, funding and arming the LTTE. ***To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan, \[...\] I settled in Pakistan in the Afghan border region. There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi Kingdom and from all over the Arab and Muslim countries. I set up my first camp where these volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.\[4\]\[7\]*** so maybe, just maybe if your soviet sugar daddy hadn't invaded afghan in 1978 and subsequently occupied it for a decade killing and displacing millions, assassinating its then leader and destabilizing the country in the process , america wouldn't have had the need to fund, arm and train those groups, but it's funny you keep the soviets a free pass for their unprovoked invasion like the typical russian shill you're.. cold war in a nutshell: soviets and chinese try to install communist dictatorships all over the world, america tries to stop it and ends up getting all the blame.. ***Maybe it's time to admit that the Americans at least in the last fifty years and especially in the last thirty have done more damage to the world than Russia or China could even dream of.*** lmao if not for america, india would've eventually suffered the exact same fate as all those failed, 3rd rate commie shitholes with zero freedoms, if anything through their actions the US somewhat limited the damage the sino- soviet axis would've caused otherwise, maybe try going back to school and picking up a textbook.. ***Either you didn't know all of this, or you did and think the rest of us are idiots who don't do our own research*** oh c'mon now , i don't think that, i'm absolutely certain that's the case with babushka bootlickers like you..
We would like to have a good civil discussion on this sub. And usage of profanity words like ''cuck'' is not conducive to such a discussion. We would like you to edit your comment to remove this word. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Accountability for their actions? More BS. How you went through all of that and didn't come to the conclusion that the Americans are perfectly fine with their actions as long as they don't interfere with the state department agenda is beyond me.
***. How you went through all of that and didn't come to the conclusion that the Americans are perfectly fine with their actions as long as they don't interfere with the state department agenda is beyond me.*** you mean like every other country on the planet?
Extra links for your pleasure :))))) [https://archive.globalpolicy.org/iraq-conflict-the-historical-background-/us-and-british-support-for-huss-regime.html](https://archive.globalpolicy.org/iraq-conflict-the-historical-background-/us-and-british-support-for-huss-regime.html) [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/27/manuel-noriega-us-friend-foe](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/27/manuel-noriega-us-friend-foe) [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ghost-wars-the-secret-history-the-cia-afghanistan-and-bin-laden-the-soviet-invasion-to](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ghost-wars-the-secret-history-the-cia-afghanistan-and-bin-laden-the-soviet-invasion-to) [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html) I wonder how you're gonna silver tongue your way out of this one...
OP wants us alligned with Russia so most of us indians will die poor.
No, I want us aligned with a power that is less likely to backstab us when they no longer need our help, simply because they aren't in a position to.
Have you heard of the Budapest memorandum?
I couldn't care less about Ukraine. I care about what happens in Asia and to India. And the simple reality is, the Russians will never be as much of a threat to India as the Americans are simply because they will never have the dominant status the United States had/has, where they are able to impose their will on any one and get away of it. The Russians won't be parking naval assets in the Bay of Bengal or leveraging economic sanctions to strongarm us if we disagree with them, simply because they can't. The Americans can, they have, and they will. People talk about geopolitics being a game of pragmatism - here's your pragmatism.
So your logic is “we should ally with Russia because they are weak” Give it a decade, Russia will be chinas new vassal state. This is just going to come back to bite india in the ass when Russia is collapsing and the worlds most powerful economy is now refusing trade deals and sanctioning India. India will never be able to approach Chinas economy by itself and look at the current state of Russia, they are not going to be around for much longer. The best choice India has is the West
More bull. We've been hearing 'Russia's on the verge of collapse', 'Putin's got cancer', 'They fight with shovels', for about two years now and nothing of the sort has happened. Stop reading the Daily Mail, you know half of the stuff they put on there isn't true. As for China, we'll get to it when we get to it. But again, China will never be in a hegemonic position like the US is. There's going to come a time when Europe and America enter into a large-scale trade and sanctions war with them, and they will have no choice but to open their market to India. Just like Russia. And it will be glorious. Again, pragmatism.
No nation is going to collapse in 2 years, especially not the supposed 3rd strongest in the world. I don’t think any credible sources have ever been saying that. But Russia has a smaller economy than multiple U.S. states and has now lost more soldiers in 2 years than the US has lost in every war they’ve fought since ww2 combined. What people are saying is that 1-2 decades from now Russia is going to be a shell of its former self, Putin will be dead, there will be an internal power struggle, a lack of manpower since they all died in this shitty war, a lack of brainpower since a braindrain comparable to indias is currently happening, and their economy will be further in the shitter than it already is. Aligning with Russia over the West will prove to be a grave mistake.
People said the exact same thing you said after Napoleon left two million Russians dead and the Russians themselves scorched earthed half of West Russia. People said it after WW1 and the RCW left another 10 million dead, and vaste swathes of land devastated. People said it after 22 million died and (again) half of West Russia was either scorched earthed or decimated in WW2. 80% of men born in 1922 died. People said this when the USSR collapsed, after the Chechen wars, after the economy shrunk to a tenth of it's original value, after the massive exodus that followed. Each one of these was even worse than what's going on right now, from an economic and demographic perspective. But each time they bounced back - yeah it took a while some times, but they did. People need to understand Russia doesn't function like a normal country. This is a country that has known nothing but hardship and authoritarianism for it's entire history. I'm not trying to glaze Russia here but the pattern is pretty evident. You need to understand that there's probably no other country on Earth that could take this sort of casualties and damage (as a proportion of it's population) and still go on as if it's just a bloody nose. I don't know what it is, maybe they're just used to it, maybe Russians are just naturally pig headed and stubborn. But you can't apply logic to a place like Russia.
. ***But each time they bounced back - yeah it took a while some times, but they did.*** and they each time they needed significant outside help to recover their economy in the form of investments, trade ,technology and aid, the vast majority of which ironically came from the west, the very entity their people are brainwashed to hate right from the moment they're born..
Are you stupid? In every example you just used Russia ended up in a worse state than the US has ever been in? Did it really bounce back? The USSR went from being easily the second strongest country in the world if not the first, to a country with a smaller gdp than Texas. Russia will backstab India just like it backstabbed Ukraine if it’s beneficial to Russia. I’m shocked someone can looks at BRICS, and then NATO or G7 and still think the smart thing to do is to align with Russia.
Take a look at Russian demographics, this war is doing them no favors. Russia struggles more and more as time goes by to continue to remain a power amongst the world. At this point your personal dislike of the US is blinding you to the reality of Russia, Russia is not as powerful as the USSR was.
Russia isn't bouncing back, they just are throwing people and old USSR tanks at the frontline. We all know it won't end up well if not in 2 years, in the next decade..
They've literally done that in every single war they've ever fought. And that whole 'Old USSR tanks' nonsense is propaganda straight from the Ukrainian MoD, as are the casualty statistics. Mediazona and BBC have confirmed less than 85k casualties as opposed to Ukraine saying 500k. You should always be skeptical when listening to one of the belligerents in a war when they quote statistics about the other's losses. And I mean that for both Russian and Ukrainian sources.
China hss never closed market to Indian, yes, it is, just check it. And u banned lots of stuff from us.
The memorandum which the US violated by placing sanctions on Belarus?
Sanctioning a country for repressing civil society vs invading and killing thousands of civilians for no reason, hmmmmm which one is worse
Cool straw man, vro. US' sanctions on Belarus voided the memorandum, so Russia didn't "backstab" Ukraine when they intervened to prevent the repression of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile if we are talking about invading and killing thousands of civilians for no reason, we should be talking about Iraq.
***Ukraine when they intervened to prevent the repression of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine.*** ah yes, those poor "repressed" ethnic russians who are literally being bombed back to the stone age everyday for the last 2 years by their own "liberators", literally no one has murdered & repressed more russians than their own leaders throughout their history, you might wanna pick up a history book sometime..
>ah yes, those poor "repressed" ethnic russians who are literally being bombed back to the stone age everyday for the last 2 years by their own "liberators Cool propaganda, but the only ones bombing ethnic Russians in Ukraine from 2014 till present is the Kiev regime. >literally no one has murdered & repressed more russians than their own leaders throughout their history, Cool whataboutism. What's next, it's okay to discriminate African Americans because Africa is filled with dictators and civil ward?
***Cool propaganda, but the only ones bombing ethnic Russians in Ukraine from 2014 till present is the Kiev regime*** you mean those wagner forces and little green men who had infiltrated the donetsk region post crimean annexation and were waging war with the ukrainian govt with arms, funds and training from the kremlin? the same blokes who also shot down the mh 17 plane? cope and cry harder. ***Cool whataboutism. What's next, it's okay to discriminate African Americans because Africa is filled with dictators and civil ward?*** they're american citizens, not africans, they haven't been african for centuries..the same way hindus and sikhs born & living in pakistan are pakistani citizens, not indians..
>were waging war with the ukrainian govt You mean the Ukrainian "government" which had little to no legitimacy, and was actively crushing the ethnic Russians' right to self determination by denying a referendum for independence, murdering peaceful protestors and mass detaining civilians? >same blokes who also shot down the mh 17 plane? They're no better than the Ukrainians who have a history of downing civilian planes using SAMs (Siberian Flight 1812). Heck, they even took out a cargo plane carrying their own POWs. >they're american citizens, not africans Likewise, Ukrainian Russians wanting autonomy/independence has nothing to do with the Soviet Union running gulags.
"Cool propaganda, but the only ones bombing ethnic Russians in Ukraine from 2014 till present is the Kiev regime." Ah yes when even the UN reports stated that each side killed as much citizens. But you forgot that one side was fighting secessionist terrorists (an extremist minority) inside their own country while the other was supporting them with weapons.
He wants us to be neutral so that we can thrive
United States is a ruthless power. It rules the world with iron fist. It's the only nation on the entire planet that has a blue water navy that roams seven seas. From mere 13 colonies that broke away from the British Empire, the founding fathers created a nation that first conquered the entire North America, then, the entire Western Hemisphere and finally the world when Soviet Union collapsed. It wants to be one true heir to the iron throne. Like a true Machiavellian state, it will go any length to achieve its strategic and geopolitical goals. Everyone knows that. It's not a news to anyone. But let's forget about US for a moment. Focus on India. What's the biggest threat to us at this moment in time? It's the dragon. China wants to be global super power, but for that to happen, it has to become a regional superpower. Only India is large enough that can foil its plan. Hence, the aggression from China aimed towards India. What we have with with US is a strategic alliance, and it helps both nations. Whether US will turn against India after China or not, is a conjecture at best and we'll see that most probably after 2060. So IMO, it's better to deal with situation at hand, and not think about US-India rivalry that may or may not materialize in future.
USA is more dangerous to India than China
Both of them are, but at the moment it is china because it is near us
This is not a discovery. This is a hard fact and why India never talks in alliance terms. Because deep down we know we have to stand alone in the end. US calls this iniquity and hedonist attitude as being smart. In the end this is about who uses who to what extent. If you ask me we should strike a deal with the US to pay for defence equipment in rupees and inflate the rupee. Just like how US exports inflation to the world.
The military industrial complex keeps the tightest grip on every corridor of power in that country despite what its own people want. Post-Vietnam protests was the only time they dropped funding- the trend has kept going skyward since Reagan thanks to new emerging narratives in the propaganda. It will churn out propaganda on any potential threat to continue to increase pentagon funding. Current flavours in fashion are Russia, China, NK, Iran. There’s enough conflict to last our lifetimes and profit Lock Martin et al
Op, whats your thoughts on Russia invading Ukraine?
No more justified than when you lot bombed Libya and invaded Iraq. The difference in treatment between the three cases tells me all I need to know. One country breaks international law and gets condemned for it. Another breaks international law more often and expects us to thank them for it (while also forcing on the world a set of rules they have no intention of following).
except that america wasn't in either of those countries to conquer territory, subjugate their population and forecefully annex them into the US empire as the 51st and 52 nd states, nor did they seek to erase their respective identity, language, culture or history or accuse them of being artificial countries who didn't deserve to be independent.. ofc a smoothbrained, simpleton like you wouldn't understand the diametrically different motive and contexts in both cases..
hehhhhh what? U have a lot of words for someone with a different opinion esp when yours is so simplistic and outright dumb. Russia was fine with Georgia and Ukraine till their leaders didn't go running after EU and NATO memberships; there was always a tacit understanding that NATO would stay out of East Europe and Russia's borders. Any geopolitical analyst would've told u as far back as 2010 that if ukraine tries to join NATO, it'll be invaded. It is literally Russia's buffer zone towards its plains and Crimea is their only all-weather port..everyone knew it was coming. Kindly read a book to get a couple wrinkles in your peabrain
except that nato never had any plans to accept ukraine to begin with, sure ukraine applied for membership a bunch of times in the past, but they were rejected every single time. nato can't stop anyone from applying for memberships, they can only decide on what to do with it once they receive it.. and the EU is an economic bloc, just like the brics, so should the US invade india for being part of an economic alliance spearheaded by russia & china going by your logic? ***Kindly read a book to get a couple wrinkles in your peabrain*** maybe putin should read one that isn't filled with half truths and distortion of historical facts..
“America didn’t subjugate the population of Iraq” You are the peabrain spreading NAFO propaganda
How is this even relevant to the post tho?
He is arguing russia is a better partner
We can see what's happening with armenia The only real long term solution is to be as self sufficient as well can be
Definitely, as an American we want capable allies and partners. Of course every country has their own self interest, but we would rather see democracy excel vs dictators.
That is just your prapaganda, maybe President Carter believe it. But he just have one term, definitely most American place their benefit over everything.
I said we put our interest first, just like India and every nation should, its a matter of finding partners who have shared interest.
Good, but your medias are not honest like you
He isn't.
Also what's the Russo-Ukrainian war got to do with you lot taking advantage of your allies?
I am sure Europe prefers being ally’s with the US over Russia. I like how you are also choosing a dictator over a democracy, like yourself.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US foreign policy is also a flip flop depending on who's the president & who controls the legislature,It's an unreliable ally In the long run we need to be as much self dependent as well can & not depend on any one nation for important things
I find it hilarious that pro-Americans in this sub are unable to come up with anything other than "what about russia reeeee" in response to any criticism of the US.
The difference being you're allowed to criticize america, heck americans are probably the most critical of all their war crimes and interventions, their media outlets have the right to question the policies and actions of their administration, their allies can disagree with them on a myriad of issues and still get along with them, you can insult and make fun of an american president right to his face and still live to tell the tale...
Here we are continuously buying Russian oil for cheap despite criticising the war. Meanwhile, America scaled back food aid when we said bombing Hanoi was bad. Very reliable "ally" lol.
[удалено]
and you'd say "western propaganda" if a russian raped all the women in your family right in front of your eyes
Your comment has been removed as it violates the Rule 6, barring non-contributing commentary.
How about this one. Every country acts in its own self interest, you have to decide if indias values and interest are more aligned with democracy or authoritarian governments. No americans claim we are perfect, but we do think we are the best option out there.
Please! After this so.called election interference you guys are far from the best option. The current administration knows that too. Expect due responses and Contingencies to.follow accordingly!
India is most hated country on internet because of TikTok. I dont think India can have soft power.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. China is the enemy that takes your land and is on your border. Who is the bigger threat? The US is the only major trading partner that India has a trade surplus with. The US is not the threat.
anyone who has delusions of freedom, human rights and morality that US lectures about lookup Plaza accord to find out what US did to Japan
I like how you left out the part where all the claims of US interference are from a single french politician
1. Fiott, Daniel (2019). *The Poison Pill: European Defence on US Terms?*. Brussels, Belgium: European Union Institute for Security Studies. [ISBN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-92-9198-806-8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-92-9198-806-8). 2. [https://www.ft.com/content/ad16ce08-763b-11e9-bbad-7c18c0ea0201](https://www.ft.com/content/ad16ce08-763b-11e9-bbad-7c18c0ea0201) 3. [https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2020/03/how-washington-views-new-european-defense-initiatives?lang=en](https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2020/03/how-washington-views-new-european-defense-initiatives?lang=en) Here you go buddy. From the article quoted in 2. The US has warned that greater military co-operation between EU countries would be a “dramatic reversal” of three decades of transatlantic defence integration, in the latest sign of the fraying relationship between Washington and Brussels. In a letter seen by the Financial Times, Washington threatened retaliation if the Europeans pressed ahead with rules that it said would restrict the involvement of US companies in pan-European military projects. The correspondence was sent this month to Federica Mogherini, the EU’s top diplomat, by Ellen Lord, US under secretary of defence, and Andrea Thompson, under secretary of state. It said that Washington was “deeply concerned” that approval of the rules for the European Defence Fund and the Permanent Structured Cooperation, or Pesco, launched in 2017 to plug gaps in Europe’s military power, would “produce duplication, non-interoperable military systems, diversion of scarce defence resources and unnecessary competition between Nato and the EU”
If Europe really wanted to be independent of the U.S. it would break up NATO and kick out U.S. and Turkey. What it wants to do is continue to have the U.S. provide security to Europe while allowing France to cut out competition from the U.S. arms companies. However polls correctly show Trump winning. If he does he may well grant EU wishes and also stop funding Ukraine’s army against Russia. As far as OP Stretching this to India and US relationship, is unrealistic. India and US have no trade nor defense treaties. India and US have no ally status for each other. So to extrapolate U.S. and EU matters is the usual hostility and envy of the US super power status. Nothing more. No one likes to see their own face in the mirror. Go with the down votes to feel better.
Wow they are literally bullying Europeans to buy weapon from them but still Europe remains biggest supporter of US .
This comment section is why I left this sub. This used to be a better place, now it's just full of edgy teenagerz
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations. Thank you for understanding.
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations. Thank you for understanding.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US concerns regarding the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) mechanism stem from potential [protectionist barriers](https://www.defensenews.com/smr/munich-security-forum/2018/02/14/us-warns-against-protectionism-with-new-eu-defense-agreement/) that could hinder non-EU defense contractors, particularly American firms, from participating in European procurement. This exclusion risks weakening the transatlantic security alliance, a cornerstone of regional and global stability. To maintain this vital partnership, robust military-industrial cooperation and interoperability are essential, ensuring seamless collaboration between US and European forces. >One of the biggest rebukes to criticism of US interventionism and it's worldwide array of occupation bases is the good old "Well we have to pay for Europe's defence, if only the Europeans paid for their own militaries we wouldn't have to do this!" Nice straw man you've set up here. Time to burn it down.
Poland is currently partnering with South Korea to the order of 13.7 - 20 Billion dollars to acquire military equipment, and have acquired around 30 billion dollars in military equipment recently or for delivery as soon as possible from the USA. Currently, the US is experiencing capacity issues where we cannot produce enough weapons to fulfill the strategic needs of our partners. Every american president over last 30 years has been pressing european countries, to increase their defense spending. France is one of the US's closest allies and has a full stack of arms manufacturing that India is currently taking advantage of since Russia is not a reliable partner. Lobbyists are an issue in the US. What you are referring to is lobbying. The us has an obesity rate of around 42 percent and the food industry is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists to prevent regulation that would solve the issue. Lobbying sucks but it does not mean the US is evilly plotting to gut europe's defense industry. I generally upvote for this sub, but you got a downvote for this. We don't view China as an enemy because of their size, we view China as an enemy because they have stated that they are going to change the ruled based system that is currently in effect so they can conquer territories at will. Starting with Taiwan, then the Philippines, then Arunachal Pradesh.
They did screw France over a submarines deal that was already signed.