>keep its allies in line With that kind of characterization then label US "allies" for what they are, satraps. Which while the trio are somewhere on the contin

>keep its allies in line With that kind of characterization then label US "allies" for what they are, satraps. Which while the trio are somewhere on the continuum, they still have autonomy to realize US security commitment is only worthwhile if it ensures holistic security. Plunging entire region into war, potentially another forever one isn't in their security interest. At the end of the day security guarantee is a different arrangement than committed alliance, especially to contain PRC in their own backyard at all costs. Security partners are not allies who are obligated to come to US defense or bleed for US interests after all. That's not the kind of commitment US can twist arm for buy in. India/Modi doesn't seem very on board either. Ultimately, Jaishankar sees US/west as hegemon of yesterday and PRC/India collaboration as essential to Asian Century. Previously sanctioned Modi knows how fickle west can be, hasn't bought in outside of hedging. Certainly not enough to provide basing for US considering their history. >I bet, in a decade or so, China will be back into a state of North Korea, except with skyscrapers if the US will do so. US probably could do so, but the problem even NK emerging from rubble retained enough expertise to now have a nuclear program that credibly threatens US. But they're simply too small bargain for anything better. PRC on the other hand is large and capable enough to negotiate/fight for better, and could feasibly turn US (and satraps) into North Korea as well. IMO, short of utter calamity, PRC is simply too big to acquiesce to US foreign policy indefinitely and is in a position to at least make sure US suffers decline as much if not more.