12 ms·

> You can't kick the BRICS out of SWIFT Why would you need to kick BRICS out of SWIFT? India is a US ally on Quad, South Africa and Brazil aren't allied with R

by jeswin 5y ago

> You can't kick the BRICS out of SWIFT Why would you need to kick BRICS out of SWIFT? India is a US ally on Quad, South Africa and Brazil aren't allied with Russia either. And at this point, no one is talking about kicking China out of SWIFT.

lobocinza 5y ago
Brazil is completely dependent on China for export/import. Current president is a Putin fan boy and tyrant wannabe.
abhishekjha 5y ago
> India is a US ally on Quad India has a different perspective for what does that exactly entail. India has its own UPI and Rupay systems. It sure would see SWIFT falling.
throwaway4good 5y ago
Are you sure that India is an US ally wrt. Russia?
- Paradigma11 5y ago
  I am. Russia is moving towards china and so is moving away from india.
- parthdesai 5y ago
  Well considering US was ready to bomb India and it was a Russian submarine that saved India, it makes sense. Also don't forget about US supplying arms and aid to Pakistan which Pakistan in turn would use to arm Talibans and Kashmiri insurgents. On top of that, US was pretty vocal about wanting sanctions on India for testing out nuclear weapons. Given the history, who would be an ally in that case?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > US was ready to bomb India and it was a Russian submarine that saved India ? > Given the history, who would be an ally in that case? If such history prevented alliances, there would be none. France and Germany are allies. India and the US are allies when their interests align - less so regarding Ukraine, more so regarding China - which depends significantly, but not completely, and especially in the long term, on their values (democracy, human rights, etc.) aligning.
    - sinyug 5y ago
      > ? In 1971, the US actively supported the genocide committed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by the Pakistani Army. When the Indian Army intervened, Nixon sent the 7th Fleet that included the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to intimidate India. In response, the USSR sent their own flotilla.[1][2][3][4] [1] 1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy (https://www.rbth.com/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia_sank_nixons_gunboat_diplomacy_14041 https://www.rbth.com/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia...) [2] 1971 War: How the US tried to corner India (https://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/26claude.htm https://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/26claude.htm) [3] US forces had orders to target Indian Army in 1971 (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-forces-had-orders-to-target-Indian-Army-in-1971/articleshow/10625404.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-forces-had-orde...) [4] Bangladesh Liberation War - US and USSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#US_and_USSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#US_a...)
    - sumanthvepa 5y ago
      Some historical context is probably needed that most non-Indians won't have. During the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, the US sent a carrier group from the Seventh fleet into the Bay of Bengal as a means to deter Indian invasion of what was then East Pakistan. The Soviet Union countered this move by sending a nuclear attack submarine into the Bay of Bengal to prevent freedom operation for the carrier group. The move apparently worked, and the carrier group backed off. India defeated Pakistan and East Pakistan became what is now the independent nation of Bangladesh. Hopefully, I have the historical facts right. As to how the mere presence of a nuclear attack submarine can scare off an entire carrier group, I still don't understand. But then again I build web apps not submarines.
  - sbmthakur 5y ago
    The events of 1971 were preceded by events such as the US admitting Pakistan into SEATO (NATO like alliance in South East Asia). India had no other alternative but to choose USSR back then.
  - ROTMetro 5y ago
    I'll just leave this right here from the time the USA told the USSR a nuclear attack on China is a nuclear attack on the USA: https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved-china-soviet-nuclear-attack https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved...
- not2b 5y ago
  In the past, India had good relations with the USSR and bought weapons from them, but now they are more more tied to the US economy than to Russia's. They buy from and sell to the US much more than to Russia.
  - sbmthakur 5y ago
    When it comes to arms, Russia still takes precedence over the US for India. Russia is willing to sell their state of the art weapons to India and the deals involve significant tech transfer which helps in propping up local defense industries.
- throwrqX 5y ago
  Historically India has been closer with USSR/Russia but I think in the future this will change. Obviously as other posters have noted India has stronger trade ties with America now, and there are lots of Indians in America in influential positions (like CEOs of big companies). I also see a natural coalition with anti-Islamists in America and India.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  India has its own interests (of course). During the Cold War, India was part of the Non-Aligned Movement, a coalition of countries which sought a third path, supporting neither side. https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/non-aligned-movement-nam/ https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/no... India is far from Ukraine and so doesn't have many geopolitical interests at stake, unlike European countries and (by very close alliances and relationships) the US. India does have at stake the rules-based international order, for which a fundamental rule is respect for national sovereignty, and respect for the legitimacy of democracies. Sharing borders with Pakistan and China, India has a special interest in those.
  - mhermher 5y ago
    "rules-based international order" Where are these rules written, do you have a link?
    - tempnow987 5y ago
      Does the US follow these rules in terms of action in places like Syria (almost certainly CIA providing weapons) Libya, Iraq, Vietnam etc? I'm actually kind of curious to see how the US measures up on these rules. I thought the US had an interest in things like regime change rather than some of the stability focuses others have had.
      - mhermher 5y ago
        Of course the US follows the rules, by definition. The "Rules Based International Order" is just a euphemism for "Post War US Hegemony". And the rules are "The US state department tells you what to do, and you do it". Anyway, a rules-based international order already exists. It's called the UN charter, but that's not what they mean.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        > The "Rules Based International Order" is just a euphemism for "Post War US Hegemony". And the rules are "The US state department tells you what to do, and you do it". Sarcasm and hyperbole are fun, but can be misleading. The US-led rules-based international order certainly doesn't always follow the rules, and the US can be a major violator, but the rules have great influence and power. Generally, the US considers it in its interest to have an internation order based on rules, not on military power. But lacking a soveriegn international government, the US's military power has underwritten those rules since WWII. The UN charter is one part of the rules, but international law is based on many institutions and agreements. Here's a great source with leading experts (e.g., top lawyers from the State Department and White House) for anyone who wants to know about it: https://justsecurity.org https://justsecurity.org
- int_19h 5y ago
  India was one of the abstain votes on the Ukraine resolution in UNSC, so we have our answer.
nradov 5y ago
India is only loosely a US ally on issues of mutual interest. They also have fairly good relations with Russia and don't much care what happens to Ukraine.
themgt 5y ago
The Quad is threadbare pseudo-alliance specifically designed around containing China, period. India has long been friendly with Russia and is non-committal on the Ukraine situation and is apparently talking about "how to establish a rupee payment mechanism for trade with Russia to soften the blow of Western sanctions"[1] It would be wise to assess how much the rest of the world is willing to go along with isolating Russia before we go in sanction-guns blazing and wind up isolating ourselves instead. [1] https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1497162914586898475 https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1497162914586898475

by jeswin 5y ago

lobocinza 5y ago

Brazil is completely dependent on China for export/import. Current president is a Putin fan boy and tyrant wannabe.

abhishekjha 5y ago

> India is a US ally on Quad India has a different perspective for what does that exactly entail. India has its own UPI and Rupay systems. It sure would see SWIFT falling.

throwaway4good 5y ago

Are you sure that India is an US ally wrt. Russia?

Paradigma11 5y ago
I am. Russia is moving towards china and so is moving away from india.
parthdesai 5y ago
Well considering US was ready to bomb India and it was a Russian submarine that saved India, it makes sense. Also don't forget about US supplying arms and aid to Pakistan which Pakistan in turn would use to arm Talibans and Kashmiri insurgents. On top of that, US was pretty vocal about wanting sanctions on India for testing out nuclear weapons. Given the history, who would be an ally in that case?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > US was ready to bomb India and it was a Russian submarine that saved India ? > Given the history, who would be an ally in that case? If such history prevented alliances, there would be none. France and Germany are allies. India and the US are allies when their interests align - less so regarding Ukraine, more so regarding China - which depends significantly, but not completely, and especially in the long term, on their values (democracy, human rights, etc.) aligning.
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > ? In 1971, the US actively supported the genocide committed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by the Pakistani Army. When the Indian Army intervened, Nixon sent the 7th Fleet that included the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to intimidate India. In response, the USSR sent their own flotilla.[1][2][3][4] [1] 1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy (https://www.rbth.com/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia_sank_nixons_gunboat_diplomacy_14041 https://www.rbth.com/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia...) [2] 1971 War: How the US tried to corner India (https://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/26claude.htm https://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/26claude.htm) [3] US forces had orders to target Indian Army in 1971 (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-forces-had-orders-to-target-Indian-Army-in-1971/articleshow/10625404.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-forces-had-orde...) [4] Bangladesh Liberation War - US and USSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#US_and_USSR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#US_a...)
  - sumanthvepa 5y ago
    Some historical context is probably needed that most non-Indians won't have. During the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, the US sent a carrier group from the Seventh fleet into the Bay of Bengal as a means to deter Indian invasion of what was then East Pakistan. The Soviet Union countered this move by sending a nuclear attack submarine into the Bay of Bengal to prevent freedom operation for the carrier group. The move apparently worked, and the carrier group backed off. India defeated Pakistan and East Pakistan became what is now the independent nation of Bangladesh. Hopefully, I have the historical facts right. As to how the mere presence of a nuclear attack submarine can scare off an entire carrier group, I still don't understand. But then again I build web apps not submarines.
- sbmthakur 5y ago
  The events of 1971 were preceded by events such as the US admitting Pakistan into SEATO (NATO like alliance in South East Asia). India had no other alternative but to choose USSR back then.
- ROTMetro 5y ago
  I'll just leave this right here from the time the USA told the USSR a nuclear attack on China is a nuclear attack on the USA: https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved-china-soviet-nuclear-attack https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved...
not2b 5y ago
In the past, India had good relations with the USSR and bought weapons from them, but now they are more more tied to the US economy than to Russia's. They buy from and sell to the US much more than to Russia.
- sbmthakur 5y ago
  When it comes to arms, Russia still takes precedence over the US for India. Russia is willing to sell their state of the art weapons to India and the deals involve significant tech transfer which helps in propping up local defense industries.
throwrqX 5y ago
Historically India has been closer with USSR/Russia but I think in the future this will change. Obviously as other posters have noted India has stronger trade ties with America now, and there are lots of Indians in America in influential positions (like CEOs of big companies). I also see a natural coalition with anti-Islamists in America and India.
wolverine876 5y ago
India has its own interests (of course). During the Cold War, India was part of the Non-Aligned Movement, a coalition of countries which sought a third path, supporting neither side. https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/non-aligned-movement-nam/ https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/no... India is far from Ukraine and so doesn't have many geopolitical interests at stake, unlike European countries and (by very close alliances and relationships) the US. India does have at stake the rules-based international order, for which a fundamental rule is respect for national sovereignty, and respect for the legitimacy of democracies. Sharing borders with Pakistan and China, India has a special interest in those.
- mhermher 5y ago
  "rules-based international order" Where are these rules written, do you have a link?
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    Does the US follow these rules in terms of action in places like Syria (almost certainly CIA providing weapons) Libya, Iraq, Vietnam etc? I'm actually kind of curious to see how the US measures up on these rules. I thought the US had an interest in things like regime change rather than some of the stability focuses others have had.
    - mhermher 5y ago
      Of course the US follows the rules, by definition. The "Rules Based International Order" is just a euphemism for "Post War US Hegemony". And the rules are "The US state department tells you what to do, and you do it". Anyway, a rules-based international order already exists. It's called the UN charter, but that's not what they mean.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > The "Rules Based International Order" is just a euphemism for "Post War US Hegemony". And the rules are "The US state department tells you what to do, and you do it". Sarcasm and hyperbole are fun, but can be misleading. The US-led rules-based international order certainly doesn't always follow the rules, and the US can be a major violator, but the rules have great influence and power. Generally, the US considers it in its interest to have an internation order based on rules, not on military power. But lacking a soveriegn international government, the US's military power has underwritten those rules since WWII. The UN charter is one part of the rules, but international law is based on many institutions and agreements. Here's a great source with leading experts (e.g., top lawyers from the State Department and White House) for anyone who wants to know about it: https://justsecurity.org https://justsecurity.org
int_19h 5y ago
India was one of the abstain votes on the Ukraine resolution in UNSC, so we have our answer.

nradov 5y ago

India is only loosely a US ally on issues of mutual interest. They also have fairly good relations with Russia and don't much care what happens to Ukraine.

themgt 5y ago

The Quad is threadbare pseudo-alliance specifically designed around containing China, period. India has long been friendly with Russia and is non-committal on the Ukraine situation and is apparently talking about "how to establish a rupee payment mechanism for trade with Russia to soften the blow of Western sanctions"[1] It would be wise to assess how much the rest of the world is willing to go along with isolating Russia before we go in sanction-guns blazing and wind up isolating ourselves instead. [1] https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1497162914586898475 https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1497162914586898475