7 ms·

As Japan is already a member, if you had to pick one additional Asian country for membership India might be the better option if you're looking to slow or halt

As Japan is already a member, if you had to pick one additional Asian country for membership India might be the better option if you're looking to slow or halt Russo-Chinese transgressions. While they might have a much lower per-capita GDP India is a force to be reckoned with because of it's population, high-end education (admittedly for some), and natural resources.

RugnirViking 3y ago
also as a partner India are a much more strategic pick. They are wavering between the two worlds that are shaping up. South korea has essentially already chosen (north korea pretty much made their choice for them), adding them wont do anything more diplomatically
smlavine 3y ago
I thought that India was reliant on Russia for military equipment?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Yeah, its not like anyone in the G-7 or the broader Western community makes and sells military equipment to countries that are aligned with them, so they are stuck permanently with Russia, making it impractical to switch alignments.
Lio 3y ago
I think the main problem with that is not India's GDP but that it's backing up its close ally Russia by buying their oil. It will be interesting to see how that works out if tensions between increase further between India and China, who Russia are now also closely allied. Interesting times all round.
halJordan 3y ago
India lacks the cultural buy-in to be a serious member of these groups of democracies. They just do not want the things a UK or Germany wants. Mores and values are more aligned with South Korea than India; adding India would weaken the G7.
- neilalexander 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on this some more? I am curious what you mean when you say they do not want the same things.
  - inconceivable 3y ago
    india buys a huge amount of weapons and energy from russia. rival pakistan is an intelligence partner of the five eyes. india also just doesn't like the UK for colonial reasons. they don't take kindly to being 'told' what to do by the west, which is 110% what is going to happen if they join any kind of economic or defense alliance. "let's all hate china together and be BFFs" sounds great, possibly even the obviously correct, moral and upstanding thing to do if you're a white westerner, for everyone else in sk, india, brazil... it doesn't really work. there's that pesky colonialism/imperialism historical thing always getting in the way.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      I think you’re mostly right but India is definitely in favor of hating China. They just don’t have any plans to lock theirselves into a western alliance that forces them to be a vassal of the US.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  India wants trade partners. Russia and to some extent China are currently happy to fill that void because the west seems to have no desire. Bringing India into western economies could effectively replace China for it's cheap labor and manufacturing for the west, and India would have more economic reliability and opportunity for itself. India wouldn't sever its ties with China and Russia overnight, but it would help to erode their despotic influence against the rest of the world.
bakuninsbart 3y ago
India would block strong statements against Russia and inhibit cooperation that benefits the rich world over developing countries. The G7 is essentially just a club of western-aligned rich democracies, and India isn't two of those things. India has little interest in aligning with the west, and little to gain. They are going to continue with a third path, or possibly creating their own block in the future.
- mc32 3y ago
  They are already part of the BRICS.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    BRICS is not a real thing. It's just an acronym someone made up, like FAANG. There are no BRICS summits. These countries even have border disputes with each other.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      There have been annual BRIC/BRICS summits since 2009 (South Africa didn’t become part of it until 2011.) BRIC or the BRICs referring to the other four members is an older term, but it has since become something of a superficially, at least, real thing, largely because it being perceived to be real serves (different, for each member) the propaganda interests of the members.
      - amadeuspagel 3y ago
        Yeah, I've just read the wikipedia article[1] and it appears a lot "realler" then I thought. Headquarters, even. Bullshitting is the best way to learn. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
        arroz 3y ago
        It’s mostly a propaganda thing to make China (and recently Russia) look bigger I am not sure how India and Brazil benefit from it
LatteLazy 3y ago
The point of the G7/G8 etc was that by getting together and setting rules among themselves, the big (economic, trading) powers would present everyone else with the fait accompli. That is why China, Russia and the US all joined together in it in the first place. Membership is not a matter of being fair or being gifted by one nation or another. It is a matter of aligned economic interests and reliability to present a united front. That is why India has never been asked to join previously: too little trade, too little aligned interest with the rest of the group, perceived low reliability.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The point of the G7/G8 etc was that by getting together and setting rules among themselves, the big (economic, trading) powers would present everyone else with the fait accompli. That is why China, Russia and the US all joined together in it in the first place. China was never a part of the G-7, and Russia wasn’t a separate country (and the USSR wasn’t a member) when it was founded as the G-5 or expanded to the G-7; it was admitted after 1994 first as a “+1” non-member, and then as #8 when it became the G-8, before they were expelled in the wake of the invasion of Crimea. Not only is your explanation wrong, the facts you explain with it are also wildly wrong.
cies 3y ago
[flagged]
gumby 3y ago
The Quad (of which India is a part) is the structure more appropriate for that. The point of the Gn (currently 7) was to have a little structure for the folks who were a big part of the global economy and were worth talking together when there was a common problem. Countries like India and China are still pretty poor on a per capita basis and don't really interact with the international banking, force projection, or trading systems in the way the G6/7 members did and do. G7 members all have per capita gdp in the same neighborhood which gives you an idea of their ability to respond collectively to events (whether they do so well is another matter). Russia was always an anomaly; adding them to the group was more an aspirational goal than a practical one, so it's no wonder that fell apart. SK makes a lot of sense and doesn't even need the justification ("should have another asian member"), though its per capita is far behind the others. Compare that to Australia (also a Quad member) which has a higher per capita gdp than most G7 members and an economy around the same size as SK's -- it's not really big enough on those other topics to be worth adding to the Gn).

RugnirViking 3y ago

also as a partner India are a much more strategic pick. They are wavering between the two worlds that are shaping up. South korea has essentially already chosen (north korea pretty much made their choice for them), adding them wont do anything more diplomatically

smlavine 3y ago

I thought that India was reliant on Russia for military equipment?

dragonwriter 3y ago
Yeah, its not like anyone in the G-7 or the broader Western community makes and sells military equipment to countries that are aligned with them, so they are stuck permanently with Russia, making it impractical to switch alignments.

Lio 3y ago

I think the main problem with that is not India's GDP but that it's backing up its close ally Russia by buying their oil. It will be interesting to see how that works out if tensions between increase further between India and China, who Russia are now also closely allied. Interesting times all round.

halJordan 3y ago

India lacks the cultural buy-in to be a serious member of these groups of democracies. They just do not want the things a UK or Germany wants. Mores and values are more aligned with South Korea than India; adding India would weaken the G7.

neilalexander 3y ago
Can you elaborate on this some more? I am curious what you mean when you say they do not want the same things.
- inconceivable 3y ago
  india buys a huge amount of weapons and energy from russia. rival pakistan is an intelligence partner of the five eyes. india also just doesn't like the UK for colonial reasons. they don't take kindly to being 'told' what to do by the west, which is 110% what is going to happen if they join any kind of economic or defense alliance. "let's all hate china together and be BFFs" sounds great, possibly even the obviously correct, moral and upstanding thing to do if you're a white westerner, for everyone else in sk, india, brazil... it doesn't really work. there's that pesky colonialism/imperialism historical thing always getting in the way.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    I think you’re mostly right but India is definitely in favor of hating China. They just don’t have any plans to lock theirselves into a western alliance that forces them to be a vassal of the US.
brodouevencode 3y ago
India wants trade partners. Russia and to some extent China are currently happy to fill that void because the west seems to have no desire. Bringing India into western economies could effectively replace China for it's cheap labor and manufacturing for the west, and India would have more economic reliability and opportunity for itself. India wouldn't sever its ties with China and Russia overnight, but it would help to erode their despotic influence against the rest of the world.

bakuninsbart 3y ago

India would block strong statements against Russia and inhibit cooperation that benefits the rich world over developing countries. The G7 is essentially just a club of western-aligned rich democracies, and India isn't two of those things. India has little interest in aligning with the west, and little to gain. They are going to continue with a third path, or possibly creating their own block in the future.

mc32 3y ago
They are already part of the BRICS.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  BRICS is not a real thing. It's just an acronym someone made up, like FAANG. There are no BRICS summits. These countries even have border disputes with each other.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    There have been annual BRIC/BRICS summits since 2009 (South Africa didn’t become part of it until 2011.) BRIC or the BRICs referring to the other four members is an older term, but it has since become something of a superficially, at least, real thing, largely because it being perceived to be real serves (different, for each member) the propaganda interests of the members.
    - amadeuspagel 3y ago
      Yeah, I've just read the wikipedia article[1] and it appears a lot "realler" then I thought. Headquarters, even. Bullshitting is the best way to learn. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
      - arroz 3y ago
        It’s mostly a propaganda thing to make China (and recently Russia) look bigger I am not sure how India and Brazil benefit from it

LatteLazy 3y ago

The point of the G7/G8 etc was that by getting together and setting rules among themselves, the big (economic, trading) powers would present everyone else with the fait accompli. That is why China, Russia and the US all joined together in it in the first place. Membership is not a matter of being fair or being gifted by one nation or another. It is a matter of aligned economic interests and reliability to present a united front. That is why India has never been asked to join previously: too little trade, too little aligned interest with the rest of the group, perceived low reliability.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The point of the G7/G8 etc was that by getting together and setting rules among themselves, the big (economic, trading) powers would present everyone else with the fait accompli. That is why China, Russia and the US all joined together in it in the first place. China was never a part of the G-7, and Russia wasn’t a separate country (and the USSR wasn’t a member) when it was founded as the G-5 or expanded to the G-7; it was admitted after 1994 first as a “+1” non-member, and then as #8 when it became the G-8, before they were expelled in the wake of the invasion of Crimea. Not only is your explanation wrong, the facts you explain with it are also wildly wrong.

cies 3y ago

[flagged]

gumby 3y ago

The Quad (of which India is a part) is the structure more appropriate for that. The point of the Gn (currently 7) was to have a little structure for the folks who were a big part of the global economy and were worth talking together when there was a common problem. Countries like India and China are still pretty poor on a per capita basis and don't really interact with the international banking, force projection, or trading systems in the way the G6/7 members did and do. G7 members all have per capita gdp in the same neighborhood which gives you an idea of their ability to respond collectively to events (whether they do so well is another matter). Russia was always an anomaly; adding them to the group was more an aspirational goal than a practical one, so it's no wonder that fell apart. SK makes a lot of sense and doesn't even need the justification ("should have another asian member"), though its per capita is far behind the others. Compare that to Australia (also a Quad member) which has a higher per capita gdp than most G7 members and an economy around the same size as SK's -- it's not really big enough on those other topics to be worth adding to the Gn).