3 ms·
I'm not kidding. But you're talking about something different. India and Soviet Union had a different kind of co-production deal. It has always been, even to t
by ra7 3y ago
I'm not kidding. But you're talking about something different.
India and Soviet Union had a different kind of co-production deal. It has always been, even to this day with Russia, technology transfer and licensing i.e. you help develop systems and then fully hand over to India. No troop deployment, you're only in it for the money. The BrahMos missile development is the best example of this.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> even to this day with Russia, technology transfer i.e. you help develop systems and then fully hand over to India No troops, but certainly Russians. When the “help develop systems” part is in effect, you’re as good as allies. There are more broken defence treaties than cases of military technology coöperation betrayals. That is why those deals are so closely scrutinised. Treaties promise something in the future. Co-production delivers something today. Maybe there was foreign policy naïveté in New Delhi at the time. I don’t think so, but perhaps. On the Soviet side, they certainly knew what they were doing.
- ra7 3y ago> When the “help develop systems” part is in effect, you’re as good as allies. Sure, I agree with that. But there are different degrees of being allies. "Help develop systems" is nowhere near "risk your own troops to defend another country" (a.k.a. NATO). That's the distinction I'm trying to make.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoAgree. But the meaningful part of NATO isn’t the paper, it’s the deployments. Same for the ‘54 pact with Pakistan. If someone attacked Pakistani military installations, there was a good chance of taking out an American. That’s the deterrence. The Soviets didn’t put boots on the ground, so a similar risk wasn’t present. But one, that wasn’t knowable at the time. And two, there absolutely would have been Russian assets in the vicinity while everyone was learning how to do their jobs.
- ra7 3y agoWell, NATO conditions on paper are what kicked in post 9/11 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most NATO countries risked their troops because the US was attacked, even though their own military installations/deployments were never attacked.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoTrue. I shouldn't say that the paper is worthless. But between a piece of paper and materiel, there are very few cases were a country would choose the former.
- splintercell 3y agoJust direct the other guy to the declassified Telegrams of Nixon administration instead of trying to infer all this unnecessary tertiary stuff.