I kinda agree to your general point but it seems awfully shortsighted and narrow in the information it's based upon. Narrow in the sense that Russia "has rebui

I kinda agree to your general point but it seems awfully shortsighted and narrow in the information it's based upon. Narrow in the sense that Russia "has rebuilt its global status" while sacrificing many of their global position: security guarantor at Caucasus collapsed with Armenia and Azerbaijan war (something western media was oddly quiet about. Maybe due to the Turkish gass pipeline project), Losing ground in Syria and even report that the their influence in Africa through Wagner etc is not as great as it used to be. Short sighted in that the take on India is true now, but would've equally applied to China around the time of Deng and it's opening up. It was also that same short sightedness that led US (with Kissinger) to side with Pakistan which is part of the reason you can't really call India aligned to US interest in any meaningful sense. Sensible analysis, but only based on narrow fact, and ignoring historical context and the fact that those "insignificant parameters(non global power)" stil act on their own interests and more or less have some effect. ignoring that can often blow up in your face. That's probably why the realists, which I'm assuming you're part of from the way you put things out, while sounding good on paper don't really have a great track record (mainly Kissinger, again.) of successful decision making. Nothing was learned in the Vietnam failure, and it was repeated in Afghanistan by that line of thoughts.