3 ms·

Based on only a little understanding, India's geopolitical position makes it neutral in US-Russia/Soviet and US-China rivalries. India could and can securely ig

by mmooss 11mo ago

Based on only a little understanding, India's geopolitical position makes it neutral in US-Russia/Soviet and US-China rivalries. India could and can securely ignore the rivalies: Its location isn't strategic (valuable) to those rivalries, unlike Europe or Japan; for example, India shares a border with China but the Himlayas are an uncrossable barrier for large military operations - India is no threat to and is not threatened by China in a serious way, and is far from Russia and its strategic interests. Its enormous size and population make it very expensive to influence militarily or politically, unlike smaller countries in Africa, for example. Those factors plus India's location made them less economically dependent on the rivarly countries. And India was very poor, so it provided little value to control economically. For India, the obvious choice was and is to stay out of those fights - they have little to gain and much to lose, both in money spent on military, and other geopolitical costs including sovereignty. Instead, they can sit securely in South Asia and invest in themselves (or the leaders can cash in on corruption). Now India has much more value economically, but that also makes them more secure. They verbally becoming more aggressive, but they have few targets and it seems like the commonplace tactic of nationalism. > the situation may have been more complex than that It always is on a micro level, but India is not becoming a US ally.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> India's geopolitical position makes it neutral in US-Russia/Soviet and US-China rivalries Neutral with the Russians, a natural ally against the Chinese. (China and India have extant border disputes. And China has been working with Pakistan to contain India for decades.)
- dragonwriter 11mo ago
  Yeah, the problem with that argument is that the US has been actively working with Pakistan for influence in Central Asia for several decades, and has formally designated it a major non-NATO ally for the last couple decades. Which kind of undercuts any “natural” anti-China alliance with India.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > Which kind of undercuts any “natural” anti-China alliance with India True. I've always meant to research how India and Pakistan polarised into their respective Soviet and American spheres, particularly given China and Pakistan's nuclear coöperation.
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    > the US has been actively working with Pakistan for influence in Central Asia for several decades That was the case awhile ago. After the Afghan war the US switched to India, who they would much prefer as an ally - huge economy, growing military, relevant in sea lanes. The US basically abandoned Central Asia along with exiting Afghanistan.
    - dragonwriter 11mo ago
      > That was the case awhile ago. It's literally still true right now (Major Non-NATO Ally status is an official designation with legal effects on trade in security-related trade and contracting eligibility effects), which has trust implications on the policy shift to try to woo India more tightly.
      - mmooss 11mo ago
        The US isn't working much with Pakistan, regardless of their status (afaik). Pakistan has little to offer with Afghanistan over, and hurst the valuable relationship with India.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  > China and India have extant border disputes. And China has been working with Pakistan to contain India for decades. That greatly exaggerates the picture, as I understand it. They have symbolic border disputes which are difficult to resolve (you can't really fight a war in the Himalyas). Neither can appear to surrender (see alephnerd's comments on this page), but otherwise no interests are really at stake. They can't affect each other militarily, not much geopolitically - two oceans and the Himalyas separate them - and so far not much economically. The US has been trying to enlist India against China but India, as usual, is happy to accept our gifts of trade, technolgy, and miltary aid and to smile for the cameras, but isn't participating in our geopolitical struggles. Why would they get involved in our fight? To win some glaciers in the Himalyas? India also lacks the military and really the economic power to compete with China, and has many other things to spend money on.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > They have symbolic border disputes They shot at each other in '21 [1]. > They can't affect each other militarily China is building naval bases in Pakistan [2] and Sri Lanka [3]. India is heavily dependent on seaborne oil imports [4]. I'm not even going into the various chokes China has on India along the Himalayas. (India lacks similar game-over pinch points on Beijing.) In the same way India controls the upstream Indus to Pakistan, China controls the upstream Brahmaputra to India [5]. (India maintains Nepal and Bhutan as de facto suzerainties.) > not much geopolitically Pakistan just beat India in an air battle. India flew Russian and French jets. Pakistan fielded an integrated Chinese air defence system. > US has been trying to enlist India against China but India, as usual, is happy to accept our gifts of trade, technolgy, and miltary aid and to smile for the cameras, but isn't participating in our geopolitical struggles India was banning Chinese imports before Trump. Which makes sense. China is building capabilities that would let it unilaterally shut down the Indian economy and potentially, if it can pressure Russia, military, on the order of months. That means territories, alliances and even market access terms New Delhi would prefer to determine as a sovereign become ones it must defer to Beijing on. India won't (and shouldn't) fight America's fight for it. It's a properly sovereign state. But sovereignty takes work. And much of that work dovetails with the alliances America is building in the region. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%... [2] https://www.csis.org/analysis/pakistans-gwadar-port-new-naval-base-chinas-string-pearls-indo-pacific https://www.csis.org/analysis/pakistans-gwadar-port-new-nava... [3] https://thediplomat.com/2023/08/aiddata-report-warns-of-a-chinese-naval-base-in-sri-lankas-hambantota-port/ https://thediplomat.com/2023/08/aiddata-report-warns-of-a-ch... [4] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/parliamentary-panel-flags-oil-import-dependence-urges-diversification-amid-geopolitical-risks/articleshow/125965709.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmaputra_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmaputra_River

by mmooss 11mo ago

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> India's geopolitical position makes it neutral in US-Russia/Soviet and US-China rivalries Neutral with the Russians, a natural ally against the Chinese. (China and India have extant border disputes. And China has been working with Pakistan to contain India for decades.)

dragonwriter 11mo ago
Yeah, the problem with that argument is that the US has been actively working with Pakistan for influence in Central Asia for several decades, and has formally designated it a major non-NATO ally for the last couple decades. Which kind of undercuts any “natural” anti-China alliance with India.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > Which kind of undercuts any “natural” anti-China alliance with India True. I've always meant to research how India and Pakistan polarised into their respective Soviet and American spheres, particularly given China and Pakistan's nuclear coöperation.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  > the US has been actively working with Pakistan for influence in Central Asia for several decades That was the case awhile ago. After the Afghan war the US switched to India, who they would much prefer as an ally - huge economy, growing military, relevant in sea lanes. The US basically abandoned Central Asia along with exiting Afghanistan.
  - dragonwriter 11mo ago
    > That was the case awhile ago. It's literally still true right now (Major Non-NATO Ally status is an official designation with legal effects on trade in security-related trade and contracting eligibility effects), which has trust implications on the policy shift to try to woo India more tightly.
    - mmooss 11mo ago
      The US isn't working much with Pakistan, regardless of their status (afaik). Pakistan has little to offer with Afghanistan over, and hurst the valuable relationship with India.
mmooss 11mo ago
> China and India have extant border disputes. And China has been working with Pakistan to contain India for decades. That greatly exaggerates the picture, as I understand it. They have symbolic border disputes which are difficult to resolve (you can't really fight a war in the Himalyas). Neither can appear to surrender (see alephnerd's comments on this page), but otherwise no interests are really at stake. They can't affect each other militarily, not much geopolitically - two oceans and the Himalyas separate them - and so far not much economically. The US has been trying to enlist India against China but India, as usual, is happy to accept our gifts of trade, technolgy, and miltary aid and to smile for the cameras, but isn't participating in our geopolitical struggles. Why would they get involved in our fight? To win some glaciers in the Himalyas? India also lacks the military and really the economic power to compete with China, and has many other things to spend money on.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > They have symbolic border disputes They shot at each other in '21 [1]. > They can't affect each other militarily China is building naval bases in Pakistan [2] and Sri Lanka [3]. India is heavily dependent on seaborne oil imports [4]. I'm not even going into the various chokes China has on India along the Himalayas. (India lacks similar game-over pinch points on Beijing.) In the same way India controls the upstream Indus to Pakistan, China controls the upstream Brahmaputra to India [5]. (India maintains Nepal and Bhutan as de facto suzerainties.) > not much geopolitically Pakistan just beat India in an air battle. India flew Russian and French jets. Pakistan fielded an integrated Chinese air defence system. > US has been trying to enlist India against China but India, as usual, is happy to accept our gifts of trade, technolgy, and miltary aid and to smile for the cameras, but isn't participating in our geopolitical struggles India was banning Chinese imports before Trump. Which makes sense. China is building capabilities that would let it unilaterally shut down the Indian economy and potentially, if it can pressure Russia, military, on the order of months. That means territories, alliances and even market access terms New Delhi would prefer to determine as a sovereign become ones it must defer to Beijing on. India won't (and shouldn't) fight America's fight for it. It's a properly sovereign state. But sovereignty takes work. And much of that work dovetails with the alliances America is building in the region. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%... [2] https://www.csis.org/analysis/pakistans-gwadar-port-new-naval-base-chinas-string-pearls-indo-pacific https://www.csis.org/analysis/pakistans-gwadar-port-new-nava... [3] https://thediplomat.com/2023/08/aiddata-report-warns-of-a-chinese-naval-base-in-sri-lankas-hambantota-port/ https://thediplomat.com/2023/08/aiddata-report-warns-of-a-ch... [4] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/parliamentary-panel-flags-oil-import-dependence-urges-diversification-amid-geopolitical-risks/articleshow/125965709.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmaputra_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmaputra_River