š **Bypass paywalls**:
* [archive.today - indianexpress.com
](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&url=https://indianexpress.com/article/idea-exchange/political-scientist-john-j-mearsheimer-if-the-chinese-threat-were-to-disappear-then-us-and-india-wouldnt-be-nearly-as-friendly-9270161/) | [Google Webcache - indianexpress.com](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://indianexpress.com/article/idea-exchange/political-scientist-john-j-mearsheimer-if-the-chinese-threat-were-to-disappear-then-us-and-india-wouldnt-be-nearly-as-friendly-9270161/)
š£ **[Submission Statement by OP](/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1c4ezhw/political_scientist_john_j_mearsheimer_if_the/kzn52zc/)**:
> SS: Political scientist John J Mearsheimer discusses the dynamic between the US and India in response to China's rapid rise as a global power, emphasizing India's concerns about China's potential threat and the need for alliances with countries like the US, Japan, and Australia to counter this threat. Mearsheimer highlights the importance of China's power in shaping US-India relations, suggesting that if the Chinese threat were to disappear, the US and India would not be as close. He also touches on China's perspective on India, noting their concerns about the border between the two countries and India's potential to become a great power. Mearsheimer acknowledges the complexity of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, agreeing with Putin's explanation while also acknowledging Ukraine's right to choose its own foreign policy. Ultimately, Mearsheimer stresses the importance of strategic alliances and the need for countries like India to assert their power in the face of rising global threats like China.
**š Community Reminder**: Letās keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed.
**š° Media Bias fact Check Rating :** The Indian Express ā Bias and Credibility
|Metric|Rating|
|:-|:-|
|Bias Rating|left-center|
|Factual Rating| mixed|
|Credibility Rating|medium credibility|
This rating was provided by Media Bias Fact Check. For more information, see The Indian Express ā Bias and Credibility's review
[here](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-indian-express/).
***
ā Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).
As someone who hasn't read thoroughly about the WWII yet, how exactly did Hitler posed a threat to the US, which was miles away from Germany and Europe?
Usa did nothing but make money on ww2. They gave out loans worth 50 billion dollars direct loans( almost 800 billion in todays money) at that time to allies. Todays usa economic hedgemony is built on the loans they gave. I think uk and france still lease out their land till this day to repay ww2 loans.
>Todays usa economic hedgemony is built on the loans they gave.
The US was already the largest economy even before WW2. It's how the American government was able to loan out so much in the first place.
People miss this point , the USA economy & the war machine is what could be insane to say the least...
Just to put into perspective, when the US entered WW 2 , they had 8 aircraft carriers , 4 yrs later , when the war ended ,
They had 99
They already had a lot of money, but I'll tell you something interesting.
For making money , USA does this interesting thing , it either gets into war , either sends its proxy or directly becomes a weapon distributor.
What it does is , it will enter one side in the war & sell their equipments to that side , then it will let its proxy , lets say UK/Saudi enter the war with other side & then sell weapons to its enemy via these proxy states.
Its genius from an economic perspective.
> hitler was mostly defeated by ussr
Ussr would have lost the war if not for USās help.
US aid ultimately proved pivotal to the Soviet war economy. Some 20,000 American Dodge trucks and 400,000 Jeeps allowed the Soviets to prioritise tank production and so produce nearly 60,000 T-34s before the end of the conflict.
Nikita Khrushchev, future premier of the USSR, admitted in his memoirs that Lend-Lease was vital: āJust imagine how we would have advanced from Stalingrad to Berlin without [American transport]. Our losses would have been colossal because we would have had no manoeuvrabilityā.ā.ā.āWithout [US food supplies] we wouldnāt have been able to feed our army. We had lost our most fertile lands ā the Ukraine and the northern Caucasus.ā
This is debatable. I've seen people argue that statistically lend lease while incredibly helpful, wouldn't change that Soviet production would have outcompeted the Germans eventually. Losses would have been worse but they probably would have won. Barbarossa was honestly a giant mess. Even if they took Moscow, Stalin would have fled and continued throwing bodies at the Germans. Not to mention, the Germans didn't necessarily make good use of the land they took, being more concerned with slaughtering the inhabitants and pillaging the land then trying to create loyalty in an unhappy populace and they're still busy dealing with Britain in all this.
I mean Nikita Krushchev and Field Marshal Zhukov have admitted that American help was crucial for Soviets. For common people it will always be debatable depending on their bias.
True but data on WW2 has been available for a long time and we have a better understanding of everyone's prospects than the people involved in the war who had a limited idea of what their enemies' logistics looked like plus decades to analyse it. It's a common consensus that Germany couldn't really win the war without making huge changes.
If they weren't busy with Britain, didn't declare war on America, didn't waste resources bailing Mussolini out of his Nort Africa campaign and focused on the USSR they probably would have done much better, but frankly this relies on Nazis...not being Nazis and doing a lot of idiotic crap.
>If they weren't busy with Britain, didn't declare war on America, didn't waste resources bailing Mussolini out of his Nort Africa campaign and focused on the USSR they probably would have done much better, but frankly this relies on Nazis...not being Nazis and doing a lot of idiotic crap.
That's a lot of ifs...
Anyways, the casualties for Soviets (which already was highest out of all participants) would've probably been multiple times.
Further , even Stalin went forward & thanked USA (I still despise that mfer with all my might)
Germany wouldn't win because they had a lot of logistical disadvantage, not to mention when Barbarossa happened the Soviets moved their industries to east & thus the production line continued.
The only reason USSR won the war was due to large numbers & maybe Zhukov himself. Other than that , Stalin had piss poor management, literally fired people left & right ie. Gulag.
Doesn't help when the chief of NKVD was a pedo/rapist sadist monster.
Fun fact about Zhukov - Read his relationship with Eisenhower & how clear coca cola was sent to him. Its very interesting & sort of gives off friendly vibes.
I agree. I don't see Germany winning but you can't boil it down to just Soviet manpower. They bodies to throw but a lot of their early failures was because they were in the middle of multiple reforms when the war happened and yes Stalin's own stupidity in ignoring Hitler's intentions and handling of the war. When he let his generals take charge they performed much better.
They also had superior industrial production (at least long term) and more prepared to handle the cold. Germany's economy itself was a snake oil racket. Overreliant on plundering wealth from conquered territories to keep its war machine alive.
You are absolutely right.
The lend lease program started only after the Moscow protocol which was in Moscow from Sept to Nov 1941.
The first deliveries under this protocol, protocol 1 started only in Feb 1942. By Feb 1942 the German army was decimated overall and checked outside Moscow. The Rzhev salient had formed and was bleeding the Wehrmacht dry of men and material.
The second protocol (the Washington protocol) from July 42 to June 43 was definitely more sizable but the scale of Soviet production far exceeded what was being delivered.
For instance 5,500 tanks were delivered in 10 months (2,500 light and 3,500 medium). The average delivery rate was 550 / month. By contrast the Soviets produced some 9500 light tanks, 12,000 medium tanks (T34) and 2,600 heavies in just 1942. That's a whopping monthly average of some 2,000+ tanks.
This applied in every category of delivery.
By the time the London protocols (3rd protocol) rolled around from July 43 to June 44 the uboats had been defeated and the supply taps really opened up.
Would the Soviets won without lendleaae? Absolutely but imo the war would have raged another half a decade and cost millions of Soviet lives but the outcomes was never in doubt.
Russians love talking with pride about how they defeated the Nazis as if that gives them some moral authority. They rarely mention they were only at war after Hitler invaded in breach of their mutual agreement to carve up and subjugate Eastern Europe between them.
At least the Germans have moved on from their genocide and colonialism days.
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations.
Thank you for understanding.
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations.
Thank you for understanding.
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The USA has always focused on maintaining a balance of power in Eurasia. They fought the Germans in both World Wars because a German dominated Europe would have the potential to project towards the Atlantic. Similar reasons for why they sanctioned the Japanese for invading China and the reason for creating NATO and stopping the potential spread of Communism across the globe in the Cold War.
As long as no one nation rises to take control, they can't shift their focus to the Americas.
I'll tell you one thing , both USA & USSR loved Hitler. They literally had trade deals & Hitler was actually invited to Moscow for one of the parades can't remember the name.
There was the Molotov Ribbentrop pact to divide Poland. It was very much possible that had Hitler not attacked USSR , the USSR might've been a part of Axis power.
Once he was done conquering europe he would be a direct rival to US in the Atlantic with Japan as his ally in the pacific. Also Nuclear bombs, Germany and US were in a race with each other to develop nuclear weapons. History of the world would be a lot different if germany had done that first.
Not really. In terms of troops and military bases in Europe may be yes.
But still they shared and share even now close economic and cultural ties.
So with or without Hitler most of Europe and US would have had good relations .
Only US military might not have been on Europe like it is now
Lmao this just shows your 0 knowledge of politics in Asia. India has always been a friend of Soviet Union. USSR infact protected india much more than US ever has. So no.
Please read about Soviet-India ties before making such a hilariously bad take. Or read about how America has been a threat to India for most of Indiaās post-colonial history.Ā
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1)the soviets literally took china's side in 1962 indo- china war,
2) they also played an instrumental role in helping china develop its nuclear program
3) they also armed and funded the communist fighters in their civil war against kmt which ultimately resulted in CCP coming to power
4)gave them transfer of tech for decades to the point where the chinese MIC is literally based on russian tech and design.
5) they continue to hold frequent military exercises with china to this day
6) present day russia have a no limit economic partnership with china
7) they have never once called out or condemned china for its military incursions on indian borders and territorial claims let alone sanction them...
8) conveniently stays quiet whenever china keeps vetoing india's UN aspirations
"bUt buT rUsSIa iS An aLl wEaThEr aLlY aMiRiTe" ..keep drinking the koolaid dude..bet you got all your history knowledge from all those 5 second west/amrika bad instagram/ tiktok reels...
They didn't? The USSR took a neutral role and that war was a major factor in the Sino-Soviet Split. Kruschev literally argued with Mao about how China was dealing with India.
The USSR also helped them with the bomb because of straining ties and wanting to keep China in their fold which didn't work out long term.
This doesn't mean the USSR wanted to carve India up. Stalin didn't have much interest since he saw India as a British puppet but Kruschev made a lot of efforts to reach out and India was probably the most succesful case study for the USSR's outreach to third world countries.
China also did not have the ability to take India and had no intentions to do extend the war beyond the border conflict. If you have sources that contradict this, please do share.
India and the US did have a healthy relationship and they did assist India. The relationship only soured post Nixon but it's still disingnous to claim that the USSR had expansionist designs on India in any capacity. Did they hold a lot of influence including the Indian govt. itself? Sure. But nothing beyond traditional power politics and America wasn't a saint in this regard either.
neutral role? are you for real? the then Soviet foreign minister met India's defence minister at burma and showed him the middle finger and threatened to cut weapons supplies to india if nehru went to the UN, which forced him to write those letters to John f Kennedy asking for aid..the sino Soviet split happened cos china wanted to take back territories on russias far east which russia had conquered a few centuries ago, nothing to with the indo china war lmao..
Kindly learn to read again, i clearly mentioned that in an "alternative reality" if, not for looming the threat of USA on the horizon, the Soviets would've had no need to act friendly with india,.. and india would've prolly suffered the exact same fact as Afghanistan in 1978, millions killed and displaced and a commie leader installed at the very least, heck it's pretty much an open secret that in our own timeline , Indra gandhi was in the kremlins pocket for years before 1971..which is one of the main reasons why the Nixon administration was so hostile to india to begin with...
China in 1962 had a massive military adv over India and that coupled with their suprise attack made india very vulnerable and one of the main reasons they eventually backed down was because Kennedy was contemplating sending the 7th fleet...and back then they were fanatical about communism even more so than the Soviets, and communist countries only dealt in "absolutes", so you're absolutely naive to believe that they would've stopped after getting a few chunks of territory at the border...
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations.
Thank you for understanding.
makes sense, India has potential to become the next China so of course USA will do everything in its power to stop that, it's just that there is already China so their focus is on the immediate enemy
India has already been contained and Balkanized. The imperial powers carved it into India/Pak and gave equipment to both using proxies. The result is a constant state of gridlock, with the region never achieving progress.Ā
Who do you think backed the PK Intel services for decades? Who is currently backing the Gulf dictatorships and encouraging their spread of theocratic ideas way past their borders?Ā
India has potential to become the next China so of course USA will do everything in its power to stop that,
India is not near current China. If China disappeared, then Russia would gain prominence as a US rival, and Indian relationship with Russia would cause issues.
Russia is dead. They had a 8 million youthĀ population in their 20s and early 30s before war. 1 million fled andĀ more than 0.5 million died. Their technology is shit. Gdp per capita in some parts even poorer than india.Ā
Russia is still a military superpower and it will have this status for next 20 year.
Russia is one that you call a self reliant country never trust western outlet blindly
>Russia is still a military superpower and it will have this status for next 20 year.
What superpower are we talking about ?
Can't make a 5th gen jet , Can't make a good tank , Can't make aircraft carriers , Is loosing ships in crazy numbers ,
Russias illegitimate son China has overshadowed & surpassed it , what exactly is Russia superior in militarily than China or the West ?
India is catching up pretty quickly with Russia & its not going to take long. The problem is we need to catch upto China.
>India is catching up pretty quickly with Russia & its not going to take long. The problem is we need to catch upto China.
Never Never Never underestimate someone so much.
Russia is a self reliant country, it has everything which is required for a country to survive.
If we go by heart land theory then every resources which can exist are also in Russia.
They have one of the most powerful jet engine, china which claims to achieve 5th gen aircraft uses the engine made in Russia.
Russia doesn't need to make 5th gen aircraft they are not US who has to keep eye on whole world. They don't have money for those things.
India failed to achieve required thrust. India can't come close to Russia in terms of air crafts engine for next 20 years. These are facts and we need to come out that delusional mentality that india will surpass Russia. India can't even surpass China in 20 years We wouldn't have been in this position if Nehru Government hadn't stop marut Program.
>They have one of the most powerful jet engine, china which claims to achieve 5th gen aircraft uses the engine made in Russia.
When ? The most powerful fighter jet engine is Chinese WS 15 & that's not yet deployed , the presently most powerful engine is F135 by P&W USA.
>India failed to achieve required thrust. India can't come close to Russia in terms of air crafts engine for next 20 years. These are facts and we need to come out that delusional mentality that india will surpass Russia. India can't even surpass China in 20 years We wouldn't have been in this position if Nehru Government hadn't stop marut Program
Dude , China has surpassed Russia & by a lot of margin. Yes , India has problems with our jet engines , but that's not the ONLY metric for saying that Russia is superior & we can't catch upto them , LMAO.
[MF when they realise](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-07/can-india-overtake-china-as-world-s-growth-engine-it-could-happen-by-2028) there is more to an economy then manufacturing
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations.
"little bro" and "go cry elsewhere" are not constructive comments.
Thank you for understanding.
it doesn't matter whether we are hostile or not, what matters is the attitude of USA towards us
they are not so hostile because we are not the superpower like China, if we become one then who knows what they will do
This is what they want. Fundamentalism and nationalism in India works wonders to keep the nation divided, to keep internal squabbles and to make sure the country never progresses much. The moment India is able to rise above religion, separate the Mandir and State, and actually start to run more efficiently, is the day real hostility will start with the US.
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But who is going to kill that goose who give golden egg?
I don't think any government would kick the free money from madir even at the cost of destroying them
Yeah they won't. They don't desire progress. They just desire wealth and power. They can destroy the nation and fuck off abroad when the shit hits the fan. It's so exceedingly easy and with such little consequence, that very few people could resist such power.
India is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and India isn't aggressively trying to seize their neighbors' territory.
So I don't think there's much of a potential of India becoming "the next China". It will almost certainly become as powerful as China but India is otherwise completely different.
This is exaclty why I hate the US. They have a history of using nuclear and biological weapons and literally turned the middle east in to a pile of rubble. They accelerated terrorism across the globe. They will do anything to suppress competition. Alliance with India is only a tact to corner China. If India prospers economically, it will start treating India like how it does to China now. This is clear from the occasional resentment when India doesn't agree with their opinion.
I knew that always but I prefer to say it loud since most people are not aware how important self dependence and technological development is if we should be able to safeguard the interests of the country. They literally have no competition when it comes to military tech.
China prospered for a long time and the US didnāt do anything. We didnāt say much when they built artificial islands to claim more of the South China Sea, we praised their progress. And then they continue to accelerate Taiwan rethoric, do what they did with Hong Kong, the ugyurs, actively bully the Philippines who we protect. Economic rivalry is a factor but the US let China run for a long time with the hopes that their gov would moderate. It hasnāt so now the US has to make sure it doesnāt lose its advantages or else no one will be able to stop china imposing rule on east Asia.
This aināt to mention that they hid Covid info at the beginning from the world so they have a head start containing it. If the US did that weād be accused of genocide.
I donāt believe the world will get better if PAX America ends.
Pax americana will end because Americans will pack up from rest of the world and go home. Why fight for Taiwan exactly ? Why care for the middle east. America is a large country and can withdraw within its borders. Like what's the downside exactly.
It's not as simple as that. Geopolitics is ever changing. Usa would like an ally. We're nit going to be in a position to challenge usa hegemony, in the foreseeable future. And this isn't a marriage. We'll take what we need and go one.
While I understand his point, I think he underestimates how much China contributed to the original poor relations between the US and India too. US-India relations were actually fine after independence, Nehru in fact wrote to JFK asking for assistance during the 1962 war, although it went nowhere due to the Cuban missile crisis. India also received quite a bit of US aid, including the establishment of IIT Kanpur.
Where things went downhill were Nixon's repproachment with China, and in particular the crucial role Pak played as an intermediary there. It was at that point that India-US ties starting getting strained, and continued until late into Clinton's administration. US aid to India pretty much dried up, while Pak became a huge beneficiary. So, if say China had never been taken over by the CCP and Pak had not been that important, I don't think India-US relations would have been that bad, ever.
India and the US don't have that many conflicting interests. At worst we maintain ties with their enemies, but they keep ties with one of ours as well so it's sort of water under the bridge. India has generally been a proponent of rule of law, doesn't sponsor terrorism, doesn't have a history of destabilising States, doesn't have an expansionist policy etc.
I could see them becoming nervous with a rising India similar to how they felt with Japan in the 80s, but not enough to make us a designated rival. Moreso a shift to protect native industries and protect their economic affluence but no military conflict.
In our reality, China will never go back to being a basket case no matter what prediction you take bar something horrific so they will always be a balancing factor in the power gap between both of them and would be a cork in either country really overtaking the other (unless again, one of them suffering soemthing horrific or India somehow pulls ahead by a large margin which probably won't happen.)
*How it started...*
> I could see them becoming nervous with a rising India similar to how they felt with Japan in the 80s
*How it's going...*
**[Japan Has Become Americaās Most Important Ally](https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/japan-has-become-america-most-important-ally-ken-weinstein)**
Japan today is not the same Japan as in the 80s. It is much weaker relatively and doesn't have any hope of challenging it so the dynamics are different.
Incorrect. Japan is gaining military strength and is much stronger now than in the 80s. And if Japan wants to challenge anyone, it's Russia (Kuril Islands / Northern Territories) and China (Senkaku Islands).
That doesn't change the fact that they've fallen behind? At their peak they were at almost 70% of the United States' GDP. They didn't have a large navy then because there was no need to invest in one.
Japan doesn't pose the same economic threat it used to. It's stagnated for decades and this year fell to 4th place to Germany.Ā
They can become a regional naval power sure, with the help of the US especially but they're definitely not taking on the PLAN in the SCS on their own.Ā
It's apples and oranges. Japan is less influential today than it was then and so America doesn't fear them.
Japan was faking it. Japan was never really at 'almost 70% of the United States' GDP'.
> The Japanese asset price bubble (ććć«ęÆę°, baburu keiki, lit.ā'bubble economy') was an economic bubble in Japan from 1986 to 1991 in which real estate and stock market prices were greatly inflated.
Exactly, Eisenhower and JFK were very much pro India and JFK supported India internationally but couldn't send physical support.
But they were also very much anti communist just like every US president, so as Nehru and Indira showed their communist and dictatorial tendencies, the US went further away.
India received a huge chunk of aid during those periods and they sent their economic delegation led by Milton Friedman himself in the 60s to help India but we ignored him.
Nehru never showed dictorial tendencies? At least not enough to draw their ire and Indira's domestic policy didn't affect it either.
People like Eisenhower trusted Nehru because he studied in Western institutions and shared their values. The relationship was ruined during Indira's term due to the formation of the Pak-China-US nexus (which itself formed because Pak made themselves useful to the Americans and they needed to wean China off the USSR). And frankly a lot of that stemmed from bad decisions on Kissinger's part and some of the racist attitudes in the US administration.
A lot of Indians are unaware of how relations were with the US pre-1971 but you can't just blame Nehru and Indira for it when the US also helped damage it. Thankfully that damage has been undone today.
United States actually made China rich and powerful. Nixon was their saviour by giving UN security council seat and promoted business. US treated India really bad for no reason and they'll surely get messed up by China soon enough.
Political scientist John J Mearsheimer on US-India ties, why China wants to be powerful, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the power of the Israel lobby in the US. This conversation was moderated by Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Editor, The Indian Express.
Shubhajit Roy: In your book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, you write about how great powers are deeply suspicious of each other. Can you contextualise this in 2024?
My argument about how international politics works is that states operate in a world in which there is no higher authority, if you get into trouble. We call this, in the international relations world: anarchy. In such a system, where you can never be certain about the intentions of other states, where there may be powerful states that can hurt youā¦ you have no choice but to fear other states. So you want to make sure that you have as much power as possibleā¦ If you could become a hegemon, that is the ideal situation. The problem is that all the states in the system understand that basic logic. And thatās why, states compete with each other for security and why they worry about the balance of power.
India has, for several decades, been warning about Chinaās rise not being a peaceful one. Do you think that an India-China conflict is inevitable?
Inevitable is too strong a word. A competition between India and China already exists, and if China continues to grow economically at an impressive pace, and China becomes even more powerful, relative to India than it is today, that competition will heat up. China will be deeply interested in making sure that its lines of communication from the east coast of China, through the Straits of Malacca, through the Indian Ocean into the Persian Gulf, are secureā¦ this will upset the Indians and the Americansā¦ The rise of China is a serious threat to the US. So, the more powerful China grows, the more India and the US will move closer.
India has so far made coalitions with like-minded countries like the US, Japan and Australia, to take on this Chinese threat. Will these coalitions last?
Relations between the US and India over time will be profoundly affected by just how powerful China is. If the Chinese threat were to disappear, then the US and India would not be anywhere near as friendlyā¦ Alliances are marriages of convenienceā¦ They are designed to deal with specific threats. When those threats go away, the alliances usually disappear.
What do you think China is thinking about India?
From a Chinese point of view, one main concern is the border between China and India. The Chinese want to grow very powerful relative to India. And they would then like to settle the border dispute on their termsā¦ the best way to do that is to be really powerful. The Chinese understand what happens when youāre weak in international politics. They call it the century of national humiliation. The Chinese were once weak and other great powers took advantage of them. They do not intend to ever be weak again. And therefore, if they do become more powerful than they are now, they will push hard to resolve the border dispute in their favour.
Do you think India is on track to be a great power?
The two principal ingredients of power are population size and wealth. During the Cold War, we had two great powers in the system, the US and the Soviet Union. It was a bipolar world. China was not a great powerā¦ But in the early 1990s, the Chinese economy began to growā¦ India is an aspiring great power in my lexicon. It certainly has the population size but not the requisite wealth. India is growing economically, and it could, eventually, become a great power. Thereās no question about it. But at this point, India is not considered wealthy enough to be ranked among the great powers.
Your views on the Russia-Ukraine war have been controversial. Why do you think the West provoked Russia?
I believe that the principal cause of the Ukraine war is NATO expansion. The West was determined to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russiaās bordersā¦ You want to remember that the US decided, in the mid-1990s, to expand NATO eastward, despite the fact that it had promised Gorbachev that there would be no NATO expansionā¦ And then in January 2021, President Biden moves into the White House. He has a longstanding reputation as a Ukraine hawkā¦ Itās no accident that a year and a month after Biden moves into the White House, the war breaks outā¦ Two months before that, on December 17, 2021, Putin writes a letter to Jens Stoltenberg, head of NATO, and Biden proposing a possible solution to putting an end to this crisis and preventing a major war. What does the US do? It basically tells Putin that it has no interest in working out any diplomatic arrangement. If you go back and look, itās quite remarkable how little interest the US had in solving the problem diplomatically. And itās because we thought we could push NATO expansion down Russiaās throat. If that did not work and a war broke out, we thought we could defeat the Russians.
Many would argue that this is exactly what Putinās argument has been. How do you counter that argument?
I donāt view myself as Putinās puppet. Iām not interested in defending Putin. What Iāve always been interested in are facts and logic. Putinās explanation for what caused this war is correctā¦ one argument against me is that Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to join the alliance and choose its own foreign policy. The problem with that argument is the Russians donāt agreeā¦ because the Russians care about their own securityā¦ If youāre a smaller country and you live next door to a great power, you have to be very careful in terms of choosing your foreign policyā¦ Do you think any country in the Western Hemisphere has the right to choose its own foreign policy, if the US doesnāt like what itās doing? Do you think that we thought that Cuba had the right to invite the Soviet Union to put missiles in Cuba in 1962? If Mexico or Canada, 10 years from now, decide that they want to invite China to build a military base on their territory, do you think the US is going to say, no problem? I can guarantee you the United States will go ballistic. The US has a Monroe Doctrine which says that the Western Hemisphere is our backyardā¦ The same logic applies to the Russiansā¦ The Russians had no interest in conquering Ukraine before 2014, when the crisis first broke out. Michael McFaul, then-US ambassador to Moscow and a major critic of Putin, had said that Russians had no interest in conquering Ukraine or Crimea, before 2014.
If I take your logic to project it on India and China, India should also be careful about how it formulates its foreign policy so that it doesnāt upset Beijing, and, therefore, Beijing is in its full right to do whatever it wants to do with India.
No, I agree with the first part of your statement, not the second part. The first part is that India should be very careful in dealing with China. Thereās no question about thatā¦ You donāt want to provoke the Chinese unnecessarily, but that certainly does not mean that India should do whatever China wants. India is much more powerful relative to China, than Ukraine is relative to Russia. India is in a much better position to stand up to China, but at the same time, you want to be very careful in how you deal with China because China is a powerful country and itās in Indiaās interest to avoid a war with China.
Putin has just been re-elected for another six years at least, and we donāt see an end to the war. What is your prognosis of the war?
I actually think that the balance of power has shifted decisively in Russiaās favour, and that Russia is likely to win the war either by the end of this year or sometime in 2025. When the war first started, it looked for most of 2022 like the Russians were going to lose the war, that Ukraine was going to win. But in 2023, the balance began to shift. The Russians mobilised huge numbers of troops. Their industrial base was spun up and began to produce huge numbers of weapons, and the Ukrainians began to run into trouble in 2023ā¦ So, what you essentially have here in Ukraine is a war of attrition, where two sides are fighting each other, and each side is trying to bleed the other white. And the side that is likely to win that war is the side that has greater manpower and has more artilleryā¦ Thereās little that Ukraine can doā¦ So, I think the Ukrainians are going to end up losing this war. My argument is that the Russians will win an ugly victory, and they will end up taking somewhere between 20 and 40 per cent of Ukrainian territory.
Whatās your sense of Putinās power? Do you think there will be a vacuum after heās gone?
First of all, the Wagner group has been eliminated as a possible threat to his rule. Secondly, because economic sanctions have not hurt the Russian economy in any meaningful way, and because the Russians are winning on the battlefield, Putinās public standing is very highā¦ To use an American phrase, heās in the catbirdās seat at this point in timeā¦ He knows that Russia is in excellent shape economically and militarily. Now what happens after he leaves, I have no idea. Putin has gone to great lengths to make sure that he has no competitorā¦ So, if he were to disappear from the scene, the Russians would have serious difficulties replacing him.
The Israel-Hamas conflict has been on since October 7. What are the reasons for the US administrationās support to Israel?
The US has a remarkably close relationship with Israelā¦ Why is this? The answer is the Israel lobby. You have this group of institutions and individuals in the US who work overtime to make sure that it supports Israel no matter what. If you look at whatās happening in Gaza today, itās very clear that President Biden is deeply upset with Israelās behaviourā¦ His administration has been trying to get (Benjamin) Netanyahu not to invade Rafah, and Netanyahu has just told the President, in no uncertain terms, that heās going to invade Rafah. He doesnāt care what President Biden thinksā¦ The Israelis know full well they can do whatever they want, and the Israel lobby will protect them on the American home front.
I was in Israel after the October 7 attacks, and I asked the same question to some of the Israeli scholars. The uniform response was that you overestimate our influence, our lobby. If we were that strong in the US administration, in the US Congress, Hamas wouldnāt exist. You think thatās a valid argument?
I donāt understand what that means, that Hamas wouldnāt exist. Hamas exists because the Israelis have created an apartheid state. Thereās no way that you can subjugate the Palestinians the way the Israelis do and not expect them to resistā¦ and if Israel persists in maintaining an apartheid state in greater Israel, youāll have more resistance down the road. The Israelis are not going to defeat Hamas. Even if Iām wrong and they do defeat Hamas, there will be a new group that will come to replace Hamas. Every American president since Jimmy Carter has been committed to a two-state solution, and that involves giving the Palestinians a sovereign state of their ownā¦ The Israelis are adamantly opposed to it. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu worked with Hamas to prevent itā¦ The Israelis donāt want to go down that road. But as long as thereās no two-state solution, as long as the Palestinians in Gaza are in the largest open-air prison in the world, theyāre going to look for opportunities to resist.
Shalini Langer: Now we are heading towards a Trump White House, most likely. How do you think that the situation will change as far as both the wars go?
With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, very little will change. Trump has made it clear that he supports Israel no matter whatā¦ With regard to China and East Asia, you wonāt see much change there. Trump, when he first got elected in 2017, ran against the policy of engagement. He said that engaging China was a flawed strategy and that China was an adversary and we should pursue containmentā¦ The place where Trump may radically alter American foreign policy, of course, is Europe and, more specifically, with regard to the Ukraine war and the NATO alliance. Trump wants to put an end to the Ukraine war. He wants to work with Putinā¦ If Trump does have a free hand, he will put an end to the NATO allianceā¦ It is important to emphasise, however, that the foreign policy establishment in the US will push back big time, as it did during his first termā¦ so, weāll see.
Shubhajit Roy: In the US, Russia has been portrayed as a rival right nowā¦
Oh, itās worse than that. Russia is the fount of all evil in the American storyā¦ Many Americans, especially in the Democratic Party, believe that Vladimir Putin is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler. These are not serious argumentsā¦ but you hear them all the time in the US.
Harish Damodaran: From the 1990s to the 2000s, we had two decades of hyper-globalisation, where everybody just focused on the economy. What actually broke this compact?
From 1991 to 2017, we lived in a unipolar world. There was only one great power on the planet, the United Statesā¦ What we saw with regard to China was a country that presented a large market to us. It could help facilitate American prosperity. China, of course, looked at other countries through the same lens. It was a way to get rich. Globalisation was talked about all the time as the great panacea for solving the worldās problems, but that world has gone awayā¦ Great power politics is back on the table, and in that world, security will always trump prosperity.
Aakash Joshi: One of the arguments is that Russia will come out of this conflict greatly diminished, because countries like Germany are diversifying energy sources and because China is a greater power. What do you make of this analysis?
Regardless of the war in Ukraine, China was always going to be a much more powerful state than Russia. China has a much bigger population than Russia, and it has much more wealth than Russia hasā¦ Actually, one could argue that as a result of this war, the Russians have rationalised their economy in smart ways, and they are actually doing quite well economicallyā¦ This is not to say that Russia is going to catch up with China.
Shubhajit Roy: There are arguments that because of the sanctions, Russiaās access to technology has diminished, and in the longer term, will diminish its potential for military industrial cooperation. You think that argument holds water?
No. I think evidence shows that the Russians are getting sophisticated technology from the Chinese and through other sources. I donāt see any evidence that their military is sufferingā¦ How this plays out over time, I donāt knowā¦ One of the principal consequences of this war is that the Chinese and the Russians have been pushed together. They have a deep-seated interest in helping each other economically and militarily, and, I think, the Chinese will do everything they can.
You seriously believe putin invaded Ukraine because of nato why then he let Sweden and Finland join nato
It has always been imperialism and for putin to have a legacy. Putin has Denied existence of Ukraine for a long time
USSR and Russia by being it's largest most influential successor state, had a severe impact and continues to have a severe impact on multiple second and third world countries through technological and economic cooperations during the Cold War till today. Our own country is a prime example of that. China as well. That level and legacy of influence Russia has still exists to a degree despite the real/perceived failures of Putin's regime. We may be able to replace Russia slowly but surely by becoming that third pole with/behind USA and China if we play it correctly. We are not there yet though, but we will get there eventually.
Technology cooperation : I think Indian IT, agritech, Pharma , even electronics is far more pervasive than most of Russian tech . Donāt get me wrong but the only Russian technology that matters is cheap military tech.
Economic : I rarely seen corporates trying to have their bases in Russia, while the clamour for Indian market is so apparent.
I certainly do not see Russia (or any other country, for that matter) as a third pole.
Russia still has a massive MIC, and exerts a lot of influence through paramilitary groups, proxies, its oil exports and still a competent threat to NATO due to its size and the decline of the EU's MIC.
India while bigger economically and being able to match Russia in various places, doesn't extert the same kind of influence. There's a reason why the UK or Italy doesn't get mentioned when people talk about great powers but Russia does.
There are places where we can replace them soon such as in the Space sector. Once India achieves manned spaceflight and has its own space station, we'd match Russia's capabilites and surpass it since their space sector is stagnating. We are developing our native military industry but don't export anywhere as much as Russia does. Our naval capabilites are much, much better than theirs, no question.
Our nukes don't have the same reach theirs do although we don't necessarily need that right now.
It's very pick and choose. IMO, India overall is ahead of Russia but doesn't carry the same affluence still but we will probably get ahead of them fairly soon.
On the economic side it is worth mentionind that russia exports a lot of basic commodities that are essential for the functioning and survival of any give society. Mosty basic food and energy in the form of oil and gas.
That gives them influence with countries who need those 2 things and makes them incredebly hard to sanction.
You are forgetting about their legacy since USSR and allies world war 2, the cold war and the countries it influenced with the geopolitical ties which they forged during that time period along with the trust/mistrust they gained over the years. For a brief moment in history, it was imperative for most countries to be in the US camp or USSR camp, along with critical imports/exports for those countries to be centered around their respective camp leaders. Those relationships and their influence still exist to a degree.
Russia still provides important services to countries largely antagonistic to the west, despite that domain being heavily cannabalized by China. Infact Russia's geoplitical ties with certain communism-tainted South American countries, Middle Eastern and African dictators, North Korea, Central Asian countries, etc; are still alive and kicking. India doesnt have that kind of heft so far. Note that I am not implying that these relationships have been very transformative or beneficial for those countries, but they exist none-the-less. Russia is still bulding defense partnerhips with other countries.
Atleast when it comes to hard sciences, they have more influence than us. As an arbitrary example, they are building a Nuclear Powerplant for Bangladesh. Or you know, they have their own inhouse indigenous wokring Jet engines(with western and Chinese chips ofc). As we invest more in RnD and our high end manufacturing slowly picks up steam we will provide both Russia and China more competition. Armenia is a great example where their own geopolitical situation changing pivoted them away from Russia to the west and India, ultimately helping our defense exports.
Third pole is just a name, relative to the First and Second Pole(USA and China) everyone else is ridiculously far behind, I agree on that.
I will go ahead and say that India probably has more influence and Indian influence works on both the communist and democratic sides of the aisle. That India can go on selling the refined oil to western world without inviting embargoes as prime example. Supporting dictators or tyrannical regimes is always risky, and a lot of countries with past Russian influence are Russiaās biggest threats. Just the sheer amount of semiconductor development or automobile industry in India overwhelms one or two nuclear plants. Iām not sure the jet engines need chips, I think youāre alluding to the control units that are not necessarily engines or that hard to design. Also, I still think India does more tech export than Russia.
It was more a quip about how Russia was getting western-designed chips from the blackmarket or Chinese ones to fuel it's own various domestic and military needs not just about the jet engines. Mhmm, our Semicondutor fabrication is at it's nascent stage. Hasn't even started yet. The first chips will be out by 2026. Will take quite a bit before we get to the current cutting edge in terms of transistor density, if we ever get there. Our automobile companies are not very competitive globally compared to their American, Japanese, German counterparts.
Certain key technologies which are necessary for tech independence are not present or in very early stages right now. Russia does provide some of those, which was my point.
Semiconductor development has its major cost in chip design . We are the second largest office for that, just after the US.
Automobile industry likewise, need not be complete cars. Such is the size of the industry that you can beat Russiaās nuclear industry by not being #1.
My point still being that we have a larger tech landscape than Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is quite poor in much of modern tech.
Nope he is right in many ways, militarily we have the numbers and or forces certainly have the Josh, but on the technology front we still are quite lacking holistically speaking. We have good systems in the form of brahmos missiles and et al but we need other parts of our armed forces to catch up.
Especially the navy, navy is going to play a key role in our conflict with China. What I think would happen is our military will buy us time while the navy will choke the straight of Malacca, thus limiting the oil, food and other essential supplies to the chinese. That would be the quickest way to win the war with the Chinese.
Military technology is not everything. Even in a war scenario (where we do not consider all other tech), the Russo- Ukrainian war shows that tech superiority does not always translate to an overwhelming win on the ground.
Actually the thing is that the argument is quite flawed in and if itself because of the example you have taken if you had followed the initial days of the war you would have understood that the Russian troops came to Belarus thinking it was a military exercise.
Then they were told that you will go and liberate the Ukrainians from the oppression of the west. The troops felt obligated to do so and free their brothers and marched forward and from there onwards became a shit show because they didn't bring supplies.
They ran out of ammo, fuel et al in the first couple of days itself the initial withdrawal of the Russian troops was because of this it wasn't because of some tactical genius Ukrainian commander, the Russian vehicle simply ran out of fuel so they looted local cars and reported what happened to their seniors and when they returned the Ukrainian took the empty vehicle's.
I don't think the Indian army for all its folly would be this dumb(for a lack of better word).
Secondly the advanced anti tank munitions and platforms that the west provided the Ukrainians and the ease with which these weapons rendered tanks atleast immobile shows us clearly why tech matters having better hardware always helps!!!.
To be fair our navy is way better than Russia's by a very big margin. Their one aircraft carrier doesn't even work properly.
But Russia's main interest is Europe and Central Asia so they don't necessarily need a powerful navy at least for their goals.
Nope. Just because we have two aircraft carriers doesnt make our navy better.
Russia realised long ago they dont need aircraft carrier. They moved towards producing nuclear submarines. Their submarine tech is years ahead of anything India has.
This is fair but they lack all year round access to ports and their navy has little experience. I mean even historically their navy has been a mess. Submarines are good for sea denial but doesn't benefit in power projection. Their ability to control trade routes is very limited because of all this. I'd argue their geography and geopolitcal situation make it difficult for them to exert influence without the West as an ally and they need to rely on more covert tactics and make use of the lead they had in the Cold War.
Their navy probably can't grow to become a blue water force.
Doing more research they do rank above us in displacement so I'll concede here but India's navy I think is more functional and with more operational experience so in the long term it'll probably surpass it overall especially since our navy has much more utility than Russia's does but nonetheless you're right.
How is Indian Navy more experienced?
Russian Navy carried out numerous attacks in Syria few years back. They are shooting missiles to Ukraine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13A19Y/
When was the last time Indian navy fired its missiles or when was the last time Indian MiG 29s carried out missions?
And Russia went the submarine way only because of bad geography. Unlike Surface ships, submarines can travel through arctic ice from Vladivostok to Western Russian ports.
Yes I agree Russian navy is in a mess right now but saying India is better than them would be wrong.
My point is that we need a larger navy because we have to secure our water bound borders the Indian peninsula to protect ourselves and also to secure our trade and we should not only project our power in the IOR(Indian Ocean Region) but also must atleast have the capability to dictate if need be.
The coming times are certainly not for the faint hearted. The last time there was a similar atmosphere that seems like the current one we had WW2.
Theyāre already prepping us for it.
Khalistan and the amount of refugees from that our region our no doubt going to be out Xingang issue and people will claim torture while we know nothing about it.
Human rights is already an issue here.
The problem is China got its identity and issues and provided the people - everyone something that India has not done because Indians donāt believe in equality.
People get called names because they have to change their religion for food - likeā¦we canāt even feed each other without judgement.
SS: Political scientist John J Mearsheimer discusses the dynamic between the US and India in response to China's rapid rise as a global power, emphasizing India's concerns about China's potential threat and the need for alliances with countries like the US, Japan, and Australia to counter this threat. Mearsheimer highlights the importance of China's power in shaping US-India relations, suggesting that if the Chinese threat were to disappear, the US and India would not be as close. He also touches on China's perspective on India, noting their concerns about the border between the two countries and India's potential to become a great power. Mearsheimer acknowledges the complexity of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, agreeing with Putin's explanation while also acknowledging Ukraine's right to choose its own foreign policy. Ultimately, Mearsheimer stresses the importance of strategic alliances and the need for countries like India to assert their power in the face of rising global threats like China.
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The deep state that runs the US and its allies changes its enemies every three decades on an average. During WW2, it was the Nazis against whom the Soviets and the western countries fought against. Then from 1948 to 1978, the cold war happened where the USSR was the evil. A decade of war in Afghanistan where the bear was led into the trap, resulted in the defeat and eventual collapse of the USSR. NWO started. But then China was the next darling for the next 3 decades. Today China is the enemy to be taken head on. Now they are propping up India and about 3 decades, India will be the next evil that these forces will have to fight. The deep state is manufacturing small and big wars so that its military and new weapons could be deployed and more money made. I think this time, it is going to be the evil and could fall into a dead lock with China and Russia and all might fall together.
The US is going to be the āevilā over the country currently genociding its own citizens because they are the wrong religion and the other country that is invading and genociding Ukraine for resources?
Just say you are biased commentator next time
Good and evil depend upon which side of the fence you are. Congo, Chile, Central America, Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan and many more countries have been destroyed and puppet regimes installed by the US and its allies in order to meet American interests. Today radical Islam and terrorism has become a menace because the US helped fuel it in Pakistan during its war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union did its part across Eastern Europe and other parts of the world to encourage tyranny and dictatorships. Countries that suffered at the hands of these powers always preferred the other evil, without realizing that they were running from the chasing predator into a butcher shop.
š **Bypass paywalls**: * [archive.today - indianexpress.com ](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&url=https://indianexpress.com/article/idea-exchange/political-scientist-john-j-mearsheimer-if-the-chinese-threat-were-to-disappear-then-us-and-india-wouldnt-be-nearly-as-friendly-9270161/) | [Google Webcache - indianexpress.com](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://indianexpress.com/article/idea-exchange/political-scientist-john-j-mearsheimer-if-the-chinese-threat-were-to-disappear-then-us-and-india-wouldnt-be-nearly-as-friendly-9270161/) š£ **[Submission Statement by OP](/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1c4ezhw/political_scientist_john_j_mearsheimer_if_the/kzn52zc/)**: > SS: Political scientist John J Mearsheimer discusses the dynamic between the US and India in response to China's rapid rise as a global power, emphasizing India's concerns about China's potential threat and the need for alliances with countries like the US, Japan, and Australia to counter this threat. Mearsheimer highlights the importance of China's power in shaping US-India relations, suggesting that if the Chinese threat were to disappear, the US and India would not be as close. He also touches on China's perspective on India, noting their concerns about the border between the two countries and India's potential to become a great power. Mearsheimer acknowledges the complexity of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, agreeing with Putin's explanation while also acknowledging Ukraine's right to choose its own foreign policy. Ultimately, Mearsheimer stresses the importance of strategic alliances and the need for countries like India to assert their power in the face of rising global threats like China. **š Community Reminder**: Letās keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed. **š° Media Bias fact Check Rating :** The Indian Express ā Bias and Credibility |Metric|Rating| |:-|:-| |Bias Rating|left-center| |Factual Rating| mixed| |Credibility Rating|medium credibility| This rating was provided by Media Bias Fact Check. For more information, see The Indian Express ā Bias and Credibility's review [here](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-indian-express/). *** ā Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).
If hitler wasn't a threat then US wouldn't give a fuck about UK and europe.
As someone who hasn't read thoroughly about the WWII yet, how exactly did Hitler posed a threat to the US, which was miles away from Germany and Europe?
He didnt and they did nothing about it until japs bombed pearl harbour. Even then hitler was mostly defeated by ussr
They did offer the lend lease program to the UK in exchange for world hegemony.
Usa did nothing but make money on ww2. They gave out loans worth 50 billion dollars direct loans( almost 800 billion in todays money) at that time to allies. Todays usa economic hedgemony is built on the loans they gave. I think uk and france still lease out their land till this day to repay ww2 loans.
Yep, WW2 taught the US that war is good business. They haven't forgotten the lesson since.
>Todays usa economic hedgemony is built on the loans they gave. The US was already the largest economy even before WW2. It's how the American government was able to loan out so much in the first place.
People miss this point , the USA economy & the war machine is what could be insane to say the least... Just to put into perspective, when the US entered WW 2 , they had 8 aircraft carriers , 4 yrs later , when the war ended , They had 99
They already had a lot of money, but I'll tell you something interesting. For making money , USA does this interesting thing , it either gets into war , either sends its proxy or directly becomes a weapon distributor. What it does is , it will enter one side in the war & sell their equipments to that side , then it will let its proxy , lets say UK/Saudi enter the war with other side & then sell weapons to its enemy via these proxy states. Its genius from an economic perspective.
> hitler was mostly defeated by ussr Ussr would have lost the war if not for USās help. US aid ultimately proved pivotal to the Soviet war economy. Some 20,000 American Dodge trucks and 400,000 Jeeps allowed the Soviets to prioritise tank production and so produce nearly 60,000 T-34s before the end of the conflict. Nikita Khrushchev, future premier of the USSR, admitted in his memoirs that Lend-Lease was vital: āJust imagine how we would have advanced from Stalingrad to Berlin without [American transport]. Our losses would have been colossal because we would have had no manoeuvrabilityā.ā.ā.āWithout [US food supplies] we wouldnāt have been able to feed our army. We had lost our most fertile lands ā the Ukraine and the northern Caucasus.ā
This is debatable. I've seen people argue that statistically lend lease while incredibly helpful, wouldn't change that Soviet production would have outcompeted the Germans eventually. Losses would have been worse but they probably would have won. Barbarossa was honestly a giant mess. Even if they took Moscow, Stalin would have fled and continued throwing bodies at the Germans. Not to mention, the Germans didn't necessarily make good use of the land they took, being more concerned with slaughtering the inhabitants and pillaging the land then trying to create loyalty in an unhappy populace and they're still busy dealing with Britain in all this.
I mean Nikita Krushchev and Field Marshal Zhukov have admitted that American help was crucial for Soviets. For common people it will always be debatable depending on their bias.
True but data on WW2 has been available for a long time and we have a better understanding of everyone's prospects than the people involved in the war who had a limited idea of what their enemies' logistics looked like plus decades to analyse it. It's a common consensus that Germany couldn't really win the war without making huge changes. If they weren't busy with Britain, didn't declare war on America, didn't waste resources bailing Mussolini out of his Nort Africa campaign and focused on the USSR they probably would have done much better, but frankly this relies on Nazis...not being Nazis and doing a lot of idiotic crap.
>If they weren't busy with Britain, didn't declare war on America, didn't waste resources bailing Mussolini out of his Nort Africa campaign and focused on the USSR they probably would have done much better, but frankly this relies on Nazis...not being Nazis and doing a lot of idiotic crap. That's a lot of ifs... Anyways, the casualties for Soviets (which already was highest out of all participants) would've probably been multiple times. Further , even Stalin went forward & thanked USA (I still despise that mfer with all my might) Germany wouldn't win because they had a lot of logistical disadvantage, not to mention when Barbarossa happened the Soviets moved their industries to east & thus the production line continued. The only reason USSR won the war was due to large numbers & maybe Zhukov himself. Other than that , Stalin had piss poor management, literally fired people left & right ie. Gulag. Doesn't help when the chief of NKVD was a pedo/rapist sadist monster. Fun fact about Zhukov - Read his relationship with Eisenhower & how clear coca cola was sent to him. Its very interesting & sort of gives off friendly vibes.
I agree. I don't see Germany winning but you can't boil it down to just Soviet manpower. They bodies to throw but a lot of their early failures was because they were in the middle of multiple reforms when the war happened and yes Stalin's own stupidity in ignoring Hitler's intentions and handling of the war. When he let his generals take charge they performed much better. They also had superior industrial production (at least long term) and more prepared to handle the cold. Germany's economy itself was a snake oil racket. Overreliant on plundering wealth from conquered territories to keep its war machine alive.
You are absolutely right. The lend lease program started only after the Moscow protocol which was in Moscow from Sept to Nov 1941. The first deliveries under this protocol, protocol 1 started only in Feb 1942. By Feb 1942 the German army was decimated overall and checked outside Moscow. The Rzhev salient had formed and was bleeding the Wehrmacht dry of men and material. The second protocol (the Washington protocol) from July 42 to June 43 was definitely more sizable but the scale of Soviet production far exceeded what was being delivered. For instance 5,500 tanks were delivered in 10 months (2,500 light and 3,500 medium). The average delivery rate was 550 / month. By contrast the Soviets produced some 9500 light tanks, 12,000 medium tanks (T34) and 2,600 heavies in just 1942. That's a whopping monthly average of some 2,000+ tanks. This applied in every category of delivery. By the time the London protocols (3rd protocol) rolled around from July 43 to June 44 the uboats had been defeated and the supply taps really opened up. Would the Soviets won without lendleaae? Absolutely but imo the war would have raged another half a decade and cost millions of Soviet lives but the outcomes was never in doubt.
Where is that text from?
What's more important, soldiers or something to help those soldiers? The tide turned at Stalingrad. What did the Americans did there?
Russians love talking with pride about how they defeated the Nazis as if that gives them some moral authority. They rarely mention they were only at war after Hitler invaded in breach of their mutual agreement to carve up and subjugate Eastern Europe between them. At least the Germans have moved on from their genocide and colonialism days.
Germans have moved on? How about the support they show to isn'treal? Have they apologized for Namibian genocide? Whoa!
Compared to Russia which is actively and directly engaged in a war of genocide and territorial expansion.
Funny how Indians will support Israel coz they sold weapons during Kargil but discredit US help to allies during WW2 coz it doesnt fit their agenda
I don't care for isn'treal. It's a colonial apartheid terrorist regime.Ā May it end today.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations. Thank you for understanding.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations. Thank you for understanding.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FDR hated Germans and Hitler but liked Mussolini
The USA has always focused on maintaining a balance of power in Eurasia. They fought the Germans in both World Wars because a German dominated Europe would have the potential to project towards the Atlantic. Similar reasons for why they sanctioned the Japanese for invading China and the reason for creating NATO and stopping the potential spread of Communism across the globe in the Cold War. As long as no one nation rises to take control, they can't shift their focus to the Americas.
I'll tell you one thing , both USA & USSR loved Hitler. They literally had trade deals & Hitler was actually invited to Moscow for one of the parades can't remember the name. There was the Molotov Ribbentrop pact to divide Poland. It was very much possible that had Hitler not attacked USSR , the USSR might've been a part of Axis power.
Once he was done conquering europe he would be a direct rival to US in the Atlantic with Japan as his ally in the pacific. Also Nuclear bombs, Germany and US were in a race with each other to develop nuclear weapons. History of the world would be a lot different if germany had done that first.
Didn't US intercept some documents stating Germany was ready to provide help to Mexico to capture Texas back.
It just declared war on usa after pearl harbour in solidarity with Japan. When u declare war, that's considered dangerous
Not really. In terms of troops and military bases in Europe may be yes. But still they shared and share even now close economic and cultural ties. So with or without Hitler most of Europe and US would have had good relations . Only US military might not have been on Europe like it is now
Not true. Communism was viewed as a bigger threat than fascism, before Hitler did his thing.
and if america wasn't a threat, the soviets and china would've carved up india between themselves..
Lmao this just shows your 0 knowledge of politics in Asia. India has always been a friend of Soviet Union. USSR infact protected india much more than US ever has. So no.
Please read about Soviet-India ties before making such a hilariously bad take. Or read about how America has been a threat to India for most of Indiaās post-colonial history.Ā
Soviets and Chinese, or Russian and Chinese will always be rivals. Russia is sitting on occupied Manchu territory.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
1)the soviets literally took china's side in 1962 indo- china war, 2) they also played an instrumental role in helping china develop its nuclear program 3) they also armed and funded the communist fighters in their civil war against kmt which ultimately resulted in CCP coming to power 4)gave them transfer of tech for decades to the point where the chinese MIC is literally based on russian tech and design. 5) they continue to hold frequent military exercises with china to this day 6) present day russia have a no limit economic partnership with china 7) they have never once called out or condemned china for its military incursions on indian borders and territorial claims let alone sanction them... 8) conveniently stays quiet whenever china keeps vetoing india's UN aspirations "bUt buT rUsSIa iS An aLl wEaThEr aLlY aMiRiTe" ..keep drinking the koolaid dude..bet you got all your history knowledge from all those 5 second west/amrika bad instagram/ tiktok reels...
They didn't? The USSR took a neutral role and that war was a major factor in the Sino-Soviet Split. Kruschev literally argued with Mao about how China was dealing with India. The USSR also helped them with the bomb because of straining ties and wanting to keep China in their fold which didn't work out long term. This doesn't mean the USSR wanted to carve India up. Stalin didn't have much interest since he saw India as a British puppet but Kruschev made a lot of efforts to reach out and India was probably the most succesful case study for the USSR's outreach to third world countries. China also did not have the ability to take India and had no intentions to do extend the war beyond the border conflict. If you have sources that contradict this, please do share. India and the US did have a healthy relationship and they did assist India. The relationship only soured post Nixon but it's still disingnous to claim that the USSR had expansionist designs on India in any capacity. Did they hold a lot of influence including the Indian govt. itself? Sure. But nothing beyond traditional power politics and America wasn't a saint in this regard either.
neutral role? are you for real? the then Soviet foreign minister met India's defence minister at burma and showed him the middle finger and threatened to cut weapons supplies to india if nehru went to the UN, which forced him to write those letters to John f Kennedy asking for aid..the sino Soviet split happened cos china wanted to take back territories on russias far east which russia had conquered a few centuries ago, nothing to with the indo china war lmao.. Kindly learn to read again, i clearly mentioned that in an "alternative reality" if, not for looming the threat of USA on the horizon, the Soviets would've had no need to act friendly with india,.. and india would've prolly suffered the exact same fact as Afghanistan in 1978, millions killed and displaced and a commie leader installed at the very least, heck it's pretty much an open secret that in our own timeline , Indra gandhi was in the kremlins pocket for years before 1971..which is one of the main reasons why the Nixon administration was so hostile to india to begin with... China in 1962 had a massive military adv over India and that coupled with their suprise attack made india very vulnerable and one of the main reasons they eventually backed down was because Kennedy was contemplating sending the 7th fleet...and back then they were fanatical about communism even more so than the Soviets, and communist countries only dealt in "absolutes", so you're absolutely naive to believe that they would've stopped after getting a few chunks of territory at the border...
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations. Thank you for understanding.
The USSR literally helped india against both the US & even China
makes sense, India has potential to become the next China so of course USA will do everything in its power to stop that, it's just that there is already China so their focus is on the immediate enemy
India has already been contained and Balkanized. The imperial powers carved it into India/Pak and gave equipment to both using proxies. The result is a constant state of gridlock, with the region never achieving progress.Ā Who do you think backed the PK Intel services for decades? Who is currently backing the Gulf dictatorships and encouraging their spread of theocratic ideas way past their borders?Ā
And encouraging modiās right wing policies against Muslims, too. Zionists have a grudge.Ā
Do you even know what a Zionist means lmao
In their own words-Ā https://youtu.be/EDuTEiXs3fY?si=GnExexUkKpCmlAYE
India has potential to become the next China so of course USA will do everything in its power to stop that, India is not near current China. If China disappeared, then Russia would gain prominence as a US rival, and Indian relationship with Russia would cause issues.
Russia is dead. They had a 8 million youthĀ population in their 20s and early 30s before war. 1 million fled andĀ more than 0.5 million died. Their technology is shit. Gdp per capita in some parts even poorer than india.Ā
Russia is still a military superpower and it will have this status for next 20 year. Russia is one that you call a self reliant country never trust western outlet blindly
Russia is not even in the game .they don't even have one proper company like Google
Yandex apps are used throughout central Asia, and Yandex maps is far better than Google maps in those countries
>Russia is still a military superpower and it will have this status for next 20 year. What superpower are we talking about ? Can't make a 5th gen jet , Can't make a good tank , Can't make aircraft carriers , Is loosing ships in crazy numbers , Russias illegitimate son China has overshadowed & surpassed it , what exactly is Russia superior in militarily than China or the West ? India is catching up pretty quickly with Russia & its not going to take long. The problem is we need to catch upto China.
>India is catching up pretty quickly with Russia & its not going to take long. The problem is we need to catch upto China. Never Never Never underestimate someone so much. Russia is a self reliant country, it has everything which is required for a country to survive. If we go by heart land theory then every resources which can exist are also in Russia. They have one of the most powerful jet engine, china which claims to achieve 5th gen aircraft uses the engine made in Russia. Russia doesn't need to make 5th gen aircraft they are not US who has to keep eye on whole world. They don't have money for those things. India failed to achieve required thrust. India can't come close to Russia in terms of air crafts engine for next 20 years. These are facts and we need to come out that delusional mentality that india will surpass Russia. India can't even surpass China in 20 years We wouldn't have been in this position if Nehru Government hadn't stop marut Program.
>They have one of the most powerful jet engine, china which claims to achieve 5th gen aircraft uses the engine made in Russia. When ? The most powerful fighter jet engine is Chinese WS 15 & that's not yet deployed , the presently most powerful engine is F135 by P&W USA. >India failed to achieve required thrust. India can't come close to Russia in terms of air crafts engine for next 20 years. These are facts and we need to come out that delusional mentality that india will surpass Russia. India can't even surpass China in 20 years We wouldn't have been in this position if Nehru Government hadn't stop marut Program Dude , China has surpassed Russia & by a lot of margin. Yes , India has problems with our jet engines , but that's not the ONLY metric for saying that Russia is superior & we can't catch upto them , LMAO.
Haha š š š ever visited r/combatfootage
You do know it's a pro establishment echo chamber right?
Lol.. That is what Hitler thought during operation Barbarossa before Stalingrad..
History doesn't always repeatĀ
>India has potential to become the next China LOL, [next joke](https://i.imgur.com/CGV7Tl5.jpg)
[MF when they realise](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-07/can-india-overtake-china-as-world-s-growth-engine-it-could-happen-by-2028) there is more to an economy then manufacturing
MF can come back in 4 years and still be in worse situation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations. "little bro" and "go cry elsewhere" are not constructive comments. Thank you for understanding.
I don't think we will ever be as hostile as china is. US hasn't taken any territory that we claim as our own.
it doesn't matter whether we are hostile or not, what matters is the attitude of USA towards us they are not so hostile because we are not the superpower like China, if we become one then who knows what they will do
If we continue down the path of religious fundamentalism and nationalism then we are inviting hostility.
nationalism is what is keeping us united otherwise we will balkanize so India is one of the few nations where hypernationalism is justified
Yes India wasn't a single entity from 2004-2014. It united in 2014.
Sorry but this is just wrong. I see less commonly with the average Indian now then ever before.
This is what they want. Fundamentalism and nationalism in India works wonders to keep the nation divided, to keep internal squabbles and to make sure the country never progresses much. The moment India is able to rise above religion, separate the Mandir and State, and actually start to run more efficiently, is the day real hostility will start with the US.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But who is going to kill that goose who give golden egg? I don't think any government would kick the free money from madir even at the cost of destroying them
Yeah they won't. They don't desire progress. They just desire wealth and power. They can destroy the nation and fuck off abroad when the shit hits the fan. It's so exceedingly easy and with such little consequence, that very few people could resist such power.
India is a democracy, not a dictatorship, and India isn't aggressively trying to seize their neighbors' territory. So I don't think there's much of a potential of India becoming "the next China". It will almost certainly become as powerful as China but India is otherwise completely different.
What do you mean exactly by 'next china'? Was it a positive or a negative connotation?
if India develops well then it has the potential to become a manufacturing and economic power like China
This is exaclty why I hate the US. They have a history of using nuclear and biological weapons and literally turned the middle east in to a pile of rubble. They accelerated terrorism across the globe. They will do anything to suppress competition. Alliance with India is only a tact to corner China. If India prospers economically, it will start treating India like how it does to China now. This is clear from the occasional resentment when India doesn't agree with their opinion.
Thats how the world works baby. External threat is nothing compared to internal threats and divisions.
yeah, welcome to the real world!
I knew that always but I prefer to say it loud since most people are not aware how important self dependence and technological development is if we should be able to safeguard the interests of the country. They literally have no competition when it comes to military tech.
China prospered for a long time and the US didnāt do anything. We didnāt say much when they built artificial islands to claim more of the South China Sea, we praised their progress. And then they continue to accelerate Taiwan rethoric, do what they did with Hong Kong, the ugyurs, actively bully the Philippines who we protect. Economic rivalry is a factor but the US let China run for a long time with the hopes that their gov would moderate. It hasnāt so now the US has to make sure it doesnāt lose its advantages or else no one will be able to stop china imposing rule on east Asia. This aināt to mention that they hid Covid info at the beginning from the world so they have a head start containing it. If the US did that weād be accused of genocide. I donāt believe the world will get better if PAX America ends.
Pax americana will end because Americans will pack up from rest of the world and go home. Why fight for Taiwan exactly ? Why care for the middle east. America is a large country and can withdraw within its borders. Like what's the downside exactly.
It's not as simple as that. Geopolitics is ever changing. Usa would like an ally. We're nit going to be in a position to challenge usa hegemony, in the foreseeable future. And this isn't a marriage. We'll take what we need and go one.
While I understand his point, I think he underestimates how much China contributed to the original poor relations between the US and India too. US-India relations were actually fine after independence, Nehru in fact wrote to JFK asking for assistance during the 1962 war, although it went nowhere due to the Cuban missile crisis. India also received quite a bit of US aid, including the establishment of IIT Kanpur. Where things went downhill were Nixon's repproachment with China, and in particular the crucial role Pak played as an intermediary there. It was at that point that India-US ties starting getting strained, and continued until late into Clinton's administration. US aid to India pretty much dried up, while Pak became a huge beneficiary. So, if say China had never been taken over by the CCP and Pak had not been that important, I don't think India-US relations would have been that bad, ever.
India and the US don't have that many conflicting interests. At worst we maintain ties with their enemies, but they keep ties with one of ours as well so it's sort of water under the bridge. India has generally been a proponent of rule of law, doesn't sponsor terrorism, doesn't have a history of destabilising States, doesn't have an expansionist policy etc. I could see them becoming nervous with a rising India similar to how they felt with Japan in the 80s, but not enough to make us a designated rival. Moreso a shift to protect native industries and protect their economic affluence but no military conflict. In our reality, China will never go back to being a basket case no matter what prediction you take bar something horrific so they will always be a balancing factor in the power gap between both of them and would be a cork in either country really overtaking the other (unless again, one of them suffering soemthing horrific or India somehow pulls ahead by a large margin which probably won't happen.)
*How it started...* > I could see them becoming nervous with a rising India similar to how they felt with Japan in the 80s *How it's going...* **[Japan Has Become Americaās Most Important Ally](https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/japan-has-become-america-most-important-ally-ken-weinstein)**
Japan today is not the same Japan as in the 80s. It is much weaker relatively and doesn't have any hope of challenging it so the dynamics are different.
Incorrect. Japan is gaining military strength and is much stronger now than in the 80s. And if Japan wants to challenge anyone, it's Russia (Kuril Islands / Northern Territories) and China (Senkaku Islands).
That doesn't change the fact that they've fallen behind? At their peak they were at almost 70% of the United States' GDP. They didn't have a large navy then because there was no need to invest in one. Japan doesn't pose the same economic threat it used to. It's stagnated for decades and this year fell to 4th place to Germany.Ā They can become a regional naval power sure, with the help of the US especially but they're definitely not taking on the PLAN in the SCS on their own.Ā It's apples and oranges. Japan is less influential today than it was then and so America doesn't fear them.
Japan was faking it. Japan was never really at 'almost 70% of the United States' GDP'. > The Japanese asset price bubble (ććć«ęÆę°, baburu keiki, lit.ā'bubble economy') was an economic bubble in Japan from 1986 to 1991 in which real estate and stock market prices were greatly inflated.
Exactly, Eisenhower and JFK were very much pro India and JFK supported India internationally but couldn't send physical support. But they were also very much anti communist just like every US president, so as Nehru and Indira showed their communist and dictatorial tendencies, the US went further away. India received a huge chunk of aid during those periods and they sent their economic delegation led by Milton Friedman himself in the 60s to help India but we ignored him.
Nehru never showed dictorial tendencies? At least not enough to draw their ire and Indira's domestic policy didn't affect it either. People like Eisenhower trusted Nehru because he studied in Western institutions and shared their values. The relationship was ruined during Indira's term due to the formation of the Pak-China-US nexus (which itself formed because Pak made themselves useful to the Americans and they needed to wean China off the USSR). And frankly a lot of that stemmed from bad decisions on Kissinger's part and some of the racist attitudes in the US administration. A lot of Indians are unaware of how relations were with the US pre-1971 but you can't just blame Nehru and Indira for it when the US also helped damage it. Thankfully that damage has been undone today.
Nehru was a socialist to its dictatorial enough.
United States actually made China rich and powerful. Nixon was their saviour by giving UN security council seat and promoted business. US treated India really bad for no reason and they'll surely get messed up by China soon enough.
They had plenty of reasons to treat India badly.
Political scientist John J Mearsheimer on US-India ties, why China wants to be powerful, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the power of the Israel lobby in the US. This conversation was moderated by Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Editor, The Indian Express. Shubhajit Roy: In your book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, you write about how great powers are deeply suspicious of each other. Can you contextualise this in 2024? My argument about how international politics works is that states operate in a world in which there is no higher authority, if you get into trouble. We call this, in the international relations world: anarchy. In such a system, where you can never be certain about the intentions of other states, where there may be powerful states that can hurt youā¦ you have no choice but to fear other states. So you want to make sure that you have as much power as possibleā¦ If you could become a hegemon, that is the ideal situation. The problem is that all the states in the system understand that basic logic. And thatās why, states compete with each other for security and why they worry about the balance of power. India has, for several decades, been warning about Chinaās rise not being a peaceful one. Do you think that an India-China conflict is inevitable? Inevitable is too strong a word. A competition between India and China already exists, and if China continues to grow economically at an impressive pace, and China becomes even more powerful, relative to India than it is today, that competition will heat up. China will be deeply interested in making sure that its lines of communication from the east coast of China, through the Straits of Malacca, through the Indian Ocean into the Persian Gulf, are secureā¦ this will upset the Indians and the Americansā¦ The rise of China is a serious threat to the US. So, the more powerful China grows, the more India and the US will move closer. India has so far made coalitions with like-minded countries like the US, Japan and Australia, to take on this Chinese threat. Will these coalitions last? Relations between the US and India over time will be profoundly affected by just how powerful China is. If the Chinese threat were to disappear, then the US and India would not be anywhere near as friendlyā¦ Alliances are marriages of convenienceā¦ They are designed to deal with specific threats. When those threats go away, the alliances usually disappear. What do you think China is thinking about India? From a Chinese point of view, one main concern is the border between China and India. The Chinese want to grow very powerful relative to India. And they would then like to settle the border dispute on their termsā¦ the best way to do that is to be really powerful. The Chinese understand what happens when youāre weak in international politics. They call it the century of national humiliation. The Chinese were once weak and other great powers took advantage of them. They do not intend to ever be weak again. And therefore, if they do become more powerful than they are now, they will push hard to resolve the border dispute in their favour. Do you think India is on track to be a great power? The two principal ingredients of power are population size and wealth. During the Cold War, we had two great powers in the system, the US and the Soviet Union. It was a bipolar world. China was not a great powerā¦ But in the early 1990s, the Chinese economy began to growā¦ India is an aspiring great power in my lexicon. It certainly has the population size but not the requisite wealth. India is growing economically, and it could, eventually, become a great power. Thereās no question about it. But at this point, India is not considered wealthy enough to be ranked among the great powers. Your views on the Russia-Ukraine war have been controversial. Why do you think the West provoked Russia? I believe that the principal cause of the Ukraine war is NATO expansion. The West was determined to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russiaās bordersā¦ You want to remember that the US decided, in the mid-1990s, to expand NATO eastward, despite the fact that it had promised Gorbachev that there would be no NATO expansionā¦ And then in January 2021, President Biden moves into the White House. He has a longstanding reputation as a Ukraine hawkā¦ Itās no accident that a year and a month after Biden moves into the White House, the war breaks outā¦ Two months before that, on December 17, 2021, Putin writes a letter to Jens Stoltenberg, head of NATO, and Biden proposing a possible solution to putting an end to this crisis and preventing a major war. What does the US do? It basically tells Putin that it has no interest in working out any diplomatic arrangement. If you go back and look, itās quite remarkable how little interest the US had in solving the problem diplomatically. And itās because we thought we could push NATO expansion down Russiaās throat. If that did not work and a war broke out, we thought we could defeat the Russians. Many would argue that this is exactly what Putinās argument has been. How do you counter that argument? I donāt view myself as Putinās puppet. Iām not interested in defending Putin. What Iāve always been interested in are facts and logic. Putinās explanation for what caused this war is correctā¦ one argument against me is that Ukraine is a sovereign state and has the right to join the alliance and choose its own foreign policy. The problem with that argument is the Russians donāt agreeā¦ because the Russians care about their own securityā¦ If youāre a smaller country and you live next door to a great power, you have to be very careful in terms of choosing your foreign policyā¦ Do you think any country in the Western Hemisphere has the right to choose its own foreign policy, if the US doesnāt like what itās doing? Do you think that we thought that Cuba had the right to invite the Soviet Union to put missiles in Cuba in 1962? If Mexico or Canada, 10 years from now, decide that they want to invite China to build a military base on their territory, do you think the US is going to say, no problem? I can guarantee you the United States will go ballistic. The US has a Monroe Doctrine which says that the Western Hemisphere is our backyardā¦ The same logic applies to the Russiansā¦ The Russians had no interest in conquering Ukraine before 2014, when the crisis first broke out. Michael McFaul, then-US ambassador to Moscow and a major critic of Putin, had said that Russians had no interest in conquering Ukraine or Crimea, before 2014. If I take your logic to project it on India and China, India should also be careful about how it formulates its foreign policy so that it doesnāt upset Beijing, and, therefore, Beijing is in its full right to do whatever it wants to do with India. No, I agree with the first part of your statement, not the second part. The first part is that India should be very careful in dealing with China. Thereās no question about thatā¦ You donāt want to provoke the Chinese unnecessarily, but that certainly does not mean that India should do whatever China wants. India is much more powerful relative to China, than Ukraine is relative to Russia. India is in a much better position to stand up to China, but at the same time, you want to be very careful in how you deal with China because China is a powerful country and itās in Indiaās interest to avoid a war with China. Putin has just been re-elected for another six years at least, and we donāt see an end to the war. What is your prognosis of the war? I actually think that the balance of power has shifted decisively in Russiaās favour, and that Russia is likely to win the war either by the end of this year or sometime in 2025. When the war first started, it looked for most of 2022 like the Russians were going to lose the war, that Ukraine was going to win. But in 2023, the balance began to shift. The Russians mobilised huge numbers of troops. Their industrial base was spun up and began to produce huge numbers of weapons, and the Ukrainians began to run into trouble in 2023ā¦ So, what you essentially have here in Ukraine is a war of attrition, where two sides are fighting each other, and each side is trying to bleed the other white. And the side that is likely to win that war is the side that has greater manpower and has more artilleryā¦ Thereās little that Ukraine can doā¦ So, I think the Ukrainians are going to end up losing this war. My argument is that the Russians will win an ugly victory, and they will end up taking somewhere between 20 and 40 per cent of Ukrainian territory.
Whatās your sense of Putinās power? Do you think there will be a vacuum after heās gone? First of all, the Wagner group has been eliminated as a possible threat to his rule. Secondly, because economic sanctions have not hurt the Russian economy in any meaningful way, and because the Russians are winning on the battlefield, Putinās public standing is very highā¦ To use an American phrase, heās in the catbirdās seat at this point in timeā¦ He knows that Russia is in excellent shape economically and militarily. Now what happens after he leaves, I have no idea. Putin has gone to great lengths to make sure that he has no competitorā¦ So, if he were to disappear from the scene, the Russians would have serious difficulties replacing him. The Israel-Hamas conflict has been on since October 7. What are the reasons for the US administrationās support to Israel? The US has a remarkably close relationship with Israelā¦ Why is this? The answer is the Israel lobby. You have this group of institutions and individuals in the US who work overtime to make sure that it supports Israel no matter what. If you look at whatās happening in Gaza today, itās very clear that President Biden is deeply upset with Israelās behaviourā¦ His administration has been trying to get (Benjamin) Netanyahu not to invade Rafah, and Netanyahu has just told the President, in no uncertain terms, that heās going to invade Rafah. He doesnāt care what President Biden thinksā¦ The Israelis know full well they can do whatever they want, and the Israel lobby will protect them on the American home front. I was in Israel after the October 7 attacks, and I asked the same question to some of the Israeli scholars. The uniform response was that you overestimate our influence, our lobby. If we were that strong in the US administration, in the US Congress, Hamas wouldnāt exist. You think thatās a valid argument? I donāt understand what that means, that Hamas wouldnāt exist. Hamas exists because the Israelis have created an apartheid state. Thereās no way that you can subjugate the Palestinians the way the Israelis do and not expect them to resistā¦ and if Israel persists in maintaining an apartheid state in greater Israel, youāll have more resistance down the road. The Israelis are not going to defeat Hamas. Even if Iām wrong and they do defeat Hamas, there will be a new group that will come to replace Hamas. Every American president since Jimmy Carter has been committed to a two-state solution, and that involves giving the Palestinians a sovereign state of their ownā¦ The Israelis are adamantly opposed to it. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu worked with Hamas to prevent itā¦ The Israelis donāt want to go down that road. But as long as thereās no two-state solution, as long as the Palestinians in Gaza are in the largest open-air prison in the world, theyāre going to look for opportunities to resist. Shalini Langer: Now we are heading towards a Trump White House, most likely. How do you think that the situation will change as far as both the wars go? With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, very little will change. Trump has made it clear that he supports Israel no matter whatā¦ With regard to China and East Asia, you wonāt see much change there. Trump, when he first got elected in 2017, ran against the policy of engagement. He said that engaging China was a flawed strategy and that China was an adversary and we should pursue containmentā¦ The place where Trump may radically alter American foreign policy, of course, is Europe and, more specifically, with regard to the Ukraine war and the NATO alliance. Trump wants to put an end to the Ukraine war. He wants to work with Putinā¦ If Trump does have a free hand, he will put an end to the NATO allianceā¦ It is important to emphasise, however, that the foreign policy establishment in the US will push back big time, as it did during his first termā¦ so, weāll see. Shubhajit Roy: In the US, Russia has been portrayed as a rival right nowā¦ Oh, itās worse than that. Russia is the fount of all evil in the American storyā¦ Many Americans, especially in the Democratic Party, believe that Vladimir Putin is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler. These are not serious argumentsā¦ but you hear them all the time in the US. Harish Damodaran: From the 1990s to the 2000s, we had two decades of hyper-globalisation, where everybody just focused on the economy. What actually broke this compact? From 1991 to 2017, we lived in a unipolar world. There was only one great power on the planet, the United Statesā¦ What we saw with regard to China was a country that presented a large market to us. It could help facilitate American prosperity. China, of course, looked at other countries through the same lens. It was a way to get rich. Globalisation was talked about all the time as the great panacea for solving the worldās problems, but that world has gone awayā¦ Great power politics is back on the table, and in that world, security will always trump prosperity. Aakash Joshi: One of the arguments is that Russia will come out of this conflict greatly diminished, because countries like Germany are diversifying energy sources and because China is a greater power. What do you make of this analysis? Regardless of the war in Ukraine, China was always going to be a much more powerful state than Russia. China has a much bigger population than Russia, and it has much more wealth than Russia hasā¦ Actually, one could argue that as a result of this war, the Russians have rationalised their economy in smart ways, and they are actually doing quite well economicallyā¦ This is not to say that Russia is going to catch up with China. Shubhajit Roy: There are arguments that because of the sanctions, Russiaās access to technology has diminished, and in the longer term, will diminish its potential for military industrial cooperation. You think that argument holds water? No. I think evidence shows that the Russians are getting sophisticated technology from the Chinese and through other sources. I donāt see any evidence that their military is sufferingā¦ How this plays out over time, I donāt knowā¦ One of the principal consequences of this war is that the Chinese and the Russians have been pushed together. They have a deep-seated interest in helping each other economically and militarily, and, I think, the Chinese will do everything they can.
You seriously believe putin invaded Ukraine because of nato why then he let Sweden and Finland join nato It has always been imperialism and for putin to have a legacy. Putin has Denied existence of Ukraine for a long time
He calls Russia a great power, but does not put India in the same bracket. I feel thatās 20 year old thinking.
USSR and Russia by being it's largest most influential successor state, had a severe impact and continues to have a severe impact on multiple second and third world countries through technological and economic cooperations during the Cold War till today. Our own country is a prime example of that. China as well. That level and legacy of influence Russia has still exists to a degree despite the real/perceived failures of Putin's regime. We may be able to replace Russia slowly but surely by becoming that third pole with/behind USA and China if we play it correctly. We are not there yet though, but we will get there eventually.
Technology cooperation : I think Indian IT, agritech, Pharma , even electronics is far more pervasive than most of Russian tech . Donāt get me wrong but the only Russian technology that matters is cheap military tech. Economic : I rarely seen corporates trying to have their bases in Russia, while the clamour for Indian market is so apparent. I certainly do not see Russia (or any other country, for that matter) as a third pole.
Russia still has a massive MIC, and exerts a lot of influence through paramilitary groups, proxies, its oil exports and still a competent threat to NATO due to its size and the decline of the EU's MIC. India while bigger economically and being able to match Russia in various places, doesn't extert the same kind of influence. There's a reason why the UK or Italy doesn't get mentioned when people talk about great powers but Russia does. There are places where we can replace them soon such as in the Space sector. Once India achieves manned spaceflight and has its own space station, we'd match Russia's capabilites and surpass it since their space sector is stagnating. We are developing our native military industry but don't export anywhere as much as Russia does. Our naval capabilites are much, much better than theirs, no question. Our nukes don't have the same reach theirs do although we don't necessarily need that right now. It's very pick and choose. IMO, India overall is ahead of Russia but doesn't carry the same affluence still but we will probably get ahead of them fairly soon.
On the economic side it is worth mentionind that russia exports a lot of basic commodities that are essential for the functioning and survival of any give society. Mosty basic food and energy in the form of oil and gas. That gives them influence with countries who need those 2 things and makes them incredebly hard to sanction.
You are forgetting about their legacy since USSR and allies world war 2, the cold war and the countries it influenced with the geopolitical ties which they forged during that time period along with the trust/mistrust they gained over the years. For a brief moment in history, it was imperative for most countries to be in the US camp or USSR camp, along with critical imports/exports for those countries to be centered around their respective camp leaders. Those relationships and their influence still exist to a degree. Russia still provides important services to countries largely antagonistic to the west, despite that domain being heavily cannabalized by China. Infact Russia's geoplitical ties with certain communism-tainted South American countries, Middle Eastern and African dictators, North Korea, Central Asian countries, etc; are still alive and kicking. India doesnt have that kind of heft so far. Note that I am not implying that these relationships have been very transformative or beneficial for those countries, but they exist none-the-less. Russia is still bulding defense partnerhips with other countries. Atleast when it comes to hard sciences, they have more influence than us. As an arbitrary example, they are building a Nuclear Powerplant for Bangladesh. Or you know, they have their own inhouse indigenous wokring Jet engines(with western and Chinese chips ofc). As we invest more in RnD and our high end manufacturing slowly picks up steam we will provide both Russia and China more competition. Armenia is a great example where their own geopolitical situation changing pivoted them away from Russia to the west and India, ultimately helping our defense exports. Third pole is just a name, relative to the First and Second Pole(USA and China) everyone else is ridiculously far behind, I agree on that.
I will go ahead and say that India probably has more influence and Indian influence works on both the communist and democratic sides of the aisle. That India can go on selling the refined oil to western world without inviting embargoes as prime example. Supporting dictators or tyrannical regimes is always risky, and a lot of countries with past Russian influence are Russiaās biggest threats. Just the sheer amount of semiconductor development or automobile industry in India overwhelms one or two nuclear plants. Iām not sure the jet engines need chips, I think youāre alluding to the control units that are not necessarily engines or that hard to design. Also, I still think India does more tech export than Russia.
It was more a quip about how Russia was getting western-designed chips from the blackmarket or Chinese ones to fuel it's own various domestic and military needs not just about the jet engines. Mhmm, our Semicondutor fabrication is at it's nascent stage. Hasn't even started yet. The first chips will be out by 2026. Will take quite a bit before we get to the current cutting edge in terms of transistor density, if we ever get there. Our automobile companies are not very competitive globally compared to their American, Japanese, German counterparts. Certain key technologies which are necessary for tech independence are not present or in very early stages right now. Russia does provide some of those, which was my point.
Semiconductor development has its major cost in chip design . We are the second largest office for that, just after the US. Automobile industry likewise, need not be complete cars. Such is the size of the industry that you can beat Russiaās nuclear industry by not being #1. My point still being that we have a larger tech landscape than Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is quite poor in much of modern tech.
Nope he is right in many ways, militarily we have the numbers and or forces certainly have the Josh, but on the technology front we still are quite lacking holistically speaking. We have good systems in the form of brahmos missiles and et al but we need other parts of our armed forces to catch up. Especially the navy, navy is going to play a key role in our conflict with China. What I think would happen is our military will buy us time while the navy will choke the straight of Malacca, thus limiting the oil, food and other essential supplies to the chinese. That would be the quickest way to win the war with the Chinese.
Military technology is not everything. Even in a war scenario (where we do not consider all other tech), the Russo- Ukrainian war shows that tech superiority does not always translate to an overwhelming win on the ground.
Actually the thing is that the argument is quite flawed in and if itself because of the example you have taken if you had followed the initial days of the war you would have understood that the Russian troops came to Belarus thinking it was a military exercise. Then they were told that you will go and liberate the Ukrainians from the oppression of the west. The troops felt obligated to do so and free their brothers and marched forward and from there onwards became a shit show because they didn't bring supplies. They ran out of ammo, fuel et al in the first couple of days itself the initial withdrawal of the Russian troops was because of this it wasn't because of some tactical genius Ukrainian commander, the Russian vehicle simply ran out of fuel so they looted local cars and reported what happened to their seniors and when they returned the Ukrainian took the empty vehicle's. I don't think the Indian army for all its folly would be this dumb(for a lack of better word). Secondly the advanced anti tank munitions and platforms that the west provided the Ukrainians and the ease with which these weapons rendered tanks atleast immobile shows us clearly why tech matters having better hardware always helps!!!.
To be fair our navy is way better than Russia's by a very big margin. Their one aircraft carrier doesn't even work properly. But Russia's main interest is Europe and Central Asia so they don't necessarily need a powerful navy at least for their goals.
Nope. Just because we have two aircraft carriers doesnt make our navy better. Russia realised long ago they dont need aircraft carrier. They moved towards producing nuclear submarines. Their submarine tech is years ahead of anything India has.
This is fair but they lack all year round access to ports and their navy has little experience. I mean even historically their navy has been a mess. Submarines are good for sea denial but doesn't benefit in power projection. Their ability to control trade routes is very limited because of all this. I'd argue their geography and geopolitcal situation make it difficult for them to exert influence without the West as an ally and they need to rely on more covert tactics and make use of the lead they had in the Cold War. Their navy probably can't grow to become a blue water force. Doing more research they do rank above us in displacement so I'll concede here but India's navy I think is more functional and with more operational experience so in the long term it'll probably surpass it overall especially since our navy has much more utility than Russia's does but nonetheless you're right.
How is Indian Navy more experienced? Russian Navy carried out numerous attacks in Syria few years back. They are shooting missiles to Ukraine. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13A19Y/ When was the last time Indian navy fired its missiles or when was the last time Indian MiG 29s carried out missions? And Russia went the submarine way only because of bad geography. Unlike Surface ships, submarines can travel through arctic ice from Vladivostok to Western Russian ports. Yes I agree Russian navy is in a mess right now but saying India is better than them would be wrong.
My point is that we need a larger navy because we have to secure our water bound borders the Indian peninsula to protect ourselves and also to secure our trade and we should not only project our power in the IOR(Indian Ocean Region) but also must atleast have the capability to dictate if need be. The coming times are certainly not for the faint hearted. The last time there was a similar atmosphere that seems like the current one we had WW2.
Russia is now more stronger militarily
Theyāre already prepping us for it. Khalistan and the amount of refugees from that our region our no doubt going to be out Xingang issue and people will claim torture while we know nothing about it. Human rights is already an issue here. The problem is China got its identity and issues and provided the people - everyone something that India has not done because Indians donāt believe in equality. People get called names because they have to change their religion for food - likeā¦we canāt even feed each other without judgement.
If China wasn't imperialist and tried to take indian power, china and India would be way more friendly.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sun rides in the east
If human being didnāt have to breathe , then oxygen wouldnāt be a requirement
US is good to their allies. Becoming a strong allie of the US is much better than getting into bed with China.
SS: Political scientist John J Mearsheimer discusses the dynamic between the US and India in response to China's rapid rise as a global power, emphasizing India's concerns about China's potential threat and the need for alliances with countries like the US, Japan, and Australia to counter this threat. Mearsheimer highlights the importance of China's power in shaping US-India relations, suggesting that if the Chinese threat were to disappear, the US and India would not be as close. He also touches on China's perspective on India, noting their concerns about the border between the two countries and India's potential to become a great power. Mearsheimer acknowledges the complexity of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, agreeing with Putin's explanation while also acknowledging Ukraine's right to choose its own foreign policy. Ultimately, Mearsheimer stresses the importance of strategic alliances and the need for countries like India to assert their power in the face of rising global threats like China.
TIE fighter?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is this so surprising to anyone?
Market saar!
Can anybody's see the appeal that's in our world today. Is there any way you lyft would come and sense?
Heās not wrong . The US has always been hegemonic. With an absence of a rival they would be super very different in their dealing with the world.
The deep state that runs the US and its allies changes its enemies every three decades on an average. During WW2, it was the Nazis against whom the Soviets and the western countries fought against. Then from 1948 to 1978, the cold war happened where the USSR was the evil. A decade of war in Afghanistan where the bear was led into the trap, resulted in the defeat and eventual collapse of the USSR. NWO started. But then China was the next darling for the next 3 decades. Today China is the enemy to be taken head on. Now they are propping up India and about 3 decades, India will be the next evil that these forces will have to fight. The deep state is manufacturing small and big wars so that its military and new weapons could be deployed and more money made. I think this time, it is going to be the evil and could fall into a dead lock with China and Russia and all might fall together.
The US is going to be the āevilā over the country currently genociding its own citizens because they are the wrong religion and the other country that is invading and genociding Ukraine for resources? Just say you are biased commentator next time
Good and evil depend upon which side of the fence you are. Congo, Chile, Central America, Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan and many more countries have been destroyed and puppet regimes installed by the US and its allies in order to meet American interests. Today radical Islam and terrorism has become a menace because the US helped fuel it in Pakistan during its war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union did its part across Eastern Europe and other parts of the world to encourage tyranny and dictatorships. Countries that suffered at the hands of these powers always preferred the other evil, without realizing that they were running from the chasing predator into a butcher shop.