Geopolitical thread

[ramana]

BS article. India is not in competition with anybody. Its all mind games.

[SwamyG]

Whether the article is BS or not, there comes a time (or it came already) when India has to compete.

[svinayak]

Whether the article is BS or not, there comes a time (or it came already) when India has to compete.

India will compete in its own terms

[SwamyG]

^^^
Yeah, you wish. "own terms" does not imply competing, implies "domination".

[abhishek_sharma]

State Department Japan hand loses post as Campbell goes on Tokyo apology tour

LINK

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

X-POSTED from MRCA Thread

Since this thread is straying geopolitically-OT somewhat, I’d like to offer a few thoughts germane to the MMRCA contest:

The original American strategic rationale for the Pro-Pakistan tilt was set in the Eisenhower Administration, on the desks of John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Welsh Dulles, who created the ideological schema through which all ‘Cold War’ matters were viewed by Americans. This thinking still colours institutionalized American foreign policy making to this very day. Together, the Dulles brothers successfully promulgated an extremely simplistic (mis)understanding of the Post WWII dispensation, wherein, “You’re either with us or against us”. Rakshaks will recall very similar sentiments expressed by Bush-43 after 9/11.

India, being true to her own ideological roots, while grounded in a deep appreciation for history, and informed of the high stakes involved, and with a long-view in mind; chose instead to walk a Non-Aligned path. If Rakshaks will permit me this; in so doing, India effectively threw America behind Pakistan, because the simple-minded US administration couldn’t figure out what else to do, and Pakistan was all too willing (which is not intended to blame India – she had to do what she had to do, and the Americans didn’t know any better – and apparently still don’t). This Indian decision wasn’t just a reflection of a post-colonial desire for independence. Nor was it naïve, facile or expedient. Indeed, it was quite the opposite. Indians of the day knew that when everyone picks one side or another, that wider war becomes *inevitable*. Yet, standing apart from either block carries its own dangers, which was a conscious decision taken with bravery, let no one doubt. For these reasons among others, India did not become a “poodle” of either Cold War superpower, as evidenced by the military engagements she undertook during that period – always on behalf of herself and none other.

In this light, anyone now advocating for India to closely ally with the United States is effectively abrogating pretty much all of Indian strategic thought going back just about three thousand years. No thinking person with pro-India inclinations should undertake this lightly (nor at all, I would suggest). Granted, this in itself does not instruct India not to pick the F-16 or F-18 if indeed either is technically superior to the other MMRCA contenders. But, it does caution against an overly-close or formalized alliance with the United States (a la CISMoA), because to the Indian mind, alliance is an obligation, whereas to the American mind, alliance is an opportunity – and this ideological and philosophical mismatch will bring nothing but woe to India if ever a formalized alliance is instituted between India and the United States. By all means, buy American warplanes if they’re in fact the best on offer and can be had without abandoning Indian sovereignty or military prerogative – but don’t do it for any supposed (short-sighted, ill-considered) geostrategic reason bent on alliance with America. That’d be stupid, and could set India on a very dangerous course.

Consider that India’s Non-Aligned stance gave the Americans enough of a reason to back Pakistan in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, despite the complete lack of any moral justification to do so. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan gave the Americans an even bigger Pro-Pakistan reason in the 80s – a reason that was shared between “all three” (being the US, Pakistan and China, owing to the ‘Sino-Soviet Split’). But let no one forget that when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the Americans effectively ignored Pakistan until 9/11/2001. Then, once again, Pakistan became “a major non-NATO US ally”. What does this mean for the MMRCA contest? It means that the Americans will offer India “the moon” (including a UNSC P-seat, F-16, F-18, even F-35, etc.), but only because of America’s own interests (such as Af-Pak, countering China, US manufacturing jobs, etc); American interests which seemingly are always calculated on very short time frames, subject to change without notice.

Now, I will admit that I have no way to prove this, but let me ask you, dear Rakshak, if India had ‘fallen in line’ with US interests when she first had the ‘opportunity’, do you think America would have exhibited the Pro-Pakistan tilt from 1950-1979? Of course you don’t and neither do I. Make no mistake, America of that day would have quickly disposed of Pakistan had India ‘played ball’. Furthermore, in a very real sense; America’s arming of Pakistan contributes to Indian insecurity, which (they hope) leads to Indian purchases of American weapons, thereby profiting America. In a way, India purchasing American weapons validates and facilitates this dynamic, and feeds into a continuing cycle of insecurity and American weapons purchases. The only way to effectively break this dynamic is to not buy American weapons. If the Americans see that the instability and insecurity they foster goes to enrich Russia or France, they will not play that game with the same gusto they have been.

When America’s interests shift, which they inevitably do because of the short-sightedness inherent in expedient strategymaking, so too does American support for her client states. In fact, I would argue, that the structural dynamics of the American establishment itself – with its ‘checks and balances’, open access for paying lobbyists, two-year-long election cycles, the milindustrial complex itself and the combined heavy dependence on middle-eastern oil and Chinese sovereign credit – this virtually guarantees that America’s interests vis a vis India will shift over the coming decades, as they have over the past decade, making it by no means certain that relations will improve along the current trajectory.

If history provides any salient lesson, we can be assured that the present push for warming relations will not last indefinitely, especially as the ramifications of global climate change increasingly pit the so-called ‘developed world’ at loggerheads with the ‘developing world’. If India plans to fly the MMRCA winner for 30-40 years, as I’ve read; then India should consider buying from a country that has exhibited a far greater degree of geopolitical constancy than has the United States of America. By my geopolitical estimation, that would indicate either Russia or France (Mig-35 or Rafale, respectively).

IMHO, far too many here on BRF are keen to kick Russia to the curb. I think this is also a short-sighted response to the aggravation of perceived cost overruns on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya, and also the supply disruptions that came in the wake of the Soviet collapse. I also think there is some significant misperception of the strategic position of Russia. Allow me to explain briefly:

Firstly, third-party observers to the Gorshkov refit (like you and me) are in no position to question the validity of costs on the project. Any upset on the topic can only be informed by inflammatory media portrayals, ignoring the fact that the GoI/MoD finally came to accept things and the whole affair was settled. Nobody on BRF should overlook that.

Second, the Soviet collapse caused a great deal of disruption in Russia, and regrettably this resulted in some supply disruptions, but that was the past, and there is no indication that anything like that would happen again – so while Russia may not be a perfect supplier yet, they are on the road to improving and with continued patronage (and larger production volumes) the Russian milindustrial complex should stabilize its operations and improve their supply performance. Don’t forget, other deals with the Russians have already been settled (notably the FGFA) and so any steps to thicken the foundations of Russian producers is likely to pay dividends to India over the long term.

Third, with regards to Russia’s geostrategic position; like India, Russia has concerns about Chinese expansionism; like India, Russia has concerns about terrorism and Islamist militancy; like India, Russia has concerns about petro-dollar fuelled Islamism; WHILE AT THE SAME TIME; unlike the United States, Russia is an energy exporting country; and unlike the United States, Russia’s sovereign debt is below 10% of GDP (much lower than any other MMRCA contender).

Undeniably, Russia has gone through a rough patch since the collapse of the USSR, but things are improving rapidly. If India wanted to pick a geopolitical power with which to partner to march into her preferred future, it should not be one that is so beholden to China, which would include America, of course, but increasingly also the EADS member countries.

Some additional rebuttals:

1) A number of posters have commented that India, the world’s largest democracy, is a “natural ally” of America, the world’s oldest democracy. This depiction of America is wrong-headed because the United States didn’t become a true democracy until the Civil Rights act of 1964(!) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965(!!). By this measure, India is an older democracy than is the United States, so please spare us the revisionist depiction of American democracy – overlooking a recent history of racial segregation and disenfranchisement.

2) America didn’t enter WWII on the side of the British until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December 1941! That’s right, America stayed out of the fray from 1939-1942, and in fact a number of American companies and businessmen were trading with the Nazis even after the Americans entered the European theatre, notably IBM which provided a punch-card system the Nazis used to “catalogue” concentration camp prisoners, thereby improving the efficiency of Hitler’s holocaust machine. The take-away lesson here: America has demonstrated a depth of moral bankruptcy that should give any Indian pause when considering formal alliances with the United States.

3) Have no concern about blow-back on the US-India nuclear deal. For starters, there are entirely different lobbies in the US for nuclear equipments and warplanes, and so little chance that a sour note for one will taint the other. More importantly, India has already made the sound decision to operate low-enriched fuel, heavy-water moderated nuclear reactors, and the Americans have long ago made the *cheap* decision to operate light-water moderated reactors. This means that India doesn’t really want US reactors, only access to other NSG products and fuel. BRIEFLY, the main safety advantage of heavy-water moderated reactors is that a loss of containment, and leakage of heavy water, would result in an automatic shutdown (because the reaction requires ‘slow neutrons’), whereas in the light-water reactors offered by America, a loss of containment and loss of water would result in a meltdown, which is exactly what we’re seeing in Fukushima right now. For this reason, I don’t think India or anyone else would consider buying a light water reactor anymore, because they are inherently unsafe, whereas pressurized heavy-water reactors will always ‘fail safe’. (IMHO, India would be better off buying an AECL reactor from Canada, like the CANDU-6 or ACR-1000, both of which will burn thorium, unlike any American reactor.)

[svinayak]

If you can expand on the topic of what is the american geo political interest in ME, Central asia and how that is driving the US alliance with India and not any real interest in Indian national security.
This has to come out more clearly.

[devesh]

we need to understand that US objective in major power centres is never peace. if there was peace and good trade, then competing powers would rise that would challenge American dominance. the idea is always to check mate the powerful by using a smaller pawn. the nonsense about India being counterbalance to PRC is clever psy-ops designed to puff the Indian pride and make us willing poodles all in the name of some perceived prestige in "beating" PRC. there is a deep relationship between PRC and US based on economies, finance, geography, etc that will play itself out with disastrous consequences for China. US already has a pretty good idea how it's going to handle China.

the whole India vs. China crap was invented so as to tag India along with whatever US comes up with. the British colonization of Indian mind is an ally of American imperialism. regardless of what American establishment says about freedom, liberty, etc the imperialists are extremely happy that British were so successful in colonizing our minds. regardless of what they say about peace and prosperity, they are secretly hoping for China to ape shit in Asia so they can have their convenient excuse to come in and colonize Asia all over again.

chaos, war, disorder, and general fighting between rising powers are all positive outcomes for the American geopolitical dynamic. the opposite, general peace, flourishing trade, rising economies, greater prosperity for large sections of various countries, are all bad for American power. the more the later happens, the less that America becomes the center of the world. it's actually a very deep seated narcissism that is at play here.

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

^^^ devesh, nice post -- I largely agree FWIW.

The Americans have a saying they only whisper when they think no one else is listenning.

"Out of chaos, a new world order for the ages" (I'll spare you the latin, which would take some Googling.)

[abhishek_sharma]

The BRIC Wall

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... _bric_wall

"The fissure in the UN between a Western-led interventionist group and a "sovereignty bloc" led by Moscow and Beijing, but with real appeal to key emerging powers like Brazil, South Africa and India... may be one of the most critical dynamics at the UN. For the moment, the West still has the pull to carry the day. Whether that will be true a decade from now is anyone's guess. "

[Chinmayanand]

X-posting :
-----------------

Looks like in the North African-West Asian crisis and the Japan quake we have been neglecting Af-Pak.

Shiv, Acharya, Muppalla, CRS!

Stratfor George Friedman in "Next Decade'

The Indo-Pakistani balance is being destabilized in Afghanistan, a complex war zone where American troops are pursuing two competing goals, at least as stated officially. The first is to prevent al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base of operations; the second is to create a stable democratic government. But denying terrorists a haven in Afghanistan achieves little, because groups following al Qaeda’s principles (al Qaeda prime, the group built around Osama bin Laden, is no longer fully functioning) can grow anywhere, from Yemen to Cleveland. This is an especially significant factor when the attempt to disrupt al Qaeda requires destabilizing the country, training the incipient Afghanistan army, managing the police force of Afghan recruits, and intruding into Afghan politics. There is no way to effectively stabilize a country in which you have to play such an intrusive role.

Unscrambling this complexity begins with recognizing that the United States has no vital interest in the kind of government Afghanistan develops, and that once again the president cannot allow counterterrorism to be a primary force in shaping national strategy.

But the more fundamental recognition necessary for ensuring balance over the next ten years is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are in fact one entity, both sharing various ethnic groups and tribes, with the political border between them meaning very little. The combined population of these two countries is over 200 million people, and the United States, with only about 100,000 troops in the region, is never going to be able to impose its will directly and establish order to its liking.

Moreover, the primary strategic issue is not actually Afghanistan but Pakistan, and the truly significant balance of power in the region is actually that between Pakistan and India. Ever since independence, these two countries partitioned from the same portion of the British Empire have maintained uneasy and sometimes violent relations. Both are nuclear powers, and they are obsessed with each other. While India is the stronger, Pakistan has the more defensible terrain, although its heartland is more exposed to India. Still, the two have been kept in static opposition—which is just where the United States wants them.

Obviously, the challenges inherent in maintaining this complex balance over the next ten years are enormous. To the extent that Pakistan disintegrates under U.S. pressure to help fight al Qaeda and to cooperate with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the standoff with India will fail, leaving India the preeminent power in the region. The war in Afghanistan must inevitably spread to Pakistan, triggering internal struggles that can potentially weaken the Pakistani state. This is not certain, but it is too possible to dismiss. With no significant enemies other than the Chinese, who are sequestered on the other side of the Himalayas, India would be free to use its resources to try to dominate the Indian Ocean basin, and it would very likely increase its navy to do so. A triumphant India would obliterate the balance the United States so greatly desires, and thus the issue of India is actually far more salient than the issues of terrorism or nation-building in Afghanistan.

That is why over the next ten years the primary American strategy in this region must be to help create a strong and viable Pakistan. The most significant step in that direction would be to relieve pressure on Pakistan by ending the war in Afghanistan. The specific ideology of the Pakistani government doesn’t really matter, and the United States can’t impose its views on Pakistan anyway.

Strengthening Pakistan will not only help restore the balance with India, it will restore Pakistan as a foil for Afghanistan as well. In both these Muslim countries there are many diverging groups and interests, and the United States cannot manage their internal arrangements. It can, however, follow the same strategy that was selected after the fall of the Soviet Union: it can allow the natural balance that existed prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to return, to the extent possible. The United States can then spend its resources helping to build a strong Pakistani army to hold the situation together.

Jihadist forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan will probably reemerge, but they are just as likely to do so with the United States bogged down in Afghanistan as with the U.S. gone. The war simply has no impact on this dynamic. There is a slight chance that a Pakistani military, with the incentive of U.S. support, might be somewhat more successful in suppressing the terrorists, but this is uncertain and ultimately unimportant. Once again, the key objective going forward is maintaining the Indo-Pakistani balance of power.

As in the case of stepping back from Israel, the president will not be able to express his strategy for dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India openly. Certainly there will be no way for the United States to appear triumphant, and the Afghan war will be resolved much as Vietnam was, through a negotiated peace agreement that allows the insurgent forces—in this case the Taliban—to take control. A stronger Pakistani army will have no interest in crushing the Taliban but will settle for controlling it. The Pakistani state will survive, which will balance India, thus allowing the United States to focus on other balance points within the region.

This guy who ignored India completely in his book on Next Century is back with blast in this book.


Is this guy a British guy? Looks like someone made him sit on the harishchandra's throne!

Here plain and simple that US wants to keep TSP to balance India and will go any length including nuke delivery systems. Now we understand the whole politics and policies of US admins since Nixon.

Now understand why India abstained in the UN NFZ vote.

And the support for Iran.
We need our own guys.

[Prem]

How does this George Fudhuman balance India with Pakistan which is just 8% of Indian economic strength?
He seems scared ..hit that in 10 years Indian economy will be in TOP3 economies of the world and wearing number 10 Boot to boot these idoitic compaison.

[Hari Seldon]

^^LOL George bheja-fried man regularly exposes his ignorance and malice online. And gets away everytime because he's only farting scenarios, you see. Much like 'em CNBC pundits pontificating on market moves are not and cannot be held accountable for outrageous calls they may have made. All caveat emptor only.

And due diligence on bheja-fry reveals him to be as much a pimtellectual as ARoy is in he 'social activism' field and SAR geelani is in the 'human rights' area.

[Christopher Sidor]

X-POSTED from MRCA Thread

Since this thread is straying geopolitically-OT somewhat, I’d like to offer a few thoughts germane to the MMRCA contest:

The original American strategic rationale for the Pro-Pakistan tilt was set in the Eisenhower Administration, on the desks of John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Welsh Dulles, who created the ideological schema through which all ‘Cold War’ matters were viewed by Americans. This thinking still colours institutionalized American foreign policy making to this very day. Together, the Dulles brothers successfully promulgated an extremely simplistic (mis)understanding of the Post WWII dispensation, wherein, “You’re either with us or against us”. Rakshaks will recall very similar sentiments expressed by Bush-43 after 9/11.

India, being true to her own ideological roots, while grounded in a deep appreciation for history, and informed of the high stakes involved, and with a long-view in mind; chose instead to walk a Non-Aligned path. If Rakshaks will permit me this; in so doing, India effectively threw America behind Pakistan, because the simple-minded US administration couldn’t figure out what else to do, and Pakistan was all too willing (which is not intended to blame India – she had to do what she had to do, and the Americans didn’t know any better – and apparently still don’t). This Indian decision wasn’t just a reflection of a post-colonial desire for independence. Nor was it naïve, facile or expedient. Indeed, it was quite the opposite. Indians of the day knew that when everyone picks one side or another, that wider war becomes *inevitable*. Yet, standing apart from either block carries its own dangers, which was a conscious decision taken with bravery, let no one doubt. For these reasons among others, India did not become a “poodle” of either Cold War superpower, as evidenced by the military engagements she undertook during that period – always on behalf of herself and none other.

In this light, anyone now advocating for India to closely ally with the United States is effectively abrogating pretty much all of Indian strategic thought going back just about three thousand years. No thinking person with pro-India inclinations should undertake this lightly (nor at all, I would suggest). Granted, this in itself does not instruct India not to pick the F-16 or F-18 if indeed either is technically superior to the other MMRCA contenders. But, it does caution against an overly-close or formalized alliance with the United States (a la CISMoA), because to the Indian mind, alliance is an obligation, whereas to the American mind, alliance is an opportunity – and this ideological and philosophical mismatch will bring nothing but woe to India if ever a formalized alliance is instituted between India and the United States. By all means, buy American warplanes if they’re in fact the best on offer and can be had without abandoning Indian sovereignty or military prerogative – but don’t do it for any supposed (short-sighted, ill-considered) geostrategic reason bent on alliance with America. That’d be stupid, and could set India on a very dangerous course.

Consider that India’s Non-Aligned stance gave the Americans enough of a reason to back Pakistan in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, despite the complete lack of any moral justification to do so. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan gave the Americans an even bigger Pro-Pakistan reason in the 80s – a reason that was shared between “all three” (being the US, Pakistan and China, owing to the ‘Sino-Soviet Split’). But let no one forget that when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the Americans effectively ignored Pakistan until 9/11/2001. Then, once again, Pakistan became “a major non-NATO US ally”. What does this mean for the MMRCA contest? It means that the Americans will offer India “the moon” (including a UNSC P-seat, F-16, F-18, even F-35, etc.), but only because of America’s own interests (such as Af-Pak, countering China, US manufacturing jobs, etc); American interests which seemingly are always calculated on very short time frames, subject to change without notice.

Now, I will admit that I have no way to prove this, but let me ask you, dear Rakshak, if India had ‘fallen in line’ with US interests when she first had the ‘opportunity’, do you think America would have exhibited the Pro-Pakistan tilt from 1950-1979? Of course you don’t and neither do I. Make no mistake, America of that day would have quickly disposed of Pakistan had India ‘played ball’. Furthermore, in a very real sense; America’s arming of Pakistan contributes to Indian insecurity, which (they hope) leads to Indian purchases of American weapons, thereby profiting America. In a way, India purchasing American weapons validates and facilitates this dynamic, and feeds into a continuing cycle of insecurity and American weapons purchases. The only way to effectively break this dynamic is to not buy American weapons. If the Americans see that the instability and insecurity they foster goes to enrich Russia or France, they will not play that game with the same gusto they have been.

When America’s interests shift, which they inevitably do because of the short-sightedness inherent in expedient strategymaking, so too does American support for her client states. In fact, I would argue, that the structural dynamics of the American establishment itself – with its ‘checks and balances’, open access for paying lobbyists, two-year-long election cycles, the milindustrial complex itself and the combined heavy dependence on middle-eastern oil and Chinese sovereign credit – this virtually guarantees that America’s interests vis a vis India will shift over the coming decades, as they have over the past decade, making it by no means certain that relations will improve along the current trajectory.

If history provides any salient lesson, we can be assured that the present push for warming relations will not last indefinitely, especially as the ramifications of global climate change increasingly pit the so-called ‘developed world’ at loggerheads with the ‘developing world’. If India plans to fly the MMRCA winner for 30-40 years, as I’ve read; then India should consider buying from a country that has exhibited a far greater degree of geopolitical constancy than has the United States of America. By my geopolitical estimation, that would indicate either Russia or France (Mig-35 or Rafale, respectively).

IMHO, far too many here on BRF are keen to kick Russia to the curb. I think this is also a short-sighted response to the aggravation of perceived cost overruns on the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya, and also the supply disruptions that came in the wake of the Soviet collapse. I also think there is some significant misperception of the strategic position of Russia. Allow me to explain briefly:

Firstly, third-party observers to the Gorshkov refit (like you and me) are in no position to question the validity of costs on the project. Any upset on the topic can only be informed by inflammatory media portrayals, ignoring the fact that the GoI/MoD finally came to accept things and the whole affair was settled. Nobody on BRF should overlook that.

Second, the Soviet collapse caused a great deal of disruption in Russia, and regrettably this resulted in some supply disruptions, but that was the past, and there is no indication that anything like that would happen again – so while Russia may not be a perfect supplier yet, they are on the road to improving and with continued patronage (and larger production volumes) the Russian milindustrial complex should stabilize its operations and improve their supply performance. Don’t forget, other deals with the Russians have already been settled (notably the FGFA) and so any steps to thicken the foundations of Russian producers is likely to pay dividends to India over the long term.

Third, with regards to Russia’s geostrategic position; like India, Russia has concerns about Chinese expansionism; like India, Russia has concerns about terrorism and Islamist militancy; like India, Russia has concerns about petro-dollar fuelled Islamism; WHILE AT THE SAME TIME; unlike the United States, Russia is an energy exporting country; and unlike the United States, Russia’s sovereign debt is below 10% of GDP (much lower than any other MMRCA contender).

Undeniably, Russia has gone through a rough patch since the collapse of the USSR, but things are improving rapidly. If India wanted to pick a geopolitical power with which to partner to march into her preferred future, it should not be one that is so beholden to China, which would include America, of course, but increasingly also the EADS member countries.

Some additional rebuttals:

1) A number of posters have commented that India, the world’s largest democracy, is a “natural ally” of America, the world’s oldest democracy. This depiction of America is wrong-headed because the United States didn’t become a true democracy until the Civil Rights act of 1964(!) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965(!!). By this measure, India is an older democracy than is the United States, so please spare us the revisionist depiction of American democracy – overlooking a recent history of racial segregation and disenfranchisement.

2) America didn’t enter WWII on the side of the British until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December 1941! That’s right, America stayed out of the fray from 1939-1942, and in fact a number of American companies and businessmen were trading with the Nazis even after the Americans entered the European theatre, notably IBM which provided a punch-card system the Nazis used to “catalogue” concentration camp prisoners, thereby improving the efficiency of Hitler’s holocaust machine. The take-away lesson here: America has demonstrated a depth of moral bankruptcy that should give any Indian pause when considering formal alliances with the United States.

3) Have no concern about blow-back on the US-India nuclear deal. For starters, there are entirely different lobbies in the US for nuclear equipments and warplanes, and so little chance that a sour note for one will taint the other. More importantly, India has already made the sound decision to operate low-enriched fuel, heavy-water moderated nuclear reactors, and the Americans have long ago made the *cheap* decision to operate light-water moderated reactors. This means that India doesn’t really want US reactors, only access to other NSG products and fuel. BRIEFLY, the main safety advantage of heavy-water moderated reactors is that a loss of containment, and leakage of heavy water, would result in an automatic shutdown (because the reaction requires ‘slow neutrons’), whereas in the light-water reactors offered by America, a loss of containment and loss of water would result in a meltdown, which is exactly what we’re seeing in Fukushima right now. For this reason, I don’t think India or anyone else would consider buying a light water reactor anymore, because they are inherently unsafe, whereas pressurized heavy-water reactors will always ‘fail safe’. (IMHO, India would be better off buying an AECL reactor from Canada, like the CANDU-6 or ACR-1000, both of which will burn thorium, unlike any American reactor.)

Ravi Agree with you on the fact that India and US are not "natural allies" in any sense due to democratic governing setup that India has. If this were the case than the 7th fleet would not have been ordered to sail into Bay of Bengal. And if democracy was really the foundation of being a natural allies, then US would never have propped up Pakistan in the first place and provided it with F-16 and other weapons whose only use is against India. Many of our problems have a made-by-US stamped on them, from a economically strong PRC/China to Pakistan to the current high inflation, thanks to QE and QE-II to terrorism in Af-Pak.

But by not selecting MiG-35 for MRCA, we will not be kicking Russia. Far from it. This is a 11 Billion USD RFP. With Russia we have much more and more in-depth interaction. Consider T-50/PAK-FA. Consider the help that the russians have given in ATV. The list goes on and on.
It is IAF which is not keen on MiG-35. Apart from a plane whose future is in serious doubt, If we go for MiG-35 we end up concentrating most of our airframes with Made-In-Russia Stamp. Further our Mig-29s are being upgraded and hopefully they will be as capable as Mig-35 will be with due respect to airframe age.

Further there is a illusion going on that Russia is some how concerned about China. Nothing can be further from the truth. Russia and China are very deeply entangled. As long as China is denied North-Atlantic weapon systems. it can only depend on Russia or on stealing for major weapon purchases. There might be some in China who dream of restoring Russian Far-East to China or Parts of Siberia to China but they are the fringe elements.

We need not pick Russia over America. If Russia can have deep and cordial relationship with China and India simultaneously while US can have a similar relationship with both India and Pakistan, India too can have a strategic relationship with US and Russia simultaneously. There is no need for India to choose one over the other. This is a lesson which we have forgotten. We need to tell both Russia and US that their relationship with India will not come at the cost of India's relationship with any other nation.

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

Dear Christopher Sidor,

In general I agree with your comments above. If the IAF is not keen on the MiG-35 then that should be the end of it – just as with F-18 or any of the other a/c on offer but deemed undesirable by the IAF. I think we can agree, first and foremost, that the MMRCA purchase decision should be based on technical merits factored for operational cost.

However, if more than one a/c should meet that standard, then the question becomes how to pick between them. Many have argued that ToT should be the next major consideration, and these people too have a good point (though I don’t hold this view as closely as many do). Then the question arises, if two or more a/c are technically competent with acceptable operating cost, and the ToT regimes that would follow would all bring comparable benefits, then the issue comes down to geopolitics (leaving aside EULAs and the infamous CISMoA – which mostly count against American a/c, IMHO).

I think we can further agree that geopolitical buying rationales should consider India’s best interests, not only in the immediate future, but over the long term – at least as long as the operational lifetime of the a/c considered in the MMRCA. I was only trying to make the point that over this time frame, the prospects of continued American geopolitical dominance are not nearly as bright as the prospects for Russian renewal within a multi-polar global system – which would be more to India’s advantage, for reasons I’ve already intimated.

If you’ll permit my rebuttal: I have to disagree that Russia is entirely unconcerned about China. I think any neighbour of China is concerned about China. Russia has a rapidly declining population, and rich natural resources. The sight of large, rich, well-armed and resource-hungry China next door is certainly going to figure into Russia’s defence considerations. Yet, to prove itself not a belligerent against China, Russia has been fairly open in her business dealings and weapons sales with China. This has also been a financial necessity for Russia, as she tries to put her chaotic post-Soviet period behind her. I think it is safe to say, that at least to a certain degree, the Russian arms sales to China are motivated by Russian financial necessity – rather than any kind of geopolitical game aimed at Russian world domination. As for American arms sales to whomever – believe me, world domination is a part of the American calculation.

… As long as China is denied North-Atlantic weapon systems….

Well, there you hit on a major consideration. Look to Taiwan, chock-o-block full with American weapons, including many very sophisticated systems. Now consider that America is formally committed to a ‘One China’ policy, and you will see that it is only a matter of time before mainland China subsumes Taiwan. In the process, all of that American hardware will be subsumed into the PLA/PLAAF/PLAN. I am not saying that there is any right-or-wrong about that – just that it seems to be inevitable, and this development should not be disregarded by anyone in the Pacific rim or IOR who is keen to take a long term view of pending geostrategic shifts. This is only a matter of time.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that that India needs not pick Russia over America, nor unnecessarily antagonize China (which is currently, I believe, India’s largest trading partner). I think it is in India’s best interests to have positive relations with every country around the world, if these positive relations are reciprocally positive (and there is great debate as to whether the India-America relationship meets this standard). However, I don’t think India should risk putting herself in a dangerous position, because weakness is an invitation to aggression, particularly to large, rich, well-armed and resource-hungry China next door.

The basic points I was trying to make with that post above, is that America is not in nearly the strong geopolitical position that many have assumed, nor is Russia in a geopolitically weak position as many have assumed. Furthermore, neither is India so weak herself.

Consider this: Find the poorest beggar in India, without two paise to rub together, and draw-up a balance sheet including his/her portion of the Indian national public debt. Now go into a nice suburb of America and find the average, SUV-driving, gainfully-employed professional, and draw-up a balance sheet including his/her credit cards, mortgages, student loans, etc., and his/her portion of the US national public debt. Now compare the two balance sheets. Who do you think is in a weaker financial position?

I’ll spare you the exercise, and just confirm everyone’s suspicion; that the American’s comparatively lavish lifestyle has landed him/her into serious debt, whereas the Indian beggar is virtually free-and-clear. Now multiply this result by tens of millions of Americans, and hundreds of millions of Indians, and you will start to better appreciate the geopolitical and macroeconomic weakness of America, and the converse strength of India.

This might sound far-fetched on the surface, because appearances can easily cloud our judgement. So to further simplify, let’s take it up a notch:

America is heavily in debt, in terms of the personal debt of individual Americans, and the public debt at the State and Federal levels. A lot of this debt is held by the Chinese, in the form of US treasury bonds. For years and years, the Americans have financed this debt by issuing treasuries, and for years and years, Chinese central bankers have been buying them – but this is slowing dramatically. Indeed, America’s recent ‘T-Bill’ issues have gone unsold. To ‘address’ this problem, recently, the US Federal Reserve Bank bought $600 Billion in US treasury bonds, effectively diluting the Chinese holdings, much to the anger of the Chinese.

What does this mean from a geopolitical and macroeconomic standpoint? It means that the Americans are in debt, nearing utter default, and the US-dollar denominated Chinese ‘wealth’ is turning out to be not nearly as sturdy a holding as they had thought.

Now look at India – not the paper money (which is the only kind that Americans and Chinese have) – look at the gold – and not the gold in the central bank – look at the gold around Indian’s necks. From what I understand, one quarter of all the gold ever to have been mined is around someone’s neck in India. Now take a closer look at that paise-less beggar in India. He/she probably has at least a little piece of gold, which is any day more valuable than a maxed-out AmEx card.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not knocking the American people – not by any means. All I’m saying is that India would be wise to partner with a geopolitical player who is;
A] not manoeuvring for global domination,
B] not beholden to foreign creditors, particularly Chinese central bankers,
C] not energy dependent on middle-eastern oil,
D] not dependent on Pakistani generals for access to/egress from the Af-Pak war theatre,
E] not reliant on large amounts of imported scientific expertise (since these scientists are not attending US universities as much as they once did, owing to stricter US visa regimes post 9/11, and lower US job prospects in a 'Flatter' world),

... perhaps most importantly, a geopolitical partner for India who...

F] doesn’t have a well established ‘containment strategy’ directed against India (‘containment strategy’ being an enormous euphemism for; i) building-up China, ii) propping-up Pakistan, iii) running interference for TSP-based terrorists like DCH and the LeT, iv) pressuring India over J&K for the TSP, v) training and supporting Khalistanis, vi) turning a blind eye to AQ Khan, vii) quashing TSP nuclear proliferation investigations in Holland and Switzerland, etc., viii) denial of technologies and spares post Pokhran testing, iix) blacklisting and embargoing Indian R&D institutions, et cetera, et cetera).

Christopher Sidor, please answer me this: Do you think America's hands are clean WRT India? (Stricken because I re-read your comments above and I now understand this question should not be asked of you. My apologies, Christoper Sidor.)

[UBanerjee]

While I agree that India and the US are not particularly suited to be natural allies, given the divergence of Indian and US interests, I don't get the need to moralize on the matter and issue statements like the following:

America has demonstrated a depth of moral bankruptcy that should give any Indian pause when considering formal alliances with the United States.

This is amusing when the Russians make the Americans look like saints in comparison. Especially given the context; IBM's involvement with Hitler is pretty laughable when placed next to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Many of Russia's neighbors have been driven into Western arms by Russia's own actions, while despite some level of American misadventures in the region, hardly any of America's neighbors can say the same- only Cuba and Venezuela.

As for constancy, the US has many more relationships around the world than the Russians or the French and so will change directions on some of them. Especially those it simply uses as tools, like Pakistan. But it has many core relationships which have remained strong, such as South Korea, Japan, and the UK (which are despised as 'poodles' here, but remain allies). Meanwhile the Russians have certainly split with major partners, China being an obvious example. Russia has no deep civilizational connection with India and let's not pretend that they will not abandon her if need dictates. It just so happens that such a scenario is unlikely in the near future. By the way, speaking of times beyond the near future, Islam is growing in Russia and there is a significant chance that Islam will prove to be a major force in that country a few decades from now. Russian hands may be cleaner than America's with respect to India, but they are bloodier butchers when they put their mind to it. Any glance at their respective engagements in Afghanistan testifies to that.

It is not in India's interests to have the kind of relationship that UK or Japan has with the US. Fair enough. And given US balance of power politics that will likely continue in the region, there will be room for rivalry. But there will also be room for rapprochement and a closer connection than the Cold War days. There is no need to make it a black & white scenario and attempt to prop up arguments with empty moralisms.

[Christopher Sidor]

How does this George Fudhuman balance India with Pakistan which is just 8% of Indian economic strength?
He seems scared ..hit that in 10 years Indian economy will be in TOP3 economies of the world and wearing number 10 Boot to boot these idoitic compaison.

It is the same way as the Nazi Germany was used to balance soviets union. With lots of help from north-Atlantic countries. Despite the fact that Soviet Union was more than 10 times bigger than Germany, in size, in manpower in raw materials, etc. Despite this the Nazis gave such a massive hit to soviet union that it took them decades to recover. Some historians have even suggested an outlandish theory that Soviet Union never really recovered from the knock that the Nazis gave them.

Pakistan on its own cannot challenge India. But Pakistan backed by Gulf countries can challenge India. Pakistan backed by PRC can challenge India. Pakistan backed by West can challenge India. That is the whole purpose of Pakistan. That is why west and PRC will never allow Pakistan to go under. What the author has said is the view as seen from western and Chinese eyes. If China cannot be allowed to challenge West's primacy today then India too cannot be allowed to challenge West's primacy somewhere down the line.

[devesh]

Nazi Germany was not a poodle of the British. while there are reports that British intelligence supported Hitler early in his career, this by no means is an indication of early twentieth century Germany's strength. imvho, pre-WWII Germany was very powerful. it's economy was larger than Britain proper. it was definitely much larger than Soviet Union's. ultimately what destroyed Germany was the fact that it faced the combined populations of Britain, US, and Russia. the demographic balance was so in favor of the Allies that they could fight a war of attrition while Germany could not.

let's not compare Germany to Pakistan. there is absolutely no comparison there. Germany was an economic powerhouse in its heyday, perhaps the most dynamic country in the whole world, except perhaps America. even today Germany is Europe's largest economy and world's fourth largest. but their dynamism is now in the past. that era is over. the best option for them right now is to come to terms with Russia and build a solid relationship with them. this will be one of the things needed to achieve a multipolar world. we keep talking about BRIC. but the Russo-German arena is an important one with far reaching consequences.

George Friedman has already stated that a Russo-German alliance will put a dent in American power and influence.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^
I am not comparing Nazi-Germany to current Pakistan. I am drawing parallels over here. Parallels to the path which Nazi-Germany and Pakistan have taken.

Further I was elaborating on what "George Fudhuman" had written in his article. Today it seems outlandish. But in a decade or two decades we can see this song being played out. The point is Pakistan is a tool to be used by outsiders against India. It is also a tool, for outsiders to lock up the gulfs black gold. The second reason is why Pakistan's creation was acquiesced to, if not conceived, by certain western powers. The first reason is why Pakistan will continue to hold salience long after the black gold has been drained empty from the gulf or another energy source replaces it.

In Balance of Power Scheme, for every state which becomes powerful there has to be a countervailing force available. For South Asia due to geographical reasons, Pakistan is one of the best nation to act as a countervailing force to India. As it is vulnerable to outside (read Western/Islamic/PRC) influence and pressure.

[abhischekcc]

Devesh, there is no question that Britain and Hitler had a secret pact or at least understanding. Victorious powers in WW1 ensured Germany's impoverishment SPECIFICALLY to ensure the rise of a madman like Hitler. The idea was to use Germany against USSR. When Hitler rose as a consequence of the despair in Germany, his party was funded by Britain. When he came to power, Britain ensured that Nazi would not lack funds by making its debt (so called Hitler bonds) a success on LSE. They turned a blind eye to Hitler's rearmament, especially when he raised Wehrmacht strength to 800,000 (which was limited to 100,000).

Hitler has SPECIFICALLY written in Mein Kampf that he regards British Empire as one of the two pillars of western civilization (the other being the Catholic Church ).

Additionally, regarding Germany's expansion, he gave his explaination as this: Germany has two options - expand by sea of expand by land. Expansion by sea means conflict between Britain and Germany, which must never happen. Hence, USSR must be attacked.

Hitler's Anglophilia is the reason why attacked Russia, why he let so many troops excape in Dunkirk, why he steadfastly opposed mass bombing against London during the Rattle for Britain .

The reason the two countries fought lie in two factors - German-Russian Non-Aggression Pact, and Churchill's antipathy to anybody who stood upto Britains self aggradised image. Hitler was not a geopolitical challenge to Churchill, he posed an image problem to the bully.

[devesh]

Hitler's Germany was most definitely a geopolitical challenge to Britain. a country like Germany having all Europe under its thumb: that's the worst nightmare for the British.

as for British backing of Nazis, i knew there are reports that Brit intel backed Hitler for a time but the rest is news to me. i need to do some research on that front.

[svinayak]

Samual Huntington book - Clash of the Civilization has fundamental problem
The assumption is that all the civilization including Arab/Islamic is a monolithic block. When his book was discussed it was as if the Muslim block was one. But we see that the Muslim block or the Islamic civilization is actually a fake stable one since it was socially engineered by US and the UK during the cold war to create a stable block to defend against the Soviet Union. The support to the assorted monarchs and dictators with annual grants was the one which gave them some stability and image. Once that is taken out we can see the turmoil and political quake the arab world is facing. This will hit the Pakistan and its military ruling class when the monitory support disappears

Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, and the occupation of Iraq.
All of these are the product of the cold war and will have to normalise.


Arab World has been hit by political quake : Prince Turki

2011-03-21 19:09:55
WAM Abu Dhabi, 21 March 2011 (WAM) -- ''The Arab world has been hit by a political earthquake; Sudan was divided, regimes collapsed in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya is in turmoil, and Bahrain has been on the verge of chaos, H.R.H. Prince Turki Al Faisal Bin Abdel Aziz Al Saud said today.
Periods of change, he affirmed, must be confronted wisely so as to both utilize their positive aspects and avoid their negative effects. The unipolar world order which has reigned since the collapse of the Soviet Union is not eternal; new powers are emerging, such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa, the European Union, Russia, and even the GCC, thanks to its wealth.
''This confirms that we are witnessing a redistribution of power, moving toward a multi-polar world order. Natural disasters and climate change are also at work, and contribute to shaping the future of our world.

''The Arab world has been hit by a political earthquake; Sudan was divided, regimes collapsed in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya is in turmoil, and Bahrain has been on the verge of chaos. In the GCC, we are facing vast challenges which we must overcome in order to lead. An analysis of the current situation shows that we are vulnerable politically, economically, culturally and in terms of security, and we cannot afford to assume that the stability and growth we have enjoyed so far will continue unabated,''Prince Turki said while speaking at the 16th annual conference of the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR) on Global Strategic Developments: A Futuristic Vision.
'' Change is a fact of life; therefore, these strategic vulnerabilities must be curtailed, and greater efforts should be made to secure our future.

I would like to stress that we have reached the stage where we must rethink many of the axioms which were appropriate in the past, and which enabled us to face challenges such as the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, and the occupation of Iraq. The wealth of the region alone is not enough to secure its stability. We should be active in relation to all international issues and should not allow others to impose their will on us under the pretext of vulnerability.

''We should seek to unite and unify our political and security-related decisions, and reconsider the goals and aims of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Why not seek to turn the GCC into a grouping like the European Union? why not have one unified Gulf army? why not have a nuclear deterrent with which to face Iran - should international efforts fail to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - or Israeli nuclear capabilities? ) ''We must also reconsider the nature of national sovereignty, which could result in the failure of joint initiatives. We in the GCC deeply believe that the security of one country contributes to the security of others, and a danger which threatens one is a threat to all. This means that we share a collective sovereignty. We have recently witnessed how the GCC countries responded to the challenges facing some of its members - namely Oman and Bahrain - just as they responded in the past to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

''We need to proceed as one regional bloc. We must overcome our differences - including those related to monetary union and a GCC central bank - through dialogue and mutual understanding. We should remember that we share the same future,''he stressed.
''We must also consider regional conditions and make reforms as required to enhance our domestic stability; we cannot be strong externally if we are not strong internally. We need to review our economic policies which have made us a market for international labour while our citizens are unemployed. We need to review our cultural policies, enhance the concept of citizenship and promote Gulf citizenship.
''The problems and challenges facing us are vast, but they are not insurmountable,''he added..
WAM/TF

[Sanku]

Ravi K; hat tip is due!!

[Samudragupta]

While I agree that India and the US are not particularly suited to be natural allies, given the divergence of Indian and US interests, I don't get the need to moralize on the matter and issue statements like the following:

America has demonstrated a depth of moral bankruptcy that should give any Indian pause when considering formal alliances with the United States.

This is amusing when the Russians make the Americans look like saints in comparison. Especially given the context; IBM's involvement with Hitler is pretty laughable when placed next to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Many of Russia's neighbors have been driven into Western arms by Russia's own actions, while despite some level of American misadventures in the region, hardly any of America's neighbors can say the same- only Cuba and Venezuela.

As for constancy, the US has many more relationships around the world than the Russians or the French and so will change directions on some of them. Especially those it simply uses as tools, like Pakistan. But it has many core relationships which have remained strong, such as South Korea, Japan, and the UK (which are despised as 'poodles' here, but remain allies). Meanwhile the Russians have certainly split with major partners, China being an obvious example. Russia has no deep civilizational connection with India and let's not pretend that they will not abandon her if need dictates. It just so happens that such a scenario is unlikely in the near future. By the way, speaking of times beyond the near future, Islam is growing in Russia and there is a significant chance that Islam will prove to be a major force in that country a few decades from now. Russian hands may be cleaner than America's with respect to India, but they are bloodier butchers when they put their mind to it. Any glance at their respective engagements in Afghanistan testifies to that.

It is not in India's interests to have the kind of relationship that UK or Japan has with the US. Fair enough. And given US balance of power politics that will likely continue in the region, there will be room for rivalry. But there will also be room for rapprochement and a closer connection than the Cold War days. There is no need to make it a black & white scenario and attempt to prop up arguments with empty moralisms.

What do u mean by the bolded statement?Muslim Demographics is growing?
What is the credible chance that Islamism will be major Russian policy decades from now...considering their performance in the Caucasus?

[devesh]

he is probably referring to ethnic Russian demographic collapse, which is a very real threat to Russia. but i'm not sure how much the caucasian muslims can take advantage of that other than gaining more independence in their own respective regions. it is unlikely that they can expand demographically at such a rapid pace that they start exploring deep into Russian territory other than the peripheries.

[svinayak]

Study: Religion Will Die Out in 9 Countries

MMatt Cardy / AP Photo
This probably wasn’t what the Bible meant when it predicted “end of days.” Organized religion will soon become almost extinct in nine Western countries, a team of mathematicians announced in a new study. Researchers looked at census data and found that over the past 100 years, “unaffiliated” has grown in Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland and Switzerland. The researchers said they started with two assumptions: that people find it more attractive to be part of the majority and that as religious affiliation declines, it becomes more popular not to be a churchgoer than to be one. There’s one hitch: The researchers admitted that the increase in Muslim immigration could throw off the stats. The U.S. wasn’t included in the data because it doesn’t ask about religion on its Census forms, the researchers said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-shee ... f=obinsite

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/2 ... s-predict/

[Klaus]

^^^ Perhaps it may be in the interest of Judeo-Christian societies to keep a certain segment of people as souls who can later be brought into the fold (when the time is right to fight the next big crusade). The move will then be interpreted as a 'joining the army of the righteous God' or some such thing.

Perhaps this is one of the differences between the foot soldiers of Islam and X'tianity. The former are subjected to an intense and ongoing process of qadriification while the latter is left alone on the orientation angle until the time for 'with us or against us' comes up. It is at that point that the latter join in to swell the ranks.

All these people with 'no religious affiliations' are X'tian by default, that is the way we should be looking at them. Any attempt by them to nudge the 'other' away from this PoV is just pure and plain psy-ops.

[abhishek_sharma]

Seven New Laws of the G-20 Era

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... e_g_20_era

[Samudragupta]

What is the necessary condition for any Non Western Great power to throw a strategic challenge to the West(EU+NA)?
It seems the only existing options are through space and oceans.All the existing land routes to the west from the east has been blocked and the remaining routes are getting blocked rapidly?So what should an Eastern power do to effectively challenge the West and in response what the East should expect that West will answer to its move?

[akashganga]

u r right on dot.

^^^ Perhaps it may be in the interest of Judeo-Christian societies to keep a certain segment of people as souls who can later be brought into the fold (when the time is right to fight the next big crusade). The move will then be interpreted as a 'joining the army of the righteous God' or some such thing.

Perhaps this is one of the differences between the foot soldiers of Islam and X'tianity. The former are subjected to an intense and ongoing process of qadriification while the latter is left alone on the orientation angle until the time for 'with us or against us' comes up. It is at that point that the latter join in to swell the ranks.

All these people with 'no religious affiliations' are X'tian by default, that is the way we should be looking at them. Any attempt by them to nudge the 'other' away from this PoV is just pure and plain psy-ops.

[svinayak]

Seven New Laws of the G-20 Era

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... e_g_20_era

This is another psy ops

4. Encourage assertiveness

It's in America's interest to have strong, assertive partners that are clear about their perspectives and their interests. We need to build long-term relationships based on mutual understanding and trust. So it's far healthier for policy conflicts to surface rather than fester below the surface.

Moreover, for some powers, reticence on policy questions may actually be a signal of broader skepticism of the G-20 itself. This is the case for India in particular. Having spoken to some leading Indian officials and thinkers, it's clear to me that New Delhi is making a calculation about whether the G-20 is for real or not -- whether they can trust the behavior of the West within it or and whether it may be a facade not only for the G-8 but for the G-2 of the United States and China. I tell my Indian colleagues: You are hanging back because you're waiting to see how this is going to play out -- but why don't you try to shape events yourselves? Why don't you put some skin in the game? Hanging back can generate precisely the outcome skeptical countries want to avoid.

[svinayak]

Good article to understand how they think in the west about India and its challenges.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 585388.ece

Top analyst outlines possibility of India abandoning “strategic restraint” doctrine

NARAYAN LAKSHMAN
A top analyst in Washington has described India’s possible abandonment of its “strategic restraint,” or reticence to use force as an instrument of policy, as potentially “revolutionary.”

However he has argued that the doctrine’s roots are too strong and India’s “survival despite failures, including against China and Pakistan, suggest that it will endure.”

In a recent paper entitled, Is India Ending its Strategic Restraint Doctrine? Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution in Washington, along with Sunil Dasgupta of the University of Maryland, noted that India has shown strategic restraint historically towards aggressive neighbours such as Pakistan and China.

In this light, they argue, “Linear projections of current trends do not predict India abandoning its strategic restraint; for that, it will require a major and unforeseeable disruption at home or abroad.”

The authors suggest that while a strategically and militarily assertive India could be “revolutionary,” perhaps even end India’s 60-year strategic equivalence with Pakistan and precipitate a more competitive relationship with China, it is unlikely to abandon strategic restraint with each of its neighbours for specific reasons.

Regarding China, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Dasgupta suggest that the India-China bilateral relationship has been as cooperative as it has been conflicting, and a number of Indians “including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,” who would prefer to avoid an expensive arms race with China that will detract India from its primary task of economic development.

In the context of Pakistan, the paper leans more towards the case for India abandoning strategic restraint, arguing, “The potential of a failed Pakistan would have horrendous consequences, and India seeks to be strategically active in limiting the fallout of a collapse.”

Yet, they note, India has not moved to abandon strategic restraint and “develop the institutional capacity to deal with such an eventuality.”

http://www.twq.com/11spring/docs/11spri ... _Cohen.pdf

[Pranav]

Medvedev aims at Putin allies in apparent power struggle

Optimists suggest multi-party democracy may be emerging; pessimists say it's just scripted drama

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver Sun April 4, 2011

Investment and political analysts are puzzling over what appears to be a sharp and growing split between Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his hand-picked successor as president, Dmitry Medvedev.

The apparent divide has led analysts to charge off in all directions with speculation it may prompt a real contest for the presidency in elections due next year and perhaps the birth of real multi-party democracy in Russia.

And an attack last week by Medvedev on the inefficiency and corruption of Russia's stateowned companies, which still hold the commanding heights of the country's economy, has some wondering whether a true market economy is about to supplant state capitalism.

Others -more skeptical, cynical or experienced -say the whole thing is a purposeful drama designed to create an illusion of political competition and to put an attractive investment gloss on state-owned companies at a time when capital is fleeing the country.

The apparent rift surfaced two weeks ago over the United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing "any necessary measures" to protect civilians in the civil war in Libya.

Putin said the resolution amounted to permission for a western invasion of Libya and said it reminded him of "medieval calls for crusades."

Medvedev, who as president has the authority over foreign policy, directed Russia's UN ambassador to abstain from voting on the resolution but not to veto it and called Putin's remarks "impermissible."

What has seemed to be a wellschooled tandem act since the two men assumed their current posts in 2008 came under further question last Wednesday when Medvedev surprised an audience at the steel-producing city of Magnitogorsk in the Urals with a speech outlining plans to remove leading Putin allies from the boards of key state companies.

Medvedev said that by the middle of this year independent directors should replace government ministers and deputy prime ministers on the boards of state companies "to remove excessive influence of state companies on the investment climate."

The president was also blunt about the effects of corruption on the economy. "The grip of corruption is not weakening," he said. "It is holding the economy by the neck. The result is obvious: Money is fleeing."

This is not a new message from Medvedev, but never before has the president tied economic reform and the evils of corruption to the removal of Putin's key allies.

That knot was tied on Thursday when Medvedev's top economic aide, Arkady Dvorkovich, gave reporters a list of the Putin loyalists headed for the chop.

Leading the list is Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, chairman of Rosneft, Russia's largest oil company.

Sechin has been a close Putin ally since the prime minister was mayor of St. Petersburg in the 1990s. Sechin now heads an informal group of former security service officers who are close advisers to Putin, who has surrounded himself with fellow former KGB officers.

Medvedev, according to his aide, also has Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin slated to leave his sideline post as chairman of the supervisory board of the VTB Bank, Russia's second largest.

Then there's Transport Minister Igor Levitin, who Medvedev wants replaced on the board of Russia's biggest airline, Aeroflot, and First Deputy Prime Minister Viktor Zubrov who the president wants out of his position at the Russian Agricultural Bank.

Zubrov and Kudrin are also Putin allies from the St. Petersburg days.

The view that this is all a charade is held by Roland Nash, chief investment strategist at Verno Capital in Moscow. He was quoted by the Reuters news agency last week as saying, "I'm still of the view that the gap between Putin and Medvedev is much smaller than a lot of people think."

"There is good reason to portray a sense of conflict to enable them to execute their agenda. I don't believe we are seeing some massive split in the duopoly," Nash said.

He added, however, "But the evidence may be accumulating against me."

Alexander Rahr, of the German Council on Foreign Relations, does believe there is a fundamental ideological division between Putin and Medvedev.

Writing for the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti, Rahr said the country faces "a dramatic schism in government" because of the opposition strategies of the two men towards modernization.

Medvedev, Rahr said, is fundamentally a Western-style liberal who looks to Europe and North America for his model for Russia. Putin, on the other hand, is suspicious of the West and western values.

Overall, Rahr said, the emergence of clear divisions in what had been seen as a tight duopoly "could lead to the dawn of pluralism in Russia."

[email protected]

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Med ... story.html

[Pranav]

Chinese and NATO arms better than Russian? - http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economi ... an_arms-0/ (Read the whole article and also the comments!)

Medvedev slams unreliable Russian-built planes - http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-new ... 1cv4y.html

One gets the feeling that the Russian military-industrial complex is being dismantled, perhaps deliberately.

[devesh]

Medvedev is acting like a western stooge. the question is, is he a true convert to Westernism or simply some ploy either by him or indirect/directly by Putin?

[ramana]

Its Putin ploy.

[devesh]

aah...definitely possible. would appreciate some detail if known

[RamaY]

Top analyst outlines possibility of India abandoning “strategic restraint” doctrine
Regarding China, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Dasgupta suggest that the India-China bilateral relationship has been as cooperative as it has been conflicting, and a number of Indians “including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,” who would prefer to avoid an expensive arms race with China that will detract India from its primary task of economic development.

The highlighted argument gets my goat every time people mention the importance of economic development even at the cost of territorial integrity.

People often mistaken Bharat to be a poor and impoverished nation; it is a wrong understanding of Bharat. Even after appropriation of trillions of dollars’ worth gold, money and natural resources by Islamic invaders and British colonial powers for over 1000 years; India is able to reemerge as world’s 11th largest economy within a short period of sixty years since its independence in 1947; notwithstanding the painful partition leading a loss of 30% of its area (Burma, Bangladesh and Pakistan).

Similarly India’s annual cereal production (260 million metric tons by 2007) alone can provide more than 2000 calories of daily food intake to all of its citizens (1.21 billion as of 2011) throughout the year. Add fruits, vegetables and dairy products and you have a strong and healthy India.

What India needs right now is removal of spineless leadership and corruption free politics. Bharat can rebuild itself if India can deliver on what it is supposed to.

[SSridhar]

India simply cannot afford *not* to have an arms race with China. PRC is provoking us to have an arms race with her mistakenly assuming that we will end up with the same fate as the USSR vis-a-vis the US. That parallel will not work with us. India has to proceed with the assumption that a war with China is inevitable. There is every indication that GoI is not ignoring this threat. The defence purchases and the various defence projects in peninsular India are pointers to that end.

[Advait]

Why not just supply Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan with nuclear weapons? Even if just one of them accepts our offer, it will increase China's troubles. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.