achy wrote:[
QUAD is not reliable entity , as so far as, fighting war on another's behalf is concerned. No one will fight for us just as we wont fight others war. We will have to fight our own war. They will fight theirs. E.g. Will India fight for Japan in case China attacks it? . QUAD as military alliance like NATO will be DOA as it will restrict strategic autonomy of everyone concerned. But it does have sound principle as so far as containment of China is concerned. There is no fundamental power aspirations among QUAD members which is at cross purposes and hence can be used as alliance to force China to behave and ultimately not emerge as sole super power. Also, it does makes sense on many other levels. This is still an emerging doctrine but I think it will settle into sphere of influence and each member taking care of own sphere and then using the co-operation of quad as deterrent for any miscalculation n China's part.
The problem lies in making an implicit assumption that all 4 members of the QUAD are on an equal footing as individual states within it. (This is what I understand from your statement about "it will settle into sphere of influence with each member taking care of own sphere..." etc.)
The fact is, all 4 are NOT on an even footing even within the QUAD. The US has treaty obligations to defend Australia via both ANZUS and now AUKUS. Japan has been a military protectorate of the US since 1945.
So the real picture is that (US + Japan + Australia) ARE treaty-bound to fight each others' wars; they are a true military alliance, like an "Asian NATO" with a collective sphere of influence. We are the odd man out.
What I am saying is, I have no interest in seeing India become the "Asian Ukraine" to this "Asian NATO" (and neither, I believe, do most Indians or the GOI). But some people get overenthusiastic about the import & possibilities of the QUAD.
For them, it is important to never forget how the actual NATO used & discarded the real Ukraine.