drnayar wrote: ↑24 Aug 2024 13:39
Ultimate plan is to dismember India , prevent its rise to become largest economy in 2050[/color]
same as Euromadian coup
I dont agree with chadhwas view of sitting back and "swallow it" .. security is important for economic progress.
India cannot have another hostile front especially at the chicken neck area
Yes indeed. And eventually the same plan for China and the CCP, Indonesia, and other large countries so that they remain divided and dependent.
The governments of incumbent western powers - particularly the USA - are currently not pursuing a long-term coexistence policy but rather still working on continued dominance strategies. So of course they WILL try to undermine India and other nations while continuing beneficial interactions/collaborations.
I think what Chavda is saying is that we should treat this as a given and a fully expected situation, and focus on strengthening ourselves first and foremost. Constant whining over all the injustices/"betrayals" that USA "deep state" is planning will not be productive. However, understanding these plots objectively and taking decisive actions (or even counter-actions) to ensure we come out winning, is the key.
In the past, such things were ultimately decided by direct wars between the main contestants, the last such circus was WW2. Then came the cold war, which relied more on indirectly undermining the opponent (smaller "third-party" wars, economics, etc). Now it also includes cyber-propaganda, non-state actors/NGOs, and other "toolkits". Our challenge is to win without getting into all-out wars. I think we are capable of doing it.
We should also ask the question, under what circumstances would an incumbent hegemon willingly give up (or passively cede) their position without too much conflict ? And then work to help/support creation of such circumstances. I see three:
- Insufficient military edge to sustain global occupations and to defend economic interests long-term, and thus a focus on simple self-defense.
- Decline in economic importance and lower capability to influence trade and resources
- Internal heterogeneity/demographic changes leading to lack of "buy in" for global dominance (which is a "white man" project)