Geopolitical thread

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Mar 2010 12:50

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... opolitics/

Asia and geopolitics

The mettle of any nation or for that matter any individual is tested in war or strife. That is why we are inspired by the image of the soma-drinking thunderer:
“AshuH shishAno vR^iShabho na bhImo ghanAghanaH kShobhaNash charShaNInAm|
saMkrandano.animiSha ekavIraH shataM senA ajayat sAkam indraH ||”
But the modern Indian “elites” appears to have lost the ardor of their ancestors even as they stopped their rites to the lord of the gods.
Years ago the third hero was up to date with all the geopolitics of the age and he would inform us of loka-vyavahAra with brimming interest. I used to be amazed by how he gained this intricate and hard to find information. In my own circles those who were geopolitically aware, were a mere fraction of the third hero in their knowledge, with the exception of ekanetra. Over the years I continued to maintain a healthy geopolitical interest and furthered my analysis, but the third hero declined to a state of childish imbecility. In a recent meeting he displayed a level of ignorance way below everyone else in the quriltai – almost bordering on that of a dAtra-mudgarau wielding JNU graduate. It was this encounter that brought me to the unpleasant topic of the Asian situation.

As we have seen before on these pages, we are pitted in the civilizational clash with three major forces: 1) the pretAcharin-s headed by the shveta-charman-s of the krau~nchadvIpa and their secularized parent population from Western Europe, also known as the mlechCha-s. 2) The chIna-s guided by imperialist legalism which is cloaked under socialism. 3) The turuShka-s also known as the marUnmatta-s. Of these, our millennial enemies, the turuShka-s are considerably weaker than the other two. Yet they have two advantages: 1) of being lodged inside our own lands 2) of being able to sell themselves to the chIna-s and the mlechCha-s to gain an advantage again.

If we look at recent history, the mlechCha-s have been greatly stretched due to the disastrous advice given to the former mlechChAdhipati by the neo-cons and the crooked faced upa-mlechChAdhipati. They launched a futile invasion of Iraq with no notable gains and ignored Afghanistan where their dear concubine TSP is having fun at their expense. While the mlechCha-s have had great success in subverting the South Koreans to the pretamata, they have hardly made any headway against the chIna-backed North Koreans. While the mlechCha-s have succeeded in emasculating Japan with two nuclear bombs and the subsequent formatting of their “hard drives”, they have only strengthened the chIna-s. The chIna-s do not have the limitations of Japan and have spent time to learn to play a more cunning game. As they were beginning to assert themselves in the 1960s (including by savagely invading and grabbing our territory), the Russians put them in place in brief encounter exactly 40 years ago. The Russian drubbing of the chIna-s was something that the third hero had ironically studied in great depth as a youth. We realized that this was of great importance in providing us respite from the chIna-s. But the chIna-s having learned their lesson tried to seek secret cooperation with the mlechCha-s in undermining the Russians. The Russians by aiding the Vietnamese punctured both the mlechCha-s and the chIna-s and poured water on this alignment of vectors. However, the great war of gandhAra allowed both the mlechCha-s and the chIna-s to screw the Russians by using the turuShka-s as the proxy. As the Rus and mlechCha-s fought in their epic struggle the chIna-s kept out and kept building their armory. At the end of the shIta-yuddha the Russians had been routed and the mlechCha-s had dismantled their empire. This made the chIna-s all the more powerful and their aims were clearly to rival the victorious mlechCha-s.

The operation of the chIna-s is understood poorly by most outsiders. The old rAjan jAvAharlAl was an example of this. Starting with the notorious Shi Huang Di of the Chin, they developed a system of cloaking the inner political infrastructure of legalism with outer coats. These coats are used both to fool their own people as well as outsiders depending on the situation. This inner legalism-outer coat model also allowed the chIna-s to imitate the dominant geo-cultural trends of the age while retaining an inner control and identity via the legalist structure. Originally it was the outer sheen of Confucianism coating legalism, while in the Sui/Tang period the outer coat included the bauddha mata while retaining same the inner pattern. In more recent times this outer coat has included socialism and more recently “Westernism”. This duality allows the chIna-s to interact and participate successfully with the dominant geo-cultural trend while retaining a certain inner identity. This inner identity is also projected inside the sphere of the dominant geo-cultural trend by careful image building. One striking example is that of the British biochemist Joseph Needham who was attracted to the chIna-s due to the shared common outer core of socialism. But he was soon used by the chIna-s to project an enormously positive image of their intellectual achievements to the world. While there is no question of the genuine achievements of the chIna-s, it is clear that Needham has exaggerated and over-attributed stuff to the chIna-s. Even today in the US the government pays to have exhibitions and seminars on ancient chIna medicine. In contrast, other civilizations with comparable achievements are typically denigrated by the west and negatively portrayed. Another aspect of this image building has been the acceptance of the chIna-s as equals or superiors by the western system. This aspect is based on a variety of factors such as: 1) the chIna-s exploiting the mlechCha fascination for shveta-tvacha and presenting themselves as shveta-charman-s too. 2) The chIna-s trying to project themselves as having higher IQ than the mlechCha-s. 3) Taking up mlechCha names and emulating aspects of mlechCha culture to make the mlechCha-s feel comfortable with them. As a consequence the mlechCha-s have gained respect for the chIna-s and have a positively larger than life image of them. Finally, the mlechCha-s have in quest of an unnecessarily lavish lifestyle shipped away much of their production and debt to the chIna-s, creating a dependency. All this image-building has made the chIna-s themselves feel a sense of superiority and entitlement to world dominance.

Coming to the original chIna invasion of bhArata in the 1960s, we observe the following: The chIna-s smashed the Hindu forces rather swiftly and conquered our territory with impunity. In response all we could do was to go crying to the mlechChAdhipati for help, remember, not the Rus who were supposedly our friends. The mlechCha-s were hardly going to help us for free and demanded that we hand over our shiras to their turuShka friends in the north-west. In desperation, our defrauded rAjan was willing to capitulate to the mlechCha demands in return for aid against the chIna-s. The chIna-s swiftly realized the issue and decided not to squander their territorial gains in further encounters, decided to call off any further invasion and returned the Hindus whom they had taken prisoner while occupying the newly captured territory.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 31 Mar 2010 12:52

prad wrote:Russia was the greatest enemy of the Ottomans. they will never allow a powerful Turkey to rise, considering Turkey borders the crucial Caucasus region and Black Sea periphery. as long as Russia remains powerful and able to control Central Asian members, Turkey is unlikely to find itself the dominant power in the region. it will always have to play second fiddle to Russia and seek their permission for everything.

Is it a mere coincidence that destruction of Ottoman empire and revolution in Russia happened during the same period?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Mar 2010 12:54

WWI was a geopolitical war to end all Monarchy empires in the world - Austria-Hungary, Tzarist Russian and Ottoman empires

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 31 Mar 2010 12:57

So, who was the biggest enemy of Ottomans?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 31 Mar 2010 13:10

Everyone actually. They were surrounded!

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 31 Mar 2010 13:12

Everyone is or will be surrounded by enemies. But, for Turkey, the biggest enemy should be the one who managed to destroy it. Not only that, in this case they managed to destroy the other enemy, Russia, too.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 04 Apr 2010 11:12

India keen on joining SCO: http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/04/stories ... 231000.htm

Anonymous sources onlee.

Although this would be in India's national interests, I don't see that happening with the current dispensation in power.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Apr 2010 13:49

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6pzPp1Q2ew

Global white population to plummet
spacer

Statistics show that white people will become a tiny minority on the planet within the space of just a few generations.
Free download as e-book

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.or...

WHO SPEAKS FOR US?

White Americans have been led to believe that "diversity" and "multiculturalism" are sacred. We're conditioned to be shy when it comes to standing up for our own beliefs. But doesn't every race, ethnic subculture, and special interest—from left-handers to lesbians—have all sorts of organizations working for them?

Isn't it about time someone spoke for us?

It's not just the minority lobby who opposes our interests while advancing their own: even America's white leaders—conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats—routinely push for policies that disadvantage their own people.

Well, it is about time we had a voice in public policy—that's why THE NATIONAL POLICY INSTITUTE (NPI) was formed. NPI promotes the American majority's unique historical, cultural, and biological inheritance—and advances policies that, without prejudicing the legitimate rights of others, fearlessly defends our rights... our heritage.

................
NPI provides vital public policy analysis to fulfill its unique mission. Our investigative studies and exclusive research papers carefully consider critical legal, regulatory, and cultural questions that impact on the interests of white Americans. We analyze legislation to measure the impact on the American majority — the same way that innumerable other "think tanks" review the consequences of public policy on minorities and immigrants.

NPI hosts symposia and seminars on a range of issues and produces a wide-ranging annual report on The State of White America each fall. Supporters receive our newsletter, NPI Forum.

NPI maintains a wide-ranging list of key policymakers, media, political, business, and academic contacts to distribute and publicize its research, as well as hosts an interactive website.

NPI devotes special attention — via a national speakers bureau and targeted studies — to colleges and universities because we recognize they are the primary spawning ground for the ideas and policies that attack Western culture.
©2006 National Policy Institute
P. O. Box 3465
Augusta, GA 30914
Telephone: 706-736-4884
[email protected]

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Apr 2010 13:56

Over the next few decades, the developed world will age and weaken. Meanwhile, demographic trends in the developing world-from resurgent youth booms in the Islamic Belt to premature aging in China and population implosion in Russia-will give rise to daunting new security threats. While some argue that "global aging" is pushing the world toward greater peace and prosperity, a crisis looms in the 2020s. The risks of both chaotic state collapse and neo-authoritarian reaction are rising. Neither the triumph of democratic capitalism nor a "geriatric peace" are the most likely outcomes. The demographic trends of the 21st century will challenge the geopolitical idealism of both the right and the left.

In a wide-ranging analysis of the dynamics of population and power, Richard Jackson and Neil Howe lay out a provocative new interpretation of how demography is reshaping the geopolitical landscape and redefining tomorrow's foreign-policy challenges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w3meSupCME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIiYB4C0rhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGBbT1Kn7nA

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 05 Apr 2010 12:07

George Friedman of Stratfor fame has written a book called Next 100 years. His conclusions are interesting: fragmentation of China and decline of Russia, rise of Japan, rise of Turkey, Poland and Mexico.

In these videos he talks about the book. He does not have good things to say about India. Same old British line that India is a not a real country but something that the British put together. Somehow his analysis of the Indian economy does not seem well researched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIwZsbBX ... re=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmzRSUSo ... re=channel

He talks about India in the last part of the second video.

I skimmed through the book and did not find any reference to India. Thought that it was a little bizarre.

Some more high quality analysis of the Indian economy in Feb 2009 by George Friedman. Did not take a few months to prove him wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nhvZyjCFqE

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Apr 2010 12:18

csharma wrote:
In these videos he talks about the book. He does not have good things to say about India. Same old British line that India is a not a real country but something that the British put together. Somehow his analysis of the Indian economy does not seem well researched.

There is some truth to what he says about Indian economy.
But this omission of India from many books and even from Kissinger books need to be understood. The entire strategy is some kind of an experiment on India over many decades. India is one of the few countries outside of the west which understands English and what the west talks to itself.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 05 Apr 2010 12:23

In the last video I posted, he talks about the Indian economy in 2009 feb and it sounds very unbalanced. When the US and Europe is having negative growth, even 5% is good. Any amateur can see that. While no one knows whether his long term prediction on India will be true or not, his analysis of current state of Indian economy and its evolution is downright sloppy.

Acharya, what is your take on why both Friedman and Kissinger do not talk about India. Btw, Brezinski in his book on the Eurasian chessboard (written in the mid 90s) does talk about India. But he concludes that India is overoptimistic about its potential.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Apr 2010 12:32

csharma wrote:In the last video I posted, he talks about the Indian economy in 2009 feb and it sounds very unbalanced. When the US and Europe is having negative growth, even 5% is good. Any amateur can see that. While no one knows whether his long term prediction on India will be true or not, his analysis of current state of Indian economy and its evolution is downright sloppy.

It is the long term in ability of the Indian elite to look after India.

Acharya, what is your take on why both Friedman and Kissinger do not talk about India. Btw, Brezinski in his book on the Eurasian chessboard (written in the mid 90s) does talk about India. But he concludes that India is overoptimistic about its potential.

Every thing about India which is discussed is about geo-politics. Nothing else. Indian Leadership does not matter to them.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Apr 2010 14:37

DEBKA File's 9/11 "conspiracy theory",that it was an "inside job" revealed.The article is in two parts and worth reading.It actually beggars more questions that providing answers,other than the strong suspicion that US security forces "stood down" before the event.What could be possible is that the US wanted some sort of attack on its soil so that it could then use this outrage to go for Iraq (was planned even before Dubya took office) and elsewhere.That it would be so devastating was possibly not part of the plan.

http://undertheradarmedia.wordpress.com ... nside-job/

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Apr 2010 15:51

DEBKA = unreliable information

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Apr 2010 19:09

Philip wrote:.What could be possible is that the US wanted some sort of attack on its soil so that it could then use this outrage to go for Iraq (was planned even before Dubya took office) and elsewhere

These CTs are utter nonsense. It is far simpler to fabricate intelligence on WMD or stage a minor incident that can escalate if an excuse is needed for war. In most cases, you don't even need that.

Michael Moore once commissioned a poll asking "Do you support airstrikes on Norway".
Most respondents ticked "Yes, but only if the sanctions don't work"
Norway.

The US public needs no outrage to wage war.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... operations

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 05 Apr 2010 19:42

India-Myanmar smoke peace pipe in Tawang

By engaging with Myanmar's military rulers, New Delhi wants to ensure that its strategic as well as tactical interests on the eastern flank are protected.

the Myanmar delegation is travelling to Tawang in western Arunachal Pradesh, an area described by China as South Tibet and claimed as its own. It may just be tokenism but by taking the Myanmarese, considered China's close ally, to Tawang, New Delhi is sending a subtle message to Beijing that no matter what it says, Arunachal Pradesh, especially Tawang, is non-negotiable.

Ankit

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Apr 2010 20:08

Acharya wrote:
csharma wrote:
In these videos he talks about the book. He does not have good things to say about India. Same old British line that India is a not a real country but something that the British put together. Somehow his analysis of the Indian economy does not seem well researched.
There is some truth to what he says about Indian economy.
But this omission of India from many books and even from Kissinger books need to be understood. The entire strategy is some kind of an experiment on India over many decades. India is one of the few countries outside of the west which understands English and what the west talks to itself.

Same observations in Parag Khanna's book as well (I posted them long time ago).

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 05 Apr 2010 20:17

Philip wrote:What could be possible is that the US wanted some sort of attack on its soil so that it could then use this outrage to go for Iraq (was planned even before Dubya took office) and elsewhere.

IIRC Bush said "if he gets a chance he would invade Iraq and he will get everything passed". This was said to a journalist in 1999.

---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se2mlKTHdUk
February 2000, the very beginning of Bush's Presidential campaign, he was talking about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and was frustrated because Sadam was alive...

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 08 Apr 2010 11:46

Opposition seizes control of Kyrgyzstan government

AjitK · Post by **AjitK** » 08 Apr 2010 22:09

kmkraoind wrote:Opposition seizes control of Kyrgyzstan government

There were signs that something was about to happen but the swift takeover is a bit surprising.The US base in Kyrgyzstan will remain open & the leaders have said that they will think about its future in the days to come.The Russians have done their bit in exacerbating an already dire economic situation & contributed in increasing the domestic pressure on Bakiyev.

Is Putin Punishing Bakiyev? - 4/06/10

Gasoline and diesel prices are now set to rise sharply in Kyrgyzstan after Moscow suddenly slapped new customs duties on refined petroleum products being exported to the Central Asian nation. Prices for refined products could rise as much as 30 percent, stoking fears that inflation might further destabilize the already troubled Kyrgyz economy.

On April 1, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin terminated the preferred customs duties that Kyrgyzstan, as a member of the Eurasian Economic Community (the EurAsEC), had been receiving on Moscow’s gasoline and diesel exports. The apparent justification for the move is the fact that the EurAsEC is being eclipsed by a new Customs Union, comprising Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The Customs Union is set to become fully functional this coming July.

The next day, Russian authorities instituted duties of $193.5 per ton for gasoline and diesel fuel exported to Kyrgyzstan, the AKIpress news service reported on April 5. That could translate into a price hike of almost 30 percent and a corresponding jump in inflation, predicted Sergey Ponomarev, the executive director of the Association of Markets, Trade and Services Sectors in Kyrgyzstan, the RIA Novosti reported.

The Kyrgyz Ministry of Economic Regulations contends that Moscow did not officially inform Bishkek about the introduction of the duties, AKIpress reported on April 5. Ministry officials in Bishkek tacitly complained about Moscow’s move, asserting that a bilateral free trade agreement signed in 1992 entitled Bishkek to keep receiving fuel products from Russia at preferential rates.

In the weeks before the imposition of the new duties on Bishkek, Kremlin leaders were reportedly angered by reports that Kyrgyz business kingpins were buying cheap Russian fuel and then reselling it at international rates to the American military at Manas.

He also confirmed allegations that senior Russian officials were miffed by Bishkek’s recent attempts to obtain rent for Russia’s use of the Kant airbase outside of Bishkek.

Russian Press Bashing Bakiyev - 3/30/10

Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev has been taking a beating in the Russian press over the last week. The burst of media attacks suggests Moscow is losing patience with what one commentator characterized as Bakiyev’s "small tricks."

Many in Kyrgyzstan obtain their news from Russian media outlets. Thus, the critical tone adopted by Russian commentators could spell trouble for the Kyrgyz government. The Bakiyev administration is already grappling with domestic discontent over a sharp increase in many essential goods and services.

The media bashing began even before a Bakiyev-backed national gathering, officially called the Kurultai Soglasiya (or Congress of Accord), ended in Bishkek. On March 24, the Vremya Novostei newspaper compared Bakiyev to Genghis Khan. The same day, the gazeta.ru website called him Kyrgyzbashi, an unflattering reference to deceased Turkmen dictator Saparmurat Niyazov, known as Turkmenbashi. On March 25, both the Izvestia and Kommersant dailies reported that Bakiyev is attempting to anoint his 32-year-old son, Maxim, as his successor. Izvestia dubbed the kurultai, "Operation Successor."

Russia’s Regnum news agency expressed surprise at the bevy of negative reporting, but blamed Bakiyev for "dropping relations with Russia to their lowest level."

"Bakiyev is engaging in numerous ’small tricks’ with Moscow," the Regnum report’s author, Bishkek-based journalist Grigory Mikhailov, wrote.

As bilateral relations began deteriorating late last year, several Russian political experts and journalists were involved in violent incidents. Alexander Knyazev -- director of the Bishkek branch of the CIS Institute and a prominent political analyst and author -- was beaten up December 9. A week later, Gennady Pavlyuk, an ethnic-Russian journalist from Kyrgyzstan, was murdered in Almaty

Knyazev cautioned that the Kyrgyz government’s continued use of tough tactics on its critics, especially Russians, could invite massive retaliation. "If Russian journalists [continue to] be targeted, it will have bad consequences for Kyrgyzstan. If [Kyrgyz authorities] want a repeat of the August 2008 events in Georgia, it will happen, but only because of the fault of Kyrgyzstan," he said. Knyazev was making an ominous reference to the 2008 five-day war between Russia and Georgia.

Utility Price Hike Squeezes Citzens - 2/08/10

In 2010, heating costs are rising by 400 percent; electricity by 170 percent. The price of hot water - a fee calculated according to the size of a resident’s dwelling -- more than doubled at the start of the year.

"We can definitely see social tension growing now. It is a gradual psychological process. People will realize [they will have difficulty paying] after getting their bills for the utilities. And when before they used to spend 20-30 percent of their paycheck on payments, now they will have to spend about 80 percent of their salary to pay for the utilities," Bishkek-based political analyst Mars Sariev told EurasiaNet.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Apr 2010 22:37

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 767725.cms

THE TIMES OF INDIA, APRIL 7, 2010

Rising Above The Region

Minhaz Merchant

Away from the din and fury of parliamentary politics, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is writing a new strategic doctrine for India. That doctrine can be compressed into four words: rising above the region. The theory is simple: to realise its full geopolitical and economic potential, India must rise above local problems and deal with global issues.

The prime minister does not want a failed neighbouring state to distract attention from the three crucial issues India must confront this decade. These are, first, settling the border issue with China and striking up a pan-Asian economic partnership in an arc curving up from the Middle East to China through to East Asia and Japan. Second, deepening ties with the United States so that by 2020, when the US, China and India account for nearly 60 per cent of global GDP, New Delhi has strong partners in the West as well as the East.

Third, delivering economic and social justice to the 800 million Indians who today live outside the mainstream. If they can over the next decade be transformed through inclusive economic growth into an asset, great benefits will accrue. The lure of Maoism will decline as prosperity delivers peace, justice, education and healthcare to the poor. This will add significant numbers to India’s productive and consumer population.

These are huge prizes to be won. The prime minister is prepared to take calculated risks to seize them. This includes continuing a dialogue with Pakistan despite rhetorical provocations from Islamabad and growing unease within the Congress. It also means tackling Maoists with a twin strategy of economic development and firm policing.

To achieve the outcomes the prime minister seeks, India will have to concurrently run three sub-strategies: one, use America and China as tactical partners in the mission to sterilise Pakistan. Both have an interest in a stable, peaceful South Asia. Two, integrate the Kashmir valley with India economically and culturally. The sense of alienation, palpable in Srinagar today, can only be removed if the Valley becomes a natural part of India’s burgeoning growth story. Three, be unyielding on terrorism. Talking to Pakistan does not mean lowering our guard. It means raising it. When the prime minister meets his Pakistani counterpart at the SAARC summit in Bhutan later this month, he will deliver a crisp message: end state sponsorship of terror.

All of this carries a significant political risk. The Congress, under increasing pressure from its allies in the Lok Sabha, will watch carefully how the prime minister’s doctrine plays out.

For his policy to succeed, the prime minister may speak softly but he must wield a heavy stick. Terrorists understand the language of force not peace. They must be spoken to and dealt with accordingly. Their paymasters in Pakistan must meanwhile be persuaded by all available means that Pakistan’s best interests lie in closer regional economic integration with India. If they understand this, it will make the prime minister’s long-term strategy for India quicker to implement. If they do not and Pakistan has a great capacity for self-delusion it will make the task harder. But Islamabad should be in no doubt about this: terrorism against India will have to end. That is non-negotiable. The prime minister is not the dove Pakistan imagines him to be. And circumstances may help him.

The recent capture of Marjah province in Afghanistan by US-led NATO forces and the planned neutralisation of Kandahar later this year will remove over 50 per cent of the narcotics money that sustains the Sirajuddin Haqqani faction in North Waziristan and the Quetta shura led by Mullah Omar in Balochistan. This will severely handicap both the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda. Contrary to current conventional wisdom, India’s infrastructural presence in Afghanistan will grow, not shrink. Concurrently, Pakistan’s "strategic depth" theory of a re-Talibanised Afghanistan under veteran warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar could disintegrate if the US wisely decides to maintain a strong military presence in the region even after 2012.

Meanwhile, a pincer movement against terrorist groups custom-made to strike India, led by the notorious Hafiz Saeed using both covert operations and back-channel talks is crucial if all the bits and pieces of the prime minister’s doctrine have to fall into place. Talks and terrorism were controversially delinked at Sharm el-Sheikh. Talks and counterterrorism therefore also stand delinked. While the prime minister negotiates with the Pakistani government with a velvet glove, the home minister will not feel constrained to use an iron fist to deal with terrorism directed against India.

Tackling Maoism requires a different kind of statesmanship. There are powerful vested political and commercial interests which benefit from the Maoist insurgency. The financial nexus between politicians, businessmen and Maoists thrives in a manufactured environment of lawlessness. It must be broken to give tribals economic and social justice.

By putting his faith in a highly nuanced foreign policy and security doctrine, the prime minister risks losing personal goodwill if it fails. Worse, for the Congress, failure could damage its future election prospects. The devil of any policy lies in its execution. That will determine how powerful a global role India, as it rises above its region, plays in this unfolding century.

The writer is chairman of a media group.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Apr 2010 02:17

Marten wrote:
Chinmayanand wrote:What if USA or some other developed country decides to pick up a fight with India for whatever reason ?
Then we call them to the yard at recess and have the usual school yard fight with the other countries cheering and betting their tiffin boxes on the outcome. We can also choose to turn around and pick on the smaller belligerent kid next door (the one that keeps pissing in your mailbox).

was trying to answer in similar terms, but was holding back

.

@Chinmay: IMHO there has to be a proper reason to "pick up" a fight. Justifying the expenses of war itself is a BIG ask. Leave alone the morality and loss of life and limbs. Besides, none of the countries can take on the US right now. There are ahead in terms of quality in many things! and far far ahead in terms of quantity! If they can garner up so much in peacetime, I dont know how much there industry can garner up in war time. Leaving them aside, Russia will not turn a foe of India, anytime soon. If it turns a foe, India and its millitary will be in deep deep trouble. That leaves China as the only bigger Airforce in the world! Thats our challenge brother. Even if we have the qualitative edge (not in all aspects), I do worry sometimes about the quantity. Just can't throw those numbers out of my equations so easily

! thats why I want to see numbers in the IAF and fast

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 09 Apr 2010 02:38

Indranil , bliss to explain the proper reason that prevailed in 1971 when US sent its fleet. The simple answer to my question is if anyone attacks India whether developed or undeveloped, India must fight back . As far as a proper reason is concerned ,times change, alliances change, equations change. Circumstances can bring even China and India together against US. Today, they do not exist , tomorrow they may. Alignment of interests may change due to unknown and unforeseen variables.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Apr 2010 03:44

Chinmayanand wrote:Indranil , bliss to explain the proper reason that prevailed in 1971 when US sent its fleet. The simple answer to my question is if anyone attacks India whether developed or undeveloped, India must fight back . As far as a proper reason is concerned ,times change, alliances change, equations change. Circumstances can bring even China and India together against US. Today, they do not exist , tomorrow they may. Alignment of interests may change due to unknown and unforeseen variables.

1971 was a different era. The whole world was a in a bipartite. Either you were on the USSR side or you were on the US side. Pakistan chose to be on US side (ya, we can discuss the history) and we happened to be on the USSR. Wherever there was a tussle, the US and the USSR would be present there, either covertly or out there in the open. Take any war from that era, and we can discuss it. One of the side was armed by the US and the other was armed by the USSR. It was very important for each of them to win these wars. It was not just a prestige issue. It was a strategic effort of one to encircle the other. In 1971, Indira Gandhi was repeatedly advised by the US not to start hostilities. Indira Gandhi boldly (and so rightly) went ahead with what is history now. Think of the snub that a super-super-power of that era faced from a third world country of that era. It was imperative in that era of supremacy imposition to intimidate India. It would cost US nothing to intimidate India then. It costs a whole lot now!

Times have changed and will continue to change as you rightly point out. Right now, US doesn't have the capacity to go to yet another unwarranted war or a near-superpower like India. But even now and not in 10 years to come can I see us taking on the might of US and defeating it. I am as much as a loyalist as you are and equally proud and that feeling makes me think based on facts. I believe in matters of national interest, we should be able to take the most cold blooded but beneficial decision. If you match up the numbers on both sides, they don't stack up at all. It is highly lopsided. They cant overrun us in Indian territory, and they will suffer a lot of damage. Yet they can inflict severe damage. On the other hand, we would barely be able to hit them at their homes. and when we are all done they will still have lots of gun power left!

A new order is evolving and nobody knows how it will shape up because everything is so dynamic now. But whatever it is, none of the decision makers on any side would be foolish to just "pick up a fight". US and China are utterly dependent on each other. India is dependent on the US (a major part of it's service based economy). There are increasing number of signs in which India-China-US are trying to forge something more amicable. It is not guaranteed, but widely agreed that there will be no clear supremacy amongst any of the three till 2050. It is not based on what we want. It is based on what we all need! None of the superpowers will downsize their military, but all of them will refrain from using them. Not only can a war inflict severe damage to each other, but the damages that would be incurred on the economy after the war would be huge. Till our economy reaches a state where we can cushion such an impact and till US economy steadies and recovers to produce that cushion again, rest assured that there will be different ways to handle a tussle rather than having a military stand off. Just my opinion!

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 09 Apr 2010 23:25

Blood in the Streets of Bishkek

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Apr 2010 10:14

The dumb sanctions that toppled Kyrgyzstan's regime

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... ans_regime

After the opposition announced plans for nationwide protests, Putin provided a final spark by signing a decree March 29 eliminating subsidies on gasoline exports to Kyrgyzstan and other former Soviet republics that had not joined a new customs union.

When the tariffs kicked in April 1, Russian fuel shipments to Kyrgyzstan were suspended, said Bazarbai Mambetov, president of a Kyrgyz oil traders association. Within days, gas prices in Bishkek began to climb, enraging residents already angry about sharp increases in utility fees.

As the Kremlin leaned on Bakiyev, it also consulted the opposition, hosting its leaders on visits to Moscow, including in the days before the protests. On the eve of the demonstrations, the Kyrgyz prime minister accused one, Temir Sariev, of telling police that he had met with Putin and had won his support for efforts to overthrow Bakiyev.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Apr 2010 20:25

Stratfor frankly admits that the US goal is to dominate Eurasia for which it must cripple Russia permanently. See Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Resurgence - http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100412 ... 7b7ecc87cf

I guess Stratfor is being candid these days - a few days back they were saying that the US needs to support Pakistan to put a leash on India.

Russia, India and China are all in the cross-hairs of the western elites, sooner or later.

Pakistan is temporarily useful as tool with which to destroy Asian powers (primarily India).

Do the Indian elites understand these basic realities?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Apr 2010 20:58

^^^

The more pertinent question would be does PRC realize this?

India cannot have any more -ve impact from this unholy west-islamist alliance that it already have. Even a JDAM cannot worsen the situation further.

I know I am repeating this for zillionth time - India must recapture POK, at any cost. It will unravel many things in geopolitics.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2010 22:14

Pranav wrote:Stratfor frankly admits that the US goal is to dominate Eurasia for which it must cripple Russia permanently. See Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Resurgence - http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100412 ... 7b7ecc87cf

I guess Stratfor is being candid these days - a few days back they were saying that the US needs to support Pakistan to put a leash on India.

Russia, India and China are all in the cross-hairs of the western elites, sooner or later.

Pakistan is temporarily useful as tool with which to destroy Asian powers (primarily India).

Do the Indian elites understand these basic realities?

Thats the old Mackinder goal to dominate Eurasia inorder to dominate the world.

Stratfor is ex-British operators and hence the old ideas live on.

Shades of the Foundation.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Apr 2010 04:12

The Strength Of Four

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Apr 2010 08:17

Lothrop Stoddard was an American writer of the early 20th century.

Wiki article on L Stoddard

He was proven quite right in his conclusions but not his language. he sues the words race when he means civilization and thus was politically incorrect. In fact we can see the strand of American political dominance thinking in his writings down to Samuel Huntington.

One book he wrote was called Rising Tide of Colored People

It gives agood understanding of pre WWII American mind.

BTW he also wrote a book on New World of Islam which I posted in the E-Books links thread.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Apr 2010 09:23

How Does the U.S. Decide Which Governments to Recognize?

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

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 14 Apr 2010 09:28

prad wrote: also, US goal is to ensure balance of power in Eurasia. anytime, it seemed like one single power might dominate entire Eurasian landmass, US has intervened. and will continue to do so.

Balance of power, with the ultimate goal of ensuring their own dominance.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Apr 2010 09:27

George H.W. Obama?
That’s what Rahm Emanuel thinks. We asked nine experts to weigh in with their own reactions.

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

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2010 01:22

Some of you may have seen the news that US plans to attend the Polish President's funeral.

Premen Addy writes in Pioneer, 15 April 2010

EDITS | Friday, April 16, 2010 | Email | Print |

From tragedy to friendship?

Premen Addy

The plane crash near Smolensk in western Russia, which killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife Maria and their party of 95, including the country’s top Army brass, senior civil servants, head of the national bank and myriad dignitaries, was a mind-numbing tragedy too awful to contemplate. They were on their way to commemorate an earlier tragedy 70 years ago, during World War II, when 20,000 Polish officers, prisoners of war of the Soviet Union, were massacred by their captors in the forest of Katyn. It was a hideous atrocity, one of many, that scarred a conflict that on scale and destructive power was the greatest ever fought on Earth.

For years the Soviet authorities refused to acknowledge their country’s responsibility for the shameful deed, dissembling, initially, that it was the work of Hitler’s Wehrmacht. It has taken a long time, including the dissolution of the USSR, for the ghastly truth to be finally told. But accepted it was. A Polish film on Katyn has been shown on mainstream Russian television and long queues of Russians laid wreaths, some in Poland’s national colours, at the Polish Embassy in Moscow. President Dmitri Medvedev signed the condolence book and will attend the funeral in Warsaw for his Polish counterpart. Russian Prime Minister Minister Vladimir Putin and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk were seen embracing at the site, a symbol of their close cooperation in the inquiry into the crash. Russia declared a day of national mourning.

The Polish Government expressed its appreciation, and one Polish commentator suggested that Russia’s atonement for Katyn might become the seedbed for a new relationship between these two Slav nations. Poland and Germany, once sworn enemies, are friends today. More dramatic was the reconciliation between Germany and France under Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenaur. As a young student in Britain, I witnessed it on television and was moved by the words of the two men and their warmth and affection for each other. The Franco-German axis is what fashioned the Common Market and its exalted progeny, the European Union.

So will Poland’s tragedy do for its historically troubled relations with Russia, what two World Wars did to bond France and Germany? In the first instance, it will drain much of the poison out of the relationship at a people-to-people level. Between Governments there will certainly be an easing of tension. The late Lech Kaczynski, as a militant nationalist, was something of a Russophobe and also far from friendly toward Germany.

In 2008, Polish media reported that pilots flying Kaczynski to Tbilisi in Georgia refused his order to land there because of the country’s conflict with Russia. Poland’s membership of Nato, the mooted stationing of America’s anti-ballistic missile shield on its soil, plus the deployment of Polish forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither particularly effective, as it happens (in Afghanistan Polish soldiers were reported to have made regular payments to the Taliban for their safety), clearly had an anti-Russian dimension. There will certainly be some dispersal of this historical baggage, so the official Polish-Russian relationship is set to improve. But unlike France and Germany or Germany and Poland, Warsaw and Moscow will not be on the same side. Not yet, anyway.

The US and Britain need the Polish card in their Great Game with Russia. Even as Russian leaders and people were grieving for Poland, a BBC radio interviewer, a cold warrior of yesteryear, hinted ever so slyly to his Polish guest that a Russian hand may have played a part in the downing of the Polish aircraft. Expect the Anglo-Saxon allies to commence the symphonic melody of Poland as an outpost of Western civilisation, the latter a “good idea”, as Mahatma Gandhi memorably remarked; but the outpost as barrier to the barbarian hordes, has been, and continued to be, an incendiary concept refracting Anglo-American militarism and racial conceit, not to speak of imperial ambition.

Looking into his glass, darkly, an American commentator in a discussion on French television opined that Russia’s ultimate goal beyond friendship with Poland was to rid Europe of American influence, while for a young Polish Parisian in equally unforgiving mood, it was plus ca change: Russia was simply buttering Poland because it feared its reach as President of the EU in 2011. Chauvinist Poles, alas, have frequently been the architects of their nation’s miseries down the ages, even allowing that their country was more sinned against than sinning.

......

I thought that the plane's black box revealed that it was pilot error that caused the crash.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Apr 2010 01:49

Gerard wrote:The Strength Of Four

The important metrics are:

Code: Select all

Criteria                                         **  BRIC  **  Rest of the World  **  Grand Total
Area mil. Sq. Km                                   **  38.471715  **  451.038221  **  489.509936
Irrigated Land mil. Sq. KM                            **  1.17924  **  1.76150001  **  2.94074001
Total renewable water resources (thousand cu km)    **  17.4684  **  37.70314  **  55.17154
Oil - Proven Reserves Hundred Billion BBL              **  1.12805  **  12.44535384  **  13.57340384
population billions                                        **  2.843472701  **  4.437668691  **  7.281141392
Labor Force billions                               **  1.5078  **  1.885683962  **  3.393483962
Avg GINI Index (0 to 1)                      **  0.455  **  0.401442748091603  **  0.403029629629629

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 16 Apr 2010 09:54

Were there significant differences between Czarist and Bolshevik policies towards Poland? Did the Czars ever carry out massacres and genocides against the Poles?

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 17 Apr 2010 09:51

Hertitage foundation dispels the myths of BRIC becoming a challenge to the US. The point is that the very fact such articles are being written show that they are concerned.

Busting the Brazil/Russia/India/China (BRIC) Myth of Challenging U.S. Global Leadership

At the BRIC summit, China’s Hu Jintao, India’s Mammohan Singh, Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev, and Brazilian host Lula da Silva will seek to advance the impression that the BRICs are uniquely positioned to shape the global economic and political agenda. Such an impression is reinforced by the Obama Administration’s readiness to buy into the notion that America is declining in competitiveness, influence, and power as part of a transition to a “Post-American,” multi-polar world. Yet, there are five myths about BRIC that Americans should recognize before succumbing to Obama-inspired fatalism

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... Leadership

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 17 Apr 2010 09:54

prad wrote:Obama will be present for the President's funeral in Poland. geopolitically speaking, no matter how much Russia uses its charm on Poland, the basic geography of the region is such that Poland will always be wary of Russia. regardless of whether the "imperialist" Americans do anything, this reality isn't going to change. Poland has no natural barriers against Russians. and the Russians used this to their advantage repeatedly.

George Friedman waxes eloquent about why Poland will become a great power in the 21st century. He cites the example of US turning South Korea into a powerhouse.

But I guess the most basic requirement of being a great power or a world power is having an autonomous foreign policy. That simple fact seems to be lost on George Friedman.