Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[romad1]

I'm seeing a ton of photo op pictures of Indian leader Modi at the Hiroshima G7 summit.   The "Quad" which is US, Japan, Australia and India is very important to counter the PRC.

[1984Echoes]

India and Modi are a trick though...

They don't want to even sniff any old style imperialism so they avoid tying themselves to the old British Empire, or NATO, or the West, or the US... they refuse to be "aligned". 

So they are completely open to playing all sides and sometimes doing business with Russia, sometimes the US, sometimes the U.K., sometimes China/ sometimes vehemently against China...

It's really hard to peg or rely on them.

[romad1]

 

[romad1]

Could be the dumbest take ever in world of dumb takes

 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

So they are completely open to playing all sides

from the small amount of reading of Hindu lit I've done, there is a sort of ethos deep in Indian culture that I think it's hard for those of us steeped in the way we do morality in the Judeo-Christain system to wrap our head around. I'm not going to get this quite right but it's sort of a sense that you are justified in doing the thing your destiny has set you up to do. Or maybe "do your job man" and you're justified by doing it, release yourself from your judgments about it. If the Indian PM sees his job/India's destiny to position India thusly, then that transcends the kind of tranactional morality we would apply to the details. In the B'Ghita Arjuna is concerned that war is evil and he should not take part, Krishna basically tells him he is a warrior and *his* higher morality is to be the best warrior. That's not generally a WWJD take. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Jim Cowan]

Modi is a nasty little prick.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

... there is a sort of ethos deep in Indian culture that I think it's hard for those of us ...

I don't think it has anything to do with Indian culture.

They are still traumatized by their relatively recent extrication from British Imperialism. And the excruciating process that they went through to do so, and the after-effects (specifically the split of India into also-Pakistan).

They are fiercely opposed to any imperialistic tendencies and they see the US/ UK/ NATO as somewhat, but only somewhat, imperialistic. They have a specific policy to not be aligned with any one side against the other. They keep relations with Russia (military supplier for 40+ years I think...?), but also keep relations with the US/ UK/ Australia but ALSO keep relations with China, even though China is increasingly (and also historically) has been a threat.

I think the US has been pushing for the past several years them to become more hardline aligned with the US/ NATO, but they refuse to do that.

On the US side: we can kick Russia out of the relationship if we successfully convince India (partial success with military supplies but India has been buying massive amounts of Russian oil in the past year at dirt cheap prices to their benefit...). And more importantly, get India completely aligned against China. Which hasn't happened as India also did some work with China's Road & Belt program I believe.

India's side: They're not going to stop having a relationship with Russia. Just not going to happen. With China... a little more complicated... India would like to be on both sides and not an "enemy" of China. But China is becoming more belligerent and is an absolute threat to India. 

Bottom Line: India may not have a choice.

But Modi is a pain as Jim announced and... they don't "want" to be aligned... which makes them difficult to read in which direction they are going to choose.

[romad1]

4 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

Modi is a nasty little prick.

True

[romad1]

48 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I don't think it has anything to do with Indian culture.

They are still traumatized by their relatively recent extrication from British Imperialism. And the excruciating process that they went through to do so, and the after-effects (specifically the split of India into also-Pakistan).

They are fiercely opposed to any imperialistic tendencies and they see the US/ UK/ NATO as somewhat, but only somewhat, imperialistic. They have a specific policy to not be aligned with any one side against the other. They keep relations with Russia (military supplier for 40+ years I think...?), but also keep relations with the US/ UK/ Australia but ALSO keep relations with China, even though China is increasingly (and also historically) has been a threat.

I think the US has been pushing for the past several years them to become more hardline aligned with the US/ NATO, but they refuse to do that.

On the US side: we can kick Russia out of the relationship if we successfully convince India (partial success with military supplies but India has been buying massive amounts of Russian oil in the past year at dirt cheap prices to their benefit...). And more importantly, get India completely aligned against China. Which hasn't happened as India also did some work with China's Road & Belt program I believe.

India's side: They're not going to stop having a relationship with Russia. Just not going to happen. With China... a little more complicated... India would like to be on both sides and not an "enemy" of China. But China is becoming more belligerent and is an absolute threat to India. 

Bottom Line: India may not have a choice.

But Modi is a pain as Jim announced and... they don't "want" to be aligned... which makes them difficult to read in which direction they are going to choose.

India is annoyed as hell at China’s playing in the Indian Ocean and it’s bases in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

I don't think it has anything to do with Indian culture.

everything has to do with culture. The number one mistake Americans generally making looking out at the world is thinking every one else thinks like we do - they don't. 

Now on a tactical level, I agree with everything in your post, but in your earlier post you referred to them being 'open' to certain tactics and that 'openess' has a cultural dimension as it relates to what kind of policies are considered socially comfortable and the choices they make within the overal policy and that is where I was going. For example, you can remain militarily non-alligned, but still take much stronger public positions on things than India does. There is a reticence toward what we might call 'moral clarity' there that goes beyond the tactical need of their non-aligned status. That is all in the way they approach it. To draw the contrast, I'll make the analogy to realpoliitik. The Indian non-alignment formulation is logically, tactically,  along the same lines as Kissinger and realpolitik, but there is often a high level of social discomfort in the West  - esp in the US, over the practice of realpolitik and lots of folks consider Kissinger to be morally repugnant even when they may have to admit he may be tactially sound at points. That's not to say I'm attempting to justify the US as having a more moral foriegn policy in the end - that's different set of arguments. It's just that we are at the other pole. We are a very 'Manachean' oriented culture - *everything* has to have a wrong and right side for us - and it doesn't have one we force one on it. And that can be just as bad  in the way it leads us to demonize our adversaries and diefy our friends to the point we often don't make very sound judgments about things that maybe mostly grey (thinking in particular of the history of our ME policies). So that's where my take comes from - that way a society judges its own foreign policy conduct has a cultural aspect to it. Heck - at the extreme end, all we have to do is look at Russia to see how ambitious cultural conditionding can drive how a foreign policy plays in a society. But whatever....

Back at the practical level, you're spot on that India is snared by the legacy of chosing to equip their military with Russian hardware. They regret that both policy and technology wise, but it's not an easy thing to turn around, and kaee rupee. They want desperately to be better able to meet the Chinese challenge, but don't want to make relations with China even worse by being seen as too much in bed with the US DOD - assuming they were even disposed to.

Edited May 21, 2023 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

10 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

everything has to do with culture. The number one mistake Americans generally making looking out at the world is thinking every one else thinks like we do - they don't. 

Now on a tactical level, I agree with everything in your post, but in your earlier post you referred to them being 'open' to certain tactics and that 'openess' has a cultural dimension as it relates to what kind of policies are considered socially comfortable and the choices they make within the overal policy and that is where I was going. For example, you can remain militarily non-alligned, but still take much stronger public positions on things than India does. There is a reticence toward what we might call 'moral clarity' there that goes beyond the tactical need of their non-aligned status. That is all in the way they approach it. To draw the contrast, I'll make the analogy to realpoliitik. The Indian non-alignment formulation is logically, tactically,  along the same lines as Kissinger and realpolitik, but there is often a high level of social discomfort in the West  - esp in the US, over the practice of realpolitik and lots of folks consider Kissinger to be morally repugnant even when they may have to admit he may be tactially sound at points. That's not to say I'm attempting to justify the US as having a more moral foriegn policy in the end - that's different set of arguments. It's just that we are at the other pole. We are a very 'Manachean' oriented culture - *everything* has to have a wrong and right side for us - and it doesn't have one we force one on it. And that can be just as bad  in the way it leads us to demonize our adversaries and diefy our friends to the point we often don't make very sound judgments about things that maybe mostly grey (thinking in particular of the history of our ME policies). So that's where my take comes from - that way a society judges its own foreign policy conduct has a cultural aspect to it. Heck - at the extreme end, all we have to do is look at Russia to see how ambitious cultural conditionding can drive how a foreign policy plays in a society. But whatever....

Back at the practical level, you're spot on that India is snared by the legacy of chosing to equip their military with Russian hardware. They regret that both policy and technology wise, but it's not an easy thing to turn around, and kaee rupee. They want desperately to be better able to meet the Chinese challenge, but don't want to make relations with China even worse by being seen as too much in bed with the US DOD - assuming they were even disposed to.

I'm going to say that the Indian/US DOD relationship is growing both above the waterline and below.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

I'm going to say that the Indian/US DOD relationship is growing both above the waterline and below.

Another great Ezra Klein podcast - Tim Snyder this time, He makes a the point that the intellectual structure supporting what is usually called the 'politics of inevitability' (i.e. that after the fall of communism the world has no other choice than to be like us) which has been sort of our (the US) FP intellectual ground zero since 1990 are starting to collapse into a more honest picture of a real world. If/as that happens, it should be make it easier for the US to improve relations with a lot of countries we had been dismissing as 'just wayward' instead of maybe taking a deeper view of their internal priorities and understanding them better. Maybe.

Edited May 21, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Jim Cowan]

And now that miserable little bastard Modi is inserting himself into the G7 group photos.

[romad1]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Another great Ezra Klein podcast - Tim Snyder this time, He makes a the point that the intellectual structure supporting what is usually called the 'politics of inevitability' (i.e. that after the fall of communism the world has no other choice than to be like us) which has been sort of our (the US) FP intellectual ground zero since 1990 are starting to collapse into a more honest picture of a real world. If/as that happens, it should be make it easier for the US to improve relations with a lot of countries we had been dismissing as 'just wayward' instead of maybe taking a deeper view of their internal priorities and understanding them better. Maybe.

Yea but, The forces of ignorance are strong in the World and within our institutions.  Hence A1C Texeirra decides to reveal all the stuff he did in support of his incel brethren’s belief that Putin was somehow the right side.  

[romad1]

yes sir!

 

[romad1]

This is absolutely correct.  This was my former career field as a matter of fact.  The PRC PLAAF was trying to use western mercenaries to learn this.  Good luck to them. 

By which i mean confusion to them

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, romad1 said:

This is absolutely correct.  This was my former career field as a matter of fact.  The PRC PLAAF was trying to use western mercenaries to learn this.  Good luck to them. 

By which i mean confusion to them

I would think the F16s would be of incremental value in suppressing Soviet naval capability on the Black Sea.

[romad1]

this could speed things along 

F16 crews and volunteer jtac 

[romad1]

fun to see a Russian opposition thunderrun inside Russia

 

[romad1]

Nice

 

[digitalpigsmuggler]

Quote

“training maintenance personnel can take months or years, depending on the desired level of proficiency,” according to a March report on the possible F-16 transfers from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Even after undergoing up to 133 days of schooling, a US Air Force maintainer gains a year of on-the-job experience to become fully qualified, the CRS report says.

Quote

To bring in Western aircraft, Ukraine might need to repave and potentially extend a number of runways, a process which Russia would likely detect. If only a few airfields were suitable and in known locations, focused Russian attacks could impede Ukrainian F-16s from flying,

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/22/europe/f-16-jets-ukraine-analysis-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

The so called experts don't think this the game changer the way the media is making it sound.

[romad1]

You know Russia must be scared of the F-16s if they are trying to whistle past the graveyard about it now that its a done deal. 

Well they should be.   

[romad1]

The Belgorod thunderrun is an interesting twist on the shaping ops.  

[romad1]

Have a nice day digitalpigsmuggler, if you can Tovarich

[romad1]