India has its own interests (of course). During the Cold War, India was part of the Non-Aligned Movement, a coalition of countries which sought a third path, supporting neither side.
India is far from Ukraine and so doesn't have many geopolitical interests at stake, unlike European countries and (by very close alliances and relationships) the US.
India does have at stake the rules-based international order, for which a fundamental rule is respect for national sovereignty, and respect for the legitimacy of democracies. Sharing borders with Pakistan and China, India has a special interest in those.
Does the US follow these rules in terms of action in places like Syria (almost certainly CIA providing weapons) Libya, Iraq, Vietnam etc? I'm actually kind of curious to see how the US measures up on these rules.
I thought the US had an interest in things like regime change rather than some of the stability focuses others have had.
Of course the US follows the rules, by definition.
The "Rules Based International Order" is just a euphemism for "Post War US Hegemony". And the rules are "The US state department tells you what to do, and you do it".
Anyway, a rules-based international order already exists. It's called the UN charter, but that's not what they mean.
> The "Rules Based International Order" is just a euphemism for "Post War US Hegemony". And the rules are "The US state department tells you what to do, and you do it".
Sarcasm and hyperbole are fun, but can be misleading. The US-led rules-based international order certainly doesn't always follow the rules, and the US can be a major violator, but the rules have great influence and power. Generally, the US considers it in its interest to have an internation order based on rules, not on military power. But lacking a soveriegn international government, the US's military power has underwritten those rules since WWII.
The UN charter is one part of the rules, but international law is based on many institutions and agreements. Here's a great source with leading experts (e.g., top lawyers from the State Department and White House) for anyone who wants to know about it:
Where are the rules? You're all over this thread taking about RBIO and you haven't cited any rules. Not a single one. Where is it written? May I read a list of your rules?
Well considering US was ready to bomb India and it was a Russian submarine that saved India, it makes sense. Also don't forget about US supplying arms and aid to Pakistan which Pakistan in turn would use to arm Talibans and Kashmiri insurgents. On top of that, US was pretty vocal about wanting sanctions on India for testing out nuclear weapons. Given the history, who would be an ally in that case?
> US was ready to bomb India and it was a Russian submarine that saved India
?
> Given the history, who would be an ally in that case?
If such history prevented alliances, there would be none. France and Germany are allies. India and the US are allies when their interests align - less so regarding Ukraine, more so regarding China - which depends significantly, but not completely, and especially in the long term, on their values (democracy, human rights, etc.) aligning.
Some historical context is probably needed that most non-Indians won't have. During the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, the US sent a carrier group from the Seventh fleet into the Bay of Bengal as a means to deter Indian invasion of what was then East Pakistan. The Soviet Union countered this move by sending a nuclear attack submarine into the Bay of Bengal to prevent freedom operation for the carrier group. The move apparently worked, and the carrier group backed off. India defeated Pakistan and East Pakistan became what is now the independent nation of Bangladesh. Hopefully, I have the historical facts right.
As to how the mere presence of a nuclear attack submarine can scare off an entire carrier group, I still don't understand. But then again I build web apps not submarines.
>the US sent a carrier group from the Seventh fleet into the Bay of Bengal as a means to deter Indian invasion of what was then East Pakistan The Soviet Union countered this move by sending a nuclear attack submarine into the Bay of Bengal to prevent freedom operation for the carrier group.
This isn't accurate. The carrier group was to deter any invasion of West Pakistan. India had already invaded East Pakistan and that war was already effectively over when the US decided to send the fleet. It's true that the US tried to dissuade India's intervention and armed Pakistan, but they weren't about to bomb India over East Pakistan.
The Soviet ships also did not chase away the carrier group. They stayed a few weeks after the war ended with Pakistan's surrender and India's decision not to invade West Pakistan.
That's fair and there's hardly any evidence to claim US's desire to bomb India. However, it was still noted as an bullying attempt in India. US was also acting in cohort with Pakistan at UN, which was countered by Russian votes.
You can say this about almost anything these days. I provided you with a source, if you aren't sure about it and think otherwise, I think you need to provide a link that actually backs up your claim
> As to how the mere presence of a nuclear attack submarine can scare off an entire carrier group, I still don't understand. But then again I build web apps not submarines.
Escalation concerns - USA and Russia both really want to avoid direct conflicts to avoid escalation into nuclear war (and sometimes - as in this case - use that as a shield).
> India and the US are allies when their interests align - less so regarding Ukraine, more so regarding China - which depends significantly, but not completely, and especially in the long term, on their values (democracy, human rights, etc.) aligning.
China is probably the only thing India and US agree on, especially considering Pakistan has been warming up to China now. Regarding the values, when has that stopped US ever? Only time US cares about democracy is when they the ruler is not friendly to them. US is an ally of
- Saudi Arabia which is committing a genocide right now and actively sells arms to them (there goes your democracy and human rights)
- Israel, again human rights go out of the window when it comes to Gaza occupation
Of note, the Indian Diaspora in the US is also becoming increasingly active in policy shaping and civics within the US. Over time, it will be interesting to see how this dynamic influences the alignment of US and Indian interests [0]
> China is probably the only thing India and US agree on
India and the US work together on many things, including development in India. Why is it important to you to downplay India's good relationships?
The US's record certainly isn't perfect, but nor is the other extreme realistic. Democracy has spread to almost every corner of the globe - almost all of the Americas, for example, almost all of Europe - with the US being its strongest supporter and advocate, with money, expertise, political pressure, etc. One reason is pressure from the American public, which (for most of history) has strongly supported freedom and democracy. I know well that the US also opposed some democratic governments and, especially in the Cold War, supported right-wing dictatorships.
In 1971, the US actively supported the genocide committed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by the Pakistani Army. When the Indian Army intervened, Nixon sent the 7th Fleet that included the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to intimidate India. In response, the USSR sent their own flotilla.[1][2][3][4]
The events of 1971 were preceded by events such as the US admitting Pakistan into SEATO (NATO like alliance in South East Asia). India had no other alternative but to choose USSR back then.
In the past, India had good relations with the USSR and bought weapons from them, but now they are more more tied to the US economy than to Russia's. They buy from and sell to the US much more than to Russia.
When it comes to arms, Russia still takes precedence over the US for India. Russia is willing to sell their state of the art weapons to India and the deals involve significant tech transfer which helps in propping up local defense industries.
Historically India has been closer with USSR/Russia but I think in the future this will change. Obviously as other posters have noted India has stronger trade ties with America now, and there are lots of Indians in America in influential positions (like CEOs of big companies). I also see a natural coalition with anti-Islamists in America and India.
