What's new

Putin Looks to Asia as West threatens to isolate Russia

Chinese-Dragon

RETIRED TTA
Jul 9, 2010
33,975
52
71,004
Country
China
Location
China
It's not so simple.

China has strong economic bonds with the West and needs to be mindful of any repercussions if it is seen as grossly undermining Western sanctions.
We have to walk a tightrope for the next 10-20 years, so we can complete our current phase of economic expansion.

Russia is self-sufficient in terms of energy, a former superpower, and an industrialized country. They can laugh at sanctions, and take minimal damage.

China on the other hand, our resource routes are in danger of the USN. We need to fully develop our internal energy resources, which are significant (amongst the largest reserves of shale oil and gas in the world), along with our significant conventional oil/gas/coal resources, and especially renewable energy, of which our potential is enormous.

We also need to develop formidable power projection, based on naval power in particular. All this will take longer than a decade. But it is very possible to achieve, given enough time.
 
Last edited:

Developereo

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 31, 2009
14,100
25
15,869
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
IBut like you said, that may all be intended. They may secretly and deliberately have intended to sacrifice a bit of their prestige in order to further polarize Europe and Russia.
The loss of prestige is temporary and minimal. No one seriously doubts that the US is the most powerful country in the world.

The more I think about it, the more it looks like it's going exactly to American plans. Putin is reacting as the Americans predicted and intended.

The whole trick behind being a superpower is to light fires in other people's back yards and keep them busy with each other.

-- tension in Eastern Europe will keep Europe and Russia busy.
-- tension in Syria will keep the Middle Easterners occupied.
-- tension in East Asia (with China's opponents emboldened by US pivot to Asia) will keep that region busy.
 

sincity

FULL MEMBER
May 8, 2013
1,943
-13
851
Country
United States
Location
United States
Ukraine lost some land but Nato and US gain one loyal ally in the future.

I guarantee Ukraine population would never agree with this arrangement. No citizen of any country want to lose their land to their neighbor.
 

Developereo

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 31, 2009
14,100
25
15,869
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
China [...] need to fully develop our internal energy resources
In a thorium-related thread, there was an estimate by a Chinese source that China has enough thorium to supply its energy needs for "20,000 years".

Ukraine lost some land but Nato and US gain one loyal ally in the future.

I guarantee Ukraine population would never agree with this arrangement. No citizen of any country want to lose their land to their neighbor.
America is counting on that. As long as Ukrainians (and other Eastern Europeans) are angry at Russia, this is wonderful news for America.
 

sincity

FULL MEMBER
May 8, 2013
1,943
-13
851
Country
United States
Location
United States
In a thorium-related thread, there was an estimate by a Chinese source that China has enough thorium to supply its energy needs for "20,000 years".



America is counting on that. As long as Ukrainians (and other Eastern Europeans) are angry at Russia, this is wonderful news for America.

Better trouble start far away from home than some revolution and population protest in the US and Nato because of the social or economy condition in the West.
 

Chinese-Dragon

RETIRED TTA
Jul 9, 2010
33,975
52
71,004
Country
China
Location
China
In a thorium-related thread, there was an estimate by a Chinese source that China has enough thorium to supply its energy needs for "20,000 years".
Also, according to this study (from Harvard and Tsinghua Universities), China could meet our entire energy demand by wind power alone by 2030:

China could meet its energy needs by wind alone | Harvard Gazette

Not realistic of course, but the potential for renewable power is definitely there. We are already the world leaders in renewable energy investment and production (mostly from hydro-power dams).

And we have the number 1 largest reserves of shale gas on the planet, and the 3rd largest reserves of shale oil. Not to mention an abundance of regular oil/gas/coal as well, and most other resources we need.

All these things combined will help us to become more self-sufficient in terms of energy. Any gaps left can be filled using our strategic reserves, our pipelines to Central Asia and Russia, and resource routes that do not pass through the Malacca straits (Malaysia, Venezuela, etc.)

It's a long-term dream, but I am confident it will happen eventually.
 

sherin616

FULL MEMBER
Feb 6, 2014
561
-4
274
Country
India
Location
India
"I is for India
In his speech at a joint session of
parliament on March 18, Russian
President Putin thanked both India and
China for their stance on the Ukrainian
crisis. But why is India supporting
Russia? Maybe the Indian government equates some similarities with Crimea in
the history of Sikkim’s referendum and
further merger with India when it
became the 22nd Indian state in 1975
with Russian support. Maybe India is just
seeking to develop closer ties and mutually beneficial partnerships with
Russia"

1)Russia helped india in india vs pakistan war
Soviet Union sympathised with the
Bangladeshis, and supported the Indian Army
and Mukti Bahini during the war, recognising
that the independence of Bangladesh would
weaken the position of its rivals—the United
States and China. The USSR gave assurances to India that if a confrontation with the United
States or China developed, it would take
counter-measures. This assurance was
enshrined in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed in August 1971.

2) During 1991, the Indian Space ResearcH Organisation (ISRO) had entered into an
agreement with the then-Soviet space agency
Glavkosmos towards the supply of cryogenic
engines (KVD-1) along with the transfer of
technology provisions.

3)CO PRODUCTION OF WEAOPENS aircraft carrier and many

and rusia will always be indias BIG BROTHER
 

ChinaToday

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 31, 2011
4,546
-2
5,306
Country
China
Location
United Kingdom
India’s silence on Crimea won’t help Russia or the West

Speech is silver; silence golden. This seems to be the Indian mantra when it comes to talking about the Indian silence on the Russia versus the West in Crimea after Crimea's accession to Russia.

More than 24 hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin telephoned Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss the Crimea developments there is no formal Indian response on the subject.

This is both surprising and shocking. But wait! The last word is yet to be written or spoken when it comes to a formal Indian reaction after Putin picked up the phone and chose to dial Singh.

It looks like that the much-awaited Indian reaction on the latest developments in Crimea is not coming at all.

The Indian silence over the Crimean/Ukrainian issue connotes that India wants to maintain an ambiguous position on this issue, as is conveyed by the official Indian response after the Putin-Singh telephonic conversation initiated at the behest of the Americans.

This brings us to the vital question: what is India’s stand on Crimea after its accession to Russia?

Putin has already lauded the efforts of China and India in the current political and diplomatic flashpoint in Crimea.This gives promising signals for a Russia-India-China bonhomie and a new world order.

By choosing not to come up with a response, India has given out a discreet signal that it does not want to side with any particular side.

In other words, India is not ready to take on the West in the ongoing Russia-West diplomatic spat and wants to play it safe. Why? Most probable reason is that the UPA government knows that it is in transition and that it is up to the next government to take a call on all major policy decisions, including foreign policy and the Crimea issue.

However, insiders say that the Indian reticence does not mean that India is not supporting Russia in its time of crisis. On the contrary, the Indian silence is a tacit support for Russia. But is tacit support enough?

Forget about the current lame-duck UPA government. India has to take a position on the Crimea developments. India cannot defer its decision till a new government takes over which won’t happen before May end. By then the Crimea issue would have been long decided.

But diplomatic crises do not wait for internal political processes. The UPA government has to take a call on the issue and has to calibrate its stand. Given the fact that diplomacy is a work in progress, it would be highly unlikely that whatever decision the UPA government takes is reversed or substantially changed by the new government in New Delhi.

There are three possible scenarios.

One, India stands firm in its support for Russia. National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon has already remarked that Russia has legitimate interests in Crimea/Ukraine. If New Delhi actually does that – and takes an unambiguous stand over the issue – it would be highly improbable that the next Indian government would reverse such a decision. Under the current political situation, this does not seem to be happening and the UPA government is going to let the issue be determined by the next government. This is the most likely scenario.

Two, India supports the West. It is highly unlikely. Menon’s remark, coming as it does from a seasoned career diplomat, conveys the Indian mood and, therefore, sets the agenda for the next government to take a call.

Three, India opts for the middle path and underscores the need for a peaceful resolution of the problem through a constructive dialogue. This is what was implied by the official Indian statement on Tuesday with regard to a telephonic conversation between Putin and Manmohan Singh. This is a likely scenario too, but not good enough.

Indian support for Russia over the Crimea flashpoint may be tacit. There may not be any Indian statement on the issue, after all. But the West should not construe India’s silence as New Delhi’s stamp of approval on the Western strategy of getting after Crimea/Ukraine and imposing sanctions against Russia.

Indian diplomatic czars need not worry about extending support to its tried and tested friend like Russia. China has already formally supported the Russian actions in Crimea. This has exerted pressure on India to follow suit or at least do something as soon as possible.

India needs to calibrate its Crimea strategy very carefully. India is in catch-22 situation. If it supports Russia, it infuriates the West and loses whatever goodwill it has earned over the years.

If India remains non-committal it conveys that India is not yet ready to get sucked into the Russia-versus-the West cesspool.

In both the above scenarios it does not do much credit to India which has ambitions of becoming a superpower in the next two decades.

This is a ticklish diplomatic chessboard that the current Indian government is faced with over the Crimean issue.

The UPA government cannot leave this urgent matter to be decided by a future government in New Delhi. It has to take a call on this “us versus them” kind of scenario as fast-unfolding international developments in Crimea cannot wait until the results of the current Indian political scene are declared.

If India wants to project itself as a mature and responsible power, it will have to state at which side of the fence the grass is greener. Anything short of that would project India in bad light.


http://www.firstpost.com/world/indias-silence-on-crimea-wont-help-russia-or-the-west-1442197.html
 

Beidou2020

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 3, 2013
6,338
-42
16,961
Country
China
Location
China
India’s silence on Crimea won’t help Russia or the West

Speech is silver; silence golden. This seems to be the Indian mantra when it comes to talking about the Indian silence on the Russia versus the West in Crimea after Crimea's accession to Russia.

More than 24 hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin telephoned Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss the Crimea developments there is no formal Indian response on the subject.

This is both surprising and shocking. But wait! The last word is yet to be written or spoken when it comes to a formal Indian reaction after Putin picked up the phone and chose to dial Singh.

It looks like that the much-awaited Indian reaction on the latest developments in Crimea is not coming at all.

The Indian silence over the Crimean/Ukrainian issue connotes that India wants to maintain an ambiguous position on this issue, as is conveyed by the official Indian response after the Putin-Singh telephonic conversation initiated at the behest of the Americans.

This brings us to the vital question: what is India’s stand on Crimea after its accession to Russia?

Putin has already lauded the efforts of China and India in the current political and diplomatic flashpoint in Crimea.This gives promising signals for a Russia-India-China bonhomie and a new world order.

By choosing not to come up with a response, India has given out a discreet signal that it does not want to side with any particular side.

In other words, India is not ready to take on the West in the ongoing Russia-West diplomatic spat and wants to play it safe. Why? Most probable reason is that the UPA government knows that it is in transition and that it is up to the next government to take a call on all major policy decisions, including foreign policy and the Crimea issue.

However, insiders say that the Indian reticence does not mean that India is not supporting Russia in its time of crisis. On the contrary, the Indian silence is a tacit support for Russia. But is tacit support enough?

Forget about the current lame-duck UPA government. India has to take a position on the Crimea developments. India cannot defer its decision till a new government takes over which won’t happen before May end. By then the Crimea issue would have been long decided.

But diplomatic crises do not wait for internal political processes. The UPA government has to take a call on the issue and has to calibrate its stand. Given the fact that diplomacy is a work in progress, it would be highly unlikely that whatever decision the UPA government takes is reversed or substantially changed by the new government in New Delhi.

There are three possible scenarios.

One, India stands firm in its support for Russia. National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon has already remarked that Russia has legitimate interests in Crimea/Ukraine. If New Delhi actually does that – and takes an unambiguous stand over the issue – it would be highly improbable that the next Indian government would reverse such a decision. Under the current political situation, this does not seem to be happening and the UPA government is going to let the issue be determined by the next government. This is the most likely scenario.

Two, India supports the West. It is highly unlikely. Menon’s remark, coming as it does from a seasoned career diplomat, conveys the Indian mood and, therefore, sets the agenda for the next government to take a call.

Three, India opts for the middle path and underscores the need for a peaceful resolution of the problem through a constructive dialogue. This is what was implied by the official Indian statement on Tuesday with regard to a telephonic conversation between Putin and Manmohan Singh. This is a likely scenario too, but not good enough.

Indian support for Russia over the Crimea flashpoint may be tacit. There may not be any Indian statement on the issue, after all. But the West should not construe India’s silence as New Delhi’s stamp of approval on the Western strategy of getting after Crimea/Ukraine and imposing sanctions against Russia.

Indian diplomatic czars need not worry about extending support to its tried and tested friend like Russia. China has already formally supported the Russian actions in Crimea. This has exerted pressure on India to follow suit or at least do something as soon as possible.

India needs to calibrate its Crimea strategy very carefully. India is in catch-22 situation. If it supports Russia, it infuriates the West and loses whatever goodwill it has earned over the years.

If India remains non-committal it conveys that India is not yet ready to get sucked into the Russia-versus-the West cesspool.

In both the above scenarios it does not do much credit to India which has ambitions of becoming a superpower in the next two decades.

This is a ticklish diplomatic chessboard that the current Indian government is faced with over the Crimean issue.

The UPA government cannot leave this urgent matter to be decided by a future government in New Delhi. It has to take a call on this “us versus them” kind of scenario as fast-unfolding international developments in Crimea cannot wait until the results of the current Indian political scene are declared.

If India wants to project itself as a mature and responsible power, it will have to state at which side of the fence the grass is greener. Anything short of that would project India in bad light.

India's silence on Crimea will not help Russia or the West | Firstpost
When India starts becoming powerful, the Yankees will do everything to counter India.

Siding with the west means you lose your independence.
 

jaydee

FULL MEMBER
Mar 23, 2013
251
0
361
Country
India
Location
Pakistan
Why i am thinking this way , i have no clue . I am seeing history in making as Russia with China and India will covertly form an alliance and balance the power . I like this covert way of alliance rather than overt , as this will help India to still benefit from its friendly relations with west.

Though i am not anti west but i am against hegemony and control of power by west.
Already have strategic alliance and understanding with US and Israel.And i don't think India and China could have common strategies beyond economic interests.Haven't we sold ourselves to the idea of countering China.What were we doing in south china sea ?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom