choice for india - nato vs SCO

[Sashan]

We get the best technologies from the leaders of both NATO and SCO - e.g. If we want we can get F35s and we are already part of the 5th generation fighter jet project - So why take sides and burn ourselves. The non-aligned approach works well for us.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Indian's choice is so obvious --->Neutral to draw the maximum benefits from both side SCO and Nato, and expect that neither side will offend them as how they did since cold war with non alignment policy...Neither Western nor Soviet block dare to take initiative to do any bad thing to them..or else they will have option to practicing "enemy of my enemy is my friend"...quite a smart move

I believe only once that India forsee a very clear net advantages and alot of great benefits to be one's side to push them to made decision...otherwise they will play -->"sit and wait".

 

[iajj]

Indian's choice is so obvious --->Neutral to draw the maximum benefits from both side SCO and Nato, and expect that neither side will offend them as how they did since cold war with non alignment policy...Neither Western nor Soviet block dare to take initiative to do any bad thing to them..or else they will have option to practicing "enemy of my enemy is my friend"...quite a smart move

I believe only once that India forsee a very clear net advantages and alot of great benefits to be one's side to push them to made decision...otherwise they will play -->"sit and wait".

first, indians aren't that smart to play one side off another. their servile affection for anglo-saxon masters and deep-seated fear of us will throw them to nato arms. indian record of "non-alignment" speaks for itself

second, i am not at all worried. were it not for its lack of strategic depth and the ineluctability of its destruction within a week of hostility with russia and china, even korean bonzis would see a greater military-industrial output and contribute more to the anglo-american cause than indians. if india is on the anglo-saxon side, the latter will face the familiar moral dilemma: to waste resources to save millions from starvation and death in a worthless, nominally allied country or to spend them on actual war efforts against russia and china. but knowing anglo-saxons who know no morals, they would repeat what they did the last time and tell indians to get lost and starve to death on their own dime.

 

[IndoUS]

first, indians aren't that smart to play one side off another. their servile affection for anglo-saxon masters and deep-seated fear of us will throw them to nato arms. indian record of "non-alignment" speaks for itself

second, i am not at all worried. were it not for its lack of strategic depth and the ineluctability of its destruction within a week of hostility with russia and china, even korean bonzis would see a greater military-industrial output and contribute more to the anglo-american cause than indians. if india is on the anglo-saxon side, the latter will face the familiar moral dilemma: to waste resources to save millions from starvation and death in a worthless, nominally allied country or to spend them on actual war efforts against russia and china. but knowing anglo-saxons who know no morals, they would repeat what they did the last time and tell indians to get lost and starve to death on their own dime.

Here comes people with no knowledge of foreign policy or national interest. Just look at your own all weather friend and see how far their partnership with NATO in WOT took them, look at the NATO countries themselves the Iraq war has affected their economy to such high degree. The NATO itself is a good example of strategic relationship, one goes to war the others join in and then everyone is screwed. Why join a side and piss of the other while you can get benefit from both sides by just staying neutral.

 

[retaxis]

Here comes people with no knowledge of foreign policy or national interest. Just look at your own all weather friend and see how far their partnership with NATO in WOT took them, look at the NATO countries themselves the Iraq war has affected their economy to such high degree. The NATO itself is a good example of strategic relationship, one goes to war the others join in and then everyone is screwed. Why join a side and piss of the other while you can get benefit from both sides by just staying neutral.

What he meant was India was non-aligned to USSR and USA but always aligned against China. Maybe it is best for SCO to 'force' India and Pakistan to get along when and if they join the SCO together.