These two sentences...I hate them

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Some people use these sentences too often regarding geopolitics...

1) Neutrality should be adopted.

2) There are no permanent friends/enemies in geopolitics.
​

Really??? Are these sentences universally true? I don't think so...

Lets address these two questions...

The world most strongest militarily capable country in the world is US...So, US would be the most ideal candidate to adopt for neutrality in case of conflict anywhere as Murica doesn't require any help militarily if she find herself in trouble with Russia or China...So, it should be useless for Murica to join any alliance as US doesn't need to join...US has every gun in her arsenal...BUT...

Reality is that US heads NATO (probably the only strongest military alliance in world)...Not only that US finds herself in another alliance which people may not know, it is The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. Nullifying this this theory as well, which says that there are no permanent friends or enemies in world...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

So, do tell me...How the above two questions are universally true...

Ideally, the weaker country seeks alliance to offset bigger threat...but here, US, the most militarily powerful country is heading alliances all over the world instead of staying neutral. It shows Murica does have permanent interests with these mentioned countries especially..

I decided to think of this thread as many people stupidly shout for neutrality during yemen crisis, when Pakistan was asked by GCC to join...but we idiots, denied in inappropriate manner, resulting in paving the road for Indians into GCC...

Still, we are not doomed, if there is any pragmatic general sitting in GHQ, we will make our foothold strong in Middle East again as it was previously...

@MastanKhan @Doordie @Farah Sohail @jhungary @tps77

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

@Zippo @!eon @NomanAli89 @I S I @Hareeb

 

[VCheng]

What country attacked Washington DC and set the White House on fire? The same deadly enemy is now a best friend. There are indeed no permanent friends or foes in international geopolitics.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

@Taimoor Khan @H!TchHiker @Khafee

 

[H!TchHiker]

Everything depends on Cost Vs Benefit..Profit/Loss in qualitative or quantitative terms...either its alliance or something else.Yes there are no permanent friends/enemies ..Its the interest of the country that shapes the decision..which way to go..Yes there is no neutrality if the benefits outside cost.If not then its another question...Only way where one is not neutral is the family rest states relations are not family relations..so they will always be weighed some how in different parameters..
Let me say it Every State is selfish and nothing is deemed granted there is always a price that has to pay one way or other way to earn favor..
Last even in worst relations don't expect any Indian soldiers foot in GCC..they don't pay like this and neither they will be asked to come..

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

What country attacked Washington DC and set the White House on fire? The same deadly enemy is now a best friend. There are indeed no permanent friends or foes in international geopolitics.

Its been centuries US and Canada are on good terms with each other...You are talking about thing which happened centuries ago...

 

[livingdead]

nobody is suggesting neutrality is a better stance.. but pakistan is in a position in which she cant side with one... iran is next door neighbour.. and pakistan has sizable shia population... I say good call

 

[Max]

but pakistan is in a position in which she cant side with one... iran is next door neighbour..

If Iran can have military cooperation with bharat, why cant Pakistan have it with GCC?

, resulting in paving the road for Indians into GCC...

I dont see any bharati fighting for Arabs.

 

[Kaniska]

If Iran can have military cooperation with bharat, why cant Pakistan have it with GCC?



I dont see any bharati fighting for Arabs.

If you think very closely, You are wasting your potential to rise in diplomatic world, by looking all of your relationship in the prism on India Pakistan world...Indian diplomacy is trying to avoid the same where as you can not do it...Why do you expect that countries has to choose between Inida and Pakistan? Do you stop your relationship because India and China has more than 100 billion dollar trade with each other??

 

[VCheng]

Its been centuries US and Canada are on good terms with each other...You are talking about thing which happened centuries ago...

Look at Vietnam and USA, if you want a recent example. From being at war to favored trading partners in a few decades.

 

[Max]

If you think very closely, You are wasting your potential to rise in diplomatic world, by looking all of your relationship in the prism on India Pakistan world...Indian diplomacy is trying to avoid the same where as you can not do it...Why do you expect that countries has to choose between Inida and Pakistan? Do you stop your relationship because India and China has more than 100 billion dollar trade with each other??

if our neighbor Iran dont understand our concern (bharat) then why should we try to understand their concern (GCC), if we dont grab GCC smartly they will seek new partners, so best for Pakistan is to move smart... nothing to do with Bharat..

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Neutrality is for cowards---or for those who want to DECEIVE YOU.

 

[jhungary]

Some people use these sentences too often regarding geopolitics...

1) Neutrality should be adopted.

2) There are no permanent friends/enemies in geopolitics.
​

Really??? Are these sentences universally true? I don't think so...

Lets address these two questions...

The world most strongest militarily capable country in the world is US...So, US would be the most ideal candidate to adopt for neutrality in case of conflict anywhere as Murica doesn't require any help militarily if she find herself in trouble with Russia or China...So, it should be useless for Murica to join any alliance as US doesn't need to join...US has every gun in her arsenal...BUT...

Reality is that US heads NATO (probably the only strongest military alliance in world)...Not only that US finds herself in another alliance which people may not know, it is The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. Nullifying this this theory as well, which says that there are no permanent friends or enemies in world...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

So, do tell me...How the above two questions are universally true...

Ideally, the weaker country seeks alliance to offset bigger threat...but here, US, the most militarily powerful country is heading alliances all over the world instead of staying neutral. It shows Murica does have permanent interests with these mentioned countries especially..

I decided to think of this thread as many people stupidly shout for neutrality during yemen crisis, when Pakistan was asked by GCC to join...but we idiots, denied in inappropriate manner, resulting in paving the road for Indians into GCC...

Still, we are not doomed, if there is any pragmatic general sitting in GHQ, we will make our foothold strong in Middle East again as it was previously...

@MastanKhan @Doordie @Farah Sohail @jhungary @tps77

Ask yourself this, what is "neutrality"?

Does neutrality mean I do not have any preference? Or I do have a preference, just not acting on it?

Look back ath the last 100 years, the countries that were neutral in both world war (namely Argentina, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden) are they have no preference on which side they support on both WW? Or They do have a side to support but just not acting on it for the sake of Sovereignty Integrity?

Staying neutral does not necessarily mean you do not have a preference in geopolitics, that only mean you try to figure out who you are rooting for, and in most case, you ended up playing both side anyway. The problem, as you can see is, from your second point, there are no permanent friends and enemies geopolitically, which mean to stay neutral, you need to be aware of everybody but also cooperate with everybody. The only way to do that is to form alliance.

Alliance form over time may have conflict to other alliance original interest, say for example, being a UN member is actually directly conflicting the interest of being a NATO member, because NATO are designed to suppress the influence of Soviet Russia, however, being a UN member, which Soviet Union were part of P5. Which directly translate to being a UN member basically serve Russia interest and disinterest.

Now, if you look at it like what I just said, then yes, Neutrality must be adopted, however, that does not mean you do not need alliance, simply because there are no permanent friends and permanent enemies in geopolitics. Meaning basically, every country could be your friend today, and they could be your enemy tomorrow, and the way to stay neutral? Always find other countries that goes against someone and form an alliance.

Did i answer your question?

 

[Dawood Ibrahim]

Abit of the topic Trust plays a major role example i have many multi national friends how much i turst in 50-100 only 4-7 because I know even if they can't do anything they will still support me morally

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

I dont see any bharati fighting for Arabs.

Nature of cooperation between Indians and GCC is economic while Pakistan has military element as well along with economics...This is how our relations with GCC countries are always been...Economic + Military...

Example : Pakistanis serving in UAE/Bahrain armed forces....Our troops are allegedly in KSA as well

Did i answer your question?

Very elaborately. Thanks