China and India’s troop withdrawal signals a shift away from U.S.-led Indo-Pacific alliances, raising questions about Western influence and India’s evolving regional strategy.
Thank you for your feedback! Could you clarify which map you find unclear? The first map illustrates the period of the Indian and Chinese empires, the second is a geographic (not political) map, and the third represents the world as it was in 1914. Let us know if you need further details or if there's anything else we can clarify!
Thank you for your swift reply. The first map contains the term Indian Empire, not Indian empires: would you be able to narrow down the year or period the map is showing? So, the third map is showing the situation in 1914 that lasted until 1962, right?
The first map refers to the period before the 1914 Shimla conference - https://tinyurl.com/257j4mah in the last one you can read the specific information directly on the map itself.
Could you specify which countries are meant with the West in this article? US is mentioned specifically, got that. CA, MX, EU, EFTA, UK, UA, TR, exYU, IL, EG, MA are included?
You can think of it this way: whoever actively cooperates with the so-called "Indo-Pacific Strategy" of the United States is a member of the so-called "United States and the West"
The article is saying that manufacturing plummeted indicating by share of total GDP, right? Is this indicated by absolute numbers as well? How do growth numbers of manufacturing vs other major sectors like IT are compared in growth p.a. ?
The service industry to which IT belongs currently accounts for 80% of India's entire GDP. Such a high proportion is an unbearable burden for the Indian economy. This is also an important reason why the Modi government wants to increase the proportion of India's manufacturing industry.
This strategic reasoning makes generally sense and in the same times it's not adressing the point raised. The point I raised was to underline that a sector can substantially grow in absolute and relative growth numbers but still mimize its overall share on the GDP if other sectors have higher growth numbers, thus limiting the value of the metric 'share of sector of overall GDP over time'.
Obviously, a country's economic development cannot rely solely on the service industry, especially in India where the service industry accounts for such a high proportion. Only by developing the manufacturing industry can we create enough jobs and drive the economic development of the entire country. We can't imagine that a country's economy can only be driven by electronic games and outsourced software. This is impossible. If India wants to rise, it must and can only take the route of building a country based on manufacturing.
I see your point in having a manufacturing strong economy. I know the debates and had the ones especially after 2008:). I don't generally disagree with you but I see that there more to the macroeconomical topic than mentioned in the post.
But I see that your answer is not actually addressing the point I raised on how to account for the dilemma of relative vs absolute in this context.
If you do not hesitate to harm the interests of others for your own benefit, this is "selfishness". If it is just to pursue one's own interests, there is nothing wrong with it, but if the pursuit of one's own interests is based on harming the interests of others, this is called "selfishness."
Thank you for sharing your definition. I find this term hard to use in non-private contexts, let's try to use this term for the moment.i find it hard to apply this term to a geopolitical strategy of countries and call the strategy of Slovenia or Poland selfish but Russia's geopolitical strategy non-selfish. Any framework to apply here?
In geopolitics, every country is serving its own national interests, but countries like the United States can sell everything and use everything as a bargaining chip. They are selfish without any bottom line, which is the most disgusting. Although Russia's sending troops to Ukraine can be said to be "selfish" to a certain extent, Russia is different from the United States. Russia still has a bottom line in many things, such as the use of nuclear weapons and the treatment of civilians in war. Russia is much stronger than the United States and Israel. The most important thing is the bottom line. A country has no bottom line and arbitrarily breaks the bottom line of human morality and civilization. This is a very terrible thing.
The United States and Western countries pursue their own geopolitical interests, which is not to be blamed in itself, but the United States and the West always build their own interests on the interests of other countries, which is what we oppose and criticize.
On the issue of Israel, the United States and the West support Israel without any bottom line, massacre Palestinians, and deprive Palestinians of their right to pursue their own national independence as a nation, just for their own interests.
On the issue of Ukraine, the United States and the West, out of their own interests, stir up Ukrainian nationalism and confront Russia, and then let Ukrainians sacrifice thousands of innocent lives for the interests of the United States and the West, and finally discard Ukraine like a used chess piece as a bargaining chip for negotiations with Russia and easing relations.
For its own benefit, the United States can even sacrifice the interests of its so-called "allies". For example, European countries suffered greatly in the Russian-Ukrainian war, and economic development was out of the question. The same is true for India. India cooperated deeply with the United States in the "Indo-Pacific Strategy", but what it got in return was ruthless betrayal and selling out by the United States. This is also the fundamental reason why India chose China.
Kissinger once said: "It is dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, and it is fatal to be an ally of the United States."
What do you would the strongest and what is your weakest argument in this line of thought? In which period you have be more fond and in which less fond of the strong statements in your post?
Based on the definition mentioned above that the 'West' can be defined as countries that are cooperating on the US in the Indo-Pacific Strategy, I wonder if eg. IT, SI and TW are part of this group. Could you provide some guidance? Your input is highly appreciated!
Your historical background of the "McMahon Line" is very good in helping understand the root cause of the Sino-Indian problem.
To solve this problem and many other problems created by colonialist powers, especially Britain, an agreement must be reached to nullify all borders drawn by the colonialists and refer to pre-colonialist borders. The Levant suffer from the same thing, the Sykes-Picot agreement which chopped the Levant into pieces (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Palestine) for the sole purpose of installing a Jewish settler colony in the region they labeled Palestine. The Levant has been suffering for over a century from these colonialist machinations.
Maps used in this article are not showing current entities. When using historic maps, could you provide the year or period they are showing?
Thank you for your feedback! Could you clarify which map you find unclear? The first map illustrates the period of the Indian and Chinese empires, the second is a geographic (not political) map, and the third represents the world as it was in 1914. Let us know if you need further details or if there's anything else we can clarify!
Thank you for your swift reply. The first map contains the term Indian Empire, not Indian empires: would you be able to narrow down the year or period the map is showing? So, the third map is showing the situation in 1914 that lasted until 1962, right?
The first map refers to the period before the 1914 Shimla conference - https://tinyurl.com/257j4mah in the last one you can read the specific information directly on the map itself.
Could you specify which countries are meant with the West in this article? US is mentioned specifically, got that. CA, MX, EU, EFTA, UK, UA, TR, exYU, IL, EG, MA are included?
You can think of it this way: whoever actively cooperates with the so-called "Indo-Pacific Strategy" of the United States is a member of the so-called "United States and the West"
This is one way to define a set of countries, yes.
The article is saying that manufacturing plummeted indicating by share of total GDP, right? Is this indicated by absolute numbers as well? How do growth numbers of manufacturing vs other major sectors like IT are compared in growth p.a. ?
The service industry to which IT belongs currently accounts for 80% of India's entire GDP. Such a high proportion is an unbearable burden for the Indian economy. This is also an important reason why the Modi government wants to increase the proportion of India's manufacturing industry.
This strategic reasoning makes generally sense and in the same times it's not adressing the point raised. The point I raised was to underline that a sector can substantially grow in absolute and relative growth numbers but still mimize its overall share on the GDP if other sectors have higher growth numbers, thus limiting the value of the metric 'share of sector of overall GDP over time'.
Obviously, a country's economic development cannot rely solely on the service industry, especially in India where the service industry accounts for such a high proportion. Only by developing the manufacturing industry can we create enough jobs and drive the economic development of the entire country. We can't imagine that a country's economy can only be driven by electronic games and outsourced software. This is impossible. If India wants to rise, it must and can only take the route of building a country based on manufacturing.
I see your point in having a manufacturing strong economy. I know the debates and had the ones especially after 2008:). I don't generally disagree with you but I see that there more to the macroeconomical topic than mentioned in the post.
But I see that your answer is not actually addressing the point I raised on how to account for the dilemma of relative vs absolute in this context.
I don't understand what you mean by "relative" and "absolute"?
Relative like growth in percentage or share in percentage vs. absolute like e.g. 1 lakh INR or 40 employees or 60 residents.
How do you professionaly define 'selfish'?
If you do not hesitate to harm the interests of others for your own benefit, this is "selfishness". If it is just to pursue one's own interests, there is nothing wrong with it, but if the pursuit of one's own interests is based on harming the interests of others, this is called "selfishness."
Thank you for sharing your definition. I find this term hard to use in non-private contexts, let's try to use this term for the moment.i find it hard to apply this term to a geopolitical strategy of countries and call the strategy of Slovenia or Poland selfish but Russia's geopolitical strategy non-selfish. Any framework to apply here?
In geopolitics, every country is serving its own national interests, but countries like the United States can sell everything and use everything as a bargaining chip. They are selfish without any bottom line, which is the most disgusting. Although Russia's sending troops to Ukraine can be said to be "selfish" to a certain extent, Russia is different from the United States. Russia still has a bottom line in many things, such as the use of nuclear weapons and the treatment of civilians in war. Russia is much stronger than the United States and Israel. The most important thing is the bottom line. A country has no bottom line and arbitrarily breaks the bottom line of human morality and civilization. This is a very terrible thing.
The United States and Western countries pursue their own geopolitical interests, which is not to be blamed in itself, but the United States and the West always build their own interests on the interests of other countries, which is what we oppose and criticize.
On the issue of Israel, the United States and the West support Israel without any bottom line, massacre Palestinians, and deprive Palestinians of their right to pursue their own national independence as a nation, just for their own interests.
On the issue of Ukraine, the United States and the West, out of their own interests, stir up Ukrainian nationalism and confront Russia, and then let Ukrainians sacrifice thousands of innocent lives for the interests of the United States and the West, and finally discard Ukraine like a used chess piece as a bargaining chip for negotiations with Russia and easing relations.
For its own benefit, the United States can even sacrifice the interests of its so-called "allies". For example, European countries suffered greatly in the Russian-Ukrainian war, and economic development was out of the question. The same is true for India. India cooperated deeply with the United States in the "Indo-Pacific Strategy", but what it got in return was ruthless betrayal and selling out by the United States. This is also the fundamental reason why India chose China.
Kissinger once said: "It is dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, and it is fatal to be an ally of the United States."
What do you would the strongest and what is your weakest argument in this line of thought? In which period you have be more fond and in which less fond of the strong statements in your post?
Based on the definition mentioned above that the 'West' can be defined as countries that are cooperating on the US in the Indo-Pacific Strategy, I wonder if eg. IT, SI and TW are part of this group. Could you provide some guidance? Your input is highly appreciated!
This depends on whether these countries or regions cooperate with the US policy toward China.
Your historical background of the "McMahon Line" is very good in helping understand the root cause of the Sino-Indian problem.
To solve this problem and many other problems created by colonialist powers, especially Britain, an agreement must be reached to nullify all borders drawn by the colonialists and refer to pre-colonialist borders. The Levant suffer from the same thing, the Sykes-Picot agreement which chopped the Levant into pieces (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Palestine) for the sole purpose of installing a Jewish settler colony in the region they labeled Palestine. The Levant has been suffering for over a century from these colonialist machinations.
Exactly