The full interview, it is subtitled in English, but it seems only half, or maybe there was a bug on my end.
Bucha before/after
LOLā¦.this dude said AOC to run for president. God, I would hope so. We gotta save this country bc itās going to shit.
The refugee issue in India is complicated. India in the past has taken quite a lot of refugees due to the political unrest in neighbouring countries.
I will say that India right now is being selective about the refugees it takes in. Hindus from Pakistan get refugee status pretty easily. Still a major hassle for them but then India isnt exactly equipped to deal with a huge influx of refugees given their constraints.
The article youve quoted mentions quite some home truths but also omits some realities as well.
And it varies from state to state in India. In Assam for instance , there are close to 2m undocumented immigrants who have come in over a period of time. This causes a problem leading to the BJP govt trying ro pass the NRC act across India. I was one of the guys who protested against it. But as far as Assam goes , the situation is different and while NRC might not be needed , there certainly needs to be a process in place there.
India should do more but its not a country of vast areas and low population density. It cannot afford to be a welfare state. Its easy to look at India from a euro centric view when ignoring the realities that India is facing.
The income distribution inequality in India isnt restricted to rich vs poor alone. There are quite a lot of States in India which have good indices on developmemtā¦ But then there are the other states which are lagging behind. A Tamil Nadu for instance can and did house srilankan tamils without too much fuss. The same cannot be said about a state like Assam.
Really? I was surprised and disappointed to read this from you of all posters.
Thereās a lot of stuff here, but really what I want to say to this first of all is that I agree that Europe has done more for Syrian refugees than any other region. That is not the point I was making. The point I was making was about the difference in the outrage. If you canāt see a difference then fair enough. Itās clearly a topic youāre passionate about. Iām not about to start a back and forth with you. Like I had prefaced in my post, I was hoping that someone devotes just 5 minutes to the devilās advocate view. Youāve done that and reject it? No worries.
The original question was why arenāt Indians affected much by the images of Ukrainians suffering. Youāve partially answered it by mentioning that these are European neighbours hence perhaps it strikes closer to home. Fair enough, I agree. You see your friends or family in them. Fair. But for me, I see my family in the few images of the distressed Yemeni or Ethiopian children that Iāve seen. So, to wonder why an Indian mountains and seas away from the conflict isnāt as bothered by it as a Westerner - well itās far away and alien.
On the media clips I posted. I think the language used is self evidently racist. At least in those. The coverage hasnāt all used such language but I see an underlying pattern which you clearly donāt. Thatās fine.
Iām not going to keep this going on because it will detract from the excellent coverage you and @Livvy are providing.
You seem to be misunderstanding how existential this feel for European democracy - staying āneutralā is just not acceptable for many and yes there should be consequences for those countries who facilitate Russia.
Were those gaffes? Every single one of them points to a harder line in US thinking toward Russia than the expressed US position. Biden was notorious for that sort of negotiating in the Senate 30 years ago.
Some ground realities.
-
To ostensibly replace russian oil / gas imports , The EU would likely have to go to OPEC for their requirements. That would lead to an increase in prices for limited resources.
-
The main objective for any country is firstly to secure and provide resources for their population. That you would agree is paramount
-
While the rich EU have the advantage of leveraging favourable deals from suppliers , countries like India do not have the same finances.
-
If the oil produced by OPEC is diverted to other countries , what does it mean for Indias energy security ?
-
This isnt so much about India supporting Russia. This is about ground realities. For example , sanctions were imposed on Iran which led to India needing to procure Oil/Gas from other countries , the price of fuel etc in India rose up very high after this. Now the same sanctions on Iran are lifted ā¦
-
Why werent these sanctions kept when Russia invaded Crimea ?
Its easy to give a blanket statement and stay in the comfort of your house , in admittedly very comfortable weather and keep publicizing these comments without knowing or ignoring the ground realities
I donāt think Iām misunderstanding at all @PaulRoJo. Iām not arguing against this feeling existential for Europe. Iām suggesting that every region of the world has its own worries and own problems it considers existential. When China saber rattles every now and again against all its neighbours do you hear about it? Do you feel its existential? I can assure you for those of us in the region, thatās the primary concern not Europe. You should feel what you feel is important. No one is gainsaying that, but to point at a country halfway across the world and say you should also feel my concerns are of prime importance is something else.
India is not the only country in the world that has abstained from the UN resolution. 35 countries did including China, Vietnam, Mali, South Africa, Laos, Eq. Guinea. Is the West going to go around with its big sanctions stick and whack each of these 35 equally or is it going to avoid say China because that would hurt the West more than China?
How is abstaining, āfacilitatingā Russia? The sanctions that have been imposed prevent anyone from dealing with sanctioned Russian entities. Thatās how sanctions work. Nobody is showing the middle finger to big bad Nato and carrying on with Russia. The only thing abstaining does is refusing to have oneās name on a public resolution chastising the errant country. Unlike a veto in a SC resolution, abstaining doesnāt prevent it from moving ahead.
I think that will wait until the inevitable next round of the never-ending border dispute with China. The Niemƶller quote will be doing the roundsā¦
A border dispute which no help has ever been asked for nor ever offered. This doesnāt fit the Niemƶller quote at all.
Thatās very general and hasnāt anything to do with the question that was asked.
I have my opinions on Macron as well but that isnāt the point, the point is what he is doing is very common in French diplomacy and the French are accustomed to it so probably arenāt batting an eyelid like me except if they have other grudges they like to follow.
Your generalities indicate that all French Presidents are/were opportunists, which might be true however greater depth would be required to ascertain that.
Actually yes. Russia and China are both large threats to democracy - the CCP even more so - and hence the heightened concern that Russia is very harshly punished for its actions.
Why is democracy that important ? That important that US and their allies feel the need to champion that and overthrow regimes etc etc and entirely destabilize the region even further.
I come from a democracy but whatās the rationale behind US trying to impose that world view on anyone else ?
Russia and China are large threats to world security but so is the US. I believe world security is more important than trying to impose democracy in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc and failing abjectly at that.
That is not remotely close to true. One need only look at the movements of the US Fifth Fleet and Seventh Fleets, both of which have repeatedly deployed in positions during periods of friction, sending a message. The US has clearly been signalling support for India, albeit limited. The US clearly doesnāt give a crap about which side of the mountain the border between India and China is, but has been deliberate about sending the message that there are limits to the scope of that dispute. If your definition of support is Rambo jumping out of a helicopter, well, no. But India is rather more alone than it has been in the last decade.
The problem with the lovely BRIC axis is that the Iās second most serious, and arguably most dangerous, geopolitical tension is with the C. Pakistan is perilously close to a failed state, that was allowed to cause Indian problems because of the happenstance of Afghanistan, and the complete folly of US policy there for a generation. After what has happened there, Pakistan could not be more diplomatically isolated - their closest friend now might well be China. But India has somehow managed to find a way to isolate itself almost as completely.
Imposing democracy is a self-defeating enterprise, and only the most dangerous Americans of all ever believed it. But the American capacity to be dangerous really doesnāt stem from that urge to āimpose democracyā, that was merely a post-2001 fad of a few years. Recall Rooseveltās comment on Somoza - āhe may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitchā
Can you share some links for this (Iām genuinely asking).
To my knowledge the only help that the US gave India during the Galwan clash was post hoc Intel on Chinese movements. But the fact that they announced that they were helping seems more like an exercise in signalling.