This is one thing that annoys me a lot, but my awareness to it started from when I was reading about Chinese ‘aid’ to African countries, which often involved no technology transfer nor even employment of local workers. I often wondered why those countries involved ever consented…
1 Like
All development aid comes with strings attached.
1 Like
No aid is generally offered without strings being attached. There aren’t many things i praise about India but w.r.t their foreign policy (apart from the Pak one) , Indians seem intent to maintain their individuality for the want of a better word. We’ve seen how US Aid to Pakistan has led to the country being so self reliant on that money that the withdrawal of that said aid nearly made it a failed state. Till the 1970’s, Pakistan was ahead of India in terms of the various development indices. But that was majorly because it was propped by US and Saudi funds.
India do not generally accept that kind of Aid. That’s what (even despite modi’s disasters like demonetization etc) , the indian macro economy still remains relatively stable.
In case of Soviet aid to India, It really didn’t. And it’s not only w.r.t the defense deals.
UK’s Aid terms are like “hey,we’ll give you lot 450M , but please give us the defense deal worth 20000M”
Corruption of the leaders is one reason why that “aid” is so readily accepted. In return, China gets the resources etc etc. Corruption and short sightedness. The inability to look at the bigger picture and to care for the population.
1 Like
The strings may not be explicit but they’re there nonetheless - as currently in evidence.
1 Like
I agree.
1 Like
The truly remarkable story of how Ukranian drone operators stopped the Russian army dead in its tracks ;
1 Like
But all the same, Soviet Aid to India came with less strings attached than what US Aid has done to Pakistan for instance. There was an impetus on technology transfer etc and there were quite a lot of collaborations which benefitted both the countries. Also , It wasn’t aid in terms of sending across money. It was more of development projects etc etc.
Yes, India has had to back Russia up or refuse to take sides during the cold war. But that policy then did pay out. Not sure if it’s the right step to take now (Refusing to pick a side) considering that the world has been so polarized after the Ukraine invasion.
It’s an interesting addendum but not directly related to the point I was making and which you quoted I think.
To make it clear for those feeling even slightly defensive, I think the West is usually far more ethical than other regions including my own country. I would rather a world with America as policeman than any other alternative. But as a descendant of the formerly colonized, we see different things than caucasians in the West do. And I say this having lived my formative years in the UK and the US.
My instant point was about psychologically feeling more kinship with people who look like you and not automatically expecting ‘Others’ to feel the same kinship.
As far as the historical reasons for aid being required in the first place and global economic disparity at the national level, I’ll refrain from going into it. I suspect that most people following this thread won’t be receptive to it.
2 Likes
Not sure on that again. Russia and China will continue to use their veto in UNSC to further their own interests. Now who’s set the precedent for that ? The US. The world would be a lot better if the UNSC is reorganized and the power of the veto negated.
1 Like
I don’t even understand how you are thinking, your reasoning so strange. What you are writing there is “Not a win for the US” and I struggle to see how you can even think that. The US is not “free to focus on China”. The US needs Europe and NATO. There is so much you write that is just frankly bizarre.
I think thats a pipedream. I meant realistically
1 Like
I said that in the long run, the only country which would realistically benefit from this conflict is the US.
If anything , the response of China shows that they would think twice about making a similar invasion to Taiwan. The EU has in effect stalemated Putin. It’s only Putin’s ego that’s stopping him from reversing back. His ego won’t allow him to accept a defeat. But the EU, with this has taken a huge hit w.r.t their energy security realities. Also, the EU before has been trying to act for their own benefit as well (even if they were against US’s interests) , This conflict pushes the weakened EU firmly back into the American sphere of influence even more.
The US is free after this to tackle the dragon with Quad. Atleast that’s hopefully their plan.
Any aggression on part of China right now and with Putin kept in check will make it very easy for US to send their fleet to the south china sea.
The US is currently not in any way “free”, it is more involved now in European security than since the Cold War. And no one yet knows when “after” will come. This is the most vital war since the Cold War era and it can go on for quite some time yet. You do not seem to understand that Russia changed the world fundamentally.
1 Like
US and Phillipines just are conducting a wargames which is a message to China to not try anything with Taiwan.
US’s resources aren’t really needed in the Russian-Ukranian conflict now.
I think the whole India’s position in this is both over discussed and a bit of a distraction. When it comes down to it, India is not that critical in the process of isolating Putin - yes it is a piece more, and nice to have for neatness, but not critical. Say if India, and China for the sake of argument, had voted with the majority, what would that have achieved? Would Putin have magically withdrawn and undone the madness? Unlikely. So why make a song and dance about this. When people quote morality my mind always wonders to glass houses, those w/o sin and dwelling built on sand…
The interesting thing in all this was before Putin decided on this madness, he went to a couple of countries if I recall correctly (India and China) and even back then I commented that that was the deal being sealed in terms of a GO for invading. I, an armchair commentator, seem to see it, as did the movers and shakers also. Then as various commentators here have pointed out, the evidence was actually a 50/50 in terms of will he won’t he - primarily because there was nothing in place in terms of infrastructure for a “western” type of “shooting fish in a barrel” action. Then he did it.
- Why was the pressure not applied prior to his visits to India and China (on India, China and Putin)
- Was it applied and the current outcome an actual “milder” version of what could have been (i.e. if China/India had agreed to send military aid for example)
The Ukraine situation is horrible. One person has driven this. His failure to reach his (full) objectives would have failed with the backing of a few EU member states alone. Rowing back on this is going to be a nightmare but it will surely involve a handshake between Boris/Biden/similar and Putin at some point…
1 Like
Fascinating: