It works for Pakistan because they can demand additional funds from UN etc using that fear factor of it becoming a rogue country.
It’s more like entities funding Pakistan because they don’t want it to go into being another Afghanistan. And an Afghanistan with nukes.
How many times has Pakistan gone to the IMF and has been bailed out ? And how has having those nukes exactly benefitted the people of Pak ?
That’s probably the worst way of looking at it. Maybe I’ll be in the minority here.
Regional concerns - neither side has actually used the weapons, and with the exception of the 1999 squabble have avoided conventional war.
Does raise the question, I cannot see the IMF or World Bank surviving for very long. There are both very much institutions of the post-WW2 Western order.
And then , one side still did 26/8 Mumbai attacks.
I’ll admit my bias against Pakistan… Not against Pakistanis.
I have no doubt that India has legitimate security concerns about Pakistan. However, we have seen over the past few years that India has a very particular view of the distinction between ‘global security concerns’ and problems of individual countries. Pakistan is a failed state that is not a global threat, even if they are an awful neighbour
As of now. Just wait till they develop an ICBM which is capable of hitting targets across Europe. Their missile delivery systems right now so target Israel btw. It only takes one spark to start a fire. And their establishment has made it known that their army are basically mercs for hire.
And they are a failed state being propped up by both parties concerned. Let it be US or let it be China.
Who said anything about total alignment? I have no love lost for China, but compared to Russia and the US, it’s the lesser evil.
And the only strategic partner for Europe that actually appears to be somewhat reliable.
I am advocating for a strong Europe, able to defend itself and offer a deterrence to Russia’s expansionist plans, in order to maintain the peace.
America is an unreliable ally. Europe needs to look after number one, and to do so will require a strong defence, as I would imagine Russia will be keen to test the boundary as NATO appears to be weaker/potentially falling apart.
I am aware that the UK and France already have nuclear weapons. A unified European army is probably needed.
I wish I lived in another world, but Russia has expansionist plans and I fully expect them to take whatever they want, especially as America isn’t stopping them. At that point I am advocating a strong European deterrence to form, in order to secure the peace and halt Russia’s expansionist aims in their tracks.
If not, the Baltic states are next. Then probably Poland. Then who knows?
It’s rather too late to be coming into the non aligned bunch when you(in the sense Europe) has spent so much time backing up US and their shit.
And forget about China there. Theres absolutely no guarantee there at all. China’s bedfellows with Russia at this point.
Edit:
Just want to offer the comment that the level of the European deterrence need not be 5,000 nuclear weapons, or whatever parity with Russia would look like. That is unrealistic and futile.
I would suggest that it should be enough to comfortably ensure mutually assured destruction. That’s the level at which deterrence seems to work.
I’m not a military man, but I imagine a hi tech conventional force, able to be flexible and be deployed quickly. This is backed up by an updated range of nuclear weapons, hopefully ones that will never be used.
There are two deplorable things that the west has done.
Allowed China to steal their technology and become indispensable.
Allowed China and Russia to get closer.
And for people who think friendships with China is better. I’d refer you to the Chinese debt traps
Liked this because you’ve clarified your original post.
Does raise the Indus Water Treaty into the equation.
That’s been a water treaty which allowed quite a lot of water into the primary agrarian country.
Read up on it. India’s been very lenient on it in the past. Just not sure the same lenience will extend going on forward.
This was a treaty brokered by the world bank.
I always wanted the thread to be named the Russo-Ukrainian War. It had a very good name, the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, but someone changed it to Russian War Crimes. There are legions of war crimes comitted by Russia, but I favour technical names even so. No big deal though. But I think the title of the thread is offputting to some tbh.
But this thread should absolutely not have a banter name. This isn’t a game.
I’ve reverted it back. Russians have committed war crimes, but it’s not the main topic of this thread.
I agree. Thank you. The war itself is the greatest war crime. The ethnic cleansing and terrorism, as well as the weekly numerous field executions, are secondary to be fair. After all, unprovoked invasion, with the goal of conquering another state, is the greatest war crime in the UN charter.
Russia knows the Americans and Europe cannot and will not do anything of impact to them. Not when they simply walk into Crimea. Not 3 years ago. Not now. And while the rest of the world including myself watches on with our commentaries, what really is going to happen? And what do you think common Ukrainians who lost their homes and family and survive thus far want? We lament the US and Russia for trying to force Ukraine to concede in order to stop the war. That’s despicable but to common Ukrainians, they just want the war to stop one way or another so they can move on.