[tut-urut-utut]

There’s no US army in India, as opposed to Germany and other EU countries.

Only colonies are obliged to follow empires interests. India is independent for quite a while and in this case does what it deems it’s best for it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> no US army in India, as opposed to Germany and other EU countries

Washington wants New Delhi for countering China. That’s a longer-term threat than Russia. If the U.S. Navy wanted to cripple India, it would do so by blockade. This energy insecurity is a well-known weakness of India’s; it’s not a coincidence that China has naval ports in Lahore and Sri Lanka. (It’s also why you don’t see Washington lighting up about India’s coal. A coal-burning India is less sensitive to e.g. the PLA Navy disrupting its seaborne crude imports.)

For a cleaner illustration of this trade-off, see Washington twiddling its thumbs while gazing into the distance while Ottawa and New Delhi duke it out.

[NickC25]

I get that, that was my whole point - why is India doing this, what is the geopolitical benefit they are getting by engaging in this?

[ta_vf7xjd34cc]

> what is the geopolitical benefit they are getting by engaging in this?

It is an open, yet officially unstated, policy of the Indian government since the 1950s that the USSR/Russia must never be put in a position wherein it fully tilts towards China.

India, China and Russia are the three powers on the Asian continent. A 2v1 situation would be catastrophic for India. Sensible people in power in the West may not agree with the India, but they understand this. Arm chair generals on social media and those writing for Western media outlets do not.

[NickC25]

Fascinating, and thanks for the response! I did not know that, but it makes a lot of sense. India would be in a tough spot if China and Russia had a much closer relationship, especially as China and India don't really get along that well. So India needs to strengthen its relationship with Russia by any means necessary in order to have Russia in their corner as opposed to Russia being in China's corner.

There's a lot of nuance to geopolitics, clearly!

[JumpCrisscross]

> India needs to strengthen its relationship with Russia by any means necessary in order to have Russia in their corner as opposed to Russia being in China's corner

India is also a massive importer of energy. 30% above the price cap is still cheaper than market.

On dividing Beijing and Moscow, I think the ship has sailed. Russia is increasingly dependent on China. The leadership in Moscow is beholden to Xi in a way that has no historic comparison. If China initiated military action against India, Russia is no longer in a position to say no.

[seanmcdirmid]

It gets even more confusing: the USA is traditionally more allied with Pakistan, India's biggest enemy, and we know American jet fighters perform better than Russian ones given the wars the two countries have had (Pakistan has lots of F16s, India has lots of migs). Pakistan is also a fairly strong ally of China...so...lots of nuanced geopolitics going on.

[petre]

The war in Afghanistan is over, the US doesn't need a Pakistan who's in bed with China anymore. They'll safely ignore India's dealings with Russian oil while doing exercises with Quad states to countner China-Russia "no-limits" partnership along with their puppet, the DPRK.

[seanmcdirmid]

The USA's relationship with Pakistan far precedes the war in Afghanistan.

[pomstazlesa]

> Arm chair generals on social media and those writing for Western media outlets do not. As opposed to those writing for Eastern media outlets, right?

[op00to]

Thanks for explaining that. It makes perfect sense!

[syndicatedjelly]

India and Russia have had friendly relations for a very long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_rel...

[pehtis]

It has a lot to do with the 1971 war: https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/when-russia-stunned-us...

[ethanbond]

A fact that tends to get forgotten in all these goofy "US is an aggressive empire" memes: host countries can get rid of US bases whenever they want.

[Georgelemental]

Yeah, good luck campaigning on that. Mysteriously, all your political opponents (who were at one another's throats 3 seconds ago) will consolidate, and their campaign coffers will suddenly swell with donations from the "National Endowment for Democracy" and friends. If you are really "lucky", you may even get strangely well-trained and well-armed militias opposing you!

[lesuorac]

Those bases are a great source of income for the local economy.

There's a reason despite the US military routinely asking congress to close down local bases and consolidate buildings to decrease costs that congress never lets them. That's money their district no longer gets!

[jacooper]

I hope this is sarcasm.

[lesuorac]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-iss...

You can search for more years if you're inclined.

[nradov]

And yet none of that happened when the Philippines evicted the US military back in 1992. There were armed militia groups opposing the central government but those had been around before and the US government never supported them.

Now the Philippines are inviting the US military back to deter Chinese aggression.

[AYBABTME]

This is a convincing take but in reality, when Trump threatened to pull out troops from many of those nations, these nations weren't excited the slightest about it.

[dmpk2k]

Yes, the leaders of those nations depend on US influence (and sometimes hard power) to remain in power.

I don’t want to oversimplify things, and yet: how did that come about?

[AYBABTME]

That's a bit of a ridiculously cynical take. The majority of democratic US allies that harbor US bases have a population that supports the presence of the troops. And those in power there aren't so because of the US military power, they were elected.

For dysfunctional or undemocratic nations, it's different.

[reducesuffering]

Poland is the biggest EU supporter of US military presence. You think Andrzej Duda is a patzy of US influence?