| | ::Let's take the China-India border dispute, for example: this is entirely a local dispute between residents on both sides of the line of contact (it's a miniscule population in a very remote part of the world) To both sides credit, India and China, the central governments have kept this a localized dispute since 1962 ''without'' allowing racial and ethnic hatreds to spread throughout their countries. But no, the boneheads in the US State Dept, at the ''Financial Times'', and yourself seek to exploit the dispute and blow it up (with nationalist and ethnic hatreds) into something far bigger than what it is in order to "divide and rule". Thankfully, both the Chinese and Indian government, and both the Chinese and people of India, are not that stupid and naive as User:Conservative is when it comes to the field of international relations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 12:27, November 29, 2023 (EST) | | ::Let's take the China-India border dispute, for example: this is entirely a local dispute between residents on both sides of the line of contact (it's a miniscule population in a very remote part of the world) To both sides credit, India and China, the central governments have kept this a localized dispute since 1962 ''without'' allowing racial and ethnic hatreds to spread throughout their countries. But no, the boneheads in the US State Dept, at the ''Financial Times'', and yourself seek to exploit the dispute and blow it up (with nationalist and ethnic hatreds) into something far bigger than what it is in order to "divide and rule". Thankfully, both the Chinese and Indian government, and both the Chinese and people of India, are not that stupid and naive as User:Conservative is when it comes to the field of international relations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Get thee behind me, Satan'']]</sup> 12:27, November 29, 2023 (EST) |
| | + | Countries that are nonaligned/neutral or generally nonaligned/neutral do take sides occasionally in particular matters. For example, Switzerland, which historically is a pretty neutral country, chose to give aid to Ukraine recently (See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_neutrality Swiss neutrality]). |
| | + | India was a nonaligned country, but now although it is an independent thinking country it now sees nonalignment as a former period of India's history. "In July 2020, India's External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said during an interview; "non-alignment was a term of a particular era and a particular, shall I say, geopolitical landscape" (See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_the_Non-Aligned_Movement India and the Non-Aligned Movement]). |
| | + | Although India is no longer nonaligned, it is an independent-thinking country. For example, India will continue to maintain ties to both Russia and the West amid the war in Ukraine. And given that you merely claimed I implied it was a vassal state, you clearly are aware that I did not call it a vassal state. |
| | + | There is no denying that although India is an independently thinking country, it does lean more towards the USA than China [[Essay: The myth of multipolarity. What do the terms unipolar, bipolar and multipolar mean as far as international relations?|in our current bipolar world that is not a multipolar world]]. For example, I cite [https://www.deccanherald.com/india/s-jaishankar-says-era-of-non-alignment-gone-as-us-indian-warships-conduct-joint-drills-863666.html S Jaishankar says era of non-alignment gone, as US, Indian warships conduct joint drills]. |
| | + | India is smart to lean more towards the USA than China given China's recent aggressiveness on the high seas and given China's recent economic troubles and its demographic crisis (See: [[Essay:Skepticism about China remaining a global power]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:49, November 29, 2023 (EST) |