OTOH … Chinese leadership appreciates that nuclear weapon use could make the conflict escalate out of hand very quickly, which is … bad for business. China is a much larger and more globally dependent economy than Russia’s is. Getting Russia weak enough that they are completely beholden to China is a good thing for China. Having the United States’ attention and resources focused there - good thing for China. Conflict escalating to more direct NATO/American involvement crossing borders and causing global recessions and depressions? Bad for China. Very bad.
As Putin’s desperation increases, and this terror assault is clear evidence it has, the risk of his using a tactical nuke increases. Any nuke use will provoke some response from America, not nuke, but a more direct confrontation response than had been done to date with nukes on stand by, and some of each side scared to press the trigger too late. I doubt China likes that there is real risk of getting there now.
My thought is that while China and India may not care what Russia does generally, nuclear use (which a lot of folks in the home thread were concerned about) is probably another thing entirely, for reasons already pointed out. If it seems like Russia is getting too serious about it, China and India may feel motivated to toughen their stance a bit.
China is taking this opportunity to buy russian (and rebadged Ukrainian) commodities at a steep discount. Russia isn’t getting market price for the oil it sells to China.
More importantly, China is using this opportunity to clearly rebalance the Sino-Soviet relationship with China as the big dog and Russia increasingly becoming the lap dog of the relationship. China still thinks of Outer Manchuria (Siberia) has having been part of Greater China, and a weakened Putin State certainly helps the stealth moves there.
It depends. In case of a country like India, almost all of India’s military supplies come from Russia. Russia is a key strategic counterweight to Pakistan and China for India. Also, India imports nearly all of its oil and India’s foreign exchange reserves are very sensitive to oil prices. The current war has meant that India has a sweet deal to get cheap oil from Russia. So, net net, not supporting Russia has very little political or economic upside other than feeling morally superior. Supporting Russia is economically, politically and militarily advantageous.
To dissuade India from supporting Russia, the US and allies would likely need to compensate India economically and militarily. Frankly, its unclear that the US and allies would be willing to do so, or that they would have the credibility to make the promises.
If Russia were to expand the theater of war or escalate by using nuclear weapons, the calculus might change.
This situation highlights a fundamental question, what is morality in a nation state? The responsibility of a government is to its people. At what point is a government responsible for putting higher human ideals ahead of the self interest of the people the government represents. The calculus of governments, like the Indian government, is that currently, their responsibility to their citizens and their self interest outweighs the broader moral considerations. I am not advocating for the view, just elucidating the position.
In addition to the financial considerations already addressed: the longer this conflict goes on and NATO weapons get tested in combat, the US learns what does and doesn’t work in a modern theater with regard to strategy, tactics and weapons. Potentially they will learn enough to simply arm Taiwan to defend itself. The flip side of that is they might learn the wrong lessons, and only learn enough to help defend Taiwan if they were in the same position as Ukraine.
I dunno, if I were China, the calculus of “How weak do I want Russia?” and “How much intelligence do I want the US to gather about their own system’s weaknesses?” would be hard to figure out.
India must be watching how crappily Russian stuff has been performing in Ukraine. I would guess and hope that they are pivoting towards buying Western arms only from now on.
I wonder. Russia’s poor performance is likely not because their equipment is worse. Also, there are reasons why India is reluctant to rely on the US and the West (although they are buying more arms from France, Israel, etc recently).
The US is not known to be a very reliable supplier in case of war or threats for third world countries. The US is conflicted between its role as a moral beacon, its own self interest, and its role as a colonial / hegemonistic power. Countries that relied on the US have often found themselves in a pickle in case of a war, depending on which of those instincts the dominates in the US. China and Russia have no illusions of being moral beacons, so are more reliable as arms suppliers.
Could you please provide some examples of this–especially related to the later part of your sentence. I can think of counter examples that were to the US’s detriment and I can think of high-horse examples not involving imminent military threat.
Let me start by saying that India does in fact buy weapons from the US.
What I was referring to is the fact that most of South America, Iran before the Ayatollah, Iraq before the Iraq war, Pakistan, etc were all major purchasers of US weapons. What happened though was when the US disapproved of their actions, the US was quick to embargo and then attack, in some cases.
The thing with weapons is that they are designed to protect a nation’s interests. What buying weapons from the US does is to make that support contingent on US approval of their use, effectively making them somewhat of a vassal state. Russia and China are less discerning. They tend to turn a blind eye to how the weapons are used.
In India’s case, it’s not that India is planning any nefarious use. However, India has had a very rocky relationship with the US in the past, when, for geopolitical and strategic reasons, the US backed Pakistan rather than India. India cannot be assured of unfettered access to supplies and support from the US in any war with Pakistan or China. So, while India is acutely aware that Russia is an increasingly unreliable supplier, India is also not rushing to embrace the US or the West.
In general, the US sells weapons to nearly every country who can afford it. Data over the last many years shows that. However, every so often, the US decides to stand by its morals and when it does, it freezes weapons sales. For example:
US was a major supplier of weapons to Iran. Then turned around and opposed Iran later.
US was a major supplier of weapons to Iraq. Then turned around and opposed Iraq later.
Colombia and Nigeria are major buyers of US weapons. Both experienced US wrath too.
Russia was a major supplier of weapons to Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Then those countries told Russia they weren’t in charge of their country anymore. Russia quit selling them weapons. Is there ANY country on the planet that sells weapons to other countries when said customers begin talking of attacking/ignoring supplier country interests?
That explains why China is a major supplier of weapons to Taiwan. Please point to ANY specific example of where Russia is selling weapons to a country with national interests that aren’t directly aligned with Russia’s national interests (up to and including inconveniencing the US/NATO).
Your “point” is facile and grossly ignorant of geopolitical reality in a desperate search for a “you do it too”.
If I may say so, you are arguing a different point than the one I am arguing.
The primary question was why would a country support Russia and what would make them turn away. I was pointing out one such reason using India as an example. In response a hope was expressed that India would drop Russia as a supplier. I was pointing out that its not quite that simple. Countries, like India, must take into account the calculus of the nature of the support, particularly from a country like the US.
I see that it irks you that India and other countries around the world do not see the US as a reliable backer or a reliable source of weapons. You are debating the merits of their position. I am not. I am not stating an opinion one way or the other as to whether India’s position is justified. I am merely stating how they view the US. It’s irrelevant whether they are right. All that matters is that they don’t trust the US.
I will concede that Russia and China have been just as unreliable and almost every country acts in their self interest. What I should have said is that countries like India believe that they cannot rely on the US’ interests and theirs to be aligned.
As to whether India is right in its suspicion of the US, you might not know the history here. India and Pakistan have been arch enemies since their independence. The US, since the 1960s has generally backed Pakistan. In the early 1970s, the US even sent an aircraft carrier to threaten India in its war with Pakistan. By contrast, the USSR and later Russia, has consistently backed India. While relations between the US and India have warmed and the geopolitical realities have changes, 30+ years of support of their enemy doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. I personally believe circumstances have changed enough that India should have a different political calculus today. However, I understand why India is reacting the way it is.
None of which has a damn thing to do with your original point which was (to remind you since you seem to have lost the thread here):
Which is silly, since as even you acknowledge, NO COUNTRY IS A RELIABLE SUPPLIER. Countries supply weapons for exactly as long as their own national interest dictates and no longer. This is as true for the US as it is for Russia, China, France, Germany, and the UK. Our biggest distinguishing factor here seems to be that for a while we’ve been terrible at judging that interest accurately, but almost always in the “hey, you seem nice, want some guns?” direction.
Should India trust the US? Probably not. On the flip side, the US shouldn’t trust India either.
Should India trust Russia? Probably not. Because India and China have conflicts too and China is about to have a MAJOR say over what Russia does.
China: “Hey Russia, you sell India those MIGs and we quit buying your gas and selling you rare earths for what’s left of your arms industry at ‘friend’ prices.”
Russia: “Okay. Hey India, fuck off.”
And Russia’s poor performance is certainly, at least in part, because their equipment is worse. Just look at the “active” armor on their tanks. Quantity over quality is baked into the Russian psyche.
A very large portion of the blame for Russia’s poor performance is due to the structure and doctrine of the Russian army, rather than their equipment. The Indian Army is vastly different, as this FaceBook post shows.
Which BTW I am pretty sure is among those pieces of gear that many of their customers have been taking a very close look at lately… you want at least to know if what they delivered to you is what it says on the bill of sale. And as mentioned if you have an actually competent army using and maintaining it at least you can try and avoid the worst.
Hmm. So you agree with my analysis and agree that India might not trust the US, and in fact, you go one step further in stating that India probably shouldn’t.
Your issue is an implication of the way I phrased my original statement. When I said: “The US is not known to be a very reliable supplier in case of war or threats for third world countries.” it could be read as me suggesting that in this regards the US is somewhat unique. That was not my contention. You are correct. The US isn’t unique in this regard. However, it does mean that when switching arms suppliers, it’s not like countries can just switch to the US or would want to become that dependent on the US.
If you are arguing that there are reasons why India should reconsider its relationship with Russia in the long run, I agree, In fact, they were already looking for other sources including insourcing, but its going to take decades. Most of India’s air force is comprised of Sukhoi Su-30MKI and Mig 29s.
You also state: “Our biggest distinguishing factor here seems to be that for a while we’ve been terrible at judging that interest accurately, but almost always in the “hey, you seem nice, want some guns?” direction.” - Are you suggesting the US only backs the good/nice guys? If so, who is being naive here?
Ya think? What I’m saying is that India, as long as it is dependent on foreign arms suppliers is always going to be beholden to a NOT “very reliable supplier in case of war or threats for third world countries.” No matter who they pick. There’s a reason the major powers build their own shit.
Wow, that’s quite a misread. What I’m saying is that while we like to think we only back the good guys, we’re not great at figuring out who that is. And there are a LOT of conflicts/hotspots where there just isn’t one to pick. And, even there, we’re not that great at figuring which one of the ‘not good guys’ is going to have their longer term interests remain aligned with ours . We also seem to specialize in “just enough help to lose painfully” and often in ways that leave lasting animosity towards the US (e.g, Batista, Marcos, the Shah, etc, etc, etc).
I’d imagine that the weapons built for export would be the least likely to end up being targeted for corrupt practices. Because they would end up under the control of people who aren’t beholden to the system of corruption within Russia, and who actually have a vested interest in not being screwed over by said corruption. If a shipment of tanks were found to be somewhat less well-built than advertised, it’s a safe bet we’d hear about that almost immediately, which would give away the whole game. I don’t think anyone in Russia would take that big a risk of ending the gravy train.