The 1998 nuclear tests are remembered as one of the defining moments in the nation’s history to highlight India’s rise as a global power under the leadership of former Prime Minister late Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
It seems India has a very hard time moving on from colonial times, and fail to realize that we are historically in a different era now.
And that Europe now respect international law more than most, that frame the right of self determination and right to trade to all countries.
Something Russia and USA fail to respect, and unfortunately a precedent China seems to begin to take lessons from.
I India wants a law based international world order that respect the sovereignty of countries, they should be working with Europe instead of Russia.
Europe always supported Israel as a victim of WW2, this support has been misguided for decades IMO.
At least it is finally dawning on many European political leaders that we cannot continue to support Israel, because their crimes cannot be defended by “the other side is just as bad” anymore. Europe is actually moving towards morality in general, not against it.
Regarding Afghanistan that was an FN mandated operation supported by most countries in the world. And it had some pretty good reasons behind it.
But in hindsight the operation was futile, and the atrocious religiously fundamental regime that we hoped to replace with something better is back. Oppressing everybody especially women based on fanatic religious beliefs. IDK why you call it Taliban vs. Israel, because AFAIK it was originally Taliban vs. USA.
So no Europe does not only respect international law when it’s convenient. Which is also why from day 1, USA was not allowed to use many European bases for their attack on Iran.
European countries have been following USA into questionable endeavors like the Iraq war, but already back then, many European countries were unwilling to help USA, because the operation was “questionable”.
And as it turned out, the intelligence that allegedly justified the action, turned out to be false. Which to many of us was no surprise. But USA fooled many governments. My own government was investigated for the issue, and the conclusion was that they did the right thing, because USA was crucial for our defense!
So yes that part is sick. We are not perfect, but we are trying to improve. And Iraq was themselves an aggressor, so they weren’t exactly innocent.
The invasion of Afghanistan only later became a UN operation, after the invasion began. And Iraq was the aggressor in the 80s not 2003.
I’m not encouraging, defending, or supporting the Taliban in any way. It was just the first example that came to mind. Hell the Iraq invasion would’ve made a better example as that had nothing to do with the UN.
And I’m not saying there isn’t a divide in Europe on Israel either.
But the countries in Europe for the most part have taken a stance to support Israel (examples being UK, FRANCE, and Germany) while also leading a military operation on a sovereign country.
There are many other examples and more the further back in time you’re willing to go. The French campaign in Algeria for instance.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. But you point is true.
Hell the Iraq invasion would’ve made a better example as that had nothing to do with the UN.
I agree, I was extremely mad at my government for falling for the American lies and joining USA in that.
But the countries in Europe for the most part have taken a stance to support Israel (examples being UK, FRANCE, and Germany) while also leading a military operation on a sovereign country.
This is sadly true, and the times I’ve heard that Israel is a democracy, as if that is an excuse. Why would a democracy have more rights to invade other countries? I am all for democracy, and I believe democracy is by far the best system of governance we have. But that doesn’t mean we have a right to break international law, or help other countries when they do so.
There are many other examples and more the further back in time you’re willing to go.
That is consistent with my point that Europe has generally improved to respect the rights of other countries more. Israel is a sore spot in that regard, other examples since WW2 were typically driven by USA, like instating the Shah in Iran and destroy their democracy. There is no reasonable basis for the way the west has treated Iran after they rebelled against the Shah. Except the insane immorality of having an official government death warrant on Salman Rushdie. But that has never been an argument against any of the sanctions or threats against Iran.
But that was never in any way used as an argument against Iraq, only the Kuwait invasion was. The invasion of Iran was politically irrelevant in the west.
I do concede the point that they’ve improved. Though there do remain other examples such as Lybia, Saudi campaign support against Yemen, and how the French have conducted themselves in the Sahel
Europe has nothing to do with Yemen on either side. I also don’t see why Libya is relevant, they’ve been a fucked up country for decades internally, with civil war and crazy leaders like Gaddafi. Sahel is a huge belt in Africa, and I have no idea what you mean with France behaving badly there lately?
Israel didn’t exist as a state until after WW2 was over. Europe supported Israel because they equated Israel with the Jews, based on the fallacy that it’s the natural order of things for every ethnicity to have its own nation state and the natural home for all Jews is Israel; and based on the prevalent European colonialist view that this nation-state rule didn’t apply to Arabs or Africans.
While I agree Europe bend rules sometimes, your examples are out of the place. Europe (NATO actually) assisted in Afganistan because it respected law - UN is authority in such cases and it authorized operations as per article 5 triggered by US. One can argue that Europe supported Israel but honestly EU part of Europe is just slow to react, even when they just need to withdraw support. I feel like EU didn’t want to support Israel (and looking at how mad orange man support was not according to expectations) but since it takes so much time for 27 countries to coordinate on foreign policy it was going by inertia.
Article 5 is NATO not UN. And multiple European countries partook in operations there against the Taliban (the Afghani government at the time) not just Al Qaeda before the UN mission became a thing.
You can also look at Iraq in 2003 which was neither in response to an attack or UN sanctioned.
As for foreign policy each country does maintain its own foreign policy to a certain extent. And yet the largest countries in the EU are staunch allies of Israel.
multiple European countries partook in operations there against the Taliban (the Afghani government at the time) not just Al Qaeda
Since it was the Taliban who were sheltering Al-Qaida (and lying about it), as well as hosting other jihadi groups, that part actually made sense. There was no way to go after Al-Qaida without also confronting the Taliban. The complication was that the Taliban had been created and were still supported by the Pakistani ISI (their CIA equivalent) and by elements of the Pakistani military.
It could have been done diplomatically but that wasn’t even attempted. And if supporting and sheltering terrorists is the main factor then I can think of some of their allies that they’ve yet to act against
I’m not saying Article 5 is UN. I’m saying UN authorizes NATO operations (including the one initiated by triggering article 5) meaning Europe’s participation in Afgan invasion actually example of following international law, not selectively ignoring it
Bullshit. Europe was ready to help Russia after they became a democracy, and gave up their occupations in Europe. It was Russia that ruined it completely and one sidedly.
After Putin took over, he very quickly began to do stuff that is inconsistent with cooperation, yet Europe tried to continue cooperation, because the European sentiment is that cooperation is the best way to become more friendly.
But Putin sabotaged it completely, sabotaging European politics, and performing war crimes against former Soviet states.
Taking Crimea in 2014 should have been the end of this cooperation, but even after that, Europe tried to continue to work with Russia.
It wasn’t until Russia invaded Ukraine that cooperation with Russia was finally ended. And it wasn’t until a couple of years ago, that politicians openly acknowledged that Russia has been interfering in European elections.
India is holding a double standard when they cooperate with Russia, and still blame Europe for colonialism despite European countries have abandoned it. And especially EU which has a treaty that requires respect for human rights.
How many countries have accepted human rights to a degree that they have to respect a foreign court on human rights issues?
ALL EU countries have done that!!
Europe was ready to help Russia after they became a democracy
Reagan sent neocon fanatics to Russia, which led to uncontrolled privatization in which ownership of billion-dollar entities fell into the hands of the mafia, the security apparatus and Yeltsin’s cronies. That set the stage for the current Russian kleptocracy under Putin. Europe helped former Warsaw Pact states far more than it did Russia, though there was some limited cooperation with Russia as well.
Generally speaking, the EU leadership has been overly cautious (as you said) in calling out Russian imperlism and its interference in European politics in general, and has been weak in enforcing sanctions on Russia. And signing up to treaties on human rights doesn’t seem to have prevented EU states from mass surveillance, or (in the case of Hungary under Orban, among other states) of undermining citizens’ right to vote, gay rights, or protection from state bullying.
As for India, Modi would love to be the Putin of southern Asia, and nothing would make him happier than a genocide against Indian Muslims.
Collapse of USSR was engineered by western powers which included EU. Yeltsin was very dear to washington and brussles, and the economic policies he adopted on the behest of World bank and IMF (primarily europe dominated institutions) led to death of approx 12 million russians and formation of the kleptocracy that brought putin in power.
Personally I belong to a place which had been a colony of France, and we do have a genial feeling towards France/French. It’s British towards whom we have that colonial master kind of feeling. Goa had to be freed through army intervention from Portugal, but no ill feeling towards Portugal today.
The British were extremely brutal in India, and I can understand that India doesn’t feel comfortable cooperating with UK, especially on for instance defense.
But UK is not in EU anymore, and still India seems to have that anti European sentiment, as if it was Europe and not UK that were the colonists.
Anyways I just find it sad that India prefer to cooperate with Russia, A country that today is clearly worse than Europe and China.
Not siding with USA however, has turned out to be a very good choice. USA has turned to absolute shit, and is extremely unreliable.
If you look at the headline, you would understand that Modi is a showman. If you believe that lndia is not siding with the USA, then probably you don’t have a proper understanding of the dynamics. You don’t need to be a student of international relations to see that a new world order is emerging. 7 days would have been a long time for the US to finish off the job in the middle east, yet what’s the situation today ??
Talking about defense per se, it’s simply a means to captivate and control the common people. You just need to glance at a map of south asia to question Bangladesh’s need to arm up. Are you aware of the news that a Chinese fighter jet had broken down in the air and killed several children ?? Why does Bangladesh need to invest in an airforce ???
It was very clearly an occupation, and as soon as the Soviet Union showed weakness, all eastern European countries left the Warsaw pact, and almost all sought membership of EU.
Russia had military intervention in several European countries when their people rebelled against the communist party in their country.
So not realizing that it was an occupation is denial of the truth.
It wasnt really. There is no proof that suggests that communism was unpopular in east. Ofcourse all those countries were taken over by liberal nationalists so they will obviously join EU
Most of those “rebels” were communist themselves, also it wasnt russia but soviet union, call it what it is. It wasnt occupation but an ideological alliance based on socialism, much like the EU is based on bourgeoisie liberalism
There is no proof that suggests that communism was unpopular in east.
There absolutely is a ton of evidence, the fact that Russia had to move in several time to protect the Communist regimes should be enough. But also the wide spread use of secret police, to keep the population politically controlled, the absolute oppression of anything politically different from Communism.
And the extreme rebirth of Christianity that was also oppressed by communism is also a very strong indicator of how unpopular Communism was.
The way Communism was removed in ALL eastern European countries and in the Soviet states too is an extremely clear indicator.
Most of those “rebels” were communist themselves
Obviously they were when that was the only option, but as soon as an alternative was made available they became former communists.
also it wasnt russia but soviet union
Russia was the main power in Soviet Union, just like Russia is the main power in the Russian Federation. The other regions don’t really have much say.
It wasnt occupation but an ideological alliance based on socialism,
No it was not, In Eastern Europe it was a military occupation by the Soviet Union of German held territories, where the Soviet Union instated communist governments, and the countries became vassal states to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet union interfered if the people of any of the countries tried to change that.
IDK how anyone can be so blinded by Russian propaganda, and yes I do mean Russian, because the Soviet Union was a Russian controlled empire, just like the Russian federation is today. You don’t even have facts straight that are extremely easy to check up on, you are either a victim of Russian propaganda, or a propagandist yourself.
What you are claiming is outright delusional.
It seems India has a very hard time moving on from colonial times, and fail to realize that we are historically in a different era now.
And that Europe now respect international law more than most, that frame the right of self determination and right to trade to all countries.
Something Russia and USA fail to respect, and unfortunately a precedent China seems to begin to take lessons from.
I India wants a law based international world order that respect the sovereignty of countries, they should be working with Europe instead of Russia.
nice joke, tell another
Exactly 💯… What does Europe even mean when it comes to respecting international law ?? Is Europe a nation that it respects international law ???🤔🤔
Europe like other powers respects international law when convenient.
Look at western Europe when it comes to the Taliban vs Israel. They assisted a US invasion of Afghanistan and they support Israel.
Europe always supported Israel as a victim of WW2, this support has been misguided for decades IMO.
At least it is finally dawning on many European political leaders that we cannot continue to support Israel, because their crimes cannot be defended by “the other side is just as bad” anymore. Europe is actually moving towards morality in general, not against it.
Regarding Afghanistan that was an FN mandated operation supported by most countries in the world. And it had some pretty good reasons behind it.
But in hindsight the operation was futile, and the atrocious religiously fundamental regime that we hoped to replace with something better is back. Oppressing everybody especially women based on fanatic religious beliefs. IDK why you call it Taliban vs. Israel, because AFAIK it was originally Taliban vs. USA.
So no Europe does not only respect international law when it’s convenient. Which is also why from day 1, USA was not allowed to use many European bases for their attack on Iran.
European countries have been following USA into questionable endeavors like the Iraq war, but already back then, many European countries were unwilling to help USA, because the operation was “questionable”.
And as it turned out, the intelligence that allegedly justified the action, turned out to be false. Which to many of us was no surprise. But USA fooled many governments. My own government was investigated for the issue, and the conclusion was that they did the right thing, because USA was crucial for our defense!
So yes that part is sick. We are not perfect, but we are trying to improve. And Iraq was themselves an aggressor, so they weren’t exactly innocent.
Wait a moment… Didn’t Europe send forces during the US invasion of lran ??🤔🤔🤔
WTF? how can you be so uninformed? Iran hasn’t even been invaded!!!
The invasion of Afghanistan only later became a UN operation, after the invasion began. And Iraq was the aggressor in the 80s not 2003.
I’m not encouraging, defending, or supporting the Taliban in any way. It was just the first example that came to mind. Hell the Iraq invasion would’ve made a better example as that had nothing to do with the UN.
And I’m not saying there isn’t a divide in Europe on Israel either.
But the countries in Europe for the most part have taken a stance to support Israel (examples being UK, FRANCE, and Germany) while also leading a military operation on a sovereign country.
There are many other examples and more the further back in time you’re willing to go. The French campaign in Algeria for instance.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. But you point is true.
I agree, I was extremely mad at my government for falling for the American lies and joining USA in that.
This is sadly true, and the times I’ve heard that Israel is a democracy, as if that is an excuse. Why would a democracy have more rights to invade other countries? I am all for democracy, and I believe democracy is by far the best system of governance we have. But that doesn’t mean we have a right to break international law, or help other countries when they do so.
That is consistent with my point that Europe has generally improved to respect the rights of other countries more. Israel is a sore spot in that regard, other examples since WW2 were typically driven by USA, like instating the Shah in Iran and destroy their democracy. There is no reasonable basis for the way the west has treated Iran after they rebelled against the Shah. Except the insane immorality of having an official government death warrant on Salman Rushdie. But that has never been an argument against any of the sanctions or threats against Iran.
Iraq attacked Iran at the USA’s behest in 1980
But that was never in any way used as an argument against Iraq, only the Kuwait invasion was. The invasion of Iran was politically irrelevant in the west.
Okay… So what do you think of lndia as a democracy ??🤔🤔
I do concede the point that they’ve improved. Though there do remain other examples such as Lybia, Saudi campaign support against Yemen, and how the French have conducted themselves in the Sahel
Europe has nothing to do with Yemen on either side. I also don’t see why Libya is relevant, they’ve been a fucked up country for decades internally, with civil war and crazy leaders like Gaddafi. Sahel is a huge belt in Africa, and I have no idea what you mean with France behaving badly there lately?
Sorry but here you lost me completely?!
Israel didn’t exist as a state until after WW2 was over. Europe supported Israel because they equated Israel with the Jews, based on the fallacy that it’s the natural order of things for every ethnicity to have its own nation state and the natural home for all Jews is Israel; and based on the prevalent European colonialist view that this nation-state rule didn’t apply to Arabs or Africans.
No Israel was created because the world felt guilty about what happened to the Jews in WW2.
I would think that would be pretty obvious.
What’s your definition of the world ??🤔🤔🤔
While I agree Europe bend rules sometimes, your examples are out of the place. Europe (NATO actually) assisted in Afganistan because it respected law - UN is authority in such cases and it authorized operations as per article 5 triggered by US. One can argue that Europe supported Israel but honestly EU part of Europe is just slow to react, even when they just need to withdraw support. I feel like EU didn’t want to support Israel (and looking at how mad orange man support was not according to expectations) but since it takes so much time for 27 countries to coordinate on foreign policy it was going by inertia.
Why would 27 countries have a common foreign policy ??🤔🤔🤔
They were supposed to be a commonwealth, right ???
Article 5 is NATO not UN. And multiple European countries partook in operations there against the Taliban (the Afghani government at the time) not just Al Qaeda before the UN mission became a thing.
You can also look at Iraq in 2003 which was neither in response to an attack or UN sanctioned.
As for foreign policy each country does maintain its own foreign policy to a certain extent. And yet the largest countries in the EU are staunch allies of Israel.
Since it was the Taliban who were sheltering Al-Qaida (and lying about it), as well as hosting other jihadi groups, that part actually made sense. There was no way to go after Al-Qaida without also confronting the Taliban. The complication was that the Taliban had been created and were still supported by the Pakistani ISI (their CIA equivalent) and by elements of the Pakistani military.
It could have been done diplomatically but that wasn’t even attempted. And if supporting and sheltering terrorists is the main factor then I can think of some of their allies that they’ve yet to act against
I’m not saying Article 5 is UN. I’m saying UN authorizes NATO operations (including the one initiated by triggering article 5) meaning Europe’s participation in Afgan invasion actually example of following international law, not selectively ignoring it
NATO has nothing to do with the UN.
They later did make it a UN mission but from September through December it was an unsanctioned invasion
Sure, but that goes against the point you’re trying to make.
How so?
I’d like to preemptively note that the UN resolution regarding Afghanistan didn’t happen until December while the invasion began in September.
Why Europe treats Russia as an enemy is their chemistry, just as there’s a great chemistry between Modi and Putin.
Bullshit. Europe was ready to help Russia after they became a democracy, and gave up their occupations in Europe. It was Russia that ruined it completely and one sidedly.
After Putin took over, he very quickly began to do stuff that is inconsistent with cooperation, yet Europe tried to continue cooperation, because the European sentiment is that cooperation is the best way to become more friendly.
But Putin sabotaged it completely, sabotaging European politics, and performing war crimes against former Soviet states.
Taking Crimea in 2014 should have been the end of this cooperation, but even after that, Europe tried to continue to work with Russia.
It wasn’t until Russia invaded Ukraine that cooperation with Russia was finally ended. And it wasn’t until a couple of years ago, that politicians openly acknowledged that Russia has been interfering in European elections.
India is holding a double standard when they cooperate with Russia, and still blame Europe for colonialism despite European countries have abandoned it. And especially EU which has a treaty that requires respect for human rights.
How many countries have accepted human rights to a degree that they have to respect a foreign court on human rights issues?
ALL EU countries have done that!!
Reagan sent neocon fanatics to Russia, which led to uncontrolled privatization in which ownership of billion-dollar entities fell into the hands of the mafia, the security apparatus and Yeltsin’s cronies. That set the stage for the current Russian kleptocracy under Putin. Europe helped former Warsaw Pact states far more than it did Russia, though there was some limited cooperation with Russia as well.
Generally speaking, the EU leadership has been overly cautious (as you said) in calling out Russian imperlism and its interference in European politics in general, and has been weak in enforcing sanctions on Russia. And signing up to treaties on human rights doesn’t seem to have prevented EU states from mass surveillance, or (in the case of Hungary under Orban, among other states) of undermining citizens’ right to vote, gay rights, or protection from state bullying.
As for India, Modi would love to be the Putin of southern Asia, and nothing would make him happier than a genocide against Indian Muslims.
I don’t know how to copy a line from the main comment, otherwise l would have copied the concluding paragraph.
And what does that have to do with Europe?
Collapse of USSR was engineered by western powers which included EU. Yeltsin was very dear to washington and brussles, and the economic policies he adopted on the behest of World bank and IMF (primarily europe dominated institutions) led to death of approx 12 million russians and formation of the kleptocracy that brought putin in power.
Personally I belong to a place which had been a colony of France, and we do have a genial feeling towards France/French. It’s British towards whom we have that colonial master kind of feeling. Goa had to be freed through army intervention from Portugal, but no ill feeling towards Portugal today.
The British were extremely brutal in India, and I can understand that India doesn’t feel comfortable cooperating with UK, especially on for instance defense.
But UK is not in EU anymore, and still India seems to have that anti European sentiment, as if it was Europe and not UK that were the colonists.
Anyways I just find it sad that India prefer to cooperate with Russia, A country that today is clearly worse than Europe and China.
Not siding with USA however, has turned out to be a very good choice. USA has turned to absolute shit, and is extremely unreliable.
If you look at the headline, you would understand that Modi is a showman. If you believe that lndia is not siding with the USA, then probably you don’t have a proper understanding of the dynamics. You don’t need to be a student of international relations to see that a new world order is emerging. 7 days would have been a long time for the US to finish off the job in the middle east, yet what’s the situation today ??
Talking about defense per se, it’s simply a means to captivate and control the common people. You just need to glance at a map of south asia to question Bangladesh’s need to arm up. Are you aware of the news that a Chinese fighter jet had broken down in the air and killed several children ?? Why does Bangladesh need to invest in an airforce ???
Removed by mod
It was very clearly an occupation, and as soon as the Soviet Union showed weakness, all eastern European countries left the Warsaw pact, and almost all sought membership of EU.
Russia had military intervention in several European countries when their people rebelled against the communist party in their country.
So not realizing that it was an occupation is denial of the truth.
It wasnt really. There is no proof that suggests that communism was unpopular in east. Ofcourse all those countries were taken over by liberal nationalists so they will obviously join EU
Most of those “rebels” were communist themselves, also it wasnt russia but soviet union, call it what it is. It wasnt occupation but an ideological alliance based on socialism, much like the EU is based on bourgeoisie liberalism
There absolutely is a ton of evidence, the fact that Russia had to move in several time to protect the Communist regimes should be enough. But also the wide spread use of secret police, to keep the population politically controlled, the absolute oppression of anything politically different from Communism.
And the extreme rebirth of Christianity that was also oppressed by communism is also a very strong indicator of how unpopular Communism was.
The way Communism was removed in ALL eastern European countries and in the Soviet states too is an extremely clear indicator.
Obviously they were when that was the only option, but as soon as an alternative was made available they became former communists.
Russia was the main power in Soviet Union, just like Russia is the main power in the Russian Federation. The other regions don’t really have much say.
No it was not, In Eastern Europe it was a military occupation by the Soviet Union of German held territories, where the Soviet Union instated communist governments, and the countries became vassal states to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet union interfered if the people of any of the countries tried to change that.
IDK how anyone can be so blinded by Russian propaganda, and yes I do mean Russian, because the Soviet Union was a Russian controlled empire, just like the Russian federation is today. You don’t even have facts straight that are extremely easy to check up on, you are either a victim of Russian propaganda, or a propagandist yourself.
What you are claiming is outright delusional.