New answers tagged

0

Being those media outlets owned by the chinese state its quite like in russia where the info spread is very biased. and there's also many reports on china bribing foreign jornalists to spread there propaganda outside china as you can see for example in hte links: https://theprint.in/opinion/china-is-paying-foreign-journalists-including-from-india-to-report-...


6

We are living in a globalized economy. The rules of this economy are getting negotiated (or wrestled) between governments and other economic actors, and being the nation which sets the "blueprint" of the world order gives a distinct advantage to that nation, and indirectly to the citizens. Americans traveling abroad can usually find someone ...


0

I can't recall any other countries in the USA's alliance community whose interests are seen to be colliding with the USA's interests. The premise is flawed. The U.S. has conflicts with almost every country in the world over one thing or another, which is why we have on the order of 30,000 full time employees in the U.S. State Department to deal with all of ...


0

The interest clashing with someone is never beneficial. Russia and China may be the exception, instead of the "other big guns". The problem is, by having difficulties with Russia and China, the US may make the "other big guns" also have difficulties with them, somewhat willing and somewhat forced. And the US actually has much more ...


9

German and US interests collide frequently, but on balance the similarity of other interests is great enough to make that relatively noiseless. A very partial list, in additon to Nordstream: They disagreed about leaving the JCPOA with Iran. They disagreed about the 2003 Iraq war. A good example, Germany did not joint but it permitted the use of bases in ...


3

Take a look at the following map. *source of the map. The entire India-China border is rigged with the Karakoram and Himalayan mountain ranges which are at least 13,120 feet high from sea level. In order to open borders between India and China, and in order to make them economically viable, both countries will have to have the political and diplomatic will ...


4

The distance between the most industrialized region of China, its Eastern coast and India is great enough such that maritime transport is likely going to remain the most economical mode of trade. E.g. the distance between Shenzen and Dehli is some 3,750km, well over the 1,500km taken to be the efficiency breakpoint between rail and naval transport. Still, ...


5

The political will doesn't exist to make it happen, and given the physical geography of the border region, it would take a lot of cash and political will. The border between India and China is some of the hardest terrain in the world. It is a nearly unbroken line of mountains. In the areas in which the border is undisputed, it is because there is a clear ...


4

Doubt it. China never traditionally bought much weaponry from the Europe/USA so it is very hard to see what important systems a 1989 embargo would have stopped being sold. China has had several weapon procurement phases since 1949: Soviet-supplied. This ran all the way up to the China-USSR skirmishes in the late 60s. (bad Russia relations): Indigenous ...


2

What is the timeframe of the question? Today China has a large and capable military. A generation ago it was even larger, but much less capable. Basically, they were forced to catch up on their own, which can be a mixed blessing. The RAND Corporation, an American think tank, has produced this report to show how far China has managed to narrow the gap. China ...


2

Improving transport links between the Northeast division of India with the rest of India has been a long term project of India. Originally India tried to persuade Bangladesh to allow for transport links including access to the port of Chittagong which is only 200km away from Agartawala, the capital of Tripura. However, Bangladesh has consistently refused. ...


0

Well, the US is surely more likely to see China (rather than India) as a main global competitor or adversary (depending exactly how you want to phrase this) as you point out in some of your comments. But I'll suggest that is not a sufficient explanation for the difference in US foreign policy. Simply put it, from the US/Western perspective, China has put ...


Top 50 recent answers are included