India is hoping it can convince Intel and TSMC to set up new fabs in the country
They might want to stop cosying up to Russia, then.
India is hoping it can convince Intel and TSMC to set up fabs in the country as part of their multibillion-dollar manufacturing expansion blueprint. Bloomberg reported Tuesday that India's government is making pitches to both companies, backed with a $10 billion subsidy plan that can be used to cover up to half of the cost of …
You know nothing of history or the memory of Indians.
In the India-Pakistan war of 1971 which lead to the emergence and creation of Bangladesh, the USA backed Pakistan. Russia backed India. With American threats looming, Russia (or the USSR then) sent numerous ships to warn the USA not to target India. That has not been forgotten in India. As far as India is concerned, the USA is not a friend.
Nixon lied, he acted contrary to the toy town political apparatus called Congress, he ignored all the genocide being committed by Pakistan. It was of course not just Nixon. He was merely at the top.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Bit ironic, if you replace India with Ukraine, and USA with Russia, you're basically saying India is doing what Pakistan did back then.
"In the Ukraine-Russian war of 2022 which lead to the emergence and creation of Donbask, India backed Russia. The USA backed Ukraine. With Russian threats looming, USA sent weapons to warn Russian not to target Ukraine."
That would mean you are confirming India's current stance has no moral fortitude, if you think what happened to India back in 1971 did not.
The USA is actively arming an enemy of what is probably India's closest and most important ally. How does that look to you?
The Ukraine crisis came about not from Ukraine or Russia, but from the west (more specifically the USA) deliberately provoking a war with Russia. They put Russia into a position where a response was inevitable. There is not a single 'guarantee' that the USA could ever give which would be worth the ink on the paper.
So the response by Russia is to invade another country, claiming to their citizens to be removing “Nazis” as a “special operation”? By remove a Jewish elected head of state?
You’re not making any sense. Even Russia isn’t given your explanation to their people.
What atrocity would India’s so called ally have to do for India to wake up, have a moral backbone and disagree?
If Russia were genuinely a true ally and friend to India, India should not be afraid to criticise Russia, if it indeed is an equal participant in that relationship.
The fact that India cannot, speaks volumes of the real balance of power and dependence in that relationship.
(your answer also implies that India accepts that China may invade India, If China feels India is a threat, and take Indian territory. After all, according to their history, the Indian border is all wrong, and India is arming itself.)
From an outside perspective, Ukraine is a regional conflict within Europe. As a European, what’s your opinion on the rights and wrongs of Partition including Bangladesh, and status of Kashmir? And, for example, on recent incursions and military escalation?
The correct answer is “I actually don’t know. Its not that I don’t care. It’s incredibly complex, with histories going back centuries that I don’t understand, 28 states just within India that I don’t understand each with their own agendas, the worlds *two* most populous democracies both with autocratic elements and risks, that I don’t understand. What I do know is that I hope neither of the two nuclear-armed nations will escalate, as that would be both a humanitarian disaster and affect the rest of the world. But mostly, I don’t understand it well enough for any interference to be anything other than a disaster. We should remain neutral”.
Exactly why do you think India should support one side or another in Ukraine?
To show you just how bad this “I don’t understand” problem is: Russia is absolutely *right* that there are neo-Nazi elements operating in Ukraine. The Azov battalions. They happen to be allied to Zelenzkyy. Strategy makes very strange bedfellows. Zelenskyy, while democratically elected, and less bad than the previous Russian-puppet regime, is himself distinctly problematic and very corrupt with autocratic leanings. The only reason why the EU is supporting Zelenskyy as opposed to “the other guy” is that there was a vote in 2008 as to whether Ukraine should apply to join EU, which passed, and previous President rather than just accept the vote, said “yes, but, can we take a pause” *as stated in the Ukraine constitution, and in fact as the only constitutional role of the President*. So. There were popular demonstrations (not surprisingly. As in any democracy) and the President suppressed those with military violence. Which is when he lost the moral ground.
So, I don’t know how to break this to you, but you *are* on the same side as neo-Nazis. And you *are* on the same side as an anti-constitutional popular coup. In a civil war several thousand miles way. Fought as a proxy war between an enlarging EU, taking territory from what was part of the Soviet Union just forty years ago.
The fact that Russia is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and probably millions, most of whom clearly want to be independent and prefer to be in EU. Is true. But it does not excuse the EU from forcing the situation that led to this. It’s. Complicated.
You are taking sides in a nuclear-armed civil war, that you very much do not understand. India are wiser than you.
I've been thinking along those same lines.
Although, I wonder: Is the percentage of neo-nazis in Russia lower/higher than in Ukraine? Is it even relevant?
There's also the nagging fact that Putin has managed to antagonize many of his neighbors over the years. Support for Ukrainie seems strong in most of the former USSR countries.
Plus: Why is a stronger NATO perceived as a threat against Russia? Why can former USSR countries, EXCEPT Russia, qualify to become NATO allies? What makes Russia the exception? (the low score on Democracy ratings is my guess -- which is something they should fix as it would benefit their citizens greatly)
> Why can former USSR countries, EXCEPT Russia, qualify to become NATO allies?
Because of Russia’s foreign policy? Look at what they are doing now.
They don’t recognise the right to self determination of the Ukrainian people. They question it of all the former USSR countries.
China and Tibet, India and Kashmir, and more for sure. can’t see them being allowed either.
Because of Russia’s foreign policy? Look at what they are doing now.
I was asking from their point of view. Why haven't they taken the same path their neighbors did? Why continue in the "USSR Redux" fashion?
I'm aware there are exceptions. Hungary seems to have at least one leg stuck in the past. But they are still miles ahead of Russia.
Ukrainian civilians are being killed by an invading force. The Ukrainian people did not ask for help from this uninvited force. The Ukrainian people are resisting. Nobody asked Russia to bomb up Ukraine, rape and starve civilians.
Invading, uninvited force is wrong. Military annexation is unjustified. End of.
Don’t know what that has to do with your antiEU comments.
No other information changes the morality of Russias actions.
Zelensky not being an angel does not change this. Nobody is stating that whatever Zelensky says and does is right.
More Ukrainian civilians have died than Azov battalions, a fringe group in the wider context.
There are other solutions to Russia if it were genuinely about neo nazis in the world.
Can you posit any unknown fact that would make the military invasion of a democratic country and its capital, justified without actual offensive actions by the attacked nation?
Signing documents and joining organisations does not count.
If Ukraine had a nuke pointing to Russia sure, even Russia isn’t claiming that. Russia is pointing nukes elsewhere though.
India isn’t wise, they’re just Russia’s bitch. Maybe India is forced into this by Russia, but Russias murderous war is far from forced on them.
No, read what I said:
I despise Russia’s actions, Ukraine has every right to resist, I hope Ukraine win.
But: the *war* was caused by Ukraine being suckered in by EU promises, which inevitably led to Russian invasion. Doesn’t make what Russia did anything but genocidally immoral….but the whole situation was: predictable, widely *predicted* in early 00s, easily avoidable, and a direct consequence of EU policies in the region. If EU had not existed, but NATO did, this war would not have happened. And EU needs to stand up and take responsibility for the *consequences* of its actions, not weasel away with “good intentions”. And
As to Zelenskyy not being an angel. My point is that “the West” has a very long history in multiple conflicts over 70 years, of supporting the “least bad” resistance, in fights it has a very simplistic understanding of, against “clear and present evil”….only to find soon after that doing something can indeed be very much worse than doing nothing.
Have you forgotten supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan….who later turned out to be the Taliban?
Or toppling Sadam Hussein….who later turned out to be the very unpleasant genocidal dictator protecting us against the rise of ISIS? Ditto Assad in Syria, very frankly. Or US&Uk support for Pinochet….because South American Communism?
How has French political and military intervention in Mali and Chad turned out over the past three decades? Has it resulted in spectacular democracies brimming with wealth? No. The outcome has been perma-civil war for as long as the French “helped”.
At some point you have to accept that the lesson of history, is that intervening in a region far from you is not just a coin toss. You actually get it wrong more than right. Every time the situation comes up, it just seems immoral to sit on the sidelines. But if experience teaches you that the outcome is likely to be more anarchy and more death squads, perhaps just stop and think if giving anti-tank weaponry is really such a smart idea.
Just for starters: you know very well where old uncontrolled war zone weaponry goes to die in 30yrs. We all do. It ends up in the hands of arms dealers who sell to criminal gangs and terrorists. So, those Switchblade drones and NLAW antitank are going be in the hands of Trump supporters, and Marine Le Pen supporters, and ISIS. And as we’ve seen, there’s zero defense against them. No presidential motorcade, no EU Commissioner sitting in their car, no German parliament building is safe. Beginning in maybe twenty years time, you’re looking at basically open season of individualised assassination of every politician by random internal fascists of their own countries. And that clock started ticking two weeks ago. You started the clock.
No, I’m not “wanting politicians to be assassinated”. Yes, the assassins will be the guilty murderers. But they are *predictable consequences*.
Still happy about the consequences of your decision?
Screw the principles - after all, both the US and Europe have been screwing the principles forever.
How many European or American sanctions were imposed on China when it tried to salami slice India? None.
How many sanctions on Pak for the attacks on the Indian parliament? For the Mumbai terrorist attacks? None.
Time to stop selling the moral backbone concept - pretty much everyone knows the West don't have any.
It's not the responsibility of India alone to be principled, particularly since the powers who talk about a rules based world order pay only lip service to aforesaid principles.
Neither the US nor Europe have actually reduced resource consumption from Russia, so kindly put your lectures where the sun don't shine
Your justification is entirely selfish - it is just about what benefits India.
There is a country here called Russia that is INVADING another country.
It does not matter what history you want to pick and quote, nothing makes an INVASION of an independent nation OK.
You might as well say Genghis Khan did it, so why not now.
Paraphrasing that Indian TV idiot, "Don't tell us Indians what to do, you colonial minded westerners, but of course Russia must be allowed to tell what Ukrainians should do."
If the USA invaded New Delhi in 1971, you'd at least have a toe to stand on.
If you agree with Russia, you agree that an India, without independence, under British rule, was and is OK.
India was a country that was honorable - it's now a fascist state in the making.
-> Your justification is entirely selfish - it is just about what benefits India.
My view of myself and my thinking: I am an awake realist.
-> nothing makes an INVASION of an independent nation OK.
And how many countries has the USA invaded? I don't recall Iraq asking to be invaded.
-> India was a country that was honorable - it's now a fascist state in the making.
I am not sure if it is a fascist state in the making, but it's certainly becoming more and more Hindu nationalist. An interesting point: there are several hundred languages in use in India, some much more than others. English is the second language for a lot of people there initially because of the British Raj, but also because Indians themselves today do not want to speak Hindu lest it becomes the 'only' language of India. I have no quarrel with India, Russia, Ukraine, etc.
‘ awake realist’
Careful now, that’s treacherously close to being a mere populist sympathiser.
I am confident you’ll wake up more when you are in a war zone, and the reality of your Russian sympatheties become clear. And your loved ones are dying and you can tell them - it’s not as bad as what the US did.
It’s interesting that all your answers don’t actual justify the action itself, merely that someone else (in your case USA) did it too.
See evil, so do evil? I don’t think that’s a thing that you can take any moral high ground on.
-> It’s interesting that all your answers don’t actual justify the action itself, merely that someone else (in your case USA) did it too.
And the USA, how it complains when some other country does what it does all too often. Its nose is still out of joint about losing in Afghanistan. The Russians were too kind - they should have provided anti-aircraft missiles to the Taliban. The USA did in the past, after all.
So again, the USA did wrong, so India wants to do wrong?
“USA did it so India did it” will not stand as a defence for India. It’s not an explanation, for an independent nation, it’s an excuse.
Is India supporting the invasion of an independent, democratic country right or wrong? The moral choice of the stance that India takes has nothing to do with any other country but India.
Anyway India is irrelevant to the outcome of Ukrainian war, but its soul is eroded forever by selling itself to the darker side of history.
I'm glad that somebody else knows about the caste system. It is truly horrible. In an earlier comment there was reference to India being an 'honourable' country. The caste system is ingrained in India. While there are more enlightened minds there, this enlightenment does not always extend to those in the so-called lower castes. Frankly I detest it.
If India really wants to take a big step forward and show something to the world, it should thoroughly get rid of the caste system. But, as I just wrote, it's ingrained there.
“Nothing makes the invasion of an independent nation OK”.
But what actually is an independent sovereign nation, these days? Are any of Catalonia, Basque, Corsica nations? You know perfectly well that all of those regions would vote for independence if allowed a vote. And right now you have Puigdemont in jail purely for the crime of organising such a vote. Or are popular votes only binding when they come out with the answer you like? Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. As Russia got weaker, it stopped being so. Now the Soviets want it back.
This war is a direct consequence of the actions of the EU. Absolutely everyone who looked at the situation in 2008 said, in so many words, unless the EU changes its course it will come into direct nuclear conflict with Russia. For the love of God, either stop expanding your eastern frontier, or make your own provisions for nuclear war and stop depending on the kindness of strangers. Again, and. Again. And again. You were told.
A lot of the problem, is that the EU de-sovereign project has thrown all the chess pieces up in the air. Never mind Ukraine, is Germany even an independent nation? Well, most of its laws are made in Luxembourg, its own laws don’t have primacy anyway, it doesn’t control its borders, it’s military is barely functional, it’s foreign policy is determined by France, it doesn’t have its own currency, it doesn’t control much of its tax policy, it doesn’t control its customs policy, so errrr….no. It isn’t. Germany is not even close to meeting any definition of a country.
Nobody has a *clue* who actually determines policy in the EU, and therefore what the likely response would be. Hence Putin thought f* it, I’ll have a go.
Even now: will Germany continue to import Russian gas? I don’t know. Does Scholz have the Final say - or can von der Leyen impose an answer? I don’t know. Not a scooby. More importantly, neither does Putin. In these circumstances, you must expect the other side to roll the dice. They don’t just sit there passively waiting for you to make your edicts.
> But what actually is an independent sovereign nation, these days?
A border recognised by the majority of other nations. Largely by consensus of majority.
wanting to form new nation states can be debated, but once a nation state, arising from the freely exercised self determination of those peoples, is created, no take backs by former occupiers. End of.
Whatever the EU or US does, Russia cannot invade another democratic nation, without an immediate, imminent and critically urgent threat.
Russia does not get to wind back decades and pick their favourite border from independent nations. No country does.
Please stop with your anti EU sentiments to justify a wrong.
The EU *offers* membership, they never imposed membership, only the terms and conditions of membership have to be agreed to, as you would have, and need to have, in any collective.
Every one of those countries are free to leave, as quite plainly the UK has done. Not one EU nation was forced to join or annexed.
EU laws are made by committee and consensus of the member nations. Just like westminister does for England (and with some contention for the UK), but the EU does it on a grander scale. A difference is Scotland has to ask Westminister to leave, but EU nations don’t.
As far as “the majority of other nations” are concerned, the nation is the EU. It has some regions; only specialist geeks may know more. You’ve mentioned borders as a defining characteristic of nations. The EU of course doesn’t really have political borders other than some pretty lines on a map, as they aren’t customs or passport borders. When a Russian buys a Cypriot passport, they buy it for the whole EU, that’s the whole *point*.
In the majority of international negotiations, “the majority of other nations” don’t see the decision making as your “nations”. For what matters to them, von der Leyen is the Head of EU, Speaks for Europe, and has been empowered to act on their behalf. At the G20 summit, Head of EU is there, and she had some “room meat”. The details of whatever internal rules and sets of agreements were required to get her there, is of no importance.
Do you know the names of the 28 states of India? Do you know what languages each speak? Do you know the name of the Governors of each state, or anything about the Legislative Assembly of each State.
A state like Uttar Pradesh *on its own* has over 180 million population - that’s France and Germany put together. Do you “recognise” India State borders? Yes, of course, they’re on the map and their right to organise. Perhaps there are checks when you go from one state to another, perhaps not. Perhaps they have some independent legislative ability, perhaps not. You don’t know.
Honestly, there’s far more difference between, say Karnataka in the South (contains Bangalore, speaks Kannada and Hindi, GDP per capita similar to many Eastern European states), and somewhere like Rajasthan that’s closer to Zimbabwe. Than between Germany and Austria, two German-speaking nations with similar GDP, a point that somebody made forcefully some years ago during Anschluss.
Oh, and for a bit more “do you even know what you don’t know”, read up on the Volhynian slaughter of Poles by Ukrainian nationalists. And for balance, the ethnic cleansing in the other direction that led to that.
I can’t be bothered with the Brexit crap. It’s been well-rehearsed enough already.
I just wanted you to know what your EU empire looks like from outside. And in particular from India which I have the smallest passing knowledge of, having worked there for six months, and wouldn’t pretend to have any idea of the deeper workings of. The one thing I’d say? Read the Times of India regularly. You’ll find out that all sorts of stuff you believe is just total rubbish. Top headline today?
Wait a second. I’m sure that it’s *Galileo* which is required to land planes precisely using satnav. That’s what they told me. The Galileo Full Operational Capabiility, due in 2022 or 2023. What’s this about India *already* having that capability using ISRO satellites. Say it ain’t so.
Yeah, and Covid is still a thing in India. And there’s a major heatwave. Your European regional conflict is important….but far from top billing…..and your support is at only about 60/40. Not that people support Russia, mostly they just think Europeans killing Europeans, nothing new, where were the Europeans when we needed their support.
There is no cohesive message in your response.
There are stuff happening in India so no time for global issues? Then tell the UNSC no time for the global stuff.
No one has asked India for support, it is absolutely fine not to send military, weapons, and so on.
The point is moral choice. It does not cost money, but costs something far deeper.
Even if the person asking is immoral, the choice to respond can and should be moral, because that is about your character, rather than describing it as a sport, a competition, to the most morally bankrupt.
Indeed the conversation in India could have been “despite the west’s lack of morality, India has chosen the moral high ground, to stand by right, and for humanity”. That was how India built respect under Gandhi, because he stood and led the nation to the bright side of history. All of it is being destroyed by this Modi, right wing, Hindu nationalist, fascist state.
It is probably true when the race/religious wars start in India, Russia is a better ally. It’s all still incredibly wrong. The west will describe it as genocide probably, as modi gujarat history implies. These frequent Indian riots do involve reckless killing of ethnic minorities.
Inward investment will come in, but it makes sense for India’s foreign policy to ask Russia and also repair Chinese relations for it.
In summary, India made its choice, it is economically nor politically the right destination for the west, so for political amiability, at least Russia and China is better to target, and so those industries need to be chosen, not tech manufacturing.
Economically India needs to really get its act together, considering how about three decades ago, India and China were on par, and now they are miles apart.
For eg gdp per capita
India even had the advantage of language, education at the time.
There’s a perfectly cohesive message. It’s so easy to raise placards that “something must be done”, when you see evil abroad in the world. What’s much harder, is to identify who you can safely give anti-aircraft missiles to. Simply as a matter of historical *fact* foreign interventions tend to result in more death and destruction, than sitting on your hands. However well-intentioned.
Simple example: *with the benefit of hindsight*, please describe how the West should best have intervened to prevent al-Assad murdering his citizens with chemical weapons. Taking it as read that what we *actually* chose to do was well-intentioned, unsuccessful, resulted in many more deaths, and actively resulted in consequences opposite to our intent. I’d like the actual names please of some leaders and organisations who we should have given weapons to, and how the support should have been done.
If you can’t pick the moral, successful action *with hindsight*, what hope have you to get it right in Ukraine?
Indeed see the evident difference - the Poles are supporting Ukrainians, because they know it is the right thing to do.
It shows the difference in the thinking and maturity, rising above point scoring. This is the difference, and makes my point.
Great respect for Poland, now that I know this history, even if that was under an occupying force.
They could have just condemned Russia for political benefit (as it is obvious the west alignment is better for them as a free self determining nation) and left it at that.
They didn’t and haven’t.
Ted Kennedy flew to Bangladesh to give a speech in favor of Bangladeshi independence. Many supported it in the US - people raised a lot of money for Bangladesh. The US recognized Bangladesh just 3 months after Russia did.
I think more to the point is that Modi had been on a US blacklist - unable to enter the country - for his organizing of Muslim massacres. Then eventually he was elected president and had to be removed. But Modi hasn't forgotten, and knows that of the Americans who carry the torch of those who recognized Bangladeshi independence, most consider Modi a human turd. In contrast, those who carry Nixon's torch are mostly big Modi supporters. Roger Stone - a famous Trump backer and longtime hardcore right wing activist - has a tatoo of Nixon on his back. And I don't think Modi would mind at all. A tatoo of Ghandi though - that would probably be too much.
You're getting literally nothing right. There's no 'US blacklist'. Modi is not and has never been President - not even of his own party, much less the country. And there's no 'Ghandi'. No one in India knows who Roger Stone is. You'd be hardpressed to find anyone who recalls who Nixon was. It was literally 50+ years ago. India is YOUNG - more than half the population is younger than 35.
You know nothing of history or the memory of Indians.
Oh, I know some of the history, and as the old saying has it those who don't learn from it are destined to repeat it.
My point is that no matter what past relationship India had with previous Russian administrations, if it wants to attract inward investment from western or western-looking nations it needs to reconsider its relationship with the Putin regime. At the moment its an either-or choice, it won't be able to have both, although it's India's decision, of course.
India has very poor power infrastructure, and fabs needs very clean water supplies, and waste disposal systems.
India's alignment with Russia also makes this very unlikely, indeed a strategic risk for any company, given the investment size required.
This is probably a political PR stunt by the Modi government, in terms of data India is doing poorly economically, so this is a helpful distraction, and probably fodder for more anti-west sentiment to play politics with. (They won't invest in fabs here...)
Let's face it, you need to know when to walk away from old friends, especially when they are on the wrong side of history. India unfortunately has no options, that they have to choose a murdering Russian regime, and their autocrat and have to quote history from 50 years ago to justify it.
Ironically, India does not agree with Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir, but now they are happily agreeing to with Russian-occupied-Ukraine. It's a bit comical, but when you have no justification and no options, what else are you gonna do? Let's be clear, Ukrainians do not want Russia.
It will certainly just be a matter of time when Russia will have to choose between China and India, it's easy to guess who Russia will side with, and India should be very wary of that. I suspect India will have to follow whatever Russia dictates at the time, as there will be no one to turn to.
India is on a road to even fewer options. I suspect as now the educated will emmigrate to the west and China by then.
This post has been deleted by its author
I don’t get your response.
You’re basically saying the USA has done bad things, so India wants to now.
At best it is “someone else did wrong things, so why not me?”
“More deaths have happened, so fewer deaths are OK?”
It’s still wrong. It’s still amoral. It isn’t a race to match the be of dead.
You seem to be seeing so much red with the USA, that youb are unable to see how weak and amoral your justifications ate.
Water is not an issue. Not only do fabs not use that much water compared to agriculture, they need VERY clean water. So it doesn't really matter how crappy the water they get is, the added expense of cleaning it from "typical India water supply" to "typical Taiwan/South Korea/US water supply" is tiny compared to how much they spend cleaning it to the requirements of the fab itself.
Plus while the US or Taiwan may experience droughts, that's never a problem in many regions of India!
Fab plants in Indiia will probably increase coal burn. Until India commits with a credible plan for no-fossil fuelled energy programme it would benefit the world (and India) if energy intensive industries locate in more climate friendly jurisdictions.
A hard choice but we all share the threat of global heating, India more than most.
Always funny to read Brits , from a country that pillaged and looted India, runs around wagging fingers in peoples faces about what India should or should not do about some country invading another.
The best response here is the one where the person stated that Ukraine is a European regional conflict. That's what it is to Asia. The Russo-Ukraine conflict is two sets of Europeans killing each other. Western Europe and Russia have been at each others throats for generations now. Doesn't matter who's in Russia - Stalin, Putin, Nextguyin.
This is a European ethnic conflict whose details fundamentally only matter to Europe. On one side you have western Europe composed of a bunch of colonial countries who are just 2 generations removed from plundering the world, a few who were busy doing atrocious things in war, and another set of countries who were busy doing more atrocious things to their own people and their enemies.
To India and the rest of Asia, all the gory details from either side of the war are as interesting as the minute historical details of some Asian conflict region are to a European. It's a shame, but it's been going on forever, shrug.
This is literally true for Europe. It's period of peace in the late 20th century is fundamentally an aberration. Your ancestors have been killing each other endlessly for 1000+ years. Now it's just started all over again - the Anglosphere blaming the German world blaming the Russians blaming the... wheels within wheels.
You want our support ? Come back with a list of all our conflicts where you sanctioned the other guy and tripped over your shoelaces in your haste to support India. Let's see if you're worth actually supporting eh ?
India's role in Ukraine was to get its people out. It has the global power to get Ukraine and Russia to stop fighting long enough to fly ferry flights to evacuate its own, Turks, even Pakistanis out of the war zone. That's literally all our skin in this fight is. Same as what UK or US would do in an Asian war - all that matters to you is getting your people out, then let the locals figure out on their own how to stop fighting.
Europeans have been killing each other for spectacularly long. 30 years war. 100 years war. World Wars. Europe is great at doing this at scale.
> You want [India's] support ?
No, you've forgotten where this thread started. According to the article, India wants the west's money -- in this case, new investment in chip fabs and factories, built in India, presumably staffed by Indian tech workers.
History, morals, etc. aside, that is less likely to happen if India is supporting other interests which are in conflict with the west.
>> To India and the rest of Asia
The "rest of Asia" is an embellishment - India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Iran, and some Middle East have chosen to support Russia. It is probably the first time India and Pakistan agree politically. That says something about India's choice here, given their history.
>> It has the global power to get Ukraine and Russia to stop fighting long enough
?? - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/indian-student-killed-in-ukraine-amid-criticism-over-evacuation
>> all that matters to you is getting your people out
You're talking like India is being asked to send troops.
It is not about telling India what to do, it is about the side in history India has *chosen*.
All the world's history is filled with wars - India's too. It's just poorly recorded, or rather Europe's is well recorded. Similarly most crimes and significant deaths are poorly recorded too, for eg, even today in India. There are many reasons for that - literacy, technology and so on.
It's like a self-inflicted complex - because the west is saying it, don't agree. The right or wrong of it seems irrelevant.
Besides if there was consistency, then that would be OK. Ask Russia and China for fabs then.
Do one thing, have a chat wirh Bojo and Biden and ask them to impose sections on india ? No, they won't,, they want india to buy their weapons.
Last week BoJo was in India literally rolling out the red carpet for Britain 's defence industry to sell to India. He wants India to be a partner I'm Britain's 6th generation fighter program. I can assure you intel would be setting up a fabulous fab soon, all it matters is just economics, no one cares for humanity.
Lol , what are you guys smoking?
Lol, the hypocrisy , shit smells the same , east or west..
>> ask them to impose sections on india
Then *that* would be forcing India, and all the rhetoric here would be true. India buys from Russia, that is why India is taking this position.
>> no one cares for humanity
Agreed that is India's position.
>> shit smells the same , east or west
True, so I guess you're sayong India wishes to shit in the open, because others have..
The justification in this comment is the equivalent of walking past someone stabbing a person, and saying "it's not my quarrel, I'm not calling the police, I buy from the attacker's shop. If they go to jail, I have to drive further for my shopping."
>> I can assure you intel would be setting up a fabulous fab soon
Define "soon". Intel have the whole world to play at, and South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, even the middle east makes *way* more sense, with infrastructure, transportation and storage. It is not a cost sensitive industry - the capex required dwarfs the salaries, and the business risk of an unfriendly and politically unstable country would make no sense to be the place to sink in billions.
Businesses who have tried in India, like Amazon, have been stung by the naked corruption, and political interference in courts.
Both have five-year plans that wish to do these things, India's follows 1% of it for a few days a month, China does 110% of it, and so completes it ahead of schedule.
China will get a leading edge fab before India, because they also have the money and the purchasing power in their economy, and political leadership that is consistent. You know what you get with China, with India it will change by the stars. A bribe is all it will take for Intel $10bn fab to be given to the Ambani for "national" reasons.
The sooner Indians stop believing their politician's and media's nationalist rhetoric and talk, and actually work to fix the nation, then these things become a reality. That will also allow for proper critique of foreign policy, instead of havng a "colonial victim" mindset all the time.
"China will get a leading edge fab before India, because they also have the money and the purchasing power in their economy, and political leadership that is consistent" - enough said , never realized that PRC keyboard warriors are also in tech forums, thought their day job was just confined to YouTube, Facebook and twitter.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022