X Close

The dawn of the Brics World Order India is losing ground to Russia and China

Chinese guards honour the arrival of Namibia's President Hage Geingob (WANG ZHAO/AFP via Getty Images)

Chinese guards honour the arrival of Namibia's President Hage Geingob (WANG ZHAO/AFP via Getty Images)


August 30, 2023   6 mins

Last week’s Brics summit was supposed to herald the dawn of a new world order. It would announce the end of the American era and the rise of another, this time belonging to developing nations. It would even, according to excitable analysts, be remembered as another Bandung Conference, the 1955 meeting that paved the way for a non-aligned movement during the Cold War.

And on that front, the gathering in Johannesburg succeeded. The organisation announced its first expansion since its founding in 2009: next year, the five original Brics members — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — will be joined by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia and Argentina (provided the current government wins the upcoming elections, which seems unlikely). Even more significantly, the summit underscored the bloc’s inclination to use its increasing economic clout to challenge the Western-dominated global order. The combination of these two elements — growing economic muscle and political boldness — means that the bloc (to be renamed Brics Plus) has become a full-blooded geopolitical actor that can longer be ignored.

In demographic and economic terms, the power of the Brics, especially in light of its recent expansion, is all too evident. With its new members, the bloc will represent almost half of the global population. In terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), the most appropriate measure for comparing the relative economic size of countries, it already represented nearly one third of global GDP — more than the US-led G7’s economies, which account for 30%. The latest additions will bring its share up to 37%.

This gap with the West will only widen, considering that emerging and developing countries are predicted to grow at much higher rates in the coming years, and that more countries are likely to join. More than 40 countries have reportedly expressed interest in joining, and 22 of them have formally asked to be admitted. In other words, the overwhelming majority of the world’s population lives in countries that are either already in the Brics or aspire to be.

The importance of this becomes even more apparent if we look at what countries produce, rather than just how much they produce. Over the past decades, Western economies have become increasingly financialised and seen their industrial production stagnate, meaning that a large part of their GDP doesn’t represent the production of actual goods but rather of financial assets. If we look at actual production — manufacturing — the gap between the West and the Brics is even starker: the G7 countries as whole contribute to global manufacturing output roughly as much as China does on its own.

But the growing power of this new alliance is about much more than just GDP and the production of stuff; it’s also about resources. The integration of two of the world’s top oil producers — Saudi Arabia and the UAE — means that the Brics members will account for more than 40% of global oil production. The fact that two of America’s staunchest allies in the Persian Gulf have decided to join a China-led (and increasingly politicised) alliance exemplifies better than anything else the paradigm shift underway. US officials can downplay the significance of the event as much as they want, but its symbolic value is clear — especially if we consider that the two Gulf countries are joined by Iran, one of America’s most notorious arch-enemies.

For the US, however, the consequences are likely to be more than just symbolic. The move potentially represents a serious threat to the petrodollar system. During the Seventies, Saudi Arabia made a deal with the US in which it agreed to list its oil on the global market in dollars; the dollars received by Saudi Arabia for its oil sales — the so-called petrodollars — would then be recycled back into the US in the form of deposits and purchases of US Treasuries. This, combined with the fact that any country that wants to buy oil has to purchase dollars to do so, has allowed the US to run a massive trade deficit for decades without seeing the dollar depreciate. It has been one of the keystones of America’s post-war global hegemony, allowing Washington to sustain a regime of perpetual war, on top of exercising financial dominance over much of the world.

In recent years, however, cracks have started to appear in the petrodollar system. Not long ago, Saudi Arabia announced that it was considering pricing its oil in other currencies — first and foremost the Chinese yuan — while the UAE has already sold oil to China using the yuan. Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s entry into the Brics is therefore likely to provide further momentum to this gradual shift away from the petrodollar system.

As a group, too, the Brics has leaned towards an explicitly pro-de-dollarisation stance. Last year, for instance, they announced plans to develop an international currency along the lines of the synthetic alternative proposed by Keynes 70 years ago, the bancor. At last week’s summit, Brazil’s President Lula reaffirmed it as a priority, though it is unlikely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, the Brics’s plan is to encourage the use of local currencies in international trade, as well as increasing the percentage of the bloc’s loans financed in local currencies.

Equally symbolic, in political more than economic terms, is the admission of Ethiopia. Not only is Ethiopia Africa’s second most populous country, after Nigeria; it is also where the headquarters of the African Union are located, in the capital Addis Ababa. The move here should be read as a message to the entire continent that the Brics is open to any African country that may want to join, as well as an affirmation of the bloc’s commitment to helping developing countries — Ethiopia is also one of Africa’s poorest countries. In his speech (read by the Chinese commerce minister), Xi Jinping in particular insisted on the role of the Brics as a fundamental vehicle for the development and emancipation of the Global South — primarily Africa.

Not that these countries need much convincing. Many African nations have already asked to join the Brics, along with several more in the Middle East and Latin America. There are strictly economic reasons for this: the bloc’s approach to global affairs and development — based on the principles of inclusive multilateralism and sovereign equality, and opposition to economic coercion — is seen by many nations as a better alternative to the current Western model, and as an opportunity to break away from economic and financial Western control.

As ever, there are deeper factors at play, too. For some, the Brics represents a “geopolitical umbrella” ostensibly offering a degree of protection in the face of the West’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy, epitomised by the Biden administration’s “dual containment” strategy against China and Russia, and the expansion of Nato and Nato-like alliances around the world. For others, the motivation might be the opposite: they might, as Branko Milanovic suggests, view the Brics as “the only place where nations not interested in participating in the new Cold War, or even in a possible hot war between the superpowers, can ‘runaway’ in order not to have to choose sides”. For others still, the motivation is more ideological: it is about explicitly challenging and weakening the West’s 500-year-old grip on global affairs, in what may be likened to a new decolonisation movement. This is particularly evident in some African countries.

On this issue, however, not everyone in the bloc is on the same page. Russia and China, for obvious reasons, favour transforming the group into a full-blooded political organisation speaking up for the Global South, countering US and Western hegemony, and spearheading the creation of a more equitable multipolar world order. In his speech, Xi said that the US “has gone out of its way to cripple emerging markets and developing countries; whoever is developing fast becomes its target of containment; whoever is catching up becomes its target of obstruction”.

South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa, meanwhile, drew a direct parallel between the Johannesburg summit and the Bandung Conference of 1955: “The Conference called for the recognition of the equality of all nations, large and small. We still share that common vision of a fair and just world.” Isaias Afwerki, the President of Eritrea, one of the many non-member countries invited to the summit, was even more scathing: “US exceptionalism — or pax americana — has unleashed malaises that have gravely impaired global progress for almost a century now. Illegal and unilateral sanctions; weaponisation of US dominated financial, economic and judicial institutions; as well as other punitive instruments in their toolbox are routinely invoked [by the US and its allies] to punish those who do not toe the line…”

Yet not all members agree with this confrontational approach. Modi’s India, in particular, which has very good relations with Washington and the West, including in the security field, is concerned about the Brics’s evolution into an explicitly anti-Western organisation led by China and Russia, and favours a more neutral approach — non-Western but not anti-Western. For the time being, however, it appears to be losing ground to the latter two, whose anti-hegemonic stance enjoys widespread support in the Global South.

Next year, then, will prove crucial for the future of the Brics — and of the world as a whole. Not only will membership of the new countries become effective, but Russia will also assume the annual presidency of the bloc. In other words, a country engaged in a de facto military confrontation with the West — assuming the war is still ongoing — will be representing an organisation encompassing half of humanity. If last week’s summit didn’t mark the start of a new world order, it will certainly start then.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

136 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve White
Steve White
7 months ago

This is a great summary of the BRICS+ movement and helpful explanation of the different motives behind those who want to see its success. There are a lot of things standing in the way of that success, and adding nations adds complexity and for anyone who has ever been on any kind of committee, the more people that are in it, the harder it is to reach a consensus or get anything done. Which is why a common currency for anything but trade resolutions seems unlikely.
`To me BRICS just looks like a huge global trade partnership (sans the West) with a development bank access, and nations capable of providing and implementing infrastructure projects. Which that seems like China’s Belt and Road initiative policies institutionalized. It’s also something the West so far has been either unwilling or unable to match in either posture or real investment.
Narratives about how it’s going to all fail , or how it’s secretly all sinister is probably the best the West will be able to muster. Which, the thing is, it might all end badly. The rise of the rest of the world with the help of big actors like China might end up imposing something worse on the world than we have ever seen, or it might not. It might be really good. The rise of multipolarism and greater global diplomacy might happen, and be a really good thing. For now, I’m taking an optimistic stance. 

Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

You have written the sanest analysis compared to both the one sided article as well as some of the comments steeped in prejudiced ignorance.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago

Steve has written some great comments, why was the article one sided??

Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

I agree with Steve. I meant Fazi.

Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

I agree with Steve. I meant Fazi.

Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
7 months ago

I meant the main piece. Not the comments by you. It is your comments I praised.

Carl Valentine
CV
Carl Valentine
7 months ago

Steve has written some great comments, why was the article one sided??

Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
7 months ago

I meant the main piece. Not the comments by you. It is your comments I praised.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

I agree improving on US dominance is a low bar.

Andrew Fisher
AF
Andrew Fisher
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Be careful what you wish for, I’d say. 20th century big picture choices: Bolshevik Russia; Nazi Germany and Mao’s China. Who each killed millions of people. Or the US. The first two especially were very plausible alternative possible world orders.

A still Marxist Leninist China has now revived, and many of the remaining states are brutally repressive – absolutely none of this discussion would be happening in those. So I’m still rooting for the West and in particular the US. We see all its many problems up close: we are obsessed with the place. By contrast the day to day brutality of India with its odious caste system (traditional, so that’s ok), persecution of tribal people, massive military occupation of Muslim majority Kashmir and just so many other examples gets a tiny fraction of the attention. And that’s one of the better ones. China, which of course has no plurality of media whatsoever, is vastly worded and of course simply lies on many issues.

Last edited 7 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Be careful what you wish for, I’d say. 20th century big picture choices: Bolshevik Russia; Nazi Germany and Mao’s China. Who each killed millions of people. Or the US. The first two especially were very plausible alternative possible world orders.

A still Marxist Leninist China has now revived, and many of the remaining states are brutally repressive – absolutely none of this discussion would be happening in those. So I’m still rooting for the West and in particular the US. We see all its many problems up close: we are obsessed with the place. By contrast the day to day brutality of India with its odious caste system (traditional, so that’s ok), persecution of tribal people, massive military occupation of Muslim majority Kashmir and just so many other examples gets a tiny fraction of the attention. And that’s one of the better ones. China, which of course has no plurality of media whatsoever, is vastly worded and of course simply lies on many issues.

Last edited 7 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Kent Ausburn
Kent Ausburn
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

The chance of a new world order led by China and Russia bringing something “really good” are essentially zero. Get real.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Why is a transfer of power to some of the most repressive governments in the world likely to be “a good thing” albeit much of it might be inevitable?

Investing in railways, roads and ports might sometimes be impressive , but some of the Chinese investment scarcely differs from that of the former “imperialist” western investment with huge strings attached which is routinely decried. The pure business case for some of the off shore investments, like the airport and port in Sri Lanka, seem to be economically useless and if you were a cynic almost designed to impose dependency.

In any case, this hardly amounts to a major benevolent social and moral purpose of states, with their awesome potential repressive power over their peoples.

Last edited 7 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

You have written the sanest analysis compared to both the one sided article as well as some of the comments steeped in prejudiced ignorance.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

I agree improving on US dominance is a low bar.

Kent Ausburn
Kent Ausburn
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

The chance of a new world order led by China and Russia bringing something “really good” are essentially zero. Get real.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Why is a transfer of power to some of the most repressive governments in the world likely to be “a good thing” albeit much of it might be inevitable?

Investing in railways, roads and ports might sometimes be impressive , but some of the Chinese investment scarcely differs from that of the former “imperialist” western investment with huge strings attached which is routinely decried. The pure business case for some of the off shore investments, like the airport and port in Sri Lanka, seem to be economically useless and if you were a cynic almost designed to impose dependency.

In any case, this hardly amounts to a major benevolent social and moral purpose of states, with their awesome potential repressive power over their peoples.

Last edited 7 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Steve White
Steve White
7 months ago

This is a great summary of the BRICS+ movement and helpful explanation of the different motives behind those who want to see its success. There are a lot of things standing in the way of that success, and adding nations adds complexity and for anyone who has ever been on any kind of committee, the more people that are in it, the harder it is to reach a consensus or get anything done. Which is why a common currency for anything but trade resolutions seems unlikely.
`To me BRICS just looks like a huge global trade partnership (sans the West) with a development bank access, and nations capable of providing and implementing infrastructure projects. Which that seems like China’s Belt and Road initiative policies institutionalized. It’s also something the West so far has been either unwilling or unable to match in either posture or real investment.
Narratives about how it’s going to all fail , or how it’s secretly all sinister is probably the best the West will be able to muster. Which, the thing is, it might all end badly. The rise of the rest of the world with the help of big actors like China might end up imposing something worse on the world than we have ever seen, or it might not. It might be really good. The rise of multipolarism and greater global diplomacy might happen, and be a really good thing. For now, I’m taking an optimistic stance. 

Arjun D
Arjun D
7 months ago

A very interesting article on a rather consequential development.

However, Westen soft power is still too strong for Brics or Brics plus or Brics Alpha to have much long term staying power.

As long as the global population consumes Hollywood and Westen media, wears Westen luxury brands and accessories, aspires to western luxury vehicles, reads western content, sends their children to western schools, colleges and universities, prefers western sons and daughters in law, maintains savings in dollars, euros and pounds in western banks in western countries, this new bloc won’t amount to much.

Till rich Emirati men are vacationing in Shanghai and Russian oligarchs are rocking up in Mumbai with their fortunes the G7 will remain paramount.

Last edited 7 months ago by Arjun D
Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

I think you are entirely right about the West’s strengths in culture and soft power but that, on the other hand, it has an Achilles’ heel in terms of finances – and especially in the use of the dollar as a reserve currency. I think we should see the BRICS threat more in that context.

For comparison, the downfall of the British was as much about declining financial strength as anything else. Having built up an enormous pool of investments by 1914 in America, Argentina, India, etc etc it had to sell half to finance WW1 and the rest for WW2. By 1945 it was running on IOUs of which one form was the continued willingness of many countries to hold their reserves as Sterling at the Bank of England. The history of 1945 to 1975 was largely a matter of these IOUs coming due and the British trying to cut their colonies, overseas garrisons and other commitments to economise – and simultaneously becoming subservient to their largest creditor, America.

Today America is basically where Britain was then. The only difference is that they have dissipated their foreign investments and accumulated IOUs to finance a credit driven boom rather than two world wars.

The Chinese are adept at exploiting the chinks in the West’s armour and usually astute enough to avoid challenging it where it is robust. On a military level, they developed relatively cheap long range missiles which have neutralised the US Pacific fleet. Now they are using the BRICS to hit America where it will hurt financially – by pushing the de dollarisation of official reserves and oil.

The Chinese are playing a more crafty game in this new Cold War than the Russians did in the old one – or Putin has recently. Maybe Go produces subtler strategists than Chess or Poker.

Last edited 7 months ago by Alex Carnegie
Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

How do you know the Chinese missiles have neutralised the US Pacific fleet ? That proposition has never been tested. Conjecture, not fact.
China has far bigger problems than the USA. Their debt problems are an order of magnitude worse than those of the US. As is their housing market bubble. All against a backdrop of demographic decline and failling competiveness. We’ll look back in 10 years time and realise that “peak China” was already behind us in 2023.
Another delusional article full of wishful thinking, but with no basis in reality.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

The US has unfunded liabilities of nearly $200 trillion. This isn’t only an economic but a social and political time bomb waiting to go off.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

I am not sure I would describe the observation that the Chinese are capable of some clever strategic moves as “wishful thinking”. Rather the reverse. Fortunately, they are also capable of some remarkably dumb ones such as “Wolf diplomacy”.

Missiles? Conjecture? Maybe but it is a widespread one. To be more precise the missiles are seen as pushing the area the US Navy can safely operate in eastwards by about 1000 km. See various US war games and discussions of defending the first and second island chains.

I entirely agree with you that China is heading into a major economic crisis in the short term and is demographically challenged long term. I was not attempting a complete survey of the US-Chinese relationship just pointing out that the US has an Achilles heel.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

You or someone seems to have censored/ flagged my remarks about the US Navy’s Ohio class submarines.
Suffice to say they are more than enough to chastise China, regardless of its “cheap long range missiles”.

Also my observation that WE both missed that Sayantani is a female praenomen, something that would have amused old Dyer, if not your good self.

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

You or someone seems to have censored/ flagged my remarks about the US Navy’s Ohio class submarines.
Suffice to say they are more than enough to chastise China, regardless of its “cheap long range missiles”.

Also my observation that WE both missed that Sayantani is a female praenomen, something that would have amused old Dyer, if not your good self.

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well said, I can never understand all this fuss over Fu Manchu & Co.
All six major Chinese dynasties seem to have been clones of the previous one. The much vaunted ‘competitive ‘Mandarin’ examination system had the same syllabus for more than a thousand years…..the study of Confucius.
When their ‘great treasure fleets’ left China at the beginning of the 15th century, they right instead of left and thus failed to ‘discover’ America (thank God.)
Finally as you probably know they first invented gunpowder, printing, and the magnetic compass, three key ingredients for achieving world supremacy, but yet again they failed! Why?

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago

Maybe Charles because they are not as pugnacious as you or the US?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Judging by let’s say ‘The Great Leap Forward’ they are far, far, worse!
They even eat dogs for God’s sake, Valentine old fruit. Surely even your good self doesn’t approve of that?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Judging by let’s say ‘The Great Leap Forward’ they are far, far, worse!
They even eat dogs for God’s sake, Valentine old fruit. Surely even your good self doesn’t approve of that?

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago

Maybe Charles because they are not as pugnacious as you or the US?

Steve White
Steve White
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

That’s one thing that many people don’t understand is that countries that can manufacture missiles cheaply and in the most quantity win the future. Making all ships nearly obsolete. Our nuclear submarine fleet is really the only significant advantage we have, and it is very significant. Aircraft carriers are simply floating targets. We are still building equipment and our military based on old WWII models. There has been a huge technological change in what a military needs in the era when satellites see everything going on everywhere all at once. The US doesn’t even have a working hypersonic missile.
That is a HUGE problem. Even Iran has them now, and the other problem is since we all sold out to globalism and hollowed out all our manufacturing, we can’t produce this stuff like China and Russia or even Iran or North Korea can.
Also because of political corruption and cronyism we in the West have only a handful of weapons manufacturers, with all the right people’s hand in the pot, and so we make missiles that cost $200,000, and they make them for $10,000-$20,000.  In other words, they have purpose driven design and manufacturing, and we have profit driven design and manufacturing. Add to that the fact that we’ve got all these economic problems, NATO is falling apart because the EU is declining, and looking at a grim economic future, and the Neocons and globalists have totally screwed us all, and yet there is all this hubris and phony narratives pointing out other nations problems… Narratives don’t make reality. 

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

I think the Ukraine conflict has shown missiles to be of limited use – much vaunted at the start of the war but in reality the American-supplied precision strikes doing more damage. Hypersonic missiles used by Russia we shot down using regular american systems – ones they had given Ukraine to test out. Putin said that hypersonic missiles would be a game changer. Turns out he was wrong.

P Branagan
P Branagan
7 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Mr Gibbon obviously believes much of what he reads in the MSM.
Enough said.

P Branagan
P Branagan
7 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Mr Gibbon obviously believes much of what he reads in the MSM.
Enough said.

Charlie Dibsdale
Charlie Dibsdale
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

The arms race tends to leapfrog from offensive capabilities (like hypersonic missiles) to defensive capabilities (the US Patriot system is showing effectiveness against Russian Kinsel missiles). Perhaps the next emergent defensive capability will be energy weapons with a combination of kinetic weapons based on electric rail guns. These may severely reduce the potency of hypersonic missiles. The US fleet will adapt.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

“The US fleet will adapt”.
They don’t have to! The Ohios could ‘launch’ off Skegness if they wanted to.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

“The US fleet will adapt”.
They don’t have to! The Ohios could ‘launch’ off Skegness if they wanted to.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

“Aircraft carriers are simply floating targets”.
Correct but they do employ thousands building them do they not?
Hence the two ‘white elephants*’ we are currently saddled with, all thanks to Gordon Brown dispensing completely unnecessary largesse to ever needy Scotland, and the Clyde, Rosyth and Kirkcaldy in particular.

(*HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales.)

Matt M
Matt M
7 months ago

Not white elephants, Charles. They are weapons perfectly suited to defeat our most likely adversary in the 21st century – The Argies! HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible were crumbling relics but we were glad we had them when the time came.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Matt M

Yes we were glad of them, and we could really have also done with Ark Royal and her Gannets, but the Falklands was an extraordinary one off, and vey unlikely to be repeated.
Politics otherwise known as ‘jobs for Scotland’ was the determining factor for the present two AC’s, and not the real needs of the Royal Navy I would argue.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Matt M

Yes we were glad of them, and we could really have also done with Ark Royal and her Gannets, but the Falklands was an extraordinary one off, and vey unlikely to be repeated.
Politics otherwise known as ‘jobs for Scotland’ was the determining factor for the present two AC’s, and not the real needs of the Royal Navy I would argue.

Matt M
Matt M
7 months ago

Not white elephants, Charles. They are weapons perfectly suited to defeat our most likely adversary in the 21st century – The Argies! HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible were crumbling relics but we were glad we had them when the time came.

Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Indeed narratives do not make reality – as you say.
Yet here you are parroting a simplisitic narrative.
And one I suspect on no actual knowledge or experience in the defence industry or military. Or indeed many facts.
The principal reason Western military kit is expensive is that it is built to highly demanding military specifications and things like safety and reliability are taken very seriously. Are you quite certain that the Russian and Chinese kit really is the same standard ?
Furthermore, a large proportion of the costs of missilies will be the advanced technical components that the Russians used to buy in from the West (since they couldn’t keep up with the advanced technology to manufacture their own silicon chips here).
PS – if you believe the Russians actually have a properly working hypersonic missile, the New Yorkers have a bridge to sell you. It’s just word games from the Russians. Potemkin military these days.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

The Soviet Navy ‘lost’ five nuclear submarines (one of them twice) and the Russian Navy two, so far.
By comparison the US Navy has lost TWO, and the Royal Navy none.*

(* Mind you we don’t have many in comparison to the others.)

Matt M
Matt M
7 months ago

We do have the only nuclear sub ever to have sunk a warship in battle.

When asked about the incident, Commander Wreford-Brown responded, “The Royal Navy spent thirteen years preparing me for such an occasion. It would have been regarded as extremely dreary if I had fouled it up”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Matt M

Nelson would have been proud.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Matt M

Nelson would have been proud.

Matt M
Matt M
7 months ago

We do have the only nuclear sub ever to have sunk a warship in battle.

When asked about the incident, Commander Wreford-Brown responded, “The Royal Navy spent thirteen years preparing me for such an occasion. It would have been regarded as extremely dreary if I had fouled it up”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

The Soviet Navy ‘lost’ five nuclear submarines (one of them twice) and the Russian Navy two, so far.
By comparison the US Navy has lost TWO, and the Royal Navy none.*

(* Mind you we don’t have many in comparison to the others.)

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Well said!

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

I think the Ukraine conflict has shown missiles to be of limited use – much vaunted at the start of the war but in reality the American-supplied precision strikes doing more damage. Hypersonic missiles used by Russia we shot down using regular american systems – ones they had given Ukraine to test out. Putin said that hypersonic missiles would be a game changer. Turns out he was wrong.

Charlie Dibsdale
Charlie Dibsdale
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

The arms race tends to leapfrog from offensive capabilities (like hypersonic missiles) to defensive capabilities (the US Patriot system is showing effectiveness against Russian Kinsel missiles). Perhaps the next emergent defensive capability will be energy weapons with a combination of kinetic weapons based on electric rail guns. These may severely reduce the potency of hypersonic missiles. The US fleet will adapt.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

“Aircraft carriers are simply floating targets”.
Correct but they do employ thousands building them do they not?
Hence the two ‘white elephants*’ we are currently saddled with, all thanks to Gordon Brown dispensing completely unnecessary largesse to ever needy Scotland, and the Clyde, Rosyth and Kirkcaldy in particular.

(*HMS Queen Elizabeth & HMS Prince of Wales.)

Peter B
PB
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Indeed narratives do not make reality – as you say.
Yet here you are parroting a simplisitic narrative.
And one I suspect on no actual knowledge or experience in the defence industry or military. Or indeed many facts.
The principal reason Western military kit is expensive is that it is built to highly demanding military specifications and things like safety and reliability are taken very seriously. Are you quite certain that the Russian and Chinese kit really is the same standard ?
Furthermore, a large proportion of the costs of missilies will be the advanced technical components that the Russians used to buy in from the West (since they couldn’t keep up with the advanced technology to manufacture their own silicon chips here).
PS – if you believe the Russians actually have a properly working hypersonic missile, the New Yorkers have a bridge to sell you. It’s just word games from the Russians. Potemkin military these days.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Well said!

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

The US has unfunded liabilities of nearly $200 trillion. This isn’t only an economic but a social and political time bomb waiting to go off.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

I am not sure I would describe the observation that the Chinese are capable of some clever strategic moves as “wishful thinking”. Rather the reverse. Fortunately, they are also capable of some remarkably dumb ones such as “Wolf diplomacy”.

Missiles? Conjecture? Maybe but it is a widespread one. To be more precise the missiles are seen as pushing the area the US Navy can safely operate in eastwards by about 1000 km. See various US war games and discussions of defending the first and second island chains.

I entirely agree with you that China is heading into a major economic crisis in the short term and is demographically challenged long term. I was not attempting a complete survey of the US-Chinese relationship just pointing out that the US has an Achilles heel.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well said, I can never understand all this fuss over Fu Manchu & Co.
All six major Chinese dynasties seem to have been clones of the previous one. The much vaunted ‘competitive ‘Mandarin’ examination system had the same syllabus for more than a thousand years…..the study of Confucius.
When their ‘great treasure fleets’ left China at the beginning of the 15th century, they right instead of left and thus failed to ‘discover’ America (thank God.)
Finally as you probably know they first invented gunpowder, printing, and the magnetic compass, three key ingredients for achieving world supremacy, but yet again they failed! Why?

Steve White
Steve White
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

That’s one thing that many people don’t understand is that countries that can manufacture missiles cheaply and in the most quantity win the future. Making all ships nearly obsolete. Our nuclear submarine fleet is really the only significant advantage we have, and it is very significant. Aircraft carriers are simply floating targets. We are still building equipment and our military based on old WWII models. There has been a huge technological change in what a military needs in the era when satellites see everything going on everywhere all at once. The US doesn’t even have a working hypersonic missile.
That is a HUGE problem. Even Iran has them now, and the other problem is since we all sold out to globalism and hollowed out all our manufacturing, we can’t produce this stuff like China and Russia or even Iran or North Korea can.
Also because of political corruption and cronyism we in the West have only a handful of weapons manufacturers, with all the right people’s hand in the pot, and so we make missiles that cost $200,000, and they make them for $10,000-$20,000.  In other words, they have purpose driven design and manufacturing, and we have profit driven design and manufacturing. Add to that the fact that we’ve got all these economic problems, NATO is falling apart because the EU is declining, and looking at a grim economic future, and the Neocons and globalists have totally screwed us all, and yet there is all this hubris and phony narratives pointing out other nations problems… Narratives don’t make reality. 

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Freudian.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Have you by any chance ‘flagged’ your previous response to my querying of your remark “ The Chinese are adept at exploiting the chinks in the West’s armour”.
You may recall I asked whether that was jocular remark or a Freudian slip? You replied “freudian”.

Which is all rather sad as for a moment I thought I had detected a sense of humour.

ps. Yesterday, based on a remark you made some weeks ago,I alluded to the fact that your father had commanded a British battalion in Korea. Why did you NOT correct me?
If your late father’s dates are 1926-2011, then surely he is the Carnegie who was the 26 year old machine-gun officer of the KSLI in 1951, n’est pas?

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
rupert carnegie
rupert carnegie
7 months ago

Did I flag my own comment? No. Actually I suspect “unconscious” would be a more accurate description; I have always suspected Freud talked mostly nonsense. As for the accusation that I possess a sense of humour – simply outrageous.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Are you BOTH Rupert and Alex Carnegie?
How bizarre!
So who is Jekyll and who is Hyde?

ps. Did you forget the word NO in your last?

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
rupert carnegie
rupert carnegie
7 months ago

Vagaries of UnHerd software. No? No.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Hence today’s punitive censorship no doubt!
I take it you it are the offspring of the gallant machine-gun Officer of the KSLI*.
If so he went on command the QOH** in Aden did he not?

(*King’s Shropshire Light Infantry.)
(** Queen’s Own Hussars, otherwise affectionately know as the Queers on Horseback.)

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago

Correct.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

I see one of you or perhaps someone else has removed much of yesterday’s amicable little chat about Amritsar.
Quite extraordinary as I think you may agree.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago

Charles, I never know how much of what you say is just for provocation and how much is sincere. Either way, I would not be surprised if UnHerd has decided to remove your attempts to bully and belittle someone. It went beyond the normal limits of acceptable robust debate IMO. If you feel the need to insult people why not just go to Twitter? It is considered normal there. UnHerd has so far managed to keep the debate on its site remarkably civil and constructive. Many of your contributions are genuinely interesting so why dilute their impact with intermittent ill mannered abuse? Incidentally, I did not flag any of it myself but, as I made clear and I am sure you realised, I felt you went considerably too far – even if you felt you were just provoking debate.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Thanks for the suggestion but unfortunately I am based mainly in the Scottish Highlands these days. The reason I have only been a regular UnHerd commenter for the last four months is that was when broadband finally reached here – and I finally joined the twenty first century twenty three years after everyone else!
I may be wrong but I suspect that some of your amiable badinage is not received in quite the spirit you anticipate. If you have a convenient grandchild or equivalent at hand perhaps you should get them to read the Amritsar section and see what they think. You may be startled.
Have a good time tomorrow hearing about the First Indian War of Independence as I believe it now called!

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Haha, Bravo! consider yourself told of Charles! (I suspect Charles is an under achiever, n’est pas?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Glad you have returned to the arena Valentine. I have missed your puerile socialist drivel. QED?

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Glad you have returned to the arena Valentine. I have missed your puerile socialist drivel. QED?

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Thanks for the suggestion but unfortunately I am based mainly in the Scottish Highlands these days. The reason I have only been a regular UnHerd commenter for the last four months is that was when broadband finally reached here – and I finally joined the twenty first century twenty three years after everyone else!
I may be wrong but I suspect that some of your amiable badinage is not received in quite the spirit you anticipate. If you have a convenient grandchild or equivalent at hand perhaps you should get them to read the Amritsar section and see what they think. You may be startled.
Have a good time tomorrow hearing about the First Indian War of Independence as I believe it now called!

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Haha, Bravo! consider yourself told of Charles! (I suspect Charles is an under achiever, n’est pas?

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago

Charles, I never know how much of what you say is just for provocation and how much is sincere. Either way, I would not be surprised if UnHerd has decided to remove your attempts to bully and belittle someone. It went beyond the normal limits of acceptable robust debate IMO. If you feel the need to insult people why not just go to Twitter? It is considered normal there. UnHerd has so far managed to keep the debate on its site remarkably civil and constructive. Many of your contributions are genuinely interesting so why dilute their impact with intermittent ill mannered abuse? Incidentally, I did not flag any of it myself but, as I made clear and I am sure you realised, I felt you went considerably too far – even if you felt you were just provoking debate.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

I see one of you or perhaps someone else has removed much of yesterday’s amicable little chat about Amritsar.
Quite extraordinary as I think you may agree.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago

Correct.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

If I may say so it is almost unparalleled for a Scotsman to pay twice.

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago

Maybe less ethnic slurs?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Are you both that thin skinned?
That is NOT an ethic slur but a well earned characteristic is it not?

Charles Stanhope
CS
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Are you both that thin skinned?
That is NOT an ethic slur but a well earned characteristic is it not?

Alex Carnegie
RC
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago

Maybe less ethnic slurs?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Hence today’s punitive censorship no doubt!
I take it you it are the offspring of the gallant machine-gun Officer of the KSLI*.
If so he went on command the QOH** in Aden did he not?

(*King’s Shropshire Light Infantry.)
(** Queen’s Own Hussars, otherwise affectionately know as the Queers on Horseback.)

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

If I may say so it is almost unparalleled for a Scotsman to pay twice.

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
rupert carnegie
rupert carnegie
7 months ago

Vagaries of UnHerd software. No? No.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Are you BOTH Rupert and Alex Carnegie?
How bizarre!
So who is Jekyll and who is Hyde?

ps. Did you forget the word NO in your last?

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
rupert carnegie
rupert carnegie
7 months ago

Did I flag my own comment? No. Actually I suspect “unconscious” would be a more accurate description; I have always suspected Freud talked mostly nonsense. As for the accusation that I possess a sense of humour – simply outrageous.

Perry de Havilland
PD
Perry de Havilland
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

“On a military level, they developed relatively cheap long range missiles which have neutralised the US Pacific fleet.”

Very debatable.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

You make many good points, but the flaw in your argument is that the US is not the UK. The UK was a relatively small nation that controlled a huge and far-flung global empire. The US is a huge country that never occupied as much foreign territory and still doesn’t. A significant portion of American economic strength comes from land and resources even today. Like Russia, America is largely food and energy independent. To use a sports analogy, America has a much higher floor than the UK. They are guaranteed a certain amount of economic power by just being big and resource rich. Also, the devil is in the details. The largest share of the US national debt is held not by foreign nations, but by the US government. It’s debatable how much of the national debt is meaningful and what it means. Of the top ten foreign holders, only China, Brazil, and Switzerland are not already part of the transatlantic alliance (China being 2nd and Brazil 10th). China’s 870 billion is less than the amount held by state and local governments, 1.4 trillion. Again, the comparison is a poor one. Further, China’s strategy certainly is to neutralize the Pacific fleet with cheap missiles, but plans often fail once shots are actually fired. The US military knows what the Chinese are doing and are adjusting their tactics and strategy. In war nothing is certain. I also question the wisdom of Chinese leadership which you assert. Prior to 2012, it is hard to argue the effectiveness of Chinese economic and political policy. Over the years from 1980 to 2012, Chinese leadership presided over a massive economic boom and maintained friendly relations with most of the world which allowed them to avoid international conflicts and take full advantage of the global economy. Since Xi Jinping came to power, however, China has alienated the US and much of Europe with its treatment of native Uyghur and Tibetan cultures, antagonized its most powerful neighbor, India, killing Indian soldiers over a strategically meaningless border dispute, turned public opinion in Taiwan firmly against them by cracking down on free expression in Hong Kong and using constant military posturing rather than diplomacy and economic integration to pursue reunification, antagonized everyone in the region by trying to claim the entire South China Sea and turn it into a Chinese lake, entered into a quasi-alliance with the highly unstable Putin regime in Russia, failed to contain COVID or properly warn the world about it until it was too late to prevent a global pandemic, and continued their zero COVID policy even after it was clearly having a crippling effect on the economy. This is not a record for any leader to brag about.

Last edited 7 months ago by Steve Jolly
Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I accept many of your points and, in any case, no historical analogy is perfect. 

In particular, I agree that Xi made a series of unforced errors after 2012 through a mixture of hubris about China and an exaggerated disdain for America’s supposed degeneration after the 2008 crisis. It is interesting to compare Xi’s attitude and rhetoric c.2010 with those of Kaiser Wilhelm c.1910 about Britain. On the other hand, Xi appears to have been chastened by events and he – or his successor – may now play a cannier game. As you say, prior to 2012 China played its hand very skilfully.

I suppose my bottom line is that, if I was betting on who will “win” this Cold War, I would see the odds as still 60-40 in favour of the Americans but equally no more than that. I think the US / West needs to raise its game considerably starting with a recognition that the result is not a foregone conclusion. The difficulties China will experience over the next three years should be seen as opportunity to get our act together not relax. (By America “winning” I mean China accepting its place as one of the top 5 powers – who hope to act collectively – rather than aiming to replace the US as the new hegemon of a unipolar world).

On the specific financial issue, there are indeed some differences with the UK precedent but basically I still see the US as very exposed to the threat posed by de dollarisation. It is one of its weak points. The Chinese have spotted it.

Last edited 7 months ago by Alex Carnegie
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

I’d say we’re not as far apart as I thought. If we limit ourselves to the outcome of a single cold war with a primarily economic focus, I’d say your 60-40 odds are fairly close to what I myself would guess. I might actually give BRICS a better shot than that. I’d also define winning and losing differently. If the American hegemony is a problem, replacing it with an alternative solves nothing. As much as I distrust my own government, it’s still better than Chinese Orwellian totalitarianism or Russian strongman rule. Fortunately, history is seldom so neat and tidy that we get discrete binary results. De-dollarisation must eventually happen I believe. I would hope to replace it not with a new global currency backed by a new hegemon or hegemonic alliance, but rather a more capitalistic, competition based system which sees many currencies traded and valid internationally, or even a return to the gold standard or some other more real measure of value that acts as a check on financial chicanery. Either way, I hope for a more egalitarian, multilateral system. Hopefully, BRICS is just one step toward that process, and the end result leaves more power in the hands of elected national governments who can choose who to do business with in what currency strategically according to national interest and the public will rather than being locked into a single system where an unelected, unaccountable clique of global financiers runs everything on the back of the American military and for the benefit of the American aristocracy. Most of our problems are the result of trying to fit everybody in the world, nations, cultures, religions, and people into a single, Americanized system. It should be clear to everybody at this point that this hasn’t worked and isn’t working. We’re all better served to move on. In short, globalism needs to die for the world to move forward and if BRICS accomplishes that without violence, I’ll accept the cost. If BRICS remains an economics focused group, I think it is mostly a good thing for most people. My fears center around bad actors like Xi and Putin who may attempt to politicize and militarize the alliance. I don’t want to end up in WW3 against a new triple axis of China/Iran/Russia. No sane person should. I hope you’re correct and Xi moderates his course, but the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, and I have seen little indication the man will change his methods.

Last edited 7 months ago by Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

I’d say we’re not as far apart as I thought. If we limit ourselves to the outcome of a single cold war with a primarily economic focus, I’d say your 60-40 odds are fairly close to what I myself would guess. I might actually give BRICS a better shot than that. I’d also define winning and losing differently. If the American hegemony is a problem, replacing it with an alternative solves nothing. As much as I distrust my own government, it’s still better than Chinese Orwellian totalitarianism or Russian strongman rule. Fortunately, history is seldom so neat and tidy that we get discrete binary results. De-dollarisation must eventually happen I believe. I would hope to replace it not with a new global currency backed by a new hegemon or hegemonic alliance, but rather a more capitalistic, competition based system which sees many currencies traded and valid internationally, or even a return to the gold standard or some other more real measure of value that acts as a check on financial chicanery. Either way, I hope for a more egalitarian, multilateral system. Hopefully, BRICS is just one step toward that process, and the end result leaves more power in the hands of elected national governments who can choose who to do business with in what currency strategically according to national interest and the public will rather than being locked into a single system where an unelected, unaccountable clique of global financiers runs everything on the back of the American military and for the benefit of the American aristocracy. Most of our problems are the result of trying to fit everybody in the world, nations, cultures, religions, and people into a single, Americanized system. It should be clear to everybody at this point that this hasn’t worked and isn’t working. We’re all better served to move on. In short, globalism needs to die for the world to move forward and if BRICS accomplishes that without violence, I’ll accept the cost. If BRICS remains an economics focused group, I think it is mostly a good thing for most people. My fears center around bad actors like Xi and Putin who may attempt to politicize and militarize the alliance. I don’t want to end up in WW3 against a new triple axis of China/Iran/Russia. No sane person should. I hope you’re correct and Xi moderates his course, but the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, and I have seen little indication the man will change his methods.

Last edited 7 months ago by Steve Jolly
Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I accept many of your points and, in any case, no historical analogy is perfect. 

In particular, I agree that Xi made a series of unforced errors after 2012 through a mixture of hubris about China and an exaggerated disdain for America’s supposed degeneration after the 2008 crisis. It is interesting to compare Xi’s attitude and rhetoric c.2010 with those of Kaiser Wilhelm c.1910 about Britain. On the other hand, Xi appears to have been chastened by events and he – or his successor – may now play a cannier game. As you say, prior to 2012 China played its hand very skilfully.

I suppose my bottom line is that, if I was betting on who will “win” this Cold War, I would see the odds as still 60-40 in favour of the Americans but equally no more than that. I think the US / West needs to raise its game considerably starting with a recognition that the result is not a foregone conclusion. The difficulties China will experience over the next three years should be seen as opportunity to get our act together not relax. (By America “winning” I mean China accepting its place as one of the top 5 powers – who hope to act collectively – rather than aiming to replace the US as the new hegemon of a unipolar world).

On the specific financial issue, there are indeed some differences with the UK precedent but basically I still see the US as very exposed to the threat posed by de dollarisation. It is one of its weak points. The Chinese have spotted it.

Last edited 7 months ago by Alex Carnegie
Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

How do you know the Chinese missiles have neutralised the US Pacific fleet ? That proposition has never been tested. Conjecture, not fact.
China has far bigger problems than the USA. Their debt problems are an order of magnitude worse than those of the US. As is their housing market bubble. All against a backdrop of demographic decline and failling competiveness. We’ll look back in 10 years time and realise that “peak China” was already behind us in 2023.
Another delusional article full of wishful thinking, but with no basis in reality.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Freudian.

Charles Stanhope
CS
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Have you by any chance ‘flagged’ your previous response to my querying of your remark “ The Chinese are adept at exploiting the chinks in the West’s armour”.
You may recall I asked whether that was jocular remark or a Freudian slip? You replied “freudian”.

Which is all rather sad as for a moment I thought I had detected a sense of humour.

ps. Yesterday, based on a remark you made some weeks ago,I alluded to the fact that your father had commanded a British battalion in Korea. Why did you NOT correct me?
If your late father’s dates are 1926-2011, then surely he is the Carnegie who was the 26 year old machine-gun officer of the KSLI in 1951, n’est pas?

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Perry de Havilland
Perry de Havilland
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

“On a military level, they developed relatively cheap long range missiles which have neutralised the US Pacific fleet.”

Very debatable.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
7 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

You make many good points, but the flaw in your argument is that the US is not the UK. The UK was a relatively small nation that controlled a huge and far-flung global empire. The US is a huge country that never occupied as much foreign territory and still doesn’t. A significant portion of American economic strength comes from land and resources even today. Like Russia, America is largely food and energy independent. To use a sports analogy, America has a much higher floor than the UK. They are guaranteed a certain amount of economic power by just being big and resource rich. Also, the devil is in the details. The largest share of the US national debt is held not by foreign nations, but by the US government. It’s debatable how much of the national debt is meaningful and what it means. Of the top ten foreign holders, only China, Brazil, and Switzerland are not already part of the transatlantic alliance (China being 2nd and Brazil 10th). China’s 870 billion is less than the amount held by state and local governments, 1.4 trillion. Again, the comparison is a poor one. Further, China’s strategy certainly is to neutralize the Pacific fleet with cheap missiles, but plans often fail once shots are actually fired. The US military knows what the Chinese are doing and are adjusting their tactics and strategy. In war nothing is certain. I also question the wisdom of Chinese leadership which you assert. Prior to 2012, it is hard to argue the effectiveness of Chinese economic and political policy. Over the years from 1980 to 2012, Chinese leadership presided over a massive economic boom and maintained friendly relations with most of the world which allowed them to avoid international conflicts and take full advantage of the global economy. Since Xi Jinping came to power, however, China has alienated the US and much of Europe with its treatment of native Uyghur and Tibetan cultures, antagonized its most powerful neighbor, India, killing Indian soldiers over a strategically meaningless border dispute, turned public opinion in Taiwan firmly against them by cracking down on free expression in Hong Kong and using constant military posturing rather than diplomacy and economic integration to pursue reunification, antagonized everyone in the region by trying to claim the entire South China Sea and turn it into a Chinese lake, entered into a quasi-alliance with the highly unstable Putin regime in Russia, failed to contain COVID or properly warn the world about it until it was too late to prevent a global pandemic, and continued their zero COVID policy even after it was clearly having a crippling effect on the economy. This is not a record for any leader to brag about.

Last edited 7 months ago by Steve Jolly
Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

I doubt if more than a tiny fraction of the ‘global population’ wears Western luxury brands, sends their children to Western schools and universities, prefers Western sons and daughters in law and maintains savings in dollars and euros in Western banks in Western countries.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

The elite of the developing nations certainly do though. I don’t see them sending their children to school in Moscow or Cape Town

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The invariably corrupt elite do, yes. They use the West to stash and enjoy their ill gotten gains. The vast majority of the global population can very clearly see this.

Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

And yet it never changes.
One thing to recognise something. Quite another to actually do something to change or improve it.
Few institutionally corrupt countries are rich.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Is that why we (UK) are getting poorer? 50% of ministers during May and Johnsons government have taken jobs in the industries they were overseeing! The west is in decline, a stark reality for our grand children to observe first hand…

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Nonsense!
You should have bought some of England when, and if you had the chance.
My great children will be awash with largesse all thanks to not having to pay any IHT.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Nonsense!
You should have bought some of England when, and if you had the chance.
My great children will be awash with largesse all thanks to not having to pay any IHT.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Is that why we (UK) are getting poorer? 50% of ministers during May and Johnsons government have taken jobs in the industries they were overseeing! The west is in decline, a stark reality for our grand children to observe first hand…

Peter B
Peter B
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

And yet it never changes.
One thing to recognise something. Quite another to actually do something to change or improve it.
Few institutionally corrupt countries are rich.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The invariably corrupt elite do, yes. They use the West to stash and enjoy their ill gotten gains. The vast majority of the global population can very clearly see this.

Billy Bob
BB
Billy Bob
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

The elite of the developing nations certainly do though. I don’t see them sending their children to school in Moscow or Cape Town

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

Indeed. Mr Afwerki cannot be unaware that very few of his escaping countrymen are trying to get into Russia or China.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

It is precisely this arrogant attitude that makes other nations dislike us, you don’t even acknowledge the colonialism and bullying that the USA inflicts on other countries, including the us (the west). (But hey we are richer than them, so it’s ok is it?) Trite comment.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

“Vae Victis!”
When you speak with the voice of authority it is unnecessary to be liked. You are extraordinary naive Valentine old thing.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

“Vae Victis!”
When you speak with the voice of authority it is unnecessary to be liked. You are extraordinary naive Valentine old thing.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

The neocons are sabotaging Western soft power. They have a decade of failure behind them, destabilising Libya and Iraq further, falling short on Syria, abandoning Afghanistan and do nothing about the horrific war in the Yemen.
The pointlessly brutal conflict in the Ukraine is just the cherry on the cake. It feels like Washington is setting a test of allegiance to the European powers but the eastern expansion of NATO has only brought a more expansion family of nations together – and they are significantly more important economic actions than Poland, Georgia and the Baltic nations.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

I think you are entirely right about the West’s strengths in culture and soft power but that, on the other hand, it has an Achilles’ heel in terms of finances – and especially in the use of the dollar as a reserve currency. I think we should see the BRICS threat more in that context.

For comparison, the downfall of the British was as much about declining financial strength as anything else. Having built up an enormous pool of investments by 1914 in America, Argentina, India, etc etc it had to sell half to finance WW1 and the rest for WW2. By 1945 it was running on IOUs of which one form was the continued willingness of many countries to hold their reserves as Sterling at the Bank of England. The history of 1945 to 1975 was largely a matter of these IOUs coming due and the British trying to cut their colonies, overseas garrisons and other commitments to economise – and simultaneously becoming subservient to their largest creditor, America.

Today America is basically where Britain was then. The only difference is that they have dissipated their foreign investments and accumulated IOUs to finance a credit driven boom rather than two world wars.

The Chinese are adept at exploiting the chinks in the West’s armour and usually astute enough to avoid challenging it where it is robust. On a military level, they developed relatively cheap long range missiles which have neutralised the US Pacific fleet. Now they are using the BRICS to hit America where it will hurt financially – by pushing the de dollarisation of official reserves and oil.

The Chinese are playing a more crafty game in this new Cold War than the Russians did in the old one – or Putin has recently. Maybe Go produces subtler strategists than Chess or Poker.

Last edited 7 months ago by Alex Carnegie
Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

I doubt if more than a tiny fraction of the ‘global population’ wears Western luxury brands, sends their children to Western schools and universities, prefers Western sons and daughters in law and maintains savings in dollars and euros in Western banks in Western countries.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

Indeed. Mr Afwerki cannot be unaware that very few of his escaping countrymen are trying to get into Russia or China.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

It is precisely this arrogant attitude that makes other nations dislike us, you don’t even acknowledge the colonialism and bullying that the USA inflicts on other countries, including the us (the west). (But hey we are richer than them, so it’s ok is it?) Trite comment.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
7 months ago
Reply to  Arjun D

The neocons are sabotaging Western soft power. They have a decade of failure behind them, destabilising Libya and Iraq further, falling short on Syria, abandoning Afghanistan and do nothing about the horrific war in the Yemen.
The pointlessly brutal conflict in the Ukraine is just the cherry on the cake. It feels like Washington is setting a test of allegiance to the European powers but the eastern expansion of NATO has only brought a more expansion family of nations together – and they are significantly more important economic actions than Poland, Georgia and the Baltic nations.

Arjun D
AD
Arjun D
7 months ago

A very interesting article on a rather consequential development.

However, Westen soft power is still too strong for Brics or Brics plus or Brics Alpha to have much long term staying power.

As long as the global population consumes Hollywood and Westen media, wears Westen luxury brands and accessories, aspires to western luxury vehicles, reads western content, sends their children to western schools, colleges and universities, prefers western sons and daughters in law, maintains savings in dollars, euros and pounds in western banks in western countries, this new bloc won’t amount to much.

Till rich Emirati men are vacationing in Shanghai and Russian oligarchs are rocking up in Mumbai with their fortunes the G7 will remain paramount.

Last edited 7 months ago by Arjun D
Chuck Burns
Chuck Burns
7 months ago

The US is only strong if it can continue to ignore the deficit. “cracks have started to appear in the petrodollar system” Saudi used to recycle Petro-Dollars back into the US in the form of deposits and purchases of US Treasuries thus Financing the massive US deficit. The US has further costly burdens imposed on it by Leftist ideologies to include; Climate Change, the war on Fossil Fuels, Open Borders, WOKEism, and the other Cultural Marxist attacks on our culture. Throw in the regime change Neo-Cons and you have an America poised for rapid decline.

Chuck Burns
Chuck Burns
7 months ago

The US is only strong if it can continue to ignore the deficit. “cracks have started to appear in the petrodollar system” Saudi used to recycle Petro-Dollars back into the US in the form of deposits and purchases of US Treasuries thus Financing the massive US deficit. The US has further costly burdens imposed on it by Leftist ideologies to include; Climate Change, the war on Fossil Fuels, Open Borders, WOKEism, and the other Cultural Marxist attacks on our culture. Throw in the regime change Neo-Cons and you have an America poised for rapid decline.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Blasphemer!
Hasn’t India just landed a ‘dustbin’ on the Moon?*

(*Do ‘we’ still give Foreign Aid to India does anyone happen to know?)

Rob Nock
Rob Nock
7 months ago

£2.3billion between 2016 and 2021 sayshttps://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/uk-still-gives-aid-to-india-dressed-up-as-business-investments-rather-than-direct-handouts-britain-watchdog/amp_articleshow/98641083.cms

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Rob Nock

Thank you so much, just as I feared.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago

You have to see this ‘aid’ to India as another term for ‘guilt’.
We still give aid to China.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago

Guilt for what? ‘India’ only exists as a country thanks to Britain.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

Well said that man!

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

If “India” exists only thanks to Britain, how did the British get to name their trading company the East “India” company, and who was Columbus looking for in 1492, a few centuries before Britain “created” India.

If anything, India as a cultural and political entity existed many centuries before Britain, France or Germany came into being.

Incidentally, while there were multiple dynasties that unified India politically – Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals – the British didn’t.
They left India with over 500 independent rulers and states. And it fell to Indians to cajole, threaten and barter with those rulers to unify India politically.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

‘India’ is a foreign name for a geographic region not a country or a nation. Before British rule even the concept of South Asia being a single country did not exist among its people. Even now many Sikhs and most Kashmiris dispute it.
The Mauryas, Guptas and the Mughals did not rule the entire subcontinent. The rulers of the princely states weren’t independent of Britain.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

Well, technically the name is Bharat. And yes, while it technically wasn’t a “nation” in the modern sense, it was culturally a unified area, much like China, Egypt or Persia.

Those disputing it do so based on religion – sikhs or muslims – whose presence in India is recent, barely a few centuries old. The only Kashmiris who want “independence” are muslims – who are converted from Hinduism, in a state that is a core part of Indian culture and named after a Hindu sage!

“The rulers of the princely states weren’t independent of Britain.”
Yes, sort of. But at independence, Sardar Patel still had a gargantuan task convincing them to be part of India, and it wasn’t a given that they would accept being part of India. So, contrary to what’s said, the British didn’t leave a unified Indian state, that was down to Indians

And the reason those princely states did agree, was to a large extent due to the cultural bonds they shared with the concept of Bharat or India.

Jim Bocho
JB
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

The name ‘Bharat’ is not the historical name for South Asia. In fact an indigenous historical name for the subcontinent doesn’t exist, simply because among its indigenous people the very notion of the subcontinent being a single entity did not exist. That idea arose only during British rule among Hindu nationalists.
The princely states went with India because Britain had an irrational obsession with keeping its South Asian empire together after its departure and therefore it did not give most of the local princes an alternative option.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

The name ‘Bharat’ is not the historical name for South Asia. In fact an indigenous historical name for the subcontinent doesn’t exist, simply because among its indigenous people the very notion of the subcontinent being a single entity did not exist. That idea arose only during British rule among Hindu nationalists.
The princely states went with India because Britain had an irrational obsession with keeping its South Asian empire together after its departure and therefore it did not give most of the local princes an alternative option.

Samir Iker
SI
Samir Iker
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

Well, technically the name is Bharat. And yes, while it technically wasn’t a “nation” in the modern sense, it was culturally a unified area, much like China, Egypt or Persia.

Those disputing it do so based on religion – sikhs or muslims – whose presence in India is recent, barely a few centuries old. The only Kashmiris who want “independence” are muslims – who are converted from Hinduism, in a state that is a core part of Indian culture and named after a Hindu sage!

“The rulers of the princely states weren’t independent of Britain.”
Yes, sort of. But at independence, Sardar Patel still had a gargantuan task convincing them to be part of India, and it wasn’t a given that they would accept being part of India. So, contrary to what’s said, the British didn’t leave a unified Indian state, that was down to Indians

And the reason those princely states did agree, was to a large extent due to the cultural bonds they shared with the concept of Bharat or India.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Censored for mentioning the splendid, eponymous Bantam C**k!
How many Sc*tch Presbyterians are there in UnHerd?
And Jesus wept!

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

The original intention was to trade with the East Indies, todays Indonesia, and in fact the first ‘factory’ was established in Bantam*,Java in 1603. Unfortunately the Dutch had got there first in 1598 and effectively kicked us our after the Amboyna massacre of 1623, and so India was really the consolation prize!
Neither the Mauryan, Gupta or Mughal ‘empires’ were as extensive or long lived as the British.
Those 500 states as you well know were called the Native States and were completely under British control, even if some had a modicum of independence. If their rulers** misbehaved they were summarily removed.
The post 1947 Indian government annexed these states with some unfortunate consequences as well as ‘hoovering up’ Portugals tiny possessions at Goa and elsewhere in 1960.
(*Home of the superb eponymous fighting c**k, for those interested in such matters.
(** One had his groom douse his thoroughbred in petrol and incinerate him/her after it lost at Ascot or some other major English racecourse, I forget which. He was summarily dismissed.)

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago

Well, those empires did in fact cover most of India. And lasted for 100-150 years, which incidentally was the length of British rule as well. It’s easy to forget that British India was a unified entity , or covered the bulk of India, for barely 130 years.

I would argue that while colonialism never works well for the recepients, the islamic colonialism of India was (though only partially covering India) much more long lasting, much more brutal and damaging.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I agree with your last point, in fact the evidence is overwhelming.
However “those empires did not cover MOST of India”, nor were they anything like as comprehensive as the British.

I date the start of the British to 1757 or do your prefer 1764?

Matt M
Matt M
7 months ago

Got to be ’57, The Year of Victories, the Annus Mirabilis.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Matt M

Actually, and without wishing to sound pedantic, that was 1759, Quebec, Quiberon, Minden etc.

1757 was Plassey and Robert Clive.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Matt M

Actually, and without wishing to sound pedantic, that was 1759, Quebec, Quiberon, Minden etc.

1757 was Plassey and Robert Clive.

Matt M
Matt M
7 months ago

Got to be ’57, The Year of Victories, the Annus Mirabilis.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I agree with your last point, in fact the evidence is overwhelming.
However “those empires did not cover MOST of India”, nor were they anything like as comprehensive as the British.

I date the start of the British to 1757 or do your prefer 1764?

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago

Well, those empires did in fact cover most of India. And lasted for 100-150 years, which incidentally was the length of British rule as well. It’s easy to forget that British India was a unified entity , or covered the bulk of India, for barely 130 years.

I would argue that while colonialism never works well for the recepients, the islamic colonialism of India was (though only partially covering India) much more long lasting, much more brutal and damaging.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

‘India’ is a foreign name for a geographic region not a country or a nation. Before British rule even the concept of South Asia being a single country did not exist among its people. Even now many Sikhs and most Kashmiris dispute it.
The Mauryas, Guptas and the Mughals did not rule the entire subcontinent. The rulers of the princely states weren’t independent of Britain.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Censored for mentioning the splendid, eponymous Bantam C**k!
How many Sc*tch Presbyterians are there in UnHerd?
And Jesus wept!

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

The original intention was to trade with the East Indies, todays Indonesia, and in fact the first ‘factory’ was established in Bantam*,Java in 1603. Unfortunately the Dutch had got there first in 1598 and effectively kicked us our after the Amboyna massacre of 1623, and so India was really the consolation prize!
Neither the Mauryan, Gupta or Mughal ‘empires’ were as extensive or long lived as the British.
Those 500 states as you well know were called the Native States and were completely under British control, even if some had a modicum of independence. If their rulers** misbehaved they were summarily removed.
The post 1947 Indian government annexed these states with some unfortunate consequences as well as ‘hoovering up’ Portugals tiny possessions at Goa and elsewhere in 1960.
(*Home of the superb eponymous fighting c**k, for those interested in such matters.
(** One had his groom douse his thoroughbred in petrol and incinerate him/her after it lost at Ascot or some other major English racecourse, I forget which. He was summarily dismissed.)

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

Well said that man!

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

If “India” exists only thanks to Britain, how did the British get to name their trading company the East “India” company, and who was Columbus looking for in 1492, a few centuries before Britain “created” India.

If anything, India as a cultural and political entity existed many centuries before Britain, France or Germany came into being.

Incidentally, while there were multiple dynasties that unified India politically – Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals – the British didn’t.
They left India with over 500 independent rulers and states. And it fell to Indians to cajole, threaten and barter with those rulers to unify India politically.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

And unfortunately to Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Two more undeserving recipients would be hard to imagine.

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago

Didn’t you forget somebody?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Not Wales surely?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Not Wales surely?

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago

Didn’t you forget somebody?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

No doubt following that logic we will soon have to ask the Italians, on behalf of the Ancient Romans, to apologise for crucifying Christ.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago

The secret of success today is to become a victim. If I have to become a Christian to get money from the Italians – no problemo.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Agreed!
Better still to be a descendant of the so called Amritsar massacre or something similar like Culloden.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Agreed!
Better still to be a descendant of the so called Amritsar massacre or something similar like Culloden.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
7 months ago

Don’t forget the Norwegians, for all that much more recent raping and pillaging.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

And their Danish brethren lead by the splendid Guthrum & Co.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

And their Danish brethren lead by the splendid Guthrum & Co.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago

The secret of success today is to become a victim. If I have to become a Christian to get money from the Italians – no problemo.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
7 months ago

Don’t forget the Norwegians, for all that much more recent raping and pillaging.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago

Guilt for what? ‘India’ only exists as a country thanks to Britain.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

And unfortunately to Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Two more undeserving recipients would be hard to imagine.

Last edited 7 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

No doubt following that logic we will soon have to ask the Italians, on behalf of the Ancient Romans, to apologise for crucifying Christ.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago

You have to see this ‘aid’ to India as another term for ‘guilt’.
We still give aid to China.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Rob Nock

Samir Iker Esq of this forum seems to disagree.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Rob Nock

Thank you so much, just as I feared.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Rob Nock

Samir Iker Esq of this forum seems to disagree.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago

No, UK doesn’t.
It’s cash for buddies at “charities”, economic investments and funding for friendly “think tanks”.
There is zero tangible benefit to India, even if it was used to help Indians (it’s not) represents a minute fraction of India’s own budget…..and worst of all, the Indian government has spent more than a decade asking the so called “aid” to be stopped.

Incidentally, India isn’t even the biggest recepient or even close to it.
The main criteria for UK aid includes the following: completely corrupt, fundamentalist state which doesn’t care for its citizens, indulges in terrorist activities, hates the West.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Pakistan?

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago

Well India itself satisfies the first 3 criteria. The PM is a Hindu extremist hand in glove with gangsters and drug lords.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

That’s OK then. I thought for a minute you were going to say that he was not normal for a PM. Our PMs only seem to do little things like, er, invading Iraq.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago

Our PMs are no angels but they don’t, yet, organize pogroms against marginalised minorities or make ‘business’ deals with drug lords. Google ‘Manipur’ for some recent news.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago

Our PMs are no angels but they don’t, yet, organize pogroms against marginalised minorities or make ‘business’ deals with drug lords. Google ‘Manipur’ for some recent news.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

OK I give up!

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

“PM is a Hindu extremist hand in glove with gangsters and drug lords.”
If that was true, muslims wouldn’t be 13% of the country, India wouldn’t have a dozen minority religions, India wouldn’t have a space program or other developments….
And Britain would be happy donating much more “aid” to India without complaint.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Modi inherited the ‘problem’ of a 13% Muslim minority and he’s doing his best to ‘solve’ it. India’s space programme precedes Modi and besides there’s nothing to say a fascist state can’t make technological progress. India is a great example of one.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Modi inherited the ‘problem’ of a 13% Muslim minority and he’s doing his best to ‘solve’ it. India’s space programme precedes Modi and besides there’s nothing to say a fascist state can’t make technological progress. India is a great example of one.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

That’s OK then. I thought for a minute you were going to say that he was not normal for a PM. Our PMs only seem to do little things like, er, invading Iraq.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

OK I give up!

Samir Iker
SI
Samir Iker
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Bocho

“PM is a Hindu extremist hand in glove with gangsters and drug lords.”
If that was true, muslims wouldn’t be 13% of the country, India wouldn’t have a dozen minority religions, India wouldn’t have a space program or other developments….
And Britain would be happy donating much more “aid” to India without complaint.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago

£50 million a year to China. Surely also a candidate for the title of ‘West Hater’.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago

Look at the list of top ten recepients of UK aid.
It’s mind boggling.
Frankly, UK should cease all aid. All it does is fill the pockets of corrupt rulers, and nobody ever developed themselves with charity.
I see the state of our NHS, roads…..why is UK wasting billions on this false concept of aid? We need that money, it’s not as if UK is flush with money.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Have you seen the list of the world’s biggest recipients of aid? You’ll be in for a big shock when you see who tops the list.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I couldn’t agree more. “Charity begins at home” as we used to say.

Matt M
Matt M
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Been saying that for years, Samir. Put £1B aside a year for emergency relief for earthquakes and famines in foreign lands and spend the rest at home.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Have you seen the list of the world’s biggest recipients of aid? You’ll be in for a big shock when you see who tops the list.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I couldn’t agree more. “Charity begins at home” as we used to say.

Matt M
Matt M
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Been saying that for years, Samir. Put £1B aside a year for emergency relief for earthquakes and famines in foreign lands and spend the rest at home.

Jim Bocho
Jim Bocho
7 months ago

Well India itself satisfies the first 3 criteria. The PM is a Hindu extremist hand in glove with gangsters and drug lords.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
7 months ago

£50 million a year to China. Surely also a candidate for the title of ‘West Hater’.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago

Look at the list of top ten recepients of UK aid.
It’s mind boggling.
Frankly, UK should cease all aid. All it does is fill the pockets of corrupt rulers, and nobody ever developed themselves with charity.
I see the state of our NHS, roads…..why is UK wasting billions on this false concept of aid? We need that money, it’s not as if UK is flush with money.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Pakistan?

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago

We should give aid to India, we steal all their doctors and committed atrocities in their country. You are struggling to hide your true self Charles, not nice IMO…

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Rubbish Valentine, if they can put a ‘dustbin’ on the Moon they don’t need our charity.
Do you know anything at all about India? I suspect not and that you are just another socialist parrot, is that not so?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Carl Valentine

Rubbish Valentine, if they can put a ‘dustbin’ on the Moon they don’t need our charity.
Do you know anything at all about India? I suspect not and that you are just another socialist parrot, is that not so?

Rob Nock
Rob Nock
7 months ago

£2.3billion between 2016 and 2021 sayshttps://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/uk-still-gives-aid-to-india-dressed-up-as-business-investments-rather-than-direct-handouts-britain-watchdog/amp_articleshow/98641083.cms

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
7 months ago

No, UK doesn’t.
It’s cash for buddies at “charities”, economic investments and funding for friendly “think tanks”.
There is zero tangible benefit to India, even if it was used to help Indians (it’s not) represents a minute fraction of India’s own budget…..and worst of all, the Indian government has spent more than a decade asking the so called “aid” to be stopped.

Incidentally, India isn’t even the biggest recepient or even close to it.
The main criteria for UK aid includes the following: completely corrupt, fundamentalist state which doesn’t care for its citizens, indulges in terrorist activities, hates the West.

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
7 months ago

We should give aid to India, we steal all their doctors and committed atrocities in their country. You are struggling to hide your true self Charles, not nice IMO…

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Blasphemer!
Hasn’t India just landed a ‘dustbin’ on the Moon?*

(*Do ‘we’ still give Foreign Aid to India does anyone happen to know?)

TheElephant InTheRoom
TheElephant InTheRoom
7 months ago

Like Rome, the US will fall. Just a matter of time.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Rome took a very long time to fall, primarily because there was no other power capable of pushing it aside

Frank McCusker
FM
Frank McCusker
7 months ago

Calm down. History indicates future possibilities, not future certainties.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Rome took a very long time to fall, primarily because there was no other power capable of pushing it aside

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
7 months ago

Calm down. History indicates future possibilities, not future certainties.

TheElephant InTheRoom
TheElephant InTheRoom
7 months ago

Like Rome, the US will fall. Just a matter of time.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
7 months ago

I would encourage readers to watch Peter Zeihan’s other side of the coin take on this issue. Much more coherent (Saudi, UAE, Iran and Egypt all have completely differing aspirations and competing interests in the region). Expansion does not mean strength (as the EU has found out) and what was already a talking shop will most likely turn into an arguing shop now that smaller countries with their own local grievances have become involved. The BRICS are currently not tied together by any formal treaties and pursue their own agendas. The presidency is meaningless when China is the tail wagging the dog. That the other BRIC countries can’t even help South Africa which is currently in crisis on almost every front (and not the manufactured “BBC” headline tag crisis of COL, War in Ukraine, Climate and Covid) shows the lack of real clout or ability of any of these nations to aspire to global leadership.

Steve White
Steve White
7 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

If you want to feel like you’re in the know, only in the long run none of the big picture works out the way it seems he is leading you with the things he has you focus on, then Peter Zeihan is a great person to listen to.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

You don’t have to agree with everything he says to take some good points away. He is overly-wedded to demographics but then that is his field of expertise so it is fair that he comes at questions from that angle.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

You don’t have to agree with everything he says to take some good points away. He is overly-wedded to demographics but then that is his field of expertise so it is fair that he comes at questions from that angle.

Steve White
Steve White
7 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

If you want to feel like you’re in the know, only in the long run none of the big picture works out the way it seems he is leading you with the things he has you focus on, then Peter Zeihan is a great person to listen to.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
7 months ago

I would encourage readers to watch Peter Zeihan’s other side of the coin take on this issue. Much more coherent (Saudi, UAE, Iran and Egypt all have completely differing aspirations and competing interests in the region). Expansion does not mean strength (as the EU has found out) and what was already a talking shop will most likely turn into an arguing shop now that smaller countries with their own local grievances have become involved. The BRICS are currently not tied together by any formal treaties and pursue their own agendas. The presidency is meaningless when China is the tail wagging the dog. That the other BRIC countries can’t even help South Africa which is currently in crisis on almost every front (and not the manufactured “BBC” headline tag crisis of COL, War in Ukraine, Climate and Covid) shows the lack of real clout or ability of any of these nations to aspire to global leadership.