Just another Criminologist specialising in Counter-Terrorism with an avid interest in football, reading, food (cooking&eating) and the art of sleeping ! 😅🤣😁
Perhaps for the first time, a U.S. Secretary of State visits India with no planned meetings in Delhi - the official seat of India’s power.
Instead, the itinerary includes Mumbai and Jamnagar- the unofficial seat of the Ambani empire.
First Elon Musk, now Marco Rubio.
When global power players bypass the capital and head straight to corporate power centres, it raises an uncomfortable question: Who really holds the power in India? Indians through the elected govt or the billionaires?
“China’s development as a space power should be a wake-up call for the United States,” write @KathleenCurlee and @SamBresnick. “The era of unassailable U.S. space power is ending, and Washington has no choice but to adapt.”
https://t.co/BcdWY28u2h
Iran wants a new uncontested order in the Persian Gulf; America will be retreating from the region in one way or the other; the Saudis have set a trap for themselves-- Trita Parsi tells me in this podcast, The View from india. He also explains why believes escalation is likely. Watch here:
https://t.co/EeNt2ejvg6
One mistake many in #India made was to believe that it could make itself useful for the Americans as a bulwark against #China as the U.S. and China are pitted against each other for global domination in the 21st century. Washington today is competing with China but is not interested in a confrontation. It wants to manage the competition and build what the Chinese would call strategic stability. They also clearly don’t want to prop up India and help create a third pole. The U.S. is well aware that unipolarity has passed. This G2 approach is not just a trump thing. The DC establishment would prefer a bipolar competition with China, relegating the rest to manageable sub-powers. This effectively downgrades the value of India in DC’s strategic thinking. The Indians should take note of it.
Analysts often confuse "diplomatic flexibility" with "strategic autonomy".
The two are not the same.
Strategic autonomy, in the end, is a function of power; diplomatic flexibility is an operational posture.
A country doesn't need much power to hedge, multi-align, or arbitrage great-power frictions—it only needs tactical agility. Pakistan is a good example. It manages to do much of the above with very little actual power.
Strategic autonomy requires material depth: economic weight, defense-industrial capacity, and the ability to absorb external shocks without having to constantly balance.
Diplomatic flexibility is about playing the hand you are dealt; strategic autonomy is having the power to change the game.
Balancing is smart diplomacy, but it is not necesserily a refleciton of power.
Today’s messy web of alliances proves that old rule:
No permanent friends. No permanent enemies. Only interests (which too change from time to time).
So build new bridges, sidestep some old grudges, & think outside the rigid boxes.
Because statecraft isn't personal; it's pragmatic.