(U.S.) DOD (Department of Defense) observes that China’s leaders “portray a strong military as critical to advancing Chinese interests, preventing other countries from taking steps that would damage those interests, and ensuring that China can defend itself and its sovereignty claims.” Which is precisely what U.S. policymakers do. Read Here – The National Interest
As the rest of Eurasia slides further into crisis, the only thing getting in India’s way is India. Read Here – Geopolitical Futures
Space is becoming more congested, contested and competitive. Since the Soviet Union put the first satellite, Sputnik I, into space in 1957, no nation has deliberately destroyed another’s satellite in orbit. But there is a growing possibility that battles may soon be waged in space. Read Here – Stratfor
In New Delhi’s calculation vis-à-vis China, swinging back and forth may well create strategic leverage that can be more effective than simply deferring to China’s presumed opposition against India’s interaction with a third party on the sensitive issues…However, New Delhi also has to remember that such flip-flops on major power relations may also put itself […]
“When America sneezes, the world catches a cold.” The expression might be a bit of a cliché, but it’s still accurate: what happens in the US affects other countries. Which is why whether you live in London or Luanda, US foreign policy matters. Read Here – World Economic Forum
Indian diplomacy rests on engagement with major world powers instead of clinging to a particular country. By adopting an ambiguous strategy, India places itself in a position that all the major powers woo it, but it never explicitly promises anything regarding the policies of other nations. Read Here – Global Times
As Chinese anti-satellite weapons reach ever higher, theU.S. military is getting serious about satellite constellations that can absorb combat damage and keep transmitting data. Read Here – Defense One
As all sides weigh in on why President Putin decided to “withdraw” from Syria, Russian military action presents lessons for the United States on how to conduct future wars. The primary lesson seen in Syria was remarkably simple: clear and concise goals trump grandiose visions of regime change or nation building when intervening in conflicts. […]
TThe indisputably courageous political activism of the Syrian people against a rather intolerant Assad regime, which has led to the Syrian civil war can be very well understood in the context of Syria’s economic situation. Read Here – Market Mogul
Right now, we are two or three bad elections away from the end of NATO, the end of the European Union, and maybe the end of the liberal world order as we know it, writes Anne Applebaum. Read Here – Slate
looking beyond borders 