Balance of Powers?

[mightypeon]

I think that an Indian association with the Chinese/Russians is more likely than one with the USA.

First, beeing allied to this countries means largely a defensive insurance. While allying with the USA would currently mean you have to support the various extraterritorial US adventures.

Secondly, China would have quite a lot to offer, its not only the border they currently share, they can also become much more assertive in South East Asia and even Pakistan if they cooperate.

Thirdly, India is perhaps quite conciou that the US would not regard it as more than a junior partner, this may be less the case with the Russians or the Chinese.

Point 4: Beeing allied with Russia also has significant ressource benefits.

 

[Granny]

Analyzing world international relations, it appears that several power blocs are forming. Here is my hypothesis of the international blocs that will dominate the international scene for next decade or so, in order of relative power.


Indian-American Alliance:
USA, India, South Korea, Japan, Iraq

Chinese Empire:
China, North Korea, Myanmar, Vietnam, Pakistan, and several African states

New Russian Federation:
Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Indonesia, and old soviet states

South Atlantic Treaty Organization:
Brazil, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, and several other African states


I leave out the European Union for two reasons; first, I strongly suspect that the European Union will not last for another decade, and second, the largest European powers are far too isolationist to be considered a bloc.

How have I settled upon these blocs? First, the first country in every bloc are currently producing aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers have one purpose: force projection. Second, by military expenditures and relative sizes...this new world will be defined by hard power and hard negotiations. Third, each bloc will have advanced nuclear weapons capabilities by the end of decade.

Last, these alliances are based upon current treaties, armament sales/treaties, and the relations between individual nations. Of course, it is only a hypothesis.

If the UN is any indication of how all this One World Order and alliances would function, the world would be better off for all nations to take care business at home. With all the corruption, disagreement, in-fighting, unresolved problems, etc. the UN should just be abolished.

Since it's inception exactly what has the UN accomplished in the way of unifying all the nations into one big, happy, peaceful Utopia? Not a damned thing.

The UN isn't involved in this new paradigm. Try reading the OP before you comment.

I did read the OP before commenting. If you're hypothesizing something based on international relations, treaties, alliances, etc., you need to consider that most if not all of the countries you mentioned are members of the UN and what the UN may or may not do is a real crap shoot. If you wanted to exclude the UN from your "new paradigm" perhaps you should have specifically pointed that out as you did the "EU." Power is everything - and all nations want it over all other nations for one reason or another. No need to give me a bad rep because I made what I felt was a decent post on the overall subject matter that you proposed.