The sentiment around the India-Central Asia Dialogue is mixed. There is a sense of national pride in India's leadership, particularly for S. Jaishankar, but also concerns over domestic challenges and competition with China's influence in the region. There is skepticism about India's trade and economic strategies, and a call for more assertive engagement with neighbors like Afghanistan. The dialogue also contains elements of humor and sarcasm, and minimal interest seen in certain discussions.

India

Central Asian countries

China

Afghanistan

Thanks for your submission, /u/Sri_Man_420. Because we're trying to boost engagement in the subreddit, maybe you can help by contributing a submission statement of 70-100 words. Also calling u/coverageanalysisbot

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Long thread. Please bear with me. If you can read through it, you are a patient and serious thinker.

Democratic party staunchly supported slavery in Southern US in the 19th century. A new Republican party was founded by the Northerners in the US to stand up against slavery and its supporters. Its first Presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln campaigned for emancipation of the slaves. Today the nature of the two parties has switched.

Republicans have taken to conservatism towards Christian values, pro-corporations, pro-rich, anti-labor, downsizing the government, anti-abortion rights, gun lobby, racial prejudice, pro-Euro-Christian culture, anti-social programs, anti Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-migration etc..

Democrats have morphed into pro-labor, pro-abortion rights, pro-socialistic programs, universal healthcare, free college education, anti-gun lobby, pro-migration, pro-religious tolerance, racial equality, taxing the rich etc..

Here American national interests in the international arena takes precedence. Within the US, they are two opposing tribal groups, working in anti-thesis against each other and try to block each others' efforts, even is it is detrimental to American citizens' welfare in the long run. The only people whose welfare matters in America are the corporations and their billionaires.

Both rely on funding their campaigns from private institutions and lobby groups (national and international). Their democracy is a farce and has reached the level of stagnancy. They have become a plutocracy. Their elected representatives, Presidents, judges and media have become entirely puppets on the strings held by mega banks, multinational corporations and billionaires. Here they both are similar.

Geopolitical equations are a different ball game. The terms and conditions are set by their business interests more than anything else. Since their business interests are entirely in the hands of the plutocrats, neither party and their respective members in the govt have any big say in the major decisions made. They are rubberstamps nodding their heads for what their industrial powers decide.

They realized the potential for global dominance for unlimited business when colonialism weakened due to the conflicts between the powers in Europe. A weakened Europe needed the financial and security backing of the US. With the end of the second European war (which they call as world war II), America had fully accomplished its goal. In fact the US pressured the British to free India, now that the UK needed the US for its survival. All European powers, once cut off from their colonial resources, were reduced to powerless vassals of the US. By projecting the USSR as a common enemy and keeping the Europeans under the threat of communism, America managed to strengthen its power hold (*The Russians in fact asked  the European powers for help industrializing their country after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917*). Its navy now patrolled the seven oceans and it set up 38 bases. Using this it controlled the global maritime trade. By making its dollar the international reserve currency, it took over global finance. By making petroleum transactions only through the dollar, it gained further control over the global dominance. It became an empire literally in this process, without having to colonize other lands. It just took over all the gateways of global business and commerce and money flowed to the US from all directions. In order to sustain its hold, it arranged for regime changes everywhere, forcing coups, assassinations, civil wars and destabilization where things did not align with its goals and interests.

Both Republicans and Democrats had the same mindset towards the above global dominance based geopolitics. Whatever one Republican President initiated, was continued by a succeeding Democratic President. Bush set up Guantanamo bay torture cells and Obama only talked about closing it and it continues to this day. Lindon Johnson (a democrat) started the Vietnam war in 1965 and Nixon continued with it. Trump wanted to end the Afghan war and Biden ended it. Any President who questioned the goals of the industrial/banking complex was put away. Kennedy was assassinated because he questioned the establishment. He declined the invasion of Cuba, even after the Cuban missile crisis stand off with the Soviet Union. He did not want to invade Vietnam. Jimmy Carter approved the proxy war with the Soviet Union on Afghanistan using Islamic radicalization and Pakistan as the base and Reagan continued with it and completed the task. Trump started shutting down cooperation with China and Biden has increased it. So from a geo-political standpoint, it does not matter who is in power, Democrats or Republicans. All global policies are independent of them and made by their think tanks that are filled with agents sponsored by the banking and military-industrial complex. Military industry gets money from the banks and builds weapons. Politicians set up wars. Banks make money and the cycle moves from one place to another. Their attitude towards India is decided by this establishment.

Let us see how India fares in this picture. Americans wanted India to adopt market economy, foreign direct investment and alliance in the cold war after independence. Nawab Nehru decided against it. He did it probably because he must have seen what happened to the central American countries (they were turned into banana republics by the American corporations and the CIA). In Congo, Patrice Lumumba was replaced with Mobutu, who stayed loyal to the US and bankrupted his country. With rich resources that country is a swamp filled with civil wars and diseases. India could have become a banana republic if Nehru had signed up with the Americans wholeheartedly. They had enough white women to honey trap him. But he leaned towards the Russians and the KGB saw to that Americans did not create instability and regime change efforts. Anyone who signed up loyalty to Americans was guaranteed of protection and he could do whatever he wanted. If he had any new thoughts, he was ruthlessly eliminated. Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi realized it the hard way.

Had Nehru signed up with the Americans, US corporations would have taken over the country. We saw how the Bhopal disaster with Union Carbide went. We would have been made to borrow money from American banks, insure our people with American insurance companies and we'd be like Argentina now. But Nehru gave access to the Soviets and they infiltrated through all our power structures, paralyzing the system from within over time. Nehru put us in a lose-lose situation because of lack of governing capability.

By 1970s India was ready to allow FDI and international businesses for competition. 5 year plans had worked to a large extent. But Indira Gandhi was planted by the KGB and supported by them all the way through. She was an insecure and hesitant person and was not good in decision making. A clique set up by the KGB controlled her decisions. Had she opened up the economy then, we would have been a global economic power by mid 1990s. Pakistan would not have had the nukes. India would have been the base for war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Nehru lacked geopolitical decision making capability. He committed one blunder after another, leaving the country in a really precarious condition. If you want to know how his mind worked, look no further than Rahul Gandhi. He was an entitled and spoiled brat. His father Motilal hobnobbed with the British while acting as their agent in the Congress, growing filthy rich in the bargain. This kind of leadership really jeopardized our geo-political balance and only after 2014 India seems to be doing things it should have done from 1970. Semiconductor tech was in its infancy at that time. We could have built all the needed ecosystem for it from then on and today we would have been better than South Korea in that field. This technology is extremely vital for future power and strength. We have always had the needed talent. But it all went to Silicon valley for lack of opportunities and thrived there. No one came back. It was a really poor decision made by Indira Gandhi. Nehru's terrible socialistic labor laws are now an Achille's heal for any hitech industry to take roof and grow in India. No one can undo them now, like the farmers' law repeal fiasco went. 

The BJP govt under Modi has done very well handling the Democrats and Republicans in the US. The only issue is that the sinister communist/left/elite cabal that has grown powerful in India due to communist infiltration, has reached its tentacles into the US and western countries, blending with the wokes, leftists, Evangelists, anti India academics, lobby groups from China, Pakistan, Kashmir, Khalistan and western media. They know how to build powerful false narratives, project them, raise relentless campaign, create atrocity literature, coordinate political campaigns within India using NGO networks, rally support of internationally powerful organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Pew Research, Environmentalist groups, Missionary institutions and so on. Nehru's and Indira's investment and reliance in communism is bearing fruit at the wrong time, when India is under the right leadership and is ready to take the next step, preventing it from going further.

Followed in my reply below:

Seeker_00860



🔗 **Bypass paywalls**:

* [www.reuters.com](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&amp;url=https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/europe-bristles-us-proposals-asian-gathering-india-pakistan-hostility-show-2025-06-01/)

📣 **[Submission Statement by OP](/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1l0s3kx/europe_bristles_at_us_proposals_at_asian/mvfk9aw/)**:
&gt; SS: Summary: Europe Pushes Back on U.S. Pressure at Shangri-La Security Summit
&gt;
&gt;At the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, tensions emerged not just between the U.S. and China, but also between the U.S. and its European allies over strategic priorities in Asia. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Europe to focus its military investments on defending the continent, allowing the U.S. to take a lead role in the Indo-Pacific. However, European leaders, including EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and French President Emmanuel Macron, pushed back, stressing the interconnectedness of European and Indo-Pacific security.
&gt;
&gt;Meanwhile, India and Pakistan's military delegations attended the summit just weeks after intense border clashes, maintaining a visible distance from each other. Europe, despite U.S. calls for refocus, signaled its commitment to staying involved in Asia due to deep trade links, colonial legacies, and long-standing military and defense industry ties.
&gt;
&gt;France emphasized its role as an Indo-Pacific power, while Britain reinforced its presence with upcoming naval deployments and longstanding defense agreements. European defense firms, notably from Sweden, France, and Italy, continue expanding operations in the region, capitalizing on Asia's 46% increase in defense spending over the past decade.
&gt;
&gt;While Finland echoed U.S. calls for stronger European defense against Russia, others insisted that strategic balance must include continued engagement in Asia. 

**📜 Community Reminder**: Let’s keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed.



**📰 Media Bias fact Check Rating :**  Reuters – Bias and Credibility 




|Metric|Rating|
|:-|:-|
|Bias Rating|center|
|Factual Rating| very high|
|Credibility Rating|high credibility|

This rating was provided by Media Bias Fact Check. For more information, see Reuters – Bias and Credibility's review 
[here](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/).
***

❓ Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).

GeoIndModBot

SS: Summary: Europe Pushes Back on U.S. Pressure at Shangri-La Security Summit

At the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, tensions emerged not just between the U.S. and China, but also between the U.S. and its European allies over strategic priorities in Asia. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Europe to focus its military investments on defending the continent, allowing the U.S. to take a lead role in the Indo-Pacific. However, European leaders, including EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and French President Emmanuel Macron, pushed back, stressing the interconnectedness of European and Indo-Pacific security.

Meanwhile, India and Pakistan's military delegations attended the summit just weeks after intense border clashes, maintaining a visible distance from each other. Europe, despite U.S. calls for refocus, signaled its commitment to staying involved in Asia due to deep trade links, colonial legacies, and long-standing military and defense industry ties.

France emphasized its role as an Indo-Pacific power, while Britain reinforced its presence with upcoming naval deployments and longstanding defense agreements. European defense firms, notably from Sweden, France, and Italy, continue expanding operations in the region, capitalizing on Asia's 46% increase in defense spending over the past decade.

While Finland echoed U.S. calls for stronger European defense against Russia, others insisted that strategic balance must include continued engagement in Asia.

BROWN-MUNDA_

Who cares what Europe thinks?  They are useless

theWireFan1983

[deleted]

Your description is at odds with the SCO's actual official goals. There is no mention of security/military.

&amp;nbsp;

Here is the excerpt from SCO itself

&amp;nbsp;

&gt;Main fields of activities of the SCO

&gt;Political and diplomatic cooperation

&gt;Trade and economic cooperation

&gt;Cultural and humanitarian cooperation

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

http://eng.sectsco.org/

&amp;nbsp;

A very strong bias exists in most Western reports regarding China. It is important to read official sources from China. Otherwise, one can be easily misled by fringe conspiracy theories [cooked up by paid-for think tanks pushing imperial agendas](https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/09/american-think-tanks-hired-purveyors-fake-news/). For example, it is taken as gospel that America has a thriving democracy with legitimacy while China is on the precipice of a civil war against a so-called "illiberal despotic regime".

&amp;nbsp;

Yet, according to an actual credible on-the-ground study, we find the exact opposite.

https://i.imgur.com/aPlZ9eN.jpg [left = most trusted government = China, right = most untrusted government = USA]

source: https://medium.com/trust-media-and-democracy/the-battle-for-truth-edelman-com-3404077559eb

shadowsweep

&gt;do you think the SCO will be able to surpass the "Western" (euro/american) trade/military bloc?

No.

There's a whole lot of problems with that assumption, the biggest being that the member states of the SCO are committed to the same level of integration we've seen between the West under NATO. They are not. I mean, we have India and Pakistan, two nations in a state of perpetual frozen conflict, both in the organization. And that's not considering China and Russia, who cooperate because of mutual needs (China needs Russian oil and both want to reduce US power in their respective regions) but in the long term face significant problems.

As of right now the SCO is an incredibly light organization and there's not really any serious plans for changing that. I've spoken to plenty of people from SCO member countries, including China, and they all confirm that the SCO isn't really "serious" or working towards a single strategic goal. It is at best a mutual agglomeration of its members essentially tying around China's economy, but there's no way it will ever become a serious geopolitical entity without massive changes.

I don't understand what they hope by putting India and Pakistan in the same room. China and India may do business but India and Pakistan can never do business together. It is doomed to fail like SAARC because of those two countries.

BurgerUSA

This map projection exaggerates the scale of countries around the outside of the map, and inherently presents a picture in which the countries in the center appear to be encircled.

CryForUSArgentina

Just responding to the map as presented--

\- North Korea is close to a Chinese client state, it only exists in present tense because of China, and their continued economic and strategic support has been integral in the State surviving since the 1950s. It is a little weird it is shown as a "systemic challenge and hostile state" unless systemic challenge also means "things that China has created almost solely on its own, that may present some problems for them."

\- Vietnam's hostility towards China is likewise largely a result of PRC policies and behaviors, Vietnam isn't really an American ally nor are the Vietnamese naturally going to side with the U.S. over China, their position is almost entirely a function of being a state that has had historic issues with China invading them, and has remained unfriendly to them since the late 1970s because...of China invading them. Which China did because it was mad that Vietnam had ousted the Khmer Rouge from Cambodia (which was a China-backed regime, which there is little evidence PRC backing the Khmer Rouge was smart or good foreign policy at all.)

\- Showing India and Malaysia as "Allies and partners" of AUKUS is...a little questionable. The U.S. has been working on improving relations with India, but I would argue India and the U.S. have significant differences, I think it goes too far to say they are partners in a real sense. Unless we consider the "Quad" security dialogue to be a "partnership", but I would note the Quad is really just a forum for discussion, it isn't tied into explicit partnerships or security guarantees.

\- Meanwhile, showing India and Malaysia as AUKUS allies / partners, but showing Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand as "grey" is a little mystifying. While not treaty allies, the U.S. and Indonesia have had cooperative military partnerships since early in the Cold War, and in present terms Indonesia is a major purchaser of American weapon systems. Philippines and Thailand are actually designated major non-NATO allies, so it is generally befuddling the map paints them as grey.

Alexios_Makaris

Didn't US just give up a bunch of these "allies"?

Yangguang_Zhijia

China has an unprecedented chance to gain influence over Indonesia and Malaysia right now. The US' role in Gaza has left so many people with a terrible opinion of the US, not to mention the pragmatic concerns about the reliability of US military partnership

Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore are all probably looking to grow out their own independence at the moment. If China makes some strategic concessions and bolsters relations here, there's a path towards a new SEA strategic partnership that could fundamentally shift the balance of powers in the region

Combine that with expansions in diplomatic excursions and economic programs in West Asia and North Africa (which are also facing constituent pressure and pragmatic concerns), and China could drastically change its geopolitical destiny within a decade. We'll see if China is really able to press this advantage in time, though

Gilamath

Both China and Russia are the ones surrounded lmao.

Adventurous_Oil_5897

I usually refer to this kind of behavior as "armchair strategizing" or "map-based empire-building." It’s something commonly seen in boys aged 6 to 12 when they first look at a world map.

Minute_Week_9533

It's insane we have bases so close to them. When Russia did that, we almost started a nuclear war over it.

CiaphasCain8849

Individual-Set5722

Hamster_S_Thompson

If that presentation is true, then please explain why I am still so scared of China that I sometimes awake in the night shaking in fear from dreaming about the next mild maneuver it might conduct in the South China Sea, a sea that was named for its proximity to China.

Ecstatic-Corner-6012

The US doesn't have any allies. Only ex allies it hasn't yet stabbed in the back.

jabaturd

Meanwhile, the US and NATO is boxing in every single nation on earth which doesn't accept its petrodollar.

eachoneteachone45

so maybe China feels a bit threatened?   Same way we felt when a few chinese PLAN ships did a cruise around australia?  Also, remember what happened in china in the 1800s?

JournalistLopsided89

TiberiusGemellus

If this is encirclement, where is there to break out to? Only Africa and South America which combined have only ⅓ as much GDP as China itself.

diffidentblockhead

Meanwhile Trump is going to divide up the world between Russia, China and America. SE Asia will be China's sphere of ownership, including Taiwan, Philippines etc.

Dangerous_Mix_7037

JenikaJen

USA just told Aust to get effed on AUKUS - so I don’t think this is close to reality…Aust are becoming more anti USA and more pro EU AND Chinese, every time trump opens his mouth.

kato1301

“US allies and partners”

Not so much anymore…

Basileus2

Yabrosif13

Bold of the USA to assume they're welcome in Australia...we hold a lot of useful cards.

omgaporksword

I don't understand the purpose of displaying aukus, which i would argue is mostly irrelevant, and not the IPS.

DewinterCor

the colors on this map changed a lot in the past month.

Healthy_Razzmatazz38

I mean, every country is encircled by its enemies. The world is round.

Proman2520

BeAfraidLittleOne

Reading the Chinese and Russian bots pat each other on the back is hilarious.

Dependent_Remove_326

This is what happens when you alienate your neighbors. China has territorial disputes with most of its neighbors. It's fought wars with India and Vietnam, and has aggressively seized islands in the South China sea from Vietnam and the Philippines, and threatened islands belonging to Japan, Malaysia and Indonesia. 

Other countries aren't aggrieved due to American manipulation, but due to Chinese actions. If China feels encircles it's because of it's own policies.

Initial_Hedgehog_631

Made by a literal Lockheed-BAE-Raytheon funded think thank that platforms warmongers, btw

Kcatz363

Dumb question, how does this encirclement actually work? The commerce ships can go anywhere anyway. Is it just for detecting China’s subs?

VegetableWishbone

Now show the world 🌍 map of Chinese 🇨🇳 ports, and major ongoing maritime projects..

The East are the aggressors tho, right everybody?

retard_trader

A map on China’s maritime encirclement w/o Taiwan is an absolute joke.

Monchie

“Forget logistics, you lose.”

- Gen. Fredrick Franks

Might as well lay down, boy

China's fundamental problem lies in the fact that they are absolutely choked at the Strait of Malacca and they don't have a solution. The US can cut off their energy/food/commodity supplies almost immediately through submarine operations alone and China doesn't have the capability to run ASW operations in those theatres because of the distances.

As to people talking about US allies, there are four allies that matter in this theatre and largely the world to the US. The UK, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. The rest of the world/region is either unwilling or incapable of doing anything about a Chinese conflict.

br165

I mean if you show 90% of the fucking planet o course you appear to be encircled!!! Haha 😝

Nervous_Book_4375

STUPID STUPID STUPID (kicks my Australian nationalism out the door)

DotComprehensive3180

It is more dangerous to be a US ally at this point than to be a US foe

Alalolola

Sorry, which allies? Trump is alienating every one of them.

SNAFU-FUBR

unrelated but i love how australia is comically wide here

jundeminzi

Maybe the easiest solution for them would be to flip to blue.

Interesting-Act-8282

If champani bought the PM, does he not own the entire arms of the government, including the courts?

occult-eye

Privatization improves efficiency. 

Next in line, ISRO, private armies, private law enforcement.

/s

(Temples have been given immunity from private sector investment by a recent ruling by our Court system that is reportedly dominated by Brahmins.)

Zzztop69

Jaishankars kids literally work , worked for the Ambanis . Medha Jaishankar as well as his son . Jaishankar i feel is the link btwn Tatas , Reliance and Modi . I cannot see any other plausible reason for Jaishankar to be made the Foreign minister of India .

Substantial-Ad-8908

It’s behind paywall. Anyone have the article please?

ishans1010

The recent India-Central Asia Dialogue, chaired by India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, highlighted the commitment to combating terrorism and expanding cooperation in security, trade, and regional connectivity between India and Central Asian countries. In response to the Pahalgam terror attack, Central Asian foreign ministers condemned terrorism. The dialogue emphasized strengthening connectivity via projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor and stressed the importance of increased financial and trade ties, including in critical minerals exploration.

India-Central Asia Dialogue on Security and Trade Cooperation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want