>

How much ideological diversity is there really at the top of western elite circles? Trust me, it’s a lot of the same people with similar values just expressed a little differently.
i am not sure i agree with your trickle-down philosophy. it has never worked in the west .. it's a mirage that the elite have foisted on the plebs. it serves to more quickly widen the gap between rich and poor .. and ultimately will erode democracy as the richest gain more power .. tending to push india into a corporatocracy like the west.
your point re obedience in china is valid. china is just one person: xi. he doesn't want diversity .. which ultimately will not stand the test in time. and besides, he won't be at the helm forever (if only bc nobody lives forever), and his successor probably won't be as skilled at suppressing the masses. >


china is just one person: xi

There are 1.4 billion humans in China, maybe let's tone down the casual dehumanization of non-western people >

i wasn't making a statement about non-western people. it was an observation about the government of china .. i.e. xi .. which also happens to be quite different to most of the rest of the world, including other asian nations. 
and for that matter, i wasn't even making a statement about the rest of the 1.4B .. only about its autocratic leader >

That's still an ignorant outsider's perspective. You should read up on the Politburo Committee to get a better idea. >


with Russia's population so small, is there a time when they will reasonably be considered a second rate power?

In military terms the Soviet Union was once a significant power on par with Europe as a whole but Russia has never been equal to that.  Since the collapse of the USSR they've been a corrupt hell hole broadly propper up by oil sales to Europe that happened to inherent a vast amount of military equipment.  But decades have rolled by without investment, maintainence and with widespread corruption and apathy so their arsenal lost much of its power.
These days Russia ranks alongside France or the UK on their own in terms of force projection and now they've blown all their armour and artillary up in Ukraine they've lost their trump card of heavy armour for a land war.
In economic terms Russia is nothing, its smaller than some US states or European countries and in competition terms it would need to take on their compined might.  It does provide food, fertiliser, energy and minerals etc so it will be a pain to switch over to alternatives. >

Don't the UK and France have better force projection than Russia? Russia currently doesn't even have a single active aircraft carrier. >

Sure, but it isn't exactly clear how the UK navy vs the Russian navy would go.
It doesn't really matter of course, as it would be all of NATO vs Russia and that's a very quick fight. >



China is heading not only to a demographic crisis, but a hidden debt crisis from all its book cooking. Tons of projects that don't turn out the inflow of cash expected and a tax base that frequently doesn't file anything. 


India definitely has the potential to seize the opportunity to replace China as a dominant power. Their corporations have been doing very well recently. 


Russia bungling their invasion of Ukraine has defanged them. They no longer appear to be polished manipulators or rational tacticians. Russia really should have balkanized further than it did, and this may be a catalyst. >

Is it really that insane to expect China to experience crises the same way that literally every other country in world history has? >

Does every other country get accused of cooking their books and having a tax base that doesn’t file anything? >

Sure it might not be exactly 8% every year, but you can’t deny the actual progress in terms of bullet trains connecting the entire country and >10M population cities popping up over a decade >


Can India, which now boasts the world's single-largest country population ever capture the same power of China?

It certainly has the potential, huge numbers of relatively poor people that speak English and have trade relationships with the West are extremely well placed to work in manufacturing etc for prodominently western countries.
One issue is their alliance with Russia which has surely cooled things for a while and is likely to damage future integration.  A heck of a lot of people in the West likely assumed that Indians were close partners and friends, but I've met a lot of hostile and bitter people online that are defending their support of Russia's genocidal behaviour.  That's not a good look.

The next, related to population, is how will China contend with their dwindling population figures

Who can really say, these things come and go in boom and bust and there's no roadmap for this process.  They do seem to be making many smart (if sometimes abusive) investments in the very long term and seem to have enough sense not to provoke military conflicts with the West.  
They have connections around the globe, stockpiles of raw materials and one advantage to their political system is they can move mountains wuickly when needed and can keep a singular focus over very long periods of time. >

Thanks for this. What sorts of smart (and abusive) investments are they making? I only know of infrastructure in Africa, but no other region. >

Well building artifical islands and attempting a hostile take over of international waters is a problem.
Buying up huge amounts of rare earth elements and stockpiling them is aggressive and blatently ripping off any and all intellectual property is unkind to say the least.  The African loans system was also something I was referring to. >

That. And also IP theft, currency manipulation, fake economic and financial data, and no environmental controls. >

Agree with you and all those points but China is also a lot more centralized in governmental structure than India. In regards to politics, even with competing factions, the Chinese political body is a lot more unified so it is a lot easier to move things along once the plans are set in motion >

Yes, agreed. But Xi Jinping can screw  up progress just as fast by removing opposing thought just like Putin did. Who to answer the second question, Russia  is a nuclear power and clearly not a world power. >

another problem with Xi is the bureaucracy around him is afraid to tell him bad news in case he punishes them. He is in a bubble of his own making
common problem with most autocrats >

This isn't really the case, Xi has surrounded himself with people from various factions and political ideologies and apparently behind closed doors, they're pushed to speak their mind. >


and apparently behind closed doors,

If it's behind closed doors, how are you getting this information? >

He is the bolt on the closed door. >

It shouldn't be ignored that China's growth was also aided by cheaper communications infrastructure as the rural areas went directly to wireless technology. >

No, unless a Communist Revolution takes place and completely changes the social relations within india, it will never compete seriously with China.
One of the large issues with India is it's Hindu caste system which means huge swaths of the population aren't tapped for potential economic growth.
The CCP is also ruthlessly efficient and extremely realist with a heavy materialist ideological outlook on the world. The CCP is also able to react very quickly to public demand and issues due to a system known as Mass Line, where the CCP seeds ideas to the public as a "grassroots" idea, then gauges the reaction, they also test policies by basically formenting protests about various issues and policy and gauge the public reaction that way. The CCP also funnily enough, has more ideological representation and "big tent" through factions within, than you will find in any Western Democracy. Neoliberals, Maoists, Communists, Market Socialists, Libertarians, Embedded Liberalists, Nationalists, Leagalists, Confucianians, Stalinists, Trotskyists and all sorts of political ideologies unique to China etc etc all under the same banner, they're given more free reign to speak their mind behind closed doors, but are made to present a unified front to the public once a decision is made.
A good insight into how the CCP is so successful.
Such an efficient, centralised system that is so heavily tested simply isn't the case of the political reality of India, that with the rise of radical Hinduvta, and the caste system on top. >


The CCP also funnily enough, has more ideological representation and "big tent" through factions within, than you will find in any Western Democracy. Neoliberals, Maoists, Communists, Market Socialists, Libertarians, Embedded Liberalists, Nationalists, Leagalists, Confucianians, Stalinists, Trotskyists and all sorts of political ideologies unique to China etc etc all under the same banner, they're given more free reign to speak their mind behind closed doors, but are made to present a unified front to the public once a decision is made.

While certainly interesting, this kind of 'political freedom of the few' is not particularly comparable to ideological diversity found in western democracies.