comment: >
  
  China didn't take off economically until Mao died, though.
context: 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 >
  
  
  . it was an observation about the government of china .. i.e. xi ..
  
  Which is still an inaccurate over simplification. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  Fairly certain the UK’s submarines, cruisers & Carriers outclass the Moskva & constantly limping aircraft Carrier they have to tow through the English Channel. Not sure why this is even a genuine question. >
  
  Because the point is that they have a hell of a lot of boats, the oceans are bloody huge, and Britain has territories spread across the globe to protect.
  Perhaps the UK could sink the Russian fleets on its own, but it isn't a certainty if they were spread out. >
  
  I guess, but I don’t see a scenario where if they were defending mainland Britain, they’d be concerned with defending Turks and Caicos or the Virgin Islands lol >
  
  
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  Trust me, it’s a lot of the same people with similar values just expressed a little differently.
  
  There's a lot to unpack here. I originally wrote a big comment about how the lack of Trotskyists in many or most western political systems isn't an indictment against them even when you take into account legit political oppression in places like the US during the Red Scare but stopped myself.
  Ideological diversity isn't meaningful in a political system if the people at large aren't allowed to participate in it. That's the long and short of it. China is a success story, undoubtably, but their political structure is not one to emulate if you value political freedom. >
  
  Has any platform that is opposed to lobbyist interests and actually “draining the swamp” ever gained meaningful power in the US? We have an illusion of freedom but it’s the same elites that control everything >
  
  I'm sorry this how you think the US works, it's an easy narrative to believe, but it's just not a particularly useful or accurate view. It's really more Veep and less House of Cards. >
  
  Show me examples of any legislation in the last decade where issues benefitting the average American over special interest groups has passed >
  
  I got a couple options in responding to you. Either I Gish gallop you with a dozen links to different bills, or I focus on one which you'll inevitable either (a) disregard as not doing what the bill says its doing or (b) selective pick out parts that are indeed influenced by special interests while ignoring the rest.
  But I'll give it a shot: Respect for Marriage Act >
  
  a bill which effectively does nothing >
  
  My local LGBT community has a number of people who would disagree with you on that. >
  
  China has its problems and so does India. Both have major population and social issues from Massive numbers of sex selective abortions, and in India's case murders as well. This could cripple both countries eventually. >
  
  about china I cant say much because it keeps its internal affairs hidden so Im not sure how bad things are, about india sure it has a lot of potential but it needs to be more efficient and curb its corruption issues and be more organized to have a real claim to power, about russia our population is still a lot more than european nations and its declining with a rate of 0.5% per year while EU nations decline with 1-2% per year , we have a corruption probelm even worse than india yes but simply the amount of natural resources we have is enough to sustain the country and thats what makes the economy so resilient to sanctions infact just recently 82million tons of oil was found in artic (prechora sea)and even as recently as december last year 52billion cubic meters of gas was found in gydan so we can sustain ourselves + we have important powers at UN , as for the SMO lots of equipment is lost but the russian arms industry is strong and self sufficient in all fields other than aviation (china can help here) putin is fighting with volunteers,prisoners and mercenaries so outrage over in russia for loss of loved ones in a pointless war is low due to that war isnt going well people using the equipment are incomptent also ukrainians have more troops since they have mobillized the entire country at this point. So yes there will be a further decline of russia but it will be slight and incredibly resillient russian people and economy will ride them out also in this century there will be a decline of all current 1st world nations in my opinion as they face dwindling populations and social divide among people. >
  
  Thank you for what you shared. I'm curious to know your opinion of Putin and the war and how that is affecting his image domestically. >
  
  I'd be lying if I said I hate Putin just to go with the narrative the truth is Putin picked up Russia at its lowest points in 2000 when leaders like yeltsin who were appointed by the west had basically destroyed the country in the name of democracy and liberalism amassing massive amounts of wealth themselves while the people where dying of hunger, he privatized the economy and handed them to his friends (oligarchs) and did massive parties while the common Russian was starving. Putin came to power 2000 and made us a global superpower again but he has made some very questionable decisions in the past couple years maybe due to his age? I dont know why , domestically its really hard to know what people think here because its like a silent agreement with the goverment that they do what they want and long as it doesnt affect us much we live our lives peacefully so generally politics is avoided as a talking point within the country although nationalist sentiments where high during the start of SMO but that has slowed down now , food and other basic items all are slightly more expensive (5-50% depending on where you live) samsungs are twice as expensive, apple phones are slightly more expensive but xiaomi is cheaper than it was pre-war , we also see a big influx of chinese cars into the russian market. >
  
  I see. Thank you for sharing. I sure hope for all of your sakes that your situation improves. Overall the situation Putin has created is unsustainable, and I worry about the suffering of ordinary Russians. >
  
  No. India is a wildly disorganized and insanely corrupt country in which logistics and “doing business” are incredibly difficult >
  
  
  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. >
  
  India faces an issue when it comes to resources like water and minerals. China is just a much richer nation in that angle too. 
  Also, while China's economic policy has been about enriching and empowering China, India has been more at the mercy of the market. >
  
  India has a caste system.
  Indian women are some of the most oppressed women in the world.
  No India will never be like China in terms of development until their women receive equality and freedom. >
  
  I recently was introduced to Peter Zeihan (zeihan.com).  A geo-political analyst/economist.
  He has some very interesting perspectives on the demographic, economicand political "doom" of globalization and its inevitable negative impact on China, India, etc.
  According to him,China AND Russia have (for various reasons) only one or two generations before serious collapse.
  Interestingly he believes that the US retreat from providing global sea lane security  which has beenthe foundation of globalization will  contribute disproportionately to the collapse of global supply chains causing depression, famine and war.
  Fascinating but depressing at the big picture level. >
  
  I've concluded that while plausible he's more of a pop geopol guy and therefore lacks the serious credibility of a Fukuyama or Kissinger, both of whom are much more illuminating to read than I found in Zeihan. >
  
  Pop geopol guy?  Kinda like Brian Cox being a pop sci guy?
  ONe mans' illumination is another's darkness.  Subjective assessments being what they are and all. >
  
  That's exactly the space he occupies. He has legit connections but his doom and gloom conclusions are played out on a time frame longer than any expert could credibly predict. In other words his speculation is what makes him a pop geopolitics guy. 
  I don't understand your illumination=darkness point. If that's some sort of a dig you may want to read Fukuyama, Kissinger, or any other serious geopolitics expert. >
  
  He makes no bones about it being speculation.  Nobody would consider predictions of economic/political/social outcomes some two generations hence as being anything other.  
  Not a dig,just a poor word play attempt on subjective assessment. >
  
  Then it should be clear that he is operating in a pop geopolitical space due to his creativity which a serious author would avoid. That's fine. He's interested in clicks and books.
  I have no bones to pick with Zeihan. I think if you speak to others who take geopolitics seriously you would find their assessment to be similar to mine. >
  
  For all our sakes, I hope not. 
  We need the west to draw down CO2 emissions while the rest of the world stays relatively steady.
  It's a big ask for India, and why we should be helping them fund their green infrastructure. >
  
  Let the maoists take over India and they will maybe surpass China, otherwise no. The only reason China is as successful as they are is because of the CPC. 
  China will probably surpass US in gdp in the coming decades and will probably be fine.
  Russia has too many natural resources to decline as much as people would want them to. They will also probably be fine.