Anit Mukherjee replies: The concept of Strategic Depth emerges from the realm of military operations and it usually denotes the distance between enemy forces and the main centres of gravity of a country. These centres could be military frontlines, bases, or industrial and commercial hubs. For a military professional, the greater the distance that has to be traversed by enemy forces to reach these bases, the better are the chances of a successful defensive operation. This is primarily because it gives the defender more time and space to organise the defence and stretches the enemy’s logistical chain.

The best examples emerge from the French and German invasions of Russia/Soviet Union. Russian strategy traded space for time and even followed a scorched earth policy. They also relocated key industries to the hinterland. In short, Russia had the luxury of space and had greater strategic depth. In more contemporary times, some in Pakistan have justified meddling in Afghanistan so that they can attain ‘strategic depth’ in case of a war with India. This, however, logically means that the Pakistani military will desert its people and the country and operate out of Afghanistan to fight India. Rightfully so then this idea has been ridiculed by many Pakistani analysts.

S. Kalyanaraman replies: Natural allies are normally 'birds of the same feather', while strategic partners are often ‘strange bedfellows’. Natural allies (think of America and Britain during the Second World War) share common political and cultural values—they may believe in democracy or authoritarianism; they may uphold liberal capitalism or socialism or state corporatism; they may share common historical and cultural traditions; their societal values may be more or less similar; they may practice the same religion; and so on.

Strategic partners (think of America and the Soviet Union during the Second World War) may share none of these similarities. Notwithstanding this difference, what makes two countries either natural allies or strategic partners is the common security challenge that they both face at a particular juncture in history and more importantly their decision to come together and pool their resources to deal with this challenge (think of America, Britain and the Soviet Union coming together to deal with the Fascist challenge during the Second World War).

Namrata Goswami replies: Geo-economics is the study of how economics functions in an international environment. It is basically an academic study of the global move of capital, market and labour. The concept of geo-economics thereby interacts with the geographic and demographic aspects of states and consequently influences their own policy with regard to international trade and commerce. Geo-economics also provides us with a list of economic powers; the states with the greatest economic strengths, and how that influences the structure of power. For example, the US as the top economy followed by China as the second largest economy, and how the distribution of economic power informs their politics, etc.

Geo-strategy is the practical world of policy-making amongst states at the international level. It basically informs states to chart out a strategic course of which policies to undertake in order to improve ones’ own position in the international order. This could include policies to become the world’s pre-eminent power, or to become an economic power or a regional actor. The geographic location of a country plays a critical role in the formulation of geo-strategy.

Strategic partnership is a partnership between two states in order to support/forward/craft particular goals in the international order. A strategic partnership enables two states to have a common vision towards a particular foreign policy goal. For example, the US and India have a strategic partnership between them. This strategic partnership brings the two countries together on global issues like safeguard of the global commons, the fight against piracy, non-proliferation, high technology cooperation, etc. The strategic partnership framework also offers the guidelines for future policy making on issues of common interest.