I find Happymon Jacob’s middle-class analogy particularly interesting. He is one of the more pragmatic Indian scholars I read. His willingness to acknowledge India’s limits keeps his analysis focused on what the country can realistically do. Mao’s discussions of two intermediate zones in 1963–64 offer another angle. In July 1964, he observed: “Some imperialists also oppose US imperialism.” A state can resist a stronger power while dominating weaker neighbours. Nor does cooperation require equal distance from both giants. China later worked with Washington against Soviet pressure. Today, a country can rely on a power for security while resisting its trade demands. Cooperation matters when it gives each member more room to act. Shared anxiety also leaves fierce competition intact. These countries compete for the same investment and export markets. A common middle-power identity gives them little reason to surrender those interests. Moving closer to Washington or Beijing may serve them better. For India, this raises a question about what its rise offers fellow members. Preserving India’s chance to become a third pole will struggle to unite countries pursuing ambitions of their own. They need a reason to believe India’s rise will also improve their position.