Japan vows to invest $35 billion over 5 years in India

[Officer of Engineers]

But how is China destroying India helping them against the Soviets?

If anything, in taking out India, they are a spent force. The Soviets then simply walk in (after taking Pakistan) and take BOTH India (if they want to) and China (which they do).

In the defeat of India, China is ensuring her own.

Either they fight and go down OR they give up Tibet. There is no way they can face an Indian Army unoccupied by Pakistan, harassment by the Vietnamese, and the Soviets in the North.

[commander]

Um, the 100 billion was projected investment over the next five years, Xi's visit is to set groundwork for that $80 billion, plus more.

Isn't the 20$ Billion stretched over 5 years too and not in a single year? It was the Chinese diplomat that spread the news about a 100$ Billion investment.

[sated buddha]

Either they fight and go down OR they give up Tibet. There is no way they can face an Indian Army unoccupied by Pakistan, harassment by the Vietnamese, and the Soviets in the North.

So to save Tibet they ensure the loss of mainland China?

Why is Tibet that important to the Chinese? Enough to risk, nay guarantee, their own demise.

In the scenario you have outlined, the Soviets need to do nothing. Just wait for China to spend herself defeating India. Then come in and pick up the pieces.

Why would China risk that and not simply cede Tibet to a vastly more powerful foe?

[Officer of Engineers]

So to save Tibet they ensure the loss of mainland China?

They lose Tibet, they lost Xinjiang and Lanzhou.

[sated buddha]

They lose Tibet, they lost Xinjiang and Lanzhou.

But they still have and get to keep what was always China.

Not the historical calisthenics the Chinese like to play.

Tactical retreat.

[Officer of Engineers]

Can you yield half of India to Pakistan?

[commander]

Can you yield half of India to Pakistan?

Pakistan was our's to begin with, so we may as well take it back than ceding land to them.

[sated buddha]

Can you yield half of India to Pakistan?

Your question is not complete, not to mention the analogy is of apples and peanuts.

If Pakistan were the Soviets threatening the whole of India, and they would let us be and keep the rest if we ceded Kashmir, would we yield?

That's closer to the apple.

[Batista]

Can you yield half of India to Pakistan?

You need to go through the history of Indian Subcontinent. It was Pakistan who was the part of India.

India won lot of land in wars specially the comprehensive and thrashing win over Pakistan in 71 but even then India returned back lot of land thinking it would result in long term peace and goodwill between both but it didn't happen.Also India raised the war due to Bangladesh but didn't annex/claim Bangladesh and it was made a free country.

Whereas China is a PROVEN expansionist country and would chew down anyone who can't stand against them.Tibet was weak and had no Army and it got annexed by China.No one would directly fight for Tibet except Tibetians themselves.Tibet is basically a OCCUPIED territory by sheer force and now outnumbered by Han Chinese.Here is the history of China so it can start with 1000 BCE(Zhou Dynasty) whenever it want to put "claims" based on history.



Also Mongolia can claim vast lands including 100% of today's China.

[Officer of Engineers]

Pakistan was our's to begin with, so we may as well take it back than ceding land to them.

From their PoV, India was theirs. The Mughal Empire came from their direction.

Your question is not complete, not to mention the analogy is of apples and peanuts.

Why the hell do you insist on using trees to blind you to the forest. The question is damned simple. Will you cede half of India to anyone without a fight. I don't care if it's the Pakistanis, Soviets, or Martians. Will you give up half of India without a fight?

[Officer of Engineers]

You need to go through the history of Indian Subcontinent. It was Pakistan who was the part of India.

I've been around long enough to be educated about the Indian subcontinent. The point was about the balls to fight whatever enemy. Not about history.

Whereas China is a PROVEN expansionist country and would chew down anyone who can't stand against them.Tibet was weak and had no Army and it got annexed by China.No one would directly fight for Tibet except Tibetians themselves.Tibet is basically a OCCUPIED territory by sheer force and now outnumbered by Han Chinese.Here is the history of China so it can start with 1000 BCE(Zhou Dynasty) whenever it want to put "claims" based on history.

Oh baloney. For most part, Chinese historic wars was against other Chinese dynasties. There was not even a China until the Mongols. The Soongs spoke a different language than the Zhous.

And according to the last census, Tibetans made up 95% of the population in Tibet.

[commander]

From their PoV, India was theirs. The Mughal Empire came from their direction.

A correction, before there were Muslim's in modern Pakistan and Afghanistan to an extent (Pakistani muslims chose to leave India after partition) it was mainly a Hindu populated area. So however way you look at it, Pakistan was ours to begin with.

[Batista]

A correction, before there were Muslim's in modern Pakistan and Afghanistan to an extent (Pakistani muslims chose to leave India after partition) it was mainly a Hindu populated area. So however way you look at it, Pakistan was ours to begin with.

Someone is not aware of history about India.

[Officer of Engineers]

A correction, before there were Muslim's in modern Pakistan and Afghanistan to an extent (Pakistani muslims chose to leave India after partition) it was mainly a Hindu populated area. So however way you look at it, Pakistan was ours to begin with.

I said from their POV. They took India. They see themselves as heirs to the Mughal Empire.

[Double Edge]

I am not denying that but I am only trying to say what they have done in comparison to what they take from us is ridiculous. AND they throw beers at us on the border ?

And we are trying to right this imbalance i thought. If Deng could exploit the system to China's advantage what is stopping us from doing the same. My position is to support further engagement whereas you are advocating isolation.

Historical in the sense of 5 or 6 decades maybe ? That is certainly not that longer when compared to the relationship between two countries which extends beyond thousands of years.

Much older or there would have been no '62. Chinese are very good with maps, ours date back to the 18th century, there is a difference of opinion here and it goes back a while. There has been little progress on this issue to date and am not expecting much but does it need to be an obstacle to better relations in other areas, i think not. The potential to cooperate and profit on common areas of interest exists and should be taken.

See this op-ed by Xi jinping. What should we do.

Outlast the CCP since they are the ones bringing up the issue.

But the current situation is as bad as constant itch in your unreachable part of your back and in our case we can do nothing but live with it. We can't concentrate fully if we continue to have that itch aren't we. You would one day force to take a big stick and try to scratch it for your hearts content and lets hope the itch fades away and doesn't go down that way.

Only if you allow it to take front and center position.

But if Japan and other countries want to move their investments outside China they are bound to lose big unless they find another competitor who can offer similar arrangements at the same price. If they do move away then that would result in their economy taking a big hit and China knows it very well and is playing it's hand nicely. I can say it almost back stabbed other countries by playing the nice host.

Domestic business lobby in any country that trades with China is a pro China lobby. Same on the other side. You seem to be giving China the advantage here and everybody else is just a runner up. You are looking at this solely through a zero sum game vs a win-win or lose-lose proposition which is what increased relations seeks to introduce.

I couldn't have come up with a better example. Lets not forget what happened to Ukraine that was caught in between.

Its an extreme example with annexation thrown in. Much more complicated than what exists right now with China. So you can see how things could evolve if not managed in time. Then the nationalists become ascendant, the shouting starts and we are left in a difficult situation. which alternative would you choose.

Something like this ?

Source

So we have to sell our sovereignty to another nation ? I chose not to , even if it means having a slow growth rate.

What did the Tajiks get out of it. Is it a good deal or not. Is it a permanent solution or not.

The questions that remains unanswered
- is China an revisionist power that seeks to rewrite existing laws and borders or is the fast rise of China posing a security dilemma to its neighbours. If you pick the first your perceptions and reactions will be very different to the latter. If it turns out to be the latter then the alliances kick in and deterrence becomes necessary. But we're not at this point yet.

- Deng said bide your time and not cause trouble in the neighbourhood. What happens after China bides its time. Does it lay back quietly or not. We don't know.