Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If China makes a grab for Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet, can it win?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DOR View Post

    No domestic or geo-political issues involved, huh? just a “claim”?
    Not good enough, not by a long shot.
    Ok, how to convince Indians of that after 1962 ?

    Comment


    • #17
      Some reading

      PLA options in the Sikkim-Tibet Region | Aug 2012

      India, China and Shaksgam Valley | Apr 2018


      Those are the two areas of interest. Sikkim & Ladakh

      Arunachal does not get much mention by the same author because the strategic significance is less.

      I can't figure out what strategic gain China gets by occupying Arunachal other than the intangible of embarrassing the Indian govt.
      Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Sep 20,, 17:42.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DOR View Post
        Why would China do that?
        [No domestic or geo-political issues involved, huh? just a “claim”?
        Not good enough, not by a long shot.
        You might very well ask "Why does China do anything?". There was no geopolitical reason to trigger the massive buildup and clashes in Ladakh either. But they did it anyway.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

          Ok, how to convince Indians of that after 1962 ?
          Um, an understanding of general political theory is a good start, then some Chinese history, and maybe a bit of Pekingology.
          In other words, the same way as everyone else.
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DOR View Post

            No domestic or geo-political issues involved, huh? just a “claim”?
            Not good enough, not by a long shot.
            As expected, you haven't read anything. Please continue your unnecessary rants.
            Last edited by Oracle; 18 Sep 20,, 07:05.
            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DOR View Post

              Um, an understanding of general political theory is a good start, then some Chinese history, and maybe a bit of Pekingology.
              In other words, the same way as everyone else.
              This everyone else did not get attacked by China in 1962

              They've built up in several locations across a 4,000 km border.

              About a 1,000 armoured vehicles in the spanguur area and 40-50k troops in the Ladakh area

              This isn't like the previous stand offs. They seem more stubborn this time.

              What are they here for ? a picnic
              Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Sep 20,, 14:29.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DOR View Post

                No domestic or geo-political issues involved, huh? just a “claim”?
                Not good enough, not by a long shot.
                Consider domestic. In fact so domestic that it does not matter what India says or does. The idea is to get India to cooperate in the plan by making suitable provocations and then finish the job. Going by his comparison with Mao.

                XJP needs to win the power struggle in the CCP ?

                People were upset when he did away with term limits. The only political reform from the Deng era.

                He wanted the 'chairman title' but had to settle for 'general secretary'

                60% - 70% of CCP members don't like him but are powerless to do anything about it. This comes from people who fled to the US.

                He's clamped down and made enemies. Pandemic is affecting the economy. China's image is getting a battering on a global level.

                He's falied in HK.

                He's ruined US - China relations. Stable US - China relations are a party imperative.

                The majority of party elders or retired CCP from where he draws power are upset with him.

                XJP appears strong because his men are in charge of state propaganda and state security but among the top party ranks his power is declining.

                When it comes to picking a fight and having something to show Emperor XJP thinks India might be easier target than Japan, Taiwan or SCS.

                Any win here isn't a China win but a XJP win.

                Like Mao needed a win after the famine and to defeat Liu Shaoqi

                No famine in China today but flooding arable land affects crops.

                Attack, attack, attack otherwise the CCP loses power. Attack Chinese people, attack neighbouring countries, attack the US.

                He thinks China will attack in the winter because the assessment is China would have the advantage logistics wise. Really ?

                Well, Napolean & Hitler thought that was a good idea too.

                Talks with China only serve their PR interests to show China is not a war monger. China does not want a war. China is the reasonable party.

                The idea is fighting and talking, talking and fighting, fighting to win the talking.



                Ideas for above come from a professor that got jailed in the wake of Tianamen and since emigrated to the US.

                He has quite a thick accent so enabling close captions helps

                Interesting because nobody i've heard to date has been able to comment on the state of XJP in his party.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 20,, 23:16.

                Comment


                • #23
                  What i find curious is Chen Pokong says Tianamen happened too early. Jun 1989.

                  Berlin wall fell in Nov of that year.

                  Had Tianamnen happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, China could have become democratic

                  As the protests had spread to 300 cities before the massacre took place.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    In 1961-63, Mao was sidelined, as much as Mao could be sidelined. He stepped back from prominence after the Great Leap Forward and Marshal Pend Dehuai's denunciation of his failed programs. Liu Shaoqi pretty much ran the show, with Deng Xiaoping as his deputy and support from most (8 or 9 of 10) of the Marshals and a whole slew of the senior-most party leaders. Mao's response was the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

                    In other words, there were domestic considerations.


                    Fast forward to 2020. Xi Jinping has consolidated power as no one has since Mao Himself. There is no obvious power struggle within the CCP, much as people might want to believe. It will come, but there is no evidence of it yet.

                    In other words, very, very different domestic considerations.


                    = = =


                    Anyone who thinks the “only political reform from the Deng era” was term limits doesn't understand the first thing about Chinese politics.


                    Anyone who asserts that “ 60% - 70% of CCP members don't like” Xi, or that “the majority of party elders or retired CCP” members are upset with him is probably too dependent on Epoch Times and the political diaspora to be considered well-informed.


                    Anyone who thinks Xi Jinping “ruined US-China relations” probably thinks The Trumpet is a competent.


                    Anyone who thinks that China might have “become democratic” if the Berlin Wall have fallen before the Tiananmen protests doesn't understand the first thing about what happened in China in 1989.


                    Clamping down and making enemies is in the General Secretary job description. Even Hu Jintao did it.


                    It would be highly unusual for the most powerful leader in China not to have his own allies running the propaganda and security organizations.


                    The last time there was no flooding of arable land in China was … never.



                    Trust me?
                    I'm an economist!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      In 1961-63, Mao was sidelined, as much as Mao could be sidelined. He stepped back from prominence after the Great Leap Forward and Marshal Pend Dehuai's denunciation of his failed programs. Liu Shaoqi pretty much ran the show, with Deng Xiaoping as his deputy and support from most (8 or 9 of 10) of the Marshals and a whole slew of the senior-most party leaders. Mao's response was the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

                      In other words, there were domestic considerations.
                      How signficant were they ? could they be the primary driver for the thesis that Mao needed a win to assert himself.

                      in which case 1962 war had nothing to do with what India did.

                      Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      Fast forward to 2020. Xi Jinping has consolidated power as no one has since Mao Himself. There is no obvious power struggle within the CCP, much as people might want to believe. It will come, but there is no evidence of it yet.

                      In other words, very, very different domestic considerations.
                      And what is the nature of those considerations ?

                      XJP isn't sitting pretty right now. There may be no discernible evidence of resistance to his leadership but how to rule it out.

                      5th plenary coming up next month. Just how lucky does XJP feel. What does he have to show for his efforts

                      Jury's still out on what is presently making XJP go on all fronts.

                      Since the action is simultaneous it has a common cause and has nothing to do with what any individual country has done.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Sep 20,, 01:37.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Double Edge,


                        Did Mao need to assert himself?

                        Did you miss the part about “In 1961-63 Mao was sidelined ...” ?



                        India did nothing?

                        That would imply it was entirely domestic considerations, not that there were some.




                        OK, Chinese Politics 101
                        • China is a communist party-run state.
                        • The communist political structure is Leninist.
                        • In a Leninist political structure, smaller and smaller groups decide who makes decisions. Each level lower down follows the orders of those higher up.
                        When it is time to select a new leader, senior members of the party tend to form coalitions, interest groups, or factions. These may be temporary, such as the group that ousted the Gang of Four in 1976 and then fell apart in 1977; or they may be enduring, such as the Elders that completed the de-Maoification process and guided the country through the first decade of the reform era.

                        Unless there is an active change of leadership going on, the ideal is for the system to be run by consensus, and not by factional interest. However, in the rare case when one faction or leader manages to suppress all others, a period of one-man or small-group rule may arise. This arrangement will continue until either death(s), or severe disagreement over direction (e.g., Tiananmen).

                        Whoever runs China, there is always someone else who wishes to have a shot at the top job. That'sthe nature of the system, and not a signal that any top leader is vulnerable. It's like saying that The Trumpet is vulnerable because its an election year. No, that's not the reason; it's institutional.

                        Wishing Xi Jinping were on the verge of being thrown out doesn't make it so.
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          Double Edge,


                          Did Mao need to assert himself?

                          Did you miss the part about “In 1961-63 Mao was sidelined ...” ?
                          No, but it just struck me as odd that Mao'd not be in the driver's seat between 61 - 63 !!

                          That means there is no way to re-assert himself is there. He's sidelined.

                          So the '62 war, according to you was green lighted by Liq Shaoqui ?



                          Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          OK, Chinese Politics 101
                          • China is a communist party-run state.
                          • The communist political structure is Leninist.
                          • In a Leninist political structure, smaller and smaller groups decide who makes decisions. Each level lower down follows the orders of those higher up.
                          When it is time to select a new leader, senior members of the party tend to form coalitions, interest groups, or factions. These may be temporary, such as the group that ousted the Gang of Four in 1976 and then fell apart in 1977; or they may be enduring, such as the Elders that completed the de-Maoification process and guided the country through the first decade of the reform era.

                          Unless there is an active change of leadership going on, the ideal is for the system to be run by consensus, and not by factional interest. However, in the rare case when one faction or leader manages to suppress all others, a period of one-man or small-group rule may arise. This arrangement will continue until either death(s), or severe disagreement over direction (e.g., Tiananmen).

                          Whoever runs China, there is always someone else who wishes to have a shot at the top job. That'sthe nature of the system, and not a signal that any top leader is vulnerable. It's like saying that The Trumpet is vulnerable because its an election year. No, that's not the reason; it's institutional.

                          Wishing Xi Jinping were on the verge of being thrown out doesn't make it so.
                          Is the red bit applicable right now with XJP ?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

                            No, but it just struck me as odd that Mao'd not be in the driver's seat between 61 - 63 !!

                            That means there is no way to re-assert himself is there. He's sidelined.

                            So the '62 war, according to you was green lighted by Liq Shaoqui ?





                            Is the red bit applicable right now with XJP ?
                            Liu Shaoqi was in charge in 1962, and Mao Zedong was not involved in daily operations. He was probably aware and consulted, but if he strongly disagreed with a decision that others thought was correct, he was over-ruled. That's why he started the Socialist Education Movement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...ation_Movement> and, as a follow-on, the GPCR.



                            To answer your question, yes, Xi Jinping is in charge, and we are in an era of “one-man or small group rule.” His rapid centralization is the opposite of what happened in the early 1960s, when Liu, Deng, et al, severely decentralized the CCP's power structure.

                            Trust me?
                            I'm an economist!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DOR View Post

                              Liu Shaoqi was in charge in 1962, and Mao Zedong was not involved in daily operations. He was probably aware and consulted, but if he strongly disagreed with a decision that others thought was correct, he was over-ruled. That's why he started the Socialist Education Movement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...ation_Movement> and, as a follow-on, the GPCR.
                              That is what surprises me. These dictators are always purging people they suspect of disloyalty.

                              If they suspect loyatly is less than 100% then said person gets on the list for the next purge.

                              So how then could Mao ever be over ruled ?

                              A dictator would have to screw up pretty spectacularly for people to have a change of mind.

                              Maybe Great leap forward was just that.


                              Originally posted by DOR View Post
                              To answer your question, yes, Xi Jinping is in charge, and we are in an era of “one-man or small group rule.” His rapid centralization is the opposite of what happened in the early 1960s, when Liu, Deng, et al, severely decentralized the CCP's power structure.
                              So Xi can screw up and not get sidelined or have less risk of getting side lined in other words.

                              Hmmm...

                              One commentator I heard said he expected Xi to quit by years end on the same grounds as Abe.

                              Health reasons.

                              We'll see but I cannot believe this man is going to survive long into the future, term limits or not.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                That is what surprises me. These dictators are always purging people they suspect of disloyalty.

                                If they suspect loyatly is less than 100% then said person gets on the list for the next purge.

                                So how then could Mao ever be over ruled ?
                                Dictatorships aren't always what people think they are. The balance of power between minions and dictators shifts unpredictably. That's the reason for random purges. One day you find that you're dictator in name only. The next, you're no longer even dictator in name. And sometime after that, you're shunted off to the gulag, or worse.

                                Shoguns ruled Japan for ~700 years, during a time when the Emperor was a mere figurehead. There's an argument to be made that Japan was ruled by an oligarchy of competing interests with the Emperor as their puppet even after the Meiji Restoration supposedly made the Emperor's authority paramount once again.

                                The key, ultimately, is who controls the organs of state power. Deng Xiaoping secured the assent of the heads of the relevant units before launching his successful coup against Hua Guofeng. Anyone looking to challenge Xi would have accomplish something similar. Bo Xilai was rumored to have been doing something similar when he was arrested. He obviously failed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X