No announcement yet.

Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Oracle View Post

    CPC doesn't hold India in good stead (much like Nazis viewed Jews), that is friend or foe (foe in a way is good). It views India as beneath them. Hitleristic thinking.
    I mean since they do not have a concept of friend the present equidistant position is the optimal stance. It's better than foe.

    We're a sorta foe but not a foe foe. They can't pigeon hole us. That ambiguity works to our advantage.

    The point that has to be made is they deter us with a quarter of the strength we have deployed. They think they can rapidly move more in and spend less to keep their troops in the higher altitudes. This way they spend less than we do but in a pinch we can dominate them.

    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    I am confused. Say, 15 years from now, 2035 would have been a better time to consolidate China's dominance in Asia and beyond (with their rapid military modernisation - quantity has a quality of its own), as India like always would have been sleeping, and would not have been in a position to counter China then. A decade from now, 2030, too would have been better. Why now? Why start a fight that they cannot win? It 100% has Xi's signature all over, so, why now?
    Speculation. Due to Covid, the world is preoccupied with other issues. Even the Americans are down and there is a pattern here. After the 2008 financial crisis, China concluded the US was down and started getting aggressive. So why wait for 2035 when you can move now ?

    At the same time pressure on all the countries at the same time is to threaten them. That if they get involved with the US then things will get worse for them. This overreach is going to backfire spectacularly.

    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    Part of it, what I think is the cult imperial status Xi assumed for himself. He has to show a strong nationalistic side - to his countrymen, to the PLA generals, to the opposing clans in CPC. He played his cards too soon and exposed himself. Xi in trying to show how strong China is, is making repeated mistakes.

    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    BRI is another huge economic mistake. It doesn't make sense for a country with deep pockets (China) to build another country's economy. A country should go there and build infrastructure for the local economy, so that the local economy can take advantage of the newly created infrastructure and grow. BRI is all about planning to create an economy through infrastructure projects. If there is no economy to talk about, turning a desert into San Franciso won't change anything. Who will use those newly created infrastructure? There is bound to be losses, most of it. The thing is, for their strategic gains, they masked BRI as helping poor countries with infrastructure. For example Pakistan, Xinjiang-PoK highway (built by Chinese nationals with Chinese materials) directly benefits the Chinese to lift fuel and goods in times of crisis from Gwadar port avoiding IOR chokepoints, and Pakistan is paying for it with Chinese loans at higher interest rates. What/how much does Pakistan export via this highway to China? Not much huh. Sri Lanka is another glaring example of huge strategic gains made with just a couple of billion dollars investment. Yes, we can blow it up if needed, but India as always was caught napping, right? Much like, should we step in? Why would we, we're non-aligned. Non aligned went out of the window in 1971, this needs to be put into the brains of our politicians.
    What if you replace CPEC with alliance ?

    Sri Lanka asked us first but we weren't interested because there were no commercial gains to be had in Hambantota. Remember this is after the LTTE war ended and Sri Lanka found itself blacklisted due to human rights violations. Getting access to capital was hard.

    Sri Lanka isn't going to mess with us. We can bankrupt Colombo as a port if we activate the Andamans for reshipment..

    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    China could have become the #1 economic power in the world in another decade or so, if they listened to Deng - hide your strength, bide your time, OR opened up their economy, accepted democracy etc. I for one, pity the common Chinese for the authoritarian regime they have been putting up with for 7 decades.
    Covid changed things.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Oct 20,, 20:37.


    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post

      CPC doesn't hold India in good stead (much like Nazis viewed Jews), that is friend or foe (foe in a way is good). It views India as beneath them. Hitleristic thinking.
      Nazis or Imperial Japan greatness depended on the subjugation of others.

      China wants no opposition to their policy. They want others to tow their line.

      Nobody must have a veto over China policy.

      The basis goes way way back. All under one heaven

      Originally posted by xunil View Post
      Westerners may not understand Han Chinese's attitude towards religion.

      Before Han dynasty, there is no religion in China. Most of Chinese worship their ancient, imaginative creatures like Loong(龙) or originators of their professions.

      Then Confucianist create an ideology: The highest level of deity is "Heaven". Every deities people worship were under guideness of "Heaven".

      So no matter what kinds of deities poeple worship, they should always obey the guideness of "Heaven".

      And the King is the "Son of Heaven", he is the agent of "Heaven" on the earth.

      The King is only one on the earth can communicate with the "Heaven", report and receive message from the "Heaven".

      So poeple on the earth should obey the King, otherwise they disobey the "Heaven", and will be punished by the "Heaven".

      This don't change after Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were brought in. So for two thousand of years, religions were always in the second place.

      Han Chinese are not that serious about religions like westerners. That's why Chinese never fought war like the Crusades. No matter it's right or not, Most of Han Chinese accept it.
      ok, so not serious about religion then means they should not be so sensitive to Tibetan Buddhism or Islam or even Christianity. But presently, they clearly are. So there have been changes. They have become monotheistic. There is one god and that is the CCP.

      Originally posted by xunil View Post
      The theory of Confucianist caused another consequence.

      Since there was only one person -- the King, can communicate with the "Heaven", thus there was only one rightful "Son of Heaven" on the earth.

      So the King would not tolerate another "Son of Heaven". Because of this, China always fought war of unification.

      Talking about ancient Chinese's conception of the world. Chinese called the world "under Heaven".

      And China was in the center of "under Heaven".

      "under Heaven" should be ruled by the only "Son of Heaven".

      The "Middle Kingdom" was the actually territory the King ruled, because the other area of "under Heaven" was land of barbarian and didn't have the lucky to be governed by the "Son of Heaven".
      If this is all too esoteric, then just call it CONE theory.

      China is at the centre and they are at the top

      The CCP is a dynasty like ones in the past.

      Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Oct 20,, 21:10.


      • When Modi says the age of expansionism is over he is quoting right out of the Atlantic Charter that was declared in 1941 between Churchill & Roosevelt.

        From that charter came the dismantling of the British empire and the creation of NATO & GATT

        The Atlantic Charter set the political framework for post WW2.

        What is needed now is an Indo Pacific charter.

        if the Quad is how we fight. The Indo Pacific charter should say why we fight.

        It will attempt to set norms like data sovereignty, space governance etc. thereby preempting China from doing so.

        This will allow countries that won't sign on to the quad to join in a politically acceptable way.

        Vietnam or Taiwan could sign such a charter. Even ASEAN.

        A charter creates something tangible and permanent and solidifies the idea of the quad which will endure through change of govts in the quad countries.

        Quad is about
        - deterring bad behaviour from China.
        - maintaining a rules based order in the region.
        - ensuring a favourable balance of power in the region so China doesn't dominate

        The pace will be set collectively by quad countries and not one saying full speed ahead. This will make it sustainable.
        Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Oct 20,, 02:18.


        • Ashley from Carnegie did a podcast recently. He did say back in May that the chance of a skirmish was likely and we saw that at Galwan.

          Ashley J. Tellis on India’s China Conundrum (transcript) | Grand Tamasha | Sept 23 2020

          Early on in the crisis, I had argued that while the diplomacy is essential, it's unlikely to produce the leverage to get a country like China to walk back from its fait accompli strategy, which is essentially: occupy territory, then confront the adversary with the onus of pushing them out.

          And I'd suggested that what India ought to be thinking about was essentially a tit-for-tat strategy, where it does to China what China did to itself.

          Now, it appears that that was finally done on August 29.

          I think the Indian calculation was twofold. At the purely tactical level, they did not want to end up losing more territory, with the word "losing" in quotation marks because these are disputed areas. But they didn't want to lose more territory as they did on the northern bank.

          And then the political calculation, I think, was to be able to hold areas that China values and use it potentially as a pawn in a negotiation that would then lead ideally to complete this engagement along the entire eastern Ladakh front.

          Now, whether that's borne out, or whether that will deliver, only time will tell, but the Indians have certainly acquired a few more negotiating chips today than they had in the past.
          I don't think there is a desire on either New Delhi's part or Beijing's part for war. I don't think there is a premeditated calculation about looking for a conflict.

          But there are large numbers of forces in proximity to one another, and so accidents can happen for two reasons.

          First, the rules of engagement have changed. In the old days, the rules of engagement were that both sides did not deploy firearms and certainly did not use firearms when it comes to jousting along the line of actual control. They use their fists - sometimes to deadly effect, as we discovered in mid-June. But the use of firearms was prescribed. Now, those rules of engagement have changed, and both sides have firearms. And they have more than just personnel arms, they have cruiser weapons, they have heavy weapons in very close proximity to one another. And so if the spark lights off, it's going to be a very serious confrontation.

          The second reality is that both sides also seem determined - and this is the political dimension - but they are not going to stand by and watch the other side nibble at what they believe is their own territory. Which means that the games that were played first in late April, early May, and now most recently in August, where one side takes the lead, occupies territory, and confronts the other with a fait accompli - those could change in very dramatic ways.

          That is, we could see a race by both armies to secure certain territories that they believe are theirs. And with the changes in the rules of agreement, that race could lead to provocative actions that could lead to further loss of life and then different kinds of escalation.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Oct 20,, 04:25.


          • Nitin's summary of the stand off

            1. Insecurity about highway G219. They think we want to interdict that highway after we built infastructure. The highway connects to restive, volatile regions of China. Coerce India against such a misadventure.

            2. Exercise and validate some of the doctrines and concepts they have authored. Move a large column of troops, stick them there for the winter and see how well they do. Self test.

            3. China's image is taking a beating globally and so is XJP as well internally. So he wants to humiliate the military & political leadership of India as we are their only long run competitor in Asia. Refer CONE theory. All must pay tribute to emperor XJP.

            We want to settle the border, they do not so we have a long term China challenge to deal with.


            • Shirvan's summary

              He does not think India controlling Tibet or China controlling Nepal & Bhutan as far fetched.

              China is using Tibet as a buffer zone with India. Nice role reversal there.

              A political revolution in either Tibet, Nepal or Bhutan could change the equation between India & China.

              Suppose one could think of Bhutan & Nepal as strategic wins for China if Sikkim, Arunachal & Ladakh are a bridge too far.
              Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Oct 20,, 14:43.


              • Why does the Colonel give these people so much credit for their PR ??

                Click image for larger version  Name:	PLA balloon launchers.jpg Views:	0 Size:	116.7 KB ID:	1566486

                Instead call out their info war on the basis of capacity, capability and indeed competence !!

                Entirely 3rd rate as their attempts so far have been.

                Their ineptitude to date has given confidence to the Indian system, military, political leaders and the Indian people.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Oct 20,, 22:52.


                • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  He's full of shit! If a full load plane can climb to altitude from lower heights, it can certainly take off with full loads at higher heights. Longer runway lift offs will hurt the engine because of longer burn time. Well, what the hell do you think the plane is using during the entire time of the flight? Rate of climb is reduced? It's the same regardless if the plane takes off from lower heights or higher heights. It's the same damned air. You may have higher initial velocity than the Chinese but the rate is identicle. God, simple physics eludes this idiot. If the runway is long enough, you can fly any time of the day. Period. Tires? So you change tires after every sortie. What do you think carrier aircrafts go through?

                  THE ONLY THING hindering those bases is the unpredicatable wind.
                  He insists long runaways only help heavy planes land. There is a limit to how much they can load planes to take off. Regardless of the length of the runway.

                  If they loaded with ammo then they take off with bingo fuel and get refuled in the air

                  Which means we got targets to go for.

                  At higher altitudes landing planes cannot switch off engines or they won't start up again.


                  • Is Ladakh part of China’s hybrid war against India? | NIE | Sept 28 2020

                    Gen Hasnain been questioning Chinese intent to take land

                    Five months in we still don't conclusively know what China's intent is !!

                    Published: 28th September 2020 07:37 AM | Last Updated: 28th September 2020 07:37 AM

                    By Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd)

                    With the assessment of China’s intent in Ladakh still up for grabs, there is no harm in letting imagination go berserk but rationally. Moving PLA troops exercising in depth to the LAC to transgress at various friction points, and staying put at some and pulling back from others has long been the PLA’s salami-slicing strategy. It is clear that China concentrated insufficient troops forward to make any deep penetrations across the LAC. Resorting to conventional operations in Ladakh without sufficient high-quality foot infantry would never make military sense.

                    Armour and mechanised infantry along with artillery and missiles make a fine combination in the valleys and high-altitude plains; they project serious intent through visibility. Yet to hold ground or evict hardy Indian Infantry from the dominating heights, it needs the special guile and skills of foot infantry. The PLA just did not bring up enough of it. Perhaps it expected to whistle up more troops should the Indian Army respond in an unexpectedly offensive way.

                    The PLA also betrayed an element of its intent of not going beyond a threshold when it did not make haste to occupy the heights of Chushul Bowl before its extremely delayed attempt on 29 August 2020, leading to the Indian occupation of the Kailash Range. The quantum and quality of troops sent to seek eviction of Indian troops at Richen La seemed to betray a lack of intent to press home any operation; the optics of carrying improvised weapons was to psychologically message a repeat of the Galwan incident and not execute a tactical action.

                    So what is China attempting to do if it is not intending to capture territory or aggressively assert its claim lines beyond a point? Why is it constantly in touch with us through military talks? What’s behind its refusal to disengage and return its troops to the depth, at least for the winter? It appears reasonably certain that China does not wish to risk fighting a war without certainty of its outcome. A cursory examination of ongoing conflicts and some others in the recent past appears to indicate the rise of belief in Russia’s strategy towards achieving its ends.

                    Russia chose to push back against the US and NATO in Ukraine to limit their eastward march to its periphery, not through conventional means of warfighting, but by hybrid means. Simultaneously it seriously interfered in the US political system through proxies, bringing into effect the first real experiment of grey zone warfare. Limited military pushback took place at the fringes in Ukraine to paralyse the local forces and take control. The unprecedented, very efficiently coordinated actions of Russian soldiers, pro-Russian local separatists, the Russian media and diplomacy were described by many experts as an example of hybrid warfare.

                    So why would China wish to execute such hybrid warfare against India if it chose to borrow the Russian ideas? For all the friendly engagement with the Indian government and the personal rapport that Xi Jinping has with the Indian PM, there was something that made China uncomfortable. I felt that it was the increasing supremely confident attitude of India, not only related to its emerging status in the world but also to its security perceptions.

                    A couple of recent milestones contributed to it. Prime among them was the response against Pakistan’s sponsored proxy war events in 2016 and 2019; I refer to the triggered surgical strikes and the Balakot air strike. The world largely supported the Indian response and it was repeated with the abrogation of special constitutional provisions for Jammu & Kashmir in August 2019. In the middle of all this came the 72-days-long Doklam stand-off (2017) that perceptually went India’s way without a shot fired. None of this gave confidence to the Chinese.

                    Indian pushback against the BRI did not make China happy either. When Indian political leaders and officials started publicly speaking about the return to Indian control of the territory of Gilgit-Baltistan and PoK through which the CPEC runs, the Chinese probably felt that a threshold situation had been reached. Not acting could give wrong signals of China’s tolerance and encourage many other nations on its periphery to be emboldened against Beijing’s strategic interests. In all probability, China chose to employ a calibrated hybrid war against India rather than exercise any conventional option. Hybrid war allows a protagonist to test the waters and calibrate further responses or draw back without burning its fingers. Hybridity here is not of the J&K variety.

                    It involves border friction, intimidation, cyber threats, expansion of fronts and forcing of costly mobilisation, posturing, projection, economic warfare, and lots of ways of modern-day information and psychological warfare for which collusion with Pakistan was possible. The pandemic appeared a good time to execute this strategy. The PLA came prepared for LAC engagements and not a campaign-style conventional effort to capture objectives in depth. Its strength betrayed its operational intent. In jumping into conventional war against tried and tested Indian mountain troops, the PLA rightly felt it could not obtain positive outcomes.

                    Hybridity seems added in layers of activities that are slowly unravelling. Instances of money laundering and ‘hawala’ originating from Beijing are on the rise. Interference in the succession of the Dalai Lama through hawala deals has also been reported. Thus progressive economic warfare as the start point, with enhancement in defence expenditure due to part mobilisation and infrastructure development on fast-track mode, along with potential instigation and financing of some insurgent groups is adequate to initiate hybrid warfare—with prime focus on the happenings at the LAC to obfuscate the activities in other domains.

                    This, accompanied by a sponsored campaign to activate Nepal’s anti-India sentiment and hoping to repeat it once again in other nations on the periphery, is enough to force India on the back foot. The large-scale collection of data about Indian personalities, companies, businesses and political parties, and the well-developed cyber capability will help round off the hybrid effort. The manifestation of all this will most markedly be felt in the military domain where the discomfort of prolonged winter deployment in improvised habitat and tension at the front lines will keep the Indian nation obsessed while China seeks its next opportunities elsewhere, in another domain. Countering hybrid war is never easy due to obfuscation of intent. The adage ‘all of government approach’ holds true but before that, it needs an analysis to establish the aim and select the means. More on that later even as Indian strategic analysts hopefully address this deduction.

                    Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd)
                    Former Commander, Srinagar-based 15 Corps. Now Chancellor, Central University of Kashmir

                    45:41 Will there be a December war ?

                    40:40 why is India so shy about dumping the one china policy ?

                    1:03:49 ditto

                    1:01:05 What should India's response be if China intrudes into Nepal, Bhutan or Burma ?

                    1:26:30 Is China's aim to hurt our economy by imposing a cost for this standoff ?
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Oct 20,, 04:35.


                    • Some years back I said, and was of the opinion that to solve the Pakistan problem, we need to solve the China problem first. Since China has been lingering on the border issue for decades and wants it to continue unsolved, maybe India needs to focus on the Pakistan problem again. Acquire, prepare for China, but change focus to Pakistan.

                      Remember 1971? We had 3 fronts to contend with. West Pak, East Pak, China. Chinese front was taken care of by the thinking of Manekshaw (winter), as also USSR fielding a battalion on their border with the Chinese. What our planners missed out was PN ships refuelling in Sri Lanka.

                      Role reversal. Kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Internally Pakistan is restive. Plan, to breakdown Pakistan into 4 countries, ASAP. Oh, and start spending money for the cause. Enable the marginalised sections in Pakistan to create a humanitarian turmoil that the 21st century has not seen. When the fire is on, let the Indian Army march in. We then will have to content with one less front. Need extremely good diplomatic overtures for this.

                      The good Colonel did say that India is not afraid of winning the war with Pakistan, but of hungry Pakistanis getting through the border with India. Fine. India sheltered 10 million Bangladeshis before, during and post the 1971 war. India even fed 93,000 Pakistani POWs for 8 months. India did not have an economy, to say, then. Won’t be pretty, but India can take this economic hit with much ease now than before.

                      As about Nepal and Bhutan. These countries are too inconsequential, but strategically very important. If India can change governments in Sri Lanka, India sure can get rid of CPC princes in Nepal and pro-China voices in Bhutan (yes, there are some). Also, time for Nepal to get the economic sting for 6 months.
                      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!


                      • One way of tackling a two front dilemma is to pick the easier option first and ensure it cannot become a second front. This would be an argument to focus away from China and on Pakistan. It isn't about scaring the monkey by killing the chicken but just eliminating a potential threat in the future.

                        I've always been of the opinion that the safest option is Pakistan becomes a protectorate. Meaning we take care of their foreign affairs as well as defense.

                        Was arguing with a 50 center the other day that if India used China's argument to not recognise the mcmahon line because it was British made then the same goes for partition.

                        Thing is Pakistan is becoming a Chinese protectorate.

                        Protectorate is still a protectorate but it isn't our protectorate.

                        The counter to this thinking is what's in it for Pakistan should there be an India - China conflict ?

                        They cannot take and hold anything from us which means they would likely lose more.

                        Still divides our forces though.
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Oct 20,, 05:15.


                        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          I've always been of the opinion that the safest option is Pakistan becomes a protectorate. Meaning we take care of their foreign affairs as well as defense
                          The PA ensures minimalistic survivability of Pakistan based on the false premise that a Hindu India will devour land of the pure, if not for the Pakistani Army. This will never happen, unless PA is defanged and pushed back to the barracks. One day might be, but there will be huge costs to achieve that.
                          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!


                          • Originally posted by Oracle View Post

                            Is this a propaganda website?
                            They have interesting titles for sure. From Jun 30. This is good news for the NE as China is falling out of favour in Burma.

                            After ASEAN & India, Now Myanmar Accuses China Of Creating Trouble On The Border | Eurasian Times | Jun 30 2020

                            Diplomats and Army chief over there right now. Army chief going abroad when there is a faceoff in progress. Must be important.

                            Since the Burmese military is trying to diversify away from China, now the Burmese rebels are finding weapons available.

                            Last edited by Double Edge; 06 Oct 20,, 02:11.


                            • Mountain training (use CC for subtitles)



                              • I like this line

                                China is a permanently peaceful country, Wang assures us. “Aggression and expansion are never in the genes of the Chinese nation throughout its 5,000 years of history,” he says.

                                China’s peace and reconciliation effort falls flat | Asia Times | Jul 11 2020