Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    The CCP can whip up sentiment when it suits and tamp it down as well
    Sentiment isn't something that can be turned on and off like a faucet, and one example does not a pattern make.
    Consider the response to anti-Japanese sentiment over the past decade or so: mostly official attempts to dampen down the outrage over this or that imagined slight.

    The CCP knows nationalism can be a powerful tool, but it also knows that it is a difficult one to wield.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DOR View Post
      Sentiment isn't something that can be turned on and off like a faucet, and one example does not a pattern make.
      Consider the response to anti-Japanese sentiment over the past decade or so: mostly official attempts to dampen down the outrage over this or that imagined slight.

      The CCP knows nationalism can be a powerful tool, but it also knows that it is a difficult one to wield.
      That sentiment is mixed with historical irreconcilable grievances. More staying power. Also chinese ships continue to enter the Senkakus even now. So its still ongoing.

      When i see how they used nationalism in this incident against India it strikes me as a form of deterrence. Leave aside whether the territory is disputed or not. The image the Chinese saw was Indian troops on what they believed was their territory. From an Indian POV this is perfectly fine.

      High time it happened. India is testing whether this tactic brings about any change in Chinese behaviour towards Indian territory and by extension Bhutanese. It also shows if there is no change then there is likely to be stiffer opposition in the future towards Chinese transgressions and we can play the same game too. India will camp on non disputed Chinese territory along with other moves. This will go on for maybe a decade and then it will be over.

      Until such time that the desire to fix the border at a political level comes about on the Chinese side. It's quite clear they will not reach this conclusion on their own as they have been stalling for decades because the requisite pressure to force that outcome was absent. On a technical level everything is pretty much worked out, but the political will is lacking.
      Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Aug 17,, 12:54.

      Comment


      • Lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis for the Doklam Standoff | ICS | Aug 2017

        Fascinating read : )

        Civilian leadership is critical

        A recurrent theme during the Cuban Missile crisis, in fact since the time Kennedy took office, was the hawkishness of his military personnel. The chiefs were game to go one up on the Soviets and therefore, enthusiastically advised the president for a surprise air attack on Cuba; confidently expecting the Soviet Union to be a mere spectator. Wisely ignoring the counsel of his military staff, Kennedy instead decided to order a blockade and postponed an attack as the last resort.

        Gen. Curtis Lemay, chief of US Air Force, scoffed at this move, saying that ‘this blockade and political action… will lead right into war… this is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich’ (Dallek 2013). And when the dangers of a nuclear war had been averted on 28 October, Lemay noted that ‘it was the greatest defeat in our [the US’] history’ (Dallek 2013).

        Civilian leadership, most crucially the heads of states, should keep these overly militaristic elements at bay. Comments by the Indian Army chief of India’s preparedness for a ‘two-and-half front war’ (The Indian Express 2017) and the Chinese media’s provocative editorials (see Global Times 2017; Gong 2017; Zhang 2017) should not be allowed to frame policies.

        Modi and Xi must take charge in calmly weighing their options and peacefully diffusing the crisis.

        After the Cuban Missile Crisis Khrushchev drew an important lesson that perhaps is apt for the current situation between China and India, ‘The two most powerful nations of the world ad been squared off against each other, each with its finger on the button. You’d have thought that war was inevitable. But both sides showed that if the desire to avoid war is strong enough, even the most pressing dispute can be solved by compromise’ (BCSIA 2017b).

        The current India-China standoff is much less dramatic. India and China are not the two most powerful nations in the world and neither think war is inevitable, to say nothing of their fingers not being on ‘the button’. However, both sides have yet to show a strong desire to compromise. Disputes between big nations with even larger egos cannot be resolved with a zero sum approach. And the possibility that a flare up could occur will continue to exist as long as both India and China do not find a face-saving compromise.

        Leaders from both India and China need to realise that any conflict today will have a profoundly adverse impact on the potential positive-sum economic benefits that the two countries can achieve in the future. The futility of a war perhaps has never been as clear as it is in this case.
        War is to important to be left to the Generals - Clemenceau
        Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Aug 17,, 15:11.

        Comment


        • India is building a road now, in Ladakh

          Amid India-China tension, home ministry gives nod to build 32-km road in Ladakh | HT | Aug 22 2017

          Naturally, Beijing objects but does not care about others when they object

          China questions India’s move to build new road in Ladakh | HT | Aug 24 2017

          The [Chinese]foreign ministry said the new road project sanctioned by India near Pangong lake, where border troops of the two countries clashed last week, was not conducive to maintaining “peace and tranquillity” along the border.
          no Shit! now our troops can get to the site and observe for any future land grabs.

          “Its (India’s) words are in complete contradiction to its deeds in terms of border issues,” she added. “The western section of the India-China boundary has not been delimited. The two sides have agreed to uphold border areas’ peace and tranquillity before disputes are settled. The current road construction by the Indian side is not conducive to peace and stability in that area and will not help with settlement of the current situation.”
          lol, looks like they are getting a taste of their own medicine
          Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Aug 17,, 21:40.

          Comment


          • Baru calls it as it is

            Mind games at Doklam | IE (op-ed) | Aug 11 2017

            India is no Philippines. In the Philippines, China managed to declare victory by convincing President Rodrigo Duterte that friendship with China is a better bet than friendship with the United States. China subdued Philippines without fighting.

            WRITTEN BY SANJAYA BARU | Updated: August 11, 2017 11:43 Pm

            The driver of Chinese strategy at this stage of its development lies in the yawning gap between its geo-economic power and geo-political capability. China has, without doubt, become an economic superpower. However, it is as yet far from becoming a geo-political super-power. Indeed, China may never acquire the geo-political influence and reach that Great Britain enjoyed in the 19th century and the United States of America did in the 20th, even though it may have already surpassed the geo-economic clout the two major powers enjoyed in the heyday of their empires. China’s “empire” does not as yet extend beyond its own claimed borders and those of its two principle allies — North Korea and Pakistan.

            Most strategic analysts make the mistake of imagining that China has already been able to convert its geo-economic power, as the world’s largest trading nation with huge investible dollar surpluses, into military might and geo-political clout. This would be a simplistic understanding of how economic power gets translated into political power. The yawning gap that stares China in its face is its limited geo-political reach, despite the so-called Eurasian alliance with Russia. More to the point, China’s military capability is still limited. As the annual defence publication, Military Balance, published by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, shows, the US still spends more on defence then the combined defence spending of the next 10 powers, including Russia, China, Germany, France, UK, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, South Korea and Brazil. So how has China responded to this gap between economic might and political power? By buying influence. The Belt-Road Initiative is the latest spending programme aimed at buying friendships. It comes in the wake of the creation of financial institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the promotion of bilateral economic assistance programmes with neighbours and other developing economies. There is nothing new about this. All economically well-off nations have used what has been dubbed cheque-book diplomacy and China does so too. Apart from funding government-to-government lending, China has also been able to create global companies and global brands that have contributed to Chinese soft power. There is no denying the fact that China has been able to convert its economic might into commercial and technological capability. In short, China has emerged as a trading and a knowledge power.

            However, precisely because China has not yet converted this geo-economic power into military capability and geo-political clout, it has used its economic and financial muscle to win friends and influence people. More importantly, China has used its geo-economic hard and soft power to launch a well-funded global psywar aimed at projecting its viewpoint across the world and influencing the responses to it. It has been able to use even the Western media to its advantage by successfully propagating certain views. For example, in the 1990s, when China was busy seeking and securing investment and know-how from Japan, it never made an issue of the treatment of Chinese women by Japanese soldiers in the first half of the 20th century. Once China no longer needed Japanese investment it began demanding Japan’s apology for past sins. Many have come to believe that China has a legitimate grievance against Japan, forgetting the fact that this grievance was never aired when China was Japan’s largest bilateral aid and investment recipient.

            Strategic analysts around the world often like to quote Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu who famously said, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” This is precisely what China has been trying to do across the Asia-Pacific region and it will seek to do in the Indian Ocean region as well, at least in part because it has the economic capability to “subdue” but not yet the military might or geopolitical clout to fight and win. In the Doklam stand-off, China has tried to deploy its media to create a war psychosis, seeking to draw world attention to it and exert psychological pressure on India. The entire Doklam episode, including the behaviour of some Chinese diplomats in Delhi, has till now followed a textbook psywar strategy. So far it has yielded few results for China, thanks to India’s wise and calm response till now.

            India is no Philippines. In the Philippines, China managed to declare victory by convincing President Rodrigo Duterte that friendship with China is a better bet than friendship with the United States. China subdued Philippines without fighting. China is now trying to exert similar pressure on other neighbouring countries. Two years after the passing away of its founder-leader, Singapore has become a new target for China’s psywar. China enjoys both economic and political influence in the island but the republic has inherited a proud tradition of independent thinking from its iconic founder Lee Kuan Yew. After making a lot of noise about building the Kra canal through Thailand aimed at ending Singapore’s strategic advantage in the Malacca Straits, China is now tom-toming the idea of a railway link through Malaysia with a similar end in mind. These are all mind games aimed at getting Singapore to kow-tow like Duterte did.

            As part of a wider strategy of weakening Asean unity, picking off one small neighbour after another, China is twisting many arms in Southeast Asia not by using military force but by threatening to deploy economic weapons if its economic incentives fail to secure the intended response. China’s dogged pursuit of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement should also be viewed in this context.

            Finally, North Korea. Here China is running with the hares and hunting with the hounds with the aim of underscoring its strategic relevance to Asia-Pacific security. Here, China’s behaviour is no different from that of the US in the past. Make oneself relevant to the security of a region by first making the region insecure. But the real point is that much of that insecurity is in the minds of the people. Unlike in Asia to India’s West, where people are actually dying due to conflict, in the Asia to India’s East the battles are as yet being staged in peoples’ minds. China’s armed forces may not engage India’s at Doklam but they will continue with their mind games aimed to get India, as indeed all its neighbours, to kow-tow, like Duterte did.

            The writer is Distinguished Fellow, United Service Institution of India, New Delhi

            Comment


            • Buying influence ?



              Turns out it was fake news, the Bhutanese MEA received no such offer from China..Why do these news outlets do this!!! Source

              But Nalapat still thinks its credible or likely if not now then in the future



              What i find curious is Nalapat thinks Pakistan is influencing China not to settle the border question. I'd have thought the whole Tibet affair was behind the Chinese political decision not to settle and that the Paks were at best peripheral.

              He makes the argument that China on the basis of its interests should side with India over Pakistan. In effect choose as the Americans recently.
              Last edited by Double Edge; 26 Aug 17,, 19:16.

              Comment


              • Hmm, so a winter war then is it ?

                How will Chinese use of force in Doklam manifest? : Part 1 | TOI (Blogs) | Aug 20 2017

                How will Chinese use of force in Doklam manifest?
                August 20, 2017, 5:10 AM IST Lt General H S Panag in Shooting Straight | India | TOI

                In competitive conflict among nations, when faced with the threat of use of force by an adversary and if you set out to confront him and call his bluff, Plan A is generally based on the premise that the adversary will not actually use force due to political, economic and military compulsions. However, Plan B is also prepared to actually deal with the threat if it manifests itself. The handling of the two month long standoff in Doklam and recurring Chinese incursions elsewhere are still based on Plan A.

                This, of course, is based on post 1962 War and 1967 Nathu La experience, notably the standoffs at Sumdrong Chu 1986-87, Depsang 2013 and Chumar 2014. Thus, on the ground, we see Indian and Chinese soldiers are physically confronting each other below Doka La with neither side using “force” except for the “jostling” in the initial stages. There is no let-up in Chinese jingoistic rhetoric and threats. Diplomacy does not seem to have made much headway. The mood in Delhi is “jung nahin hogi”. Except for the Indian Army moving for the annual summer “operational alert” there are no reports of any large scale mobilisation by either side. Is the current standoff going the way of the previous prolonged “peaceful” standoffs?

                In this backdrop, let us look at Plan B on both sides. Before this, an obvious point must be made. Nations armed with nuclear weapons do not, and I dare say, cannot fight a full scale conventional war that causes major loss of territory, large scale casualties and destruction of economic infrastructure. The probability of even a limited war in multiple sectors along the LAC is relatively low. The probability of a limited war in the area of confrontation is much higher. The moot question is what form will it take?

                The Indian Army’s Plan B is that all along the LAC and particularly in Sikkim, we hold dominating heights in high altitude terrain. Our defences are “hardened” and are backed by adequate fire power, including missiles carrying Precision Guided Munitions (PGM). We have adequate reserve for counter attack and we also have tactical counter offensive capability in each theatre. Along the LAC and in Tibet the IAF has an edge. It can carry out a strategic air campaign to target the PLA centres of gravity in Tibet, namely, command and control centres, military infrastructure and troop concentrations. Indian Navy is capable of strategic interdiction of sea lanes through the Indian Ocean. We also have the option of preempting the PLA with an operational level preemptive offensive, before it mobilises in Ladakh, Chumbi Valley and North Sikkim.

                In a nutshell, we are looking to fight a low end third generation war to give the PLA a bloody nose. My take is that if the limited war whether in multiple sectors or in the Sikkim Sector, takes this form, we will stalemate the Chinese which is defeat for them.

                The question that arises is why would China initiate a war where its defeat is ordained? Or does it have a more imaginative Plan B that teaches India a lesson? The PLA has adopted and adapted to the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) for the last two decades, particularly in the field of cyber warfare and PGM technology. It is now only second to the USA in high-end military technology. My assessment is that the Chinese will neutralise our strategy by not getting involved in “close infantry combat” over unfavourable terrain. If at all it chooses to use force, its strategy will be based on technological warfare with overwhelming use of PGM and cyber warfare. It will restrict its initial offensive to the Doklam and Sikkim Sector, but would be prepared for escalation to other sectors.

                Such an attack will come in the winter, when conventional ground operations are severely restricted. PLA will carry out minimal mobilisation to cater to the unlikely tactical offensive by India in the winter. A massive PGM attack will be launched on our troops at Doklam and Doka La using cruise missiles and artillery after pulling out its own troops to safety.

                Simultaneously, a massive cyber attack will be launched to neutralize our command and control systems and our fire power means. The strike will be with a declared limited aim of evicting us from Doklam. Depending upon our strategic and operational response, the PLA will escalate with similar attacks on more defensive positions in Sikkim and other sectors.

                Are we prepared for such an attack? Are our defences sufficiently “hardened” and “tunnelled” to withstand a massive PGM attack? What is our progress in implementing the RMA? Do we have missile interception means? Are we trained and prepared for a winter offensive to make territorial gains? Do we have adequate counter attack capabilities using cyber warfare and PGMs?

                I have no doubts that our Armed Forces have catered for such an eventuality. What measures, we can and should take will be discussed in the next column.

                The writer is former Army commander, Northern and Central command
                This is part 1 of the series

                Comment


                • Few days later

                  Indian media lampoons Xi after 'racist' Xinhua video | Straits Times | Aug 21 2017

                  And another

                  China’s video games on Doklam show why Beijing finds it hard to exert soft power | HT | Aug 23 2017

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwICOo9H1EE

                  Youth and enthusiasm are no match for wisdom and treachery - OOE
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 26 Aug 17,, 20:42.

                  Comment


                  • And the threats from the 'most just, loving, caring, compassionate, and peaceful' nation on earth continue to bear on the most 'conniving, evil and filled with hypocrisy' nation on earth.

                    Chinese infrastructure construction in Doklam, on the level of funny that is right up there with 'with this artificial island we have created, we hold our historic claim to be true'

                    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20..._136555787.htm
                    Commentary: India to face the consequences of its strategic miscalculation
                    Source: Xinhua| 2017-08-25 23:36:03|Editor: Yamei

                    BEIJING, Aug. 25 (Xinhua) -- It has now entered the third month since Indian military trespassed into Chinese territory, to which China has shown the utmost tolerance. India must take any possible consequences if it continues to miscalculate the situation.
                    On June 18, over 270 armed Indian troops with two bulldozers crossed the eastern boundary into Doklam, China's sovereign territory, to obstruct Chinese infrastructure construction.
                    It is a double standard, as India has approved the building of a military road to facilitate troop deployment near the western part of China-India border to "ensure the strength of the Indian border troops."
                    On Aug. 22, Chinese troops, patrolling on the Chinese side of Pangong Lake, suffered injuries from the reckless actions of Indian troops, which once again reflected India`s insincerity and self-contradictions in resolving the Sino-India border issue peacefully.
                    A senior Indian official has said that the country has not attacked any other country and has no ambition to expand its boundaries.
                    However, the Indian military has trespassed over the mutually recognized boundary that has been abided by both sides for nearly 130 years and its troops remain on Chinese territory.
                    China has proved its sovereignty of Doklam to the international community with convincing evidence, including the historical convention from 1890.
                    Meanwhile, China has not closed the door to diplomatic dialogue with India to ease tensions.
                    Since the 1960s, through negotiation and consultation, China has delimited 20,000 kilometers of land boundary and is in complete accord with 12 out of its 14 land neighbors.
                    "India thinks that the international situation is good enough for it to test China's bottom line," Li Qingyan, an expert on South Asia issues at China Institute of International Studies, told Xinhua.
                    But India may have miscalculated China's stance in defending its sovereignty. China's bottom line is the border line, as shown in the Sino-Indian border conflict in 1962.
                    China values peace and the interests of innocent people on both side of the border, that is why it has remained patient in the face of such encroachment.
                    China has never made the first move in wars fought since 1949 but it would not flinch if a war were to be inflicted upon its people.
                    The prerequisite for settlement of the border standoff is the unconditional withdrawal of all trespassing personnel and equipment to the Indian side.
                    China has sent this message openly to India through many channels over the past 60 days.
                    Now, it is time for India to abide by the law, respect historical facts, to match words with deeds and make the wise decision based on reasonable strategic calculation.
                    China and India are two developing giants with a wide range of common interests. A sensible bilateral relationship will benefit more than two billion people, nearly one-third of the global population.
                    The ball has been placed in India's court.

                    Comment


                    • this is too funny
                      http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20..._136537309.htm
                      "BEIJING, Aug. 18 (Xinhua) -- A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Friday that the Japanese ambassador to India should not wag his tongue too freely on the standoff between China and India in the Dong Lang (Doklam) area."
                      Dont wag your toung.

                      Comment


                      • Online investigations : D

                        Gonggar Airbase (TAR),During the Doka La Standof | Bellingcat | Aug 04 2017

                        Bottom Line – Imagery observations continue to support the notion that China is bolstering rotations at its civil-military border airports independent of the most recent regional tensions.


                        India’s Hasimara During the Doka La Standoff | Bellingcat | Aug 08 2017
                        Hasimara, an airbase in West Bengal less than 50 miles southeast of the crisis.

                        Bottom Line – Hasimara remains aircraft light despite China’s growing rotation of fighters in the Tibet Autonomous Region.


                        Shigatse During the Doka La Standoff | Bellingcat | Aug 23 2017
                        China’s Shigatse, a civil-military airfield less than 100 miles west of Lhasa.

                        Bottom Line – Despite SAM assets on alert throughout July, fighters deployed to Shigatse remained within baseline for the airbase. However, additional platforms deploying to this location should be watched closely as the the PLA operationalizes its new theater commands and tensions remain with India.

                        Comment


                        • The Global Times and Beijing: A nuanced relationship | Lowy | Aug 3 2016

                          The Global Times specialises in provoking and agitating and its tone and use of language is in marked contrast to the rather stolid People's Daily. Global Time's editors appear to have discovered channelling and amplifying the country’s growing nationalist sentiment is good for business. It certainly has reach with a daily print circulation of 2 million and more than 10 million hits on its online version each day.

                          The newspaper's editor-in-chief Hu Xijing is a polarising figure in China. Nationalists see him as a flag bearer of their cause while liberals decry him as the ugly face of Chinese chauvinism. Hu has the background to match his hardline editorial stance with military training at one of the People’s Liberation Army’s academies and experience as a war correspondent during the Balkan civil war and the Middle East conflicts.

                          The Interpreter spoke to several senior Chinese editors and reporters about the influence of Global Times. One experienced reporter at a major state-owned media operations said Global Times is 'a thermometer of public opinion' for Chinese leaders on foreign policy issues; while it does not officially represent the government's position. it provides a channel for Beijing to voice its displeasure and let off some nationalist steam. The reporter says one of the KPIs for Global Times is how many times it gets cited in foreign press, so editors often use colourful and outrageous language to attract foreign media’s attention.
                          How many times you get cited by foreign media

                          Another reporter from one of the three major state-owned media outlets says editorials from The People’s Daily and Xinhua more or less represent the Chinese government’s official position. In contrast, while Global Times is in line with more hawkish elements within the party, its boisterous editorials don’t necessarily represent Beijing’s official line.

                          Within China’s more liberally oriented media circle, many editors and reporters are dismissive of Global Times and say while it has a great deal of latitude to express its views, often those views are different from the central government’s position.

                          A foreign editor from one the popular current affairs magazines said simply: 'Global Times is rubbish and its editors are a bunch of opportunists'.

                          It is clear that Global Times’ editorials don’t carry the same weight as those of the People’s Daily or Xinhua. However, it does enjoy a special degree of sanction from the country’s powerful censors to publish incendiary editorials on foreign policy issues. It is a gauge for public opinions both at home and abroad.

                          We should object to insulting editorials from the Global Times. But we should also be aware that any discussion of editorial positions which, in the end, lack real substance and are not the voice of government, also plays into the hands of the newspaper which prides itself on its ability to rile foreigners.
                          Last edited by Double Edge; 26 Aug 17,, 22:37.

                          Comment


                          • It would appear both sides have reached an 'understanding' and the MEA said earlier the situation stands 'defused'

                            Interesting that we did not hear Pakistan publically lend support to China over this dispute or did i miss something there.

                            BRICS summit is on Sept 3 in Beijing, for India not to turn up would not look good for Xi or China or BRICS also maybe didn't want any interruptions for the 19th congress

                            Whether that upcoming meeting was the reason to pull the plug or not is speculation.

                            India passed this test, there will be more possibly harder ones to come in the future

                            Fallout and what effects it has on other China neighbours will take longer to assess pending on whether we get a new still more assertive bordering on agressive China out of that Congress

                            Up to now China has been accommodating the concerns of its neighbours but from now on, the neighbours will have to adapt to a more powerful China etc etc ; )
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Aug 17,, 00:07.

                            Comment


                            • Post mortem of the desecalation. Likely to be different views.

                              Doklam: Creditable handling by Modi government | PenNews | Aug 29 2017

                              Doklam intrusion constituted a particularly testy move by China. It was an attempt in Bhutanese territory to gain a toehold on a higher plateau that also moved the tri junction between the three nations further South and closer to the vital communication artery near Siliguri popularly known as Chicken's Neck. This narrow corridor provides the only land-link to India's North East. A related motive could have been to test Indo-Bhutanese solidarity and the sanctity of treaty based obligations that India has to safeguard Bhutan. Had India failed to respond, the group in Bhutan that wants to make territorial concessions to China as a pre-condition to overall boundary settlement would have emerged stronger. The concessions that China seeks from Bhutan are around the Chumbi valley which is more critical for India, at the southern extremity of which lies Doklam, in exchange for China withdrawing its claims in the North, which is a fertile area of greater use to Bhutan. Strategically, Bhutanese solidarity with India all through this episode augurs well for bilateral relations.
                              Glad this seasoned diplomat thinks so. Bhutan did play its part well here.

                              The question that arises is how did the stand-off get resolved? Firstly, the de-escalation should not be taken as the end of all disputes between India and China. It is one episode from which China will draw lessons on management of LAC. It is possible it may realise that pressurising India by old methods will no longer work. India in fact did respond vigorously, thus surprising China in 1987, in this very Chumbi valley sector when Chinese troops had intruded. While Indian military machine today may not yet rival China's in size and sophistication but under Modi government many gaps in military preparedness have been filled. The purchase of light howitzers and Chinook helicopters from US gives India mobility and firepower in mountain warfare. Indian army is also more bloodied in combat than the Chinese which fought its last major combat in 1979 against Vietnam. This would have been one factor which Chinese leadership would have calculated as with terrain favouring India no easy military move was available in the sector to push Indian troops back.
                              The bold bit is intriguing. I expect the same old tricks but there is a need for new thinking required from the chinese for future probing ops.

                              China no doubt would have noticed an aggressive US President Donald Trump confronting two Chinese surrogates- Pakistan and Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The possibility of actual war on the Korean Peninsula is a nightmare scenario for China as it would be total loss of control over an ally led by an erratic leader. Trump's new Afghan policy not only squarely put Pakistan on notice, thereby increasing its load on China, but also encouraged India to play a more active role in South Asia and Pacific. Against this background China would not want a second military front heating up against India.
                              Some people have been crediting Trump for China deciding to become more reasonable. Adverse international environment. Not a good time when the US is looking at China better is when US is looking elsewhere and distracted.

                              Narendra Modi government deserves credit for handling the whole affair with calm resolution, by not getting provoked by intemperate writings in Chinese government controlled media or their spokesmen. India simply let China stew in the fat of their own making, letting them do the strategic calculus of the cost-benefit of treating India like any small member of the ASEAN. China must realise that it needs to concede strategic space to India, otherwise history teaches that two rising powers with shared boundaries have more often than not come to blows. Doklam resolution is not a final victory. It is only a crisis averted and for China a lesson learnt.

                              China may choose that looking at the economic benefits of tapping the Indian market a less aggressive approach with India would be more useful as it would open the path to full normalisation. Otherwise India could, as it has begun by looking at practices of Chinese companies in handling data collected in India, take trade counter-measures. The trade is after all literally one is to four in China's favour. That could be a long path but at least the path can be etched. China may on the other hand bide it's time to punish India at a time and place of its choosing. Historically it favours the second path. Thus India will be best served by constant vigilance, while keeping doors open for engagement on equitable terms. As the saying goes the best way to avoid war is to be prepared for one.
                              There will be more incursions, the question is what will we do to increase the cost for them
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Aug 17,, 06:27.

                              Comment


                              • One consequence of an India china border settlement is it frees up thousands of troops for the Pak border. Sibal says he does not expect one within the next ten years and does not know after.

                                He points out the inconsistency in China's stand where they advocate for the 1890 treaty with the Brits in this case but refuse to acknowledge the McMahon line also with the Brits.



                                The two deals that were offered by Chou in 1960 and Deng in 1980 were swaps , east for west. It's like when you catch a thief who broke into your house he says he will return your wallet in exchange for your coat. No Indian leader would accept such a deal. The same nonsense deal China offers to Bhutan. North for east.
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Aug 17,, 16:04.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X