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 kuku View Post
    The Dalai Lama was a 12-year-old boy back then. (you mean the previous one?)
    I meant his office. I hve no illusions that the DL operates as a cabal.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      I meant his office. I have no illusions that the DL operates as a cabal.
      Well, Sir, they are all equally clueless and were the reason their nation now suffers under the Chinese for the foreseeable future. My grandfather's generation used to go freely into Tibet from Niti Pass for trade for hundreds of years, and we know Tibetans Refugees and Tibetans who keep going between Tibet and India regularly. The support for PRC in the ethenic Tibetan population is/was non-existant. From my understanding of the border, which is a personal experience (being from the border), the PRC has taken every inch of land they can hold during winters and will take all land it can hold unless we can keep them out, for us, it means fighting for grazing lands in the summertime.
      PRC is not just pushing on barren rocks with no grass, the nature of their claim is much more serious, and every inch we given is another meter they will want.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
        Wasn't much of a rebuttal. The US will sell weapons to India but that would not include Tech Transfers. The Pakistanis had the F-16s for over a decade and the best they came up with was a suped up MiG-21 (JF-17). Whatever weapons India will buy from the US, India will not be starting their own assembly lines.

        BTW, how is the RAFALE doing?
        You could replace our Su-30's with F-16s, Rafales, F-22's, or F-35s still wouldn't make a difference unless we learn how not to shoot down our opponents and not shoot our own helicopters.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kuku View Post
          PRC is not just pushing on barren rocks with no grass, the nature of their claim is much more serious, and every inch we given is another meter they will want.
          Damned right they will want more ... but you do understand how bait works, right?
          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Jun 20,, 18:41.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • Aye, that i do

            Comment


            • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
              I absolutely agree. My point is NOT to start a war but the Chinese annoying encroachment is tolerable and in fact preferred ... if you do your own prep work to trap and to destroy the encroachment. If the Chinese wants to head butt you, they have to extend their neck. You don't have to head butt back nor chop their neck. But for Pete sakes, sharpen your damned axe.
              Problem is no Indian PM can stand in Parliament and accept that the Chinese have built posts on the Indian side of the LAC but we are going to let them remain because it makes sense militarily. Not if he wants to survive politically. People would rather have us attempt to remove them and possibly trigger a bigger conflict and lose rather than not try at all. This is as much true today as it was in 1962 regardless of what else might have changed.

              Comment


              • The reality is that no PM can accept Chinese incursion but it is also reality that the Indian Army (and the China Army) already figured out the traps. Advance too far by either side and you lose your vanguard. Let's be blunt. If I can figure this out, so can the Indian and Chinese Armies and more than likely, they did. Your Officers here were of sound mind and the military decisions that I would have made in Kargil, they were ready to implement only to be countermand by the Indian PMO.

                I always get a laugh when your Opposition is screaming bloody murder but your COs and DCOs were calmed and basically said, it's normal.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 667medic View Post
                  [ATTACH]48763[/ATTACH]

                  New developments at PP14, looks like a MG position.
                  Nitin says they're Indian ; )

                  He's at odds with other media reporting who thinks they're Chinese.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    Nitin says they're Indian ; )

                    He's at odds with other media reporting who thinks they're Chinese.
                    I could be wrong but from the shape of the B shaped structure, looks like a MG nest pointing towards Indian side...
                    Seek Save Serve Medic

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                      The Colonel said unless India submits to American leadership, of which DE gave a rebuttal.
                      Where did the Colonel say that ?

                      All I said was due to STA-1 any previous embargoes relating to arms sales to us or tech do not exist.

                      It was 667media that said it

                      I'm not sure what the hold up is but AIM hinted that the bureaucrats were against it.

                      Modi advocates for it but retired generals contradict him in closed forums. We can't trust the Americans they say.

                      AIM thinks Modi should crack the whip on them.

                      If the problem is as Raja says, a power differential then we have to be smart how we address it.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 25 Jun 20,, 01:17.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 667medic View Post
                        I could be wrong but from the shape of the B shaped structure, looks like a MG nest pointing towards Indian side...
                        Definitely Chinese....

                        https://indianexpress.com/article/in...-site-6474796/
                        Seek Save Serve Medic

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                          Including the current situation and the June 15 incident masterminded by Gen Zhao Zongqi if reports are to be believed, had a political objective rather than military.
                          According to this article he wants the post of vice chair of the CMC

                          Ambitious General Threatens to Derail Regional Balance in Asia | Bharat Shakti | Jun 21 2020

                          Comment


                          • China has more diplomatic relations with Taiwan than India.

                            India is more true to the one China policy than even China

                            Junking ‘One China’ policy: What to do and not to do to hurt the Asian dragon? | Defence Capital | Jun 22 2020

                            India‘s adherence to the “One China“’ policy has arguably been more fervent and stricter than People’s Republic of China‘s own adherence to this policy. Consider this, Taiwanese firms get privileged access in Beijing, trade links between the Taiwan and China are almost double India-China trade, and the leaders of Taiwan (then president Ma Ying-Jeou) and China (Xi Jinping) have had a formal summit-level meeting.

                            India, on the other hand, treats Taiwanese businesses like dirt, refuses them any official meetings, and maintains low trade levels, despite Tiawanese interests in investing in India’s highly unpredictable and investor unfriendly market. Meetings between governments and businesses, leave alone between heads of governments, simply don’t happen.

                            Much of this comes down to India’s extraordinarily masochistic policy of self-harm and getting carried away by our own propaganda. But it also points to a compromised bureaucracy, an inability to set priorities and gauge which priorities are realistic or not.

                            In that sense, India is the alcoholic, who desperately needs to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting and listen to the AA prayer, “God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference,” also known as Reinhold Niebuhr‘s prayer.

                            To my mind listening to several diplomats over the years, our priorities can be condensed down to this list in descending order:

                            1. Getting a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
                            2. Keeping the India-China border calm
                            3. Thwarting the China-Pakistan nexus
                            4. Minimising China’s naval presence in the periphery

                            The problem is, their top priority, getting a permanent seat at the UNSC, has always been a fool’s errand. China has always used it as leverage for Indian “good behaviour” and India has always behaved with wretched pusillanimity, citing the imminent possibility of a permanent seat and China’s role in it.

                            To this end, we have refused to build infrastructure in our border regions, refused military cooperation with friends, stayed away from alliances, and maintained the comical farce that is “non-alignment.”

                            Sadly, these kinds of tangible-for-intangible deals never work. The closest international example of India’s foolish self-harm for possible UNSC seat deal is Israel’s “land for peace,” which has turned out to be as much of a disaster, except that Israel learnt from its mistakes rapidly. India after 58 years still hasn’t learnt.

                            Consequently, China has taken to eroding priorities 3 and 4 and it would appear since Galwan, priority 2 as well. Curiously, it is said that when Indira Gandhi imposed an honourable peace at Shimla on Pakistan following the 1971 war, her adviser cautioned her against being harsh stating “the roots of the second world war lay in the humiliation of the treaty of Versailles that followed the first world war.” Apparently for all their profound historical wisdom, they forgot the lessons of Neville Chamberlain and Munich when it came to China.

                            Some of this probably is also cultural and derives from oppressive caste patriarchy. The obnoxious behaviour of Indians in general towards those of lower social standing or perceived “lower caste” led a keen observer to once note, “India treats kindness with contempt, and grovels when confronted with arrogance,” or as John F. Kennedy summed it up bemoaning India’s harsh rhetoric against America: “Pandit Nehru keeps taking slap after slap from the Chinese and pretends nothing happened.” Sadly, what was true then, remains true today.

                            The surest way of breaking this toxic chain simply cannot come from the “incrementalism” this government loves so much and uses as an excuse to cover up its inertia is amending India’s adherence to ‘One China’.

                            The point is, such adherence need not be a break from the past and can indeed be done covertly and incrementally. Policy consistency is a much appreciated trait among friends. Switching our ‘One China’ policy, therefore, within the ambit of both covert and incremental, provides for policy predictability and hence, strategic trust with our friends.

                            For example, then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd‘s announcement in Beijing that Australia was withdrawing from quadrilateral naval exercises with India, the United States and Japan came as a rude shock to India and vitiated the atmosphere for decades. As for China, it was never a friend of India to engender trust.

                            So, how do we proceed with adhering to ‘One China’ while systematically dismembering it? For this, we need to consider two questions

                            1. What can we do to China that they have already done to us?
                            2. What can we do to prevent them from harming us more, while carrying out 1?

                            For this, we need two approaches — posturing and covert actions. Posturing acts as leverage against China, without destroying the trust friendly countries have in India, while covert actions actively undermine Chinese policy.

                            Note that we do this not to punish China as a retributive and an ad-hoc measure, but as a matter of consistent policy. The real challenge will be maintaining the said consistency, which India has a terrible record of.

                            Be it from compromising intelligence assets in Pakistan twice, first under former Indian prime minister Morarji Desai and then under I. K. Gujral to first supporting the Baloch insurgency and then abandoning it; from supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to later attacking it; from supporting Tibetan uprisings with the Americans to actively discouraging them.

                            In such a case, the effectiveness of the policies recommended below must be efficacious if and only if they are maintained irrespective of the ideology of India’s ruling dispensation.

                            Sadly, the Taiwanese contention of India’s bureaucrats being hopelessly compromised gives no succour, but purely to cogitate the mind, the following could be considered along with their negatives.

                            What India should not do?

                            1. Recognising East Turkestan could be one, but this would be a self-goal given that Islamic terrorism is highly internationalised and as Pakistan is learning supporting one form of terrorism opens the house up to all other terrorists, who are fundamentally uncontrollable, as our experience with propping up the LTTE and Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale show. In short, this is not a feasible option.

                            2. Encourage any violent Tibetan resistance or recognise Tibetan or Taiwanese independence. Remember that there are enough separatist movements in India for the Chinese to recognise and provide arms and aid. Moreover, keeping the border quiet is a priority.

                            What India can do?

                            1. Start engaging with Tibetan refugees on more publicly, including regular and public meetings for the Tibetan government-in-exile with Indian officials participating. This is not a “bargaining chip” to be ceded to China in return for worthless nothings.

                            2. An intensification of economic cooperation between India and Taiwan, requesting the moving of all of Taiwan’s production on the Chinese mainland to India, both negatively affecting the Chinese economy as well as positively boosting the Indian economy. This, of course, will be subject to India rationalising its notoriously business-unfriendly investment laws and regulatory and dispute resolution mechanisms.

                            3. Adopt the US strategy versus the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) of keeping their direct border — the Barents Straits — relatively trouble free, while ensuring the main hostility was in the Fulda Gap between erstwhile East Germany and West Germany. Keep the theatre of conflict far away in the South China Sea as active as possible, while keeping the direct border quiet. That is, stiffed ASEAN‘s spine through military cooperation.

                            4. Ramp up covert military cooperation with Taiwan. The most important element of this will be to create a linkage between Chinese arms sales to Pakistan and Indian arms transfers to Taiwan. This can be safely negotiated as the “cascading of obsolete arms” that are going to be replaced in the Indian arsenal. For example, the brand new Scorpene class submarines are quieter and more sophisticated than any current or planned Chinese submarine. One could simply negotiate a new batch of 24 “more advanced” variants of the same submarine and transfer the current six to the Taiwanese claiming obsolescence. This protects both the supplier nation not wanting to antagonise China as well as Taiwan, which will benefit from significant spare parts commonality with India, not to mention interoperability.

                            5. Act as a liaison between Vietnam and Taiwan and a supply bridge between Vietnam and the West. The Communist Party of Vietnam (as opposed to the country) has always maintained cordial ties with the Chinese Communist Party and cannot be seen breaking the “communist block” for whatever little it is worth. However, Vietnam also suffers from a fundamental distrust of western suppliers, who are prone to imposing sanctions based on internal issues like human rights. Expanding the scope of the India-Taiwan cooperation, India could act as guarantor of Vietnamese purchases of vastly superior western arms (the differential between Russian and Chinese arms is rapidly reducing given Russia‘s ossification on the technology front). This is extremely beneficial to India, as it creates significant economies of scale for large scale purchases and setting up a localised defence indigenisation cluster between India-Taiwan and Vietnam — an alliance in being if not on paper.

                            6. Ask Taiwan as a claimant to the whole of China to unilaterally declare the international border as defined by India, between China and India as the legitimate border. This will be sequential and take time.

                            7. Finally, the ultimate pillar of trust will be intelligence sharing, given Taiwan’s remarkable electronic and human surveillance assets monitoring China.

                            All these steps are sequential and based on the assumption that India can in fact adjust its notoriously self-defeating policies and unpredictability.

                            What India can threaten to do, but must not do?

                            1. The final element of trust between India and Taiwan must be to threaten, but never actually, to transfer nuclear weapons to Taiwan. To be sure, Taiwan’s industrial abilities are far ahead of our own. Moreover, any such transfer would be treated as a severe breach of trust by friends including the US and France. The best thing under the circumstances would be to coordinate what India will say and when, and to keep the threats verbal during off-the-record conversations — effectively ending any dream China will have of reuniting Taiwan. This is, of course, particularly difficult given India’s lack of knowledge of what the words “covert” and “discrete” mean and will need some extremely disciplined and nuanced diplomatic rigour.

                            All of these steps are graded, practical and achievable. The only thing in our path is our own acute weaknesses, mind-set and policy masochism. As such ending the ‘One China’ policy is not just good for everyone else, but acts as a fait accompli for economic reforms, increasing industrialisation and employment as well as buttressing our foreign policy.

                            (The writer is a Senior Fellow at the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies)
                            AIM's taking a shot at the bureaucracy. He's of the view that any one that opposes rapprochement with Taiwan should have a counter intel investigation to determine if they are compromised by China.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 667medic View Post
                              Engaging Taiwan is fine as long as there is a method to it. There must be sincerity in engagement and it must not degenerate into a seasonal affair like how Iran does with India when it gets slammed internationally, making some soothing statements regarding Chhabar port and then nothing after that. Engagement can be like invitation in a non-official capacity for some event but given wide publicity.
                              I see what you mean now

                              Originally posted by 667medic View Post
                              I believe that with the Dalai Lama, it is more tricky. PRC can light up the North East with insurgencies, even if Myanmar is willing to help India. Remember that several areas in Myanmar are autonomous and controlled by ethnic Chinese warlords, the largest organization being the United Wa State Army, who are supposedly armed by China. But it should be interesting to rename existing units and also induct new recruits to form Tibetan Scouts and place them on the border.


                              Again I am saying that Indian action must be well planned and not knee jerk. Otherwise better off cutting losses short....
                              What do you make of AIM's piece ?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                Where did the Colonel say that ?

                                All I said was due to STA-1 any previous embargoes relating to arms sales to us or tech do not exist.

                                It was 667media that said it

                                I'm not sure what the hold up is but AIM hinted that the bureaucrats were against it.

                                Modi advocates for it but retired generals contradict him in closed forums. We can't trust the Americans they say.

                                AIM thinks Modi should crack the whip on them.

                                If the problem is as Raja says, a power differential then we have to be smart how we address it.
                                Post # 876
                                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

                                Working...
                                X