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
    Aussies commit to increasing their defense budget by 40% for the next ten years

    Address - Launch of the 2020 Defence Strategic Update | PM of Australia | Jul 01 2020
    If you believe Australia's defence budget is going to increase 40% in the next 10 years you are even dumber than I think. Spending is going to sit pretty much on 2% of GDP for that entire time. Our GDP is not going to increase by 40% in 10 years unless the price of commodities goes apeshit.

    Most of the funding announced in that speech was committed years ago, and all the new announcements are offset by decisions to cut programs. This is old wine in new bottles announced with a lot of noise for some very specific local political reasons. You got sucked in by the spin.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
      If you believe Australia's defence budget is going to increase 40% in the next 10 years you are even dumber than I think. Spending is going to sit pretty much on 2% of GDP for that entire time. Our GDP is not going to increase by 40% in 10 years unless the price of commodities goes apeshit.

      Most of the funding announced in that speech was committed years ago, and all the new announcements are offset by decisions to cut programs. This is old wine in new bottles announced with a lot of noise for some very specific local political reasons. You got sucked in by the spin.
      I believe everything the govt of the day says unless shown otherwise. What's clear is they intend to increase spending on defence.

      I'm not second guessing your govts intent to keep to what it says. That is what i find dumb.

      We will only know how well it keeps this promise with time which is a function of how things develop in your region.

      China is using the same playbook with your neighbours as they are with mine. Slowly turning them against you politically with inducements. The reporting in your media about these developments mirrors mine verbatim. Your media is saying the same thing mine did years ago. One belt, one road, one virus project is a good example.

      That 40% figure was mentioned by a commentator who reported the story. I don't know what the basis is.

      As the Australian Strategic Policy Institute noted in the 2012-13 Defence Budget Brief, just prior to our Government's 2013 election, the Defence Budget had fallen to 1.56 per cent of GDP.

      Despite the many pressures on the Budget - and, of course, during this COVID-19 recession, they have only accelerated - I reaffirm today that our Government's commitment is to properly fund Defence with the certainty of a new 10-year funding model that goes beyond our achievement of reaching two-percent of our economy of GDP this year.
      You went from 1.56% of GDP in '12-'13 to 2% in 7-8 years.

      I don't know how much beyond 2% of GDP your govt wants to do in the next ten years.

      Rhetoric coming from your govt on bilateral relations is welcome. Hope it lasts : )

      The weakest link in the quad is the Aus - India link. Quad is only so good as its weakest link. Have to fix this.

      Hoping that AUSINDEX last year went some way to addressing it. I want to see your country in the next Malabar exercise.

      For that my govt has to lose its diffidence to China.
      Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Jul 20,, 17:02.

      Comment


      • This pandemic has made everyone familiar with video conferencing and so i'm finding more overseas commentators on local news programs than previous. This is a good development.



        He's done well to get an interview with Yun Sun who was reluctant to show up on Indian TV for obvious reasons.

        Simple Q&A nterview was the compromise.

        No debate. Had there been other guests as usual it would have heated up quick : D

        She puts across the CCP's pov.

        The CCP thinks India is backstabbing them by developing border infrastructure at a time when China is under pressure. Rahul points out we're only playing catch up.

        She disagrees that China is lashing out at the world and states China is addressing concerns pertaining to its border only.

        She challenges the assertion that China wants to keep India down.

        She asks what cost should China pay to keep good relations with India.

        How much should China compromise on its border claims.

        To the statement that this is not the India of '62, her reply is India lost a war with China when China was two thirds the economy of India at the time so what can India expect when China is five times larger. Raja is making the same point but putting it differently.

        India can expect to give China more than a bloody nose. The Viets did just that in the 80s.

        India does not have to win against China, China has to win against India and that will be a tricky proposition.

        So as the ex-mil commentators have said China has no choice but to return to the 1993 peace treaty.

        I'm not worried about a military conflict with China. Whether we end up in a better place than presently is unclear but Nathu La bought us twenty years of peace and that was just a minor skirmish. No relations with China in that era had no consequences for India. It took three decades for normal relations to resume.

        What i'm unsure about is how well can India handle a clean break today.

        Over the years we've built up dependencies in certain areas. A conflict will mean a sudden disruption of all of those links.

        That disruption can endure for decades.

        Whether this disruption represents the greater fallout over time than a military skirmish is the question.

        This is an interesting quandary as one would expect that better trade relations with China would act as a dampner for military conflict. That's been proven false by history.

        Instead it appears that more trade with China ends up giving China more leverage in whether the other side wants to get into a conflict with China. It isn't just a military question there is also an economic component attached.
        Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Jul 20,, 16:54.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
          Am starting to think what they want only works if we bite.

          Time to whack them was back in May, the window has closed now.

          They tried again on Jun 15 and even that didn't get the expected reaction.
          Economically we are strained, NOW. Even before the Corona pandemic hit, India was not growing spectacularly. So, firstly, a hot war, even if for a week, was never in the Government's mind. Morals, is the second issue with India, we're always high on bullshit morals. Thirdly, Jun 15 incident got more than adequate response from the Indian Army. Mind you, it's the PLA we're talking about, the kind of invincible army of dragons, who enjoy vassal states like Pakistan & NKorea licking their ar$e$. Embarrassment, big one for the PLA this time. To top it, PLA never could avenge the Doklam shame their mental t!ts told them about. Maintaining status quo was on the GoI's mind, but we're not going to backdown when provoked.
          Last edited by Oracle; 02 Jul 20,, 17:27.
          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


          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            This pandemic has made everyone familiar with video conferencing and so i'm finding more overseas commentators on local news programs than previous. This is a good development.



            He's done well to get an interview with Yun Sun who was reluctant to show up on Indian TV for obvious reasons.

            Simple Q&A nterview was the compromise.

            No debate. Had there been other guests as usual it would have heated up quick : D

            She puts across the CCP's pov.

            The CCP thinks India is backstabbing them by developing border infrastructure at a time when China is under pressure. Rahul points out we're only playing catch up.

            She disagrees that China is lashing out at the world and states China is addressing concerns pertaining to its border only.

            She challenges the assertion that China wants to keep India down.

            She asks what cost should China pay to keep good relations with India.

            How much should China compromise on its border claims.

            To the statement that this is not the India of '62, her reply is India lost a war with China when China was two thirds the economy of India at the time so what can India expect when China is five times larger. Raja is making the same point but putting it differently.

            India can expect to give China more than a bloody nose. The Viets did just that in the 80s.

            India does not have to win against China, China has to win against India and that will be a tricky proposition.

            So as the ex-mil commentators have said China has no choice but to return to the 1993 peace treaty.

            I'm not worried about a military conflict with China. Whether we end up in a better place than presently is unclear but Nathu La bought us twenty years of peace and that was just a minor skirmish. No relations with China in that era had no consequences for India. It took three decades for normal relations to resume.

            What i'm unsure about is how well can India handle a clean break today.

            Over the ears we've built up dependencies in certain areas. A conflict will mean a sudden disruption of all of those links.

            That disruption can endure for decades.

            Whether this disruption represents the greater fallout over time than a military skirmish is the question.

            This is an interesting quandary as one would expect that better trade relations with China would act as a dampner for military conflict. That's been proven false by history.
            Yun Sun doesn't have a wiki page. I posted an article that she wrote in this thread (post # 893). I don't know her nationality, but this is an area where US excels. US gives space to CCP hacks (also Paks and everybody else) to understand their line of thinking. If she's an American, if, then people in the US administration know where her loyalty lies.

            Instead it appears that more trade with China ends up giving China more leverage in whether the other side wants to get into a conflict with China. It isn't just a military question there is also an economic component attached.
            Which the communists take advantage of all the time.
            Last edited by Oracle; 02 Jul 20,, 17:25.
            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


            • Government approves purchase of fighter jets, missile system, weapons worth Rs 38,900 crore

              Could not the Modi led government order this in 2014 or 2015? A huge defense force, what are they going to fight with? The Army already used their hands to fight the PLA. This is a matter of nationality security shame. This is not expected from a government which hands out stupid slogans and statements every month.

              TikTok not going to legally challenge the ban order

              And lose 200 million users? Strange.

              TikTok could lose $6 bn following India's ban: Report

              Ouch!

              PLA using Tibetans against India

              I am not that confident about Claude Arpi. Needs to be verified.
              Last edited by Oracle; 02 Jul 20,, 17:32.
              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


              • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                Yun Sun doesn't have a wiki page. I posted an article that she wrote in this thread (post # 893). I don't know her nationality, but this is an area where US excels. US gives space to CCP hacks (also Paks and everybody else) to understand their line of thinking.
                Don't know if she's American. Definitely not born there as you can tell with her accent.

                She's Chinese with residency in the US i think.

                Undergrad in Beijing and post grad in the US. She's been busy in the last five years.

                Non resident China fellow with a number of think tanks.

                You posted her June WOTR article.

                China is pushing for the territory occupied in the 1962 war as a reaction to perceived Indian exploitation of China’s vulnerability due to COVID-19 and deteriorating relations with the United States.
                Nitin said the same thing too. Thing is in certain areas they are already sitting on territory they occupied in the '62 war ie Galwan that is to say before their little withdrawal after the war.

                the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh (which the Chinese ambassador to India claimed to be Chinese territory in 2006 ) — includes the Tawang district, the birth place of the 6th Dalai Lama. Any acknowledgement of Indian sovereignty over it will undermine China’s sovereignty over Tibet, as this would imply the Dalai Lama is Indian.
                I find this admission absolutely stunning. Obviously they were not aware of this simple fact in '62 and only realised it later.

                Holding on to just Tawang undermines China's hold on Tibet ?!? Who knew : )

                Why ? is the 6th only DL to be born in Indian territory ?

                By this logic if next Dalai Lama comes from India then we complicate their hold of Tibet even further ??

                Then this is India's ultimate Tibet card. Don't have to fire any shots.


                I posted her Mar WOTR article at #757 which said China wants to stablise relations with India and this is what i wanted Rahul to ask her about because three months later we see anything but.

                Her reply is China sees India as taking advantage of China's goodwill. India developing infrastructure on the border gave them pause. This is where they think we back stabbed them. Always love to play the victim these people. She then says there is a perception that India is using US to get leverage on China to force it to compromise on their territorial claims.

                Bilateral relations is a means to an end. The relations are not the end. The end is preservation of interests.

                This is a cryptic reply for me. They have the edge when it comes to infrastucture on the border. They saw we did not oppose it, yet its not reciprocal. If we develop our side of the border. Now all of a sudden it becomes a threat to them when they were the ones that grabbed our territory in the first place. She terms this a classic security dilemma where each side reacts to what the other does at the border.

                Solution is simple here for me, given people did not like my bombing idea so let China dismantle their infrastructure leading upto the LAC if they do not want us to build more. This way there is parity. Course trust deficit might preclude that for both sides. So its an escalatory spiral. They build, we build and so on.

                So yeah, as Rahul concluded saying there is very little we agree with here.

                If it its the border work that has them jumpy then as Jaydev has said, they want to secure their investment in CPEC.

                That means we have to give some sort of assurance about this before they withdraw. Note that this is an educated speculation. TO DATE i've not heard any definitive statement as to what they want.

                At the Maballam summit, what didn't get reported was Chinese wanted us to settle differences with the Paks. To which there was a flat refusal. Balakote strike was 30km from a CPEC project.

                Now how will China get an assurance from us that CPEC is safe ?

                What do they have to do to get it. Answer that riddle : )


                Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                If she's an American, if, then people in the US administration know where her loyalty lies.
                Indian China experts get this scepticism as well.

                India firster Bharat does not trust them. Seems the more you get to know China the more pro China you become and then have to prove loyalty.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Jul 20,, 21:27.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  Rhetoric coming from your govt on bilateral relations is welcome. Hope it lasts : )

                  The weakest link in the quad is the Aus - India link. Quad is only so good as its weakest link. Have to fix this.

                  Hoping that AUSINDEX last year went some way to addressing it. I want to see your country in the next Malabar exercise.
                  What do you actually expect any of the QUAD members to do if there is a real India-China war over the territorial disputes? Do you really think Japan or Australia are going to get involved. They will just be relieved that their own disputes with the Chinese will take a back seat while the Chinese are busy with us. Even the Americans won't get involved beyond perhaps intel sharing (that too depending on the regime in power and their relations with the Chinese at that point in time). We need to stop putting false hopes on groupings like the QUAD. NATO it ain't and never will be.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                    Government approves purchase of fighter jets, missile system, weapons worth Rs 38,900 crore

                    Could not the Modi led government order this in 2014 or 2015? A huge defense force, what are they going to fight with? The Army already used their hands to fight the PLA. This is a matter of nationality security shame. This is not expected from a government which hands out stupid slogans and statements every month.
                    Yup, none of these purchases will help in the current situation. These are just CCS approvals anyway not actual contracts. We know how long it takes to negotiate those. And even if they were signed today, the new aircraft will not be available for some time. So your question is pertinent. The requirements were known for a while. Why does it take a crisis for the government to approve of them, knowing that they will be useless in said crisis?

                    There are so many such acquisitions stuck in our acquisitions process. LIke the frigging LCH whose development completed a while back and which would have been very useful in Ladakh right about now.
                    Last edited by Firestorm; 02 Jul 20,, 21:19.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                      Yun Sun doesn't have a wiki page. I posted an article that she wrote in this thread (post # 893). I don't know her nationality, but this is an area where US excels. US gives space to CCP hacks (also Paks and everybody else) to understand their line of thinking. If she's an American, if, then people in the US administration know where her loyalty lies.
                      This may be one of those cases where the Chinese government pays a bunch of money through cutouts to endow a given position, on condition that the cutouts have a say in who gets appointed. Some of that money goes to the foundation, and some of it goes to pay her salary and benefits. And the foundation gets a free talking head who raises the profile of the organization by talking to reporters, issuing position papers, et al. Basically, it's a lobby for foreign countries whose position papers and pronouncements Democrats can use to provide cover for policies that cater to foreign interests. Here's the Wikipedia blurb on the freelance cutout that issues her paychecks, the Stimson Center:
                      The Stimson Center was founded in 1989 by Barry Blechman[4] and Michael Krepon.[5] Stimson is currently led by Chairman of the Board David J. Lane[6] and President and CEO Brian Finlay.[7]

                      The Stimson Center is funded by research contracts, grants from foundations and other donations.
                      Last edited by Mithridates; 02 Jul 20,, 21:45.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        Non resident China fellow with a number of think tanks.
                        That's another way of saying her paycheck comes from a Chinese slush fund.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                          Even the Americans won't get involved beyond perhaps intel sharing
                          I would expect the US to provide supplies even in the face of Chinese interdiction efforts against Indian shipping, as well as financing. Some kind of Lend Lease type loan would not be unthinkable. But direct involvement against anything other than a deep thrust into Indian territory with a view to the conquest of large swathes of undisputed Indian territory? Unlikely.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            So your question is pertinent. The requirements were known for a while. Why does it take a crisis for the government to approve of them, knowing that they will be useless in said crisis?
                            The US has essentially unlimited resources because it has the biggest economy in the world. It can size its military budget to match potential adversary capabilities. India doesn't. It has to budget for projected adversary intentions. Up until now, it was assumed by GOI that China had no intention of encroaching upon Indian territory - that its current objective was to cement its claim to the South China Sea and perhaps acquire Taiwan. Has that GOI assessment changed? That is what will drive GOI defense procurement in the next several years.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                              What do you actually expect any of the QUAD members to do if there is a real India-China war over the territorial disputes? Do you really think Japan or Australia are going to get involved. They will just be relieved that their own disputes with the Chinese will take a back seat while the Chinese are busy with us. Even the Americans won't get involved beyond perhaps intel sharing (that too depending on the regime in power and their relations with the Chinese at that point in time). We need to stop putting false hopes on groupings like the QUAD. NATO it ain't and never will be.
                              Fine, OOE has been at pains to make this very point.

                              Does it mean we should disband it because its just a gimmick ?

                              I find think tankers quite enamoured with the idea.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mithridates View Post
                                That's another way of saying her paycheck comes from a Chinese slush fund.
                                Do you find her work has merit ?

                                Do her articles add to the conversation here.

                                I don't find her pushing her side too much just explaining it.

                                If she's shilling for China, she does it well.

                                Originally posted by Mithridates View Post
                                I would expect the US to provide supplies even in the face of Chinese interdiction efforts against Indian shipping, as well as financing. Some kind of Lend Lease type loan would not be unthinkable. But direct involvement against anything other than a deep thrust into Indian territory with a view to the conquest of large swathes of undisputed Indian territory? Unlikely.
                                Both UK & US rushed supplies over in the '62 war. Supplies here means guns & ammo as we didn't even have enough of them.
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Jul 20,, 23:10.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X