Can India achieve Great Power Status ?

[SADAKHUSH]

Such partiotic pep talk is good to make oneself feel like it would matter if you or other civilians resisted an advancing Chinese army into India, but it really wouldn't matter one bit. Civilians don't have the training, weaponry, knowledge of tactics or organization to resist invading armies. It won't matter if the entire civilian population of Mumbai (16 million or so) or Delhi decided to resist an invading enemy army, all it would result in is a massive civilian massacre and total destruction of both cities with little damage to the enemy.

On the other hand, an armed civilian society like the US can offer *some* minor resistance to an invading army, but all the handguns and shotguns in the world will not stand up to a bloody artillery or tank assault.

Delhi and Mumbai are long way from Sino-Indian border. They will have to go through over one million strong Army plus in between states. What makes you think China has the guts to commit a mistake of attacking India unless they have been consulting with you? Even if they do than it opens the opportunity for rest of their adversaries to take the control of SCS Islands and reefs from China. Your opinions are way out of line and not keeping in with the geopolitical situation of the present time. If and when relationship between India and China take a turn for worse than we can discuss further on your concerns. By the way what would you personally do to bring India up to your desired state to meet the future challenges India is facing. I do not doubt your sincere concern for the security of India.

 

[BackToEast]

I have to say something, then Forum will send the update post of this thread to my email box.

 

[The Messiah]

Delhi and Mumbai are long way from Sino-Indian border. They will have to go through over one million strong Army plus in between states. What makes you think China has the guts to commit a mistake of attacking India unless they have been consulting with you? Even if they do than it opens the opportunity for rest of their adversaries to take the control of SCS Islands and reefs from China. Your opinions are way out of line and not keeping in with the geopolitical situation of the present time. If and when relationship between India and China take a turn for worse than we can discuss further on your concerns. By the way what would you personally do to bring India up to your desired state to meet the future challenges India is facing. I do not doubt your sincere concern for the security of India.

The whole point is moot! Nukes would be flying long before chini soldiers are outside delhi let alone mumbai.

 

[pmaitra]

You can continue living in lalaland if you wish, but in reality, India was ruled for 200 years by a tiny European country. Even India's independence was an accident, which happened because after WWII, Britain no longer had the military might or the financial muscle to run her colonies.

As for France and Russia, India is a customer for their military hardware...nothing more nothing less. So stop living in lalaland and face up to reality.As for France and Russia, India is a customer for their military hardware...nothing more nothing less. India would not last even a single month in a war with either country. A country which after 60 years is still the world's largest weapons importer....who's only achievement is having the largest number of poor people in the world....is in this state because its people and its leaders are devoid of vision, pride, willpower and patriotism.

Indians should realize this reality, and only dream of achieving things which are within their capability (aukat) instead of comparing themselves to great powers like China, Russia or the US.

True, today, for France and the Russian Federation, but not true for the erstwhile USSR.

Moreover, I think India could devastate France, with or without nukes. There is no way France can defeat India.

Known_Unknown is an Indian. He is the person who supported "Sanskrit" as national language in long discussion and on FDI debate with me he ended with Subhratri. May be he is sarcastic or trolling for a change.

I'm going to speculate he is Indian.

Hornets nest? You shook the entire jungle !!

This thread was badly needed! This is far more useful than Chinese/Paki/Islam bashing that we see here, and honestly, one cannot be blamed if he gets bored of this bash-fest.

Seriously? Dude cmon, you know as much as I do that in a war with Pakistan, India only has about 4 to 5 weeks of fighting reserves. And I mean ammunition, spare parts, fuel and other logistics necessary for war. What makes you think we can take on France and Russia in a full fledged war if we can't even beat Pakistan?

You could be wrong, but I won't challenge you on that.

Did you know that during WWII, the Russians took 30 million casualties and still won the war? At the end of the war, the Red Army was larger in manpower and materials than all of the Allied armies COMBINED!

There is no country in this world that can match the resolve of the Russians. Other civilisation shave displayed similar surviving potential, but in the days gone by. This is a glaring example and could not have been possible without (1) Communism and (2) Stalin (call me names any one of you readers, if you want, I don't really care)!

In terms of PPP. It will takes decades or a century for India to match the per capita income, and hence the prosperity of Germans.

PPP is good when it comes to basic items, like rice, wheat, potatoes, but when it comes to cars, missiles, aeroplanes, the prices are more or less the same all over the world. India must aim to match the West in terms of PCI as per exchange rate and not taking PPP into account.

Russia could barely contain Georgia and did worse in Chechnya. Neither country is capable of facing us.

You rarely make mistakes when commenting on military matters, but I am sorry, you are grossly misinformed. Russia is more than capable of facing India, even if you take away all the nukes that Russia and India have from the equation. It would take the thread off topic, but the way Russia handled Chechnya, is exemplary. India has a lot to learn and is way way behind. Poor example, I'm afraid!

India does not have the wherewithal to block the Malacca Straits. China has over 50 submarines that can sink the Indian Navy if they tried to block Malacca. In addition, China can attack India all across the LoAC. Indian formations all along the Chinese border are defensive in nature and are not meant for offensive action inside Tibet. Logistics is a nightmare on the Indian side of the border, while on the Chinese side, they can easily transport troops and supplies over the Tibetan plateau using their much superior infrastructure.

Besides, what do you think the Gwadar port is for?

You are correct, but have forgotten, than it will be easier to IAF to bomd Tibetan Plateau than for PLAAF to bomb India.

No, you are mistaken. Libya hardly qualifies as a full scale war. France merely sent a couple of squadrons of jets to hit the Libyan forces.

I think you are forgetting the NTC. They did a lot of the ground fighting. Mere air power does not win a war.

Russia *won* the Georgian conflict, and Chechnya is much more stable than Kashmir.

Very true.

Besides, both these countries don't even have to send troops all the way to India. In the event of a full scale war, either country could vaporize all the major Indian cities using their nuke mounted ICBM's, since India has no missiles that would reach Paris or Moscow.

You could be right, but then how are you so sure?

India is a paper tiger, it's time to acknowledge reality.

I don't think the world saw India that way in 1972, but whatever suits your opinion.

India is a third world hand-me-down country, incapable of indigenous design, development or production. And so will it remain for the forseable future until it eventually breaks up.

Partially agree.

I believe racial homogenization is better than ideological homogenization. Ideologies wither away and die, but a racially homogenous nation becomes and stays a great power through its belief in the greatness of its people, regardless of the ideology guiding them. For example, the Russians were a great power under the Tsars, under the Communists and now under Putin. The same can be said of China (Qing Dynasty, Mao, market oriented current CCP leaders) and the French (Imperial France, Napoleon, Charles De Gaulle).

You talk about racial homogeneity and then cite Russia as an example? The Russian Federation, today, is twice as ethnically diverse as India is. The Soviet Union and pre-communist Russian Empire were thrice as ethnically diverse as India. You have chosen the wrong point to argue on bud!

Here, educate yourself:
The Empire That Was Russia: The Prokudin-Gorskii Photographic Record Recreated (A Library of Congress Exhibition)
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ethnic.html

Coming to Germany, what about the contribution of the German Jews to the field of science? Their contribution has had far more impact on the 'real' Germans, if we look at WWII only.

ndia was once a great power under Ashoka and the Guptas, but that was a merely flash in the pan. A couple hundred years of global importance amid millenia of enslavement by foreign powers and infighting.

You are underestimating India, but yuo have made some valid points here.

Since someone here said earlier that history repeats itself, the only event we have to look forward to is either the disintegration of the Indian Union or it's enslavement by a foreign power.

And may I speculate that you are an Indian?

???!!!!!!

This statement is fantastically, absurdly ignorant and totally wrong. If you cannot see why, then sorry, I cannot continue this discussion.

Maybe you can look through the pages of history and try to find even *one single* great power which fought almost exclusively with imported armaments. I assure you, you will not find a single one.

I agree for most part.

Indians != Germans.

India's population is more than 12 times that of Germany, and hence by linear progression, even if Indians were as hardworking (productivity per capita) as Germans (which they aren't), as scientifically talented (developed all the super weapons of WWII) as the Germans (which they aren't), and as homogenous (one language, one culture, >95% one ethnicity, and hence fewer internal divisions) as the Germans (which they aren't), it would still take India more than 12x the "years" it took for Germany to recover from WWII.

A better comparison would be China. China was in a much worse state than India when it established its first government in 1949. India had a 2 year headstart over China, yet today China is at least 2 decades ahead of India in terms of infrastructure development, and at least a decade ahead in terms of GDP.

And this is what Indians need to realise instead of blindly defending their country.

Such partiotic pep talk is good to make oneself feel like it would matter if you or other civilians resisted an advancing Chinese army into India, but it really wouldn't matter one bit. Civilians don't have the training, weaponry, knowledge of tactics or organization to resist invading armies. It won't matter if the entire civilian population of Mumbai (16 million or so) or Delhi decided to resist an invading enemy army, all it would result in is a massive civilian massacre and total destruction of both cities with little damage to the enemy.

On the other hand, an armed civilian society like the US can offer *some* minor resistance to an invading army, but all the handguns and shotguns in the world will not stand up to a bloody artillery or tank assault.

Excellent point. I do not give any tupenny stuff about petriotism, or about people giving out certificates of patriotism. I'd rather identify our own fault and you have done an excellent job. We needed a thread like this in a long long time.

Partially agree. Diversity is a curse, not a gift. Most countries developed and industrialized under autocratic rule. 'Unity in diversity' and 'world's biggest democracy' is just Kool Aid.

I second that.

^

The first post was trollish, but I agree with a lot of his assertions.

Why was the Mauryan Empire a 'great power' ?

1. It followed a ruthless foreign policy (Arthashastra)
2. They had a common script and language throughout the Empire (Magadhi Brahmi and Prakrit)
3. They enforced a common culture via Buddhism Evangelism.

India presently has too many nations within our nation.

I second that.

[HR][/HR]

For the comments below, guys, I'm sure y'all could have done better than that, but you're entitled to your opinions:

Sounds more like a Paki who is extremely frustrated by the decline/destruction of Pakistan and increasing power of India and wants to vent out on internet

Maybe he is Pakistani, maybe Chinese, maybe German, maybe Indian - just counter his points.

I am sure you are a Pakistani or chine nationalist

Maybe he is Pakistani, maybe Chinese, maybe German, maybe Indian - just counter his points.

Give that german some peace man. After all, he is a human too and will be obviously angry with India for not selecting its plane. I mean who can handle such a selection from a Third world country like India:taunt1::taunt1:

Maybe he is Pakistani, maybe Chinese, maybe German, maybe Indian - just counter his points.

 

[civfanatic]

Sure Mauryans and Guptas were ethnocentric. In medieval times, all Indian rulers were ethnocentric. Why else were they fighting each other? They belonged to the same or similar religion, only thing that divided them was language and ethnicity.

For power and prestige. Why were Chinese states fighting each other during the Warring States Period? Why were daimyos fighting each other in medieval Japan? In those cases, were there any major differences in the ethnicity, language, or culture of the combatants?

Historical Indian states certainly were not ethnocentric, in the sense that they did not fight other Indian states based on ethnic and/or linguistic differences.

As for ideology, name one power in the history of the world that has managed to retain its importance despite extensive racial diversity. (The US is not the right answer, since it has allowed non-white immigration only in the past few decades).

The Russian Empire, and its successor state the USSR. Only about half of the Soviet population was Russian, and the proportion of non-Russians was even greater in the Tsar's time.

Multiculturalism is the bane of greatpowerdom. Rome collapsed due to it, and so will the US. Countries that are racially homogenous aspire to greatpowerdom due to the shared historical experiences and common aspirations of their citizens. If the citizens come from radically different backgrounds, they have different philosophical, religious and political outlooks, resulting in too many internal divisions to be able to decide on the best way to move the country forward.

In general, you are correct. However, as Lurker alluded to earlier, ideological unity that transcends racial/ethnic barriers can be a very effective means of exerting one's influence and power. The problem with ethnocentrism is that, by its very definition, it is restricted by racial/ethnic boundaries. Let us use the U.S. and U.S.S.R as examples; both states, especially the former, greatly influenced the rest of the world with their ideology and culture. American culture still pervades the world today and is one of the key instruments of American power. Would this be possible if American culture was ethnocentric, restricted to Anglo-Saxon Protestants?

If you look at India's history, the time when India was most influential in the world was the time when Buddhism (an Indian ideology) was actively patronized and spread outside of and within the subcontinent. Hinduism, by which I mean Brahmanical orthodoxy, is by nature ethnocentric and is restricted to aryas. As such, Hinduism never spread much beyond the subcontinent; the one exception was in Southeast Asia, where there was no civilization before Indian contact and therefore no "competing" local culture to challenge Hindu influence. Thus, the peoples of Southeast Asia became "Aryanised" (i.e. Sanskritised, Indianised, etc.) and adopted Hinduism and Indian culture. On the other hand, Buddhism, not being restricted by any barriers whether they be of race, ethnicity, language, caste, or other, was able to spread over a much wider horizon and even "conquer" other well-established civilisations like those of China, Korea, and Japan. Ultimately, Buddhism also succeeded in Southeast Asia, where, as I mentioned, Hinduism had earlier taken root (ironically, the opposite was to happen in India itself, the home of Buddhism).

There was a time when nearly all of Asia, from the Caspian Sea to Japan, and from Siberia to Indonesia, was in some way or another following an Indian ideology in the form of Buddhism. Few other civilisations have succeeded in having such a wide and enduring cultural impact, especially considering that this spread of Indian culture was not achieved by force of arms but by the sophistication and attractiveness of its ideals. Throughout history, the power and "pull" of Indian civilisation was rooted in its multiculturalism and all-inclusiveness, which is best represented by the Indian Buddhist ideal.

 

[panduranghari]

You cannot fight with sticks and stones when your opponent has a Chain gun. As I explained earlier, India is too divided internally to ever become united for the common good of all its people. If India was homogenous like China, then we might have had a shot at becoming a great power.

.

You claim that China is homogeneous. Can you please prove this assertion?

 

[panduranghari]

I believe racial homogenization is better than ideological homogenization. Ideologies wither away and die, but a racially homogenous nation becomes and stays a great power through its belief in the greatness of its people, regardless of the ideology guiding them. For example, the Russians were a great power under the Tsars, under the Communists and now under Putin. The same can be said of China (Qing Dynasty, Mao, market oriented current CCP leaders) and the French (Imperial France, Napoleon, Charles De Gaulle).

India was once a great power under Ashoka and the Guptas, but that was a merely flash in the pan. A couple hundred years of global importance amid millenia of enslavement by foreign powers and infighting.

Since someone here said earlier that history repeats itself, the only event we have to look forward to is either the disintegration of the Indian Union or it's enslavement by a foreign power.

 

[panduranghari]

Sorry to interrupt, but I have to agree with KU, multiculturalism only makes a country look good during peaceful time. In a critical time, it brings more troules than benefits.

Short term opinion based on what? Please provide proof to back your assertions. I can provide proof to refute yours.

 

[ejazr]

Some valid points I agree with about China being ahead of India economically as well as militarily.

But the mistake being made here is defining what Great Power status is. In the 21st century, just having a huge army is not enough. Economy and Population also has a major role.

But the key factors that allow nations to emerge as great powers and even hyper powers are factors besides a strong economy and military. The fact that they also became centers of attraction for the best minds and talent in the world. They followed policies of pluralism that created space for people of other faiths and ethnicities to contribute to the societies in which they lived.

The US for example attracts some of the best minds from around the world and even 20 years down the track will be vastly superior to China in technological innovation. In the age of the UN, pre WWII style wars of conquest are not only illegal but also impossible. This is the reason why Israel gets regularly censured in the UN for occupying territories it acquired in the 1967 war despite having a superpower backing. Also it should be noted that Israel also attracts Jews from all around the world and there are some very diverse ethnic groups in Israel that have contributed vastly to its technological progress.

Compared to China, India has a better chance of becoming a global hub to attract new talent and ideas because of its inherent ability to allow new ideas and concepts to come out and discuss. If you are looking for Asian version of Apple like company to emerge, expect it to come from India, not China.

Now what should India do with respect to China. What we really need is some more time to augment our economy to reach no.3 in the world and for that I would advocate that we should follow a policy of offensive realism. This includes both internal balancing by improving its defenses and economy as it is already doing, but also external balancing where it establishes a more open relationship with the US and Japan to contain China. All these countries will have vested interests in keeping China in check and at the same time, foster regional co-operation in our own backyard using the US leverage to reduce Chinese influence in South, South east and West Asia. Moreover, we should re-word our nuclear doctrine to allow for a no-first strike only for non-nuclear states and/or states in the SAARC region. This is primarily to give a signal to China that our No First Use policy on nukes does not apply to China and any misadventure on the LoAC would likely result in a massive nuclear retaliation on major Chinese cities.

This will also includes focusing on and exacerbating internal tensions within China. China is a very paranoid country where even a rumor of a coup is enough for Chinese authorities to start censoring the word "coup" on the Internet. A focus on Chinese occupied territories of Xinjian and Tibet by keeping the pot boiling "at the right temperature" would not be implausible.

Finally, I would conclude with the paraphrased words of a German ethnic UK citizen who settled down in W. Bengal in the 60s. He said that India is a vast experiment in progress that tries to manage vast ethnic, religious, linguistic and regional diversity and has been able to do so quite effectively till now. The TIME magazine had an article in the late 1950s that had predicted that this would probably be India's last election and that it will disintegrate as a nation in the near future. Before independence, the British had similar ideas and did not expect India to last more than 2 decades because of its vast diversity.
But he said that the way India will manage this diversity successfully (if it does so) will for sure be the model of a future world government. In other words, as the world becomes closer and more integrated and large scale migrations, it will be the Indian model that people will look at implement to manage their own diverse populations. Looking at this principle, I think that even if India manages to just integrate itself and make its people prosperous, that would be an achievement fit for a great power.

 

[panduranghari]

Before second WW, Germany had also achieved what China is trying to achieve, if China does make a mistake like Germany than the end game will be same as that of Germany. China's long term goals are to occupy land of neighbours and as far as USA. It is not us who are living in lalaland but it is China and her rulers.

Last night the penultimate part of a documentary by Niall Ferguson titled ' China - Triumph and Turmoil' touched on this exact aspect and his conclusions were similar to yours. Deja Vu.

Do look this documentary up on the internet. It was quite good 3 part one.

 

[ejazr]

Thanks for the visual.

Under the Mughals, India controlled between 2-25% of the world economy for almost 3 centuries. But internal frictions as well as falling behind on technological innovations which finally resulted in being colonized and drained by the British reduced the Indian economic share abysmally.

What this shows is that India's real challenge is maintaining and integrating its diverse populations. And the path of great power status is almost assured if polices to achieve that integration and inclusiveness on regional, ethinc, lingusitic planes and put THAT as a national security priority among other things.

 

[Yusuf]

The vast diversity also means different brains and different capabilities being all being put in one big pot. Some are business oriented, some inclined to science etc and all this being in the blood so to speak.

It is a matter of time. We will help ourselves no end if we are able to set right policies which means good government.

 

[p2prada]

???!!!!!!

This statement is fantastically, absurdly ignorant and totally wrong. If you cannot see why, then sorry, I cannot continue this discussion.

Maybe you can look through the pages of history and try to find even *one single* great power which fought almost exclusively with imported armaments. I assure you, you will not find a single one.

Why? India did very well during WW2 with British weapons.

There was never a great power which fought with imported weapons. India is not a great power either.

Anyway what is it that we cannot produce during war time? Tanks. We have been manufacturing T-72s from the 80s until 2006. We are producing T-90s today. We will continue making them for the next 10 years. After that we will make a new tank for the next 20 years. Indigenous or foreign, how does that matter?

India is making MKIs today. In 6 years, the MKI production line will be replaced by PAKFAs. Rafale production will happen side by side and with it's end the AMCA production will begin. Indigenous or foreign does not matter. Weapons kill. That's all they do.

If the T-90 was replaced by Arjun and MKI was replaced by an equivalent indigenous aircraft. What difference does it make? If a war happens today, there is no real difference if we had an indigenous weapon or foreign weapon. We will fight with what we have.

There is only one difference between an indigenous weapon and a foreign weapon for the India as of today. It helps massage egos. Oooo! It's our own bloody weapon. Big effing deal.

Germany, France, Russia, Britain, Sweden and Israel make most of their own weapons. Put any of these countries mano-a-mano against India today and they will all lose.

Take sports as an example, say cricket. All our players use imported kits. They import bats, balls, wickets, pads, guards, heck even coaches and physios. But how does any of that matter considering we won the world cup? It is quite the same with war. It was never about where the equipment came from, it was all about how the equipment was used.

Even with the best domestic industry the US has lost every war it fought after WW2, save for Gulf and Iraq wars. Soviet Union could do nothing in Afghanistan even with owning the biggest military industrial complex in the world. So, winning a war has nothing to do with where the weapons are coming from, but how the weapons were used when it mattered.

Even if all our weapons today were indigenous, even tanks and aircraft, we still wouldn't be a great power because we don't have the economic or political muscle to back up our military muscle.

 

[p2prada]

You rarely make mistakes when commenting on military matters, but I am sorry, you are grossly misinformed. Russia is more than capable of facing India, even if you take away all the nukes that Russia and India have from the equation. It would take the thread off topic, but the way Russia handled Chechnya, is exemplary. India has a lot to learn and is way way behind. Poor example, I'm afraid!

Nope. They are currently not capable of facing any major military force today. They had major supplies issues during Gerogia war.

If you want to divide three countries on conventional military capability as of today. US tops the list followed by China and India. All other countries are lagging behind for one reason or another.

 

[pmaitra]

Nope. They are currently not capable of facing any major military force today. They had major supplies issues during Gerogia war.

If you want to divide three countries on conventional military capability as of today. US tops the list followed by China and India. All other countries are lagging behind for one reason or another.

No, you are diverting. PRC wasn't part of the discussion. I quoted you:

Russia could barely contain Georgia and did worse in Chechnya. Neither country is capable of facing us.

And then read my response.

For the other part, the order is, US, RF, PRC and India.

Russia did a pretty good job with Georgia, short, sharp and swift. They were also pretty well prepared. In fact, they had already built a railway in Abkhazia long before the war and it helped in sending in war supplies. You need to read up more on it.

Regarding Chechnya, the First Chechen War was poorly executed affair, but the Second Chechen War has been handled very well, and Chechnya today is doing much better than Kashmir.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

The vast diversity also means different brains and different capabilities being all being put in one big pot. Some are business oriented, some inclined to science etc and all this being in the blood so to speak.

It is a matter of time. We will help ourselves no end if we are able to set right policies which means good government.

I agree with your assertion and have said in few posts of mine as well that we have to bring in a Government which not only brings in better policies but also implements them. At the present time we are facing challenges of too many politicians who put their interest ahead of nations. I will start a new thread in few days time on this very subject.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

Last night the penultimate part of a documentary by Niall Ferguson titled ' China - Triumph and Turmoil' touched on this exact aspect and his conclusions were similar to yours. Deja Vu.

Do look this documentary up on the internet. It was quite good 3 part one.

Thank you for the info- I will watch with in few days. There is another thing I would like to bring to your attention that some individuals have nothing better to do than raise doubts about the capabilities of our nation and her citizenry and would like to see the disintegration in to several countries but I can vouch for all my brothers and sisters and young children that a day will come in our life time when people from violent ridden countries will turn towards India to get a lesson or two on peaceful co-existence. We have been blessed with highly learned citizens who have laid down the ground work for us to follow, whether I am right or wrong time will tell.

 

[pmaitra]

The vast diversity also means different brains and different capabilities being all being put in one big pot. Some are business oriented, some inclined to science etc and all this being in the blood so to speak.

It is a matter of time. We will help ourselves no end if we are able to set right policies which means good government.

Very well said. I personally know people of mixed heritage from Tatarstan, Bashkhortostan and Ukraine. I also know a German who is part German and part Russian Cossack.

Mixed heritage also makes the stock more robust.

 

[p2prada]

No, you are diverting. PRC wasn't part of the discussion. I quoted you:
And then read my response.

A military comparison is not complete without mentioning US or China. Notice I mentioned US as well and the US isn't part of the discussion too.

For the other part, the order is, US, RF, PRC and India.

No. I was comparing conventional forces. Russia goes all way to the bottom of the heap when comparing even the major European powers.

Russia is a shadow of it's former self. The tanks are all old. The aircraft are ancient. Their ships are rust buckets. Only their strategic and missile forces are advanced enough. That's why I completely omitted them from the list of conventional forces. Russia has not inducted a ship or aircraft since the late 80s. They have some 400-500 T-90s with the remaining older types having been inducted during the Soviet days. It gets worse with the infantry modernization plans. The VVS pilots don't get enough flying hours(half that of NATO). They fly an average of 70 hours as compared to 180 hours for NATO or 250-300 hours for MKI pilots.

Even today, with a budget bigger than that of India their aircraft inductions are barely a few squadrons. 48 Su-35s, 28 Su-30s and 17 Su-34s to be inducted. That's it. Their PAKFA plans are said to be hover around 60 and not 250.

Note I mentioned that India is the fourth most powerful force in the world, according to CIA. With nuclear forces, US and Russia definitely top the list followed by China.

Russia did a pretty good job with Georgia, short, sharp and swift. They were also pretty well prepared. In fact, they had already built a railway in Abkhazia long before the war and it helped in sending in war supplies. You need to read up more on it.

Regarding Chechnya, the First Chechen War was poorly executed affair, but the Second Chechen War has been handled very well, and Chechnya today is doing much better than Kashmir.

They were powerful enough to win the short battle against a weak country which was actually nothing compared to Kargil war. They had the capability to use tanks and aircraft against their enemy unlike us. Trust me, the problems at the lower levels was really bad. The soldiers were not supplied in time, their heavy weapons ceased to function and were always short on ammo. Can't compare the politics of Chechnya to Kashmir either. Chechnya does not have rouge states backing separatists like in Kashmir. Look at the situation in Afghanistan. With a rouge state backing rouge elements, even the US is in dire straits.

 

[pmaitra]

A military comparison is not complete without mentioning US or China. Notice I mentioned US as well and the US isn't part of the discussion too.

I quoted you where you said Russia could barely contain Georgia. This is contrary to the facts where Russia swiftly went across the Caucasus, which acts as a natural barrier and almost took Tblisi. Now you are bringing in whole bunch of issues and inundating this discussion where the actual point is lost. Again, you said that Russia could barely contain Georgia and you are dead wrong there.

Even with the military hardware that Russia had that has lacked much needed maintenance, Russia did very well against the Georgian army that was well trained and armed with modern equipment by the West.

No. I was comparing conventional forces. Russia goes all way to the bottom of the heap when comparing even the major European powers.

Russia is a shadow of it's former self. The tanks are all old. The aircraft are ancient. Their ships are rust buckets. Only their strategic and missile forces are advanced enough. That's why I completely omitted them from the list of conventional forces. Russia has not inducted a ship or aircraft since the late 80s. They have some 400-500 T-90s with the remaining older types having been inducted during the Soviet days. It gets worse with the infantry modernization plans. The VVS pilots don't get enough flying hours(half that of NATO). They fly an average of 70 hours as compared to 180 hours for NATO or 250-300 hours for MKI pilots.

When it comes to Georgia, I think Russian ground forces did a pretty good job. Sure, VVS had to cut in training hours after the fall of the USSR, and true that Russia is a shadow of the USSR, but don't tell me they have less experience than any major European power. They have fought two wars in Chechnya and one in Dagestan. The amount of experience that Russia has accumulated since 1979 far exceeds any European country. See the list below:

• 1979-1989 - Afghanistan
• 1994-2001 - First and Second Chechen Wars
• upto 2009 - Insurgency in Chechnya
• till date - Insurgency in Dagestan

Even today, with a budget bigger than that of India their aircraft inductions are barely a few squadrons. 48 Su-35s, 28 Su-30s and 17 Su-34s to be inducted. That's it. Their PAKFA plans are said to be hover around 60 and not 250.

Note I mentioned that India is the fourth most powerful force in the world, according to CIA. With nuclear forces, US and Russia definitely top the list followed by China.

True, but how does that prove that Russia will lose a conventional war with India (keeping nukes out)?

They were powerful enough to win the short battle against a weak country which was actually nothing compared to Kargil war. They had the capability to use tanks and aircraft against their enemy unlike us. Trust me, the problems at the lower levels was really bad. The soldiers were not supplied in time, their heavy weapons ceased to function and were always short on ammo. Can't compare the politics of Chechnya to Kashmir either. Chechnya does not have rouge states backing separatists like in Kashmir. Look at the situation in Afghanistan. With a rouge state backing rouge elements, even the US is in dire straits.

Russia-Georgia may not have been as intense as Kargil War, but I'm glad you did not say the Chechen Wars were nothing compared to Kargil War. They were much more intense and Chechnya is much more stable now. Moreover, you are incorrect when you said that Chechnya was not backed by foreign powers:

• They were flush with Saudi money and Pakistani indoctrination that was again funded by Saudi money.
• They took control of the oil fields and generated much needed revenue for the war till the Russians bombed their oil wells during the First Chechen War.