CPEC: China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by Raja.pakistani, Aug 30, 2015.

  1. Raja.pakistani

    Raja.pakistani Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2011
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    63
    From China to Pakistan: A well-thought-out 3,000km lifeline
    • Pramit Pal Chaudhuri and Imtiaz Ahmad, Hindustan Times, Beijing/Delhi/Karachi
      |
    • Updated: Aug 30, 2015 01:58 IST
    Through September, working groups of Chinese and Pakistanis will finalise 40-plus projects to launch the $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Both governments see this as more than just a construction project. The corridor is designed to transform Pakistan’s economy—and potentially China’s global status.

    Already in the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar, the southern terminus of the corridor, the Chinese have begun upgrading the harbour. So has the expansion of the highway out of the port, a road that will run 3000 kilometres to the Chinese border town of Kashgar.

    Much of the corridor’s initial expenditure is on power plants. Nearly $34 billion of the corridor’s funds will go to energy projects, with over half of this going to electricity production. When completed, Pakistan’s national grid will receive 10,400 MW additional power.

    Beijing’s logic is simple. As an ex-Chinese ambassador to Pakistan explained, “Solving Pakistan’s power deficit is the first step to stabilising its economy.” Pakistan struggles with rolling blackouts thanks to an annual power deficit of about 5,000 MW. The contracts also help Chinese makers of generators, solar cells and the like, all of which suffer from huge overcapacity and need overseas buyers. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, publicly says before his term ends in 2018, power cuts will be a thing of the past.

    The CPEC agreement goes far beyond a port, highway and power plants. Gwadar will be all but rebuilt with a hospital, new drinking water supply and an international airport. The agreement spans Chinese biotech for cotton farmers to a multi-million dollar fibre optic network to slots on Pakistani Television for Chinese shows.

    While the Karachi-to-Kashgar axis—Gwadar included—receives the most attention, it is only the easternmost of three corridors. Plans exist for central and western alignments—the latter running from Gwadar to Quetta and beyond.

    Beijing has made the eastern alignment priority, postponing the central alignment that many Pakistanis prefer. China cites the July 2013 memorandum which says construction would “take the easiest [route] first”.

    This has not gone down well with many provinces. Balochistan economic advisor, Kaiser Bengali, complained the present plan would not help economic activity in backward areas. Senator Taj Haider of the Pakistan People’s Party, noting wealthy Punjab would benefit the most, has promised his party would “protest” against “the choice of route” and “the placement of some of the projects”. Under pressure from the military, however, the provinces have grudgingly endorsed the corridor. Balochistan chief minister Abdul Malik Baloch, a strident critic, is among those who have backtracked recently.

    China has security concerns about the two other alignments, fed by Pakistani fears that India would somehow sabotage the corridor’s construction.

    Pakistani army chief, General Raheel Sharif, last month twice warned “enemies of the state” would try to stop the corridor.

    Islamabad plans to train 12,000 security personnel to protect the coming hordes of Chinese workers. This will be in addition to the 8,000 security personnel already deployed to guard existing Chinese workers. Chinese media has already fretted about its workers being abducted. Reports say Chinese and Pakistani intelligence are sharing information on the anti-corridor activities of “foreign hostile agencies”—a reference to India’s Research and Analysis Wing.

    Beijing’s heavy-handedness is because Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, wants CPEC to come up as fast as possible for prestige reasons.

    His vision of an Asia-spanning infrastructure web with China at its centre—One Belt, One Road—has been less than popular with many countries. India Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pointedly refused to endorse the idea. Indian officials say this was in large part because CPEC, seen as part of One Belt, One Road, runs through Indian-claimed parts of Kashmir.

    Says Andrew Small, author of The China-Pakistan Axis: “CPEC will be a test case for One Belt, One Road. It’s pretty much the most advanced set of projects within the whole initiative.” If China can transform a basket case like Pakistan, a place where the United States has spent billions in vain, Beijing’s standing in the developing world will be massively enhanced. As some diplomats have said, this could be Beijing’s “Marshall Fund moment”.

    Another motive, not mentioned in public, is terror. Chinese academics and military officers admit the rise of Islamist militancy inside their country is “their number one security concern.” As the US leaves Afghanistan, China sees the corridor as a preventive against a coming jihadi epidemic.

    As a senior US official said, “China follows a simple Marxist logic about this: low economic development means greater militancy.” The idea the corridor could save Pakistan, however, is also attractive to the Obama administration. Iran is sniffing at the possibility of linking itself to the corridor.

    Though the CPEC has just started, Islamabad already benefits. Credit rating agency Moody’s, which puts Pakistan just two notches above default, declared the corridor a “credit positive”. This, despite the IMF slashing Pakistan’s forecasted 2015 growth rate to 2.6%. Beijing wants to turn this figure around quickly and has frontloaded $28 billion of its corridor expenditure.

    Chinese officials say that as the corridor comes up, they hope to move factories to Pakistan. At present total Chinese FDI into Pakistan is less than $1 billion.

    The strategic ambition behind the CPEC is sprawling. This is the largest foreign investment in Pakistan’s history and the largest overseas venture by China. Beijing’s commitment dwarfs the $1.5 billion a year Pakistan gets from the US.

    Normally cautious when it ventures overseas, with this corridor China shows the confidence of a big-time gambler. The CPEC excites Beijing because it has so many pluses for Chinese strategy: stabilise an ally and jihadi source; create a market for Chinese capital goods; and offers a flagship project for Xi’s global plan.

    [​IMG]
     
    Neo and amoy like this.
  2.  
  3. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    Very true..power deficit of Pakistani Govt is the first step to stabilizing Pakistan.


    :D
    So all the alignments are in effect unaligned big time. The East..Central..the other 2 everything is problematic. :Facepalm: :D


    Shows the quality of the training.


    And Pakis hallucinate and pak media hallucinates about billionS.
     
  4. sob

    sob Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Location:
    New Delhi
    a country which has a requirement of 19000 MW, generates near about 11,000 MW wants to add 10,000 MW capacity. Who will buy this power Hafiz Sayeed, Dawood????

    LOl Pakistanis and their dreams.
     
    Soumitra, Sameet2 and Screambowl like this.
  5. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    Herald: Gridlocked – how power is lost in Pakistan's distribution lines

    [​IMG]

    Nobody buys...They simply take...
     
    HariPrasad-1 likes this.
  6. I_PLAY_BAD

    I_PLAY_BAD Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    482
    Location:
    Chennai
    So in future if you provoke us for a war and if we create a naval blockade in that war then its China's supply which is going to get disturbed.
     
  7. Raja.pakistani

    Raja.pakistani Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2011
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    63
    What Chinese investment could mean for Pakistan


    Last month, during his visit to Pakistan, Chinese president Xi Jinping announced a 46 billion dollar investment plan aimed at developing infrastructure in the country. This announcement represents an ambitious jump in Chinese involvement in the country, particularly considering the more gradual increase in Chinese FDI in Pakistan over the past decade (figure 1). This also represents a much needed commitment to infrastructure spending in Pakistan, which loses 4-6 percent of its GDP per year due to insufficient infrastructure, according to the State Bank of Pakistan’s estimates. While the specifics of funding are not yet public, this investment plan differs from previous development assistance to the country because it will be in the form of loans and commercial investments rather than official assistance (though reportedly it will not be financed through The Silk Road Fund or AIIB). If these projects are implemented, China can help Pakistan mitigate the losses associated with poor infrastructure, while also providing a new investment opportunity for Chinese companies.

    There are three types of projects that stand out in this new investment plan. First, China hopes to build a network of infrastructure connecting Kashgar in Xinjiang province to the Chinese-run Gwadar port on Pakistan’s coast. The majority of funding is for energy based projects, with $15.5 billion of the spending is allotted to focus on energy investment in coal, wind, hydro and solar power, slated to come online as early as 2018. A third project involves installation of a fiber optic cable to connect China and Pakistan to increase internet connectivity in the country. This post looks at the potential gains for Pakistan if China’s newly proposed projects are implemented.

    Figure 1 Chinese direct investment in Pakistan, stocks

    [​IMG]

    Source: UNACTD Bilateral FDI statistics

    The planned construction of roads, pipelines and other infrastructure connecting Xinjiang Province to Pakistan over the next 20 years highlights the geological barriers to economic integration between the two countries. China and Pakistan are on opposite sides of the Himalaya mountain range and the single road connecting the two countries by land has been unpassable by motor vehicles since 2010. This geographic obstacle is particularly apparent looking at provincial level trade data for Xinjiang province (since the province borders Pakistan it is likely these trade flows were the result of overland trade rather than maritime trade). In 2013, Xinjiang’s total trade with each of its other neighbors (Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan) was at least 10 times that of the trade with Pakistan (link in Chinese). Additionally, the proposed route from China to the Gwadar port runs through the disputed Kashmir region, as well as other areas where instability may hinder construction.

    The second part of Chinese investment has the most immediate practical impact for Pakistan’s economic development. In Pakistan, energy supply has not been able to meet demand since 2004, which has led to both frequent power outages for households and shrinking industrial output. The current government in Islamabad has made closing the gap a priority in its administration, which helps explain why this portion of Chinese investment has a shorter timeline than the trade routes or cable project. Coal power represents the majority of this investment, but also includes plans for future wind, hydro and solar power plants.

    The Asian Development Bank estimates that these long-term power shortages in Pakistan have cut growth by 2 percentage points annually in the overall economy. Power companies rely on government subsidies to cover production costs, which in turn constrain their ability to operate at full capacity. At the firm level, the losses due to power outages are concentrated in sales losses for small and medium size enterprises, since they are less likely to have alternative power sources. Figure 2 uses the World Bank World Enterprise survey to compare the loss in sales due to electrical outages for Pakistani businesses in 2007 and 2013. In all three cases, the losses have increased over time, but in 2013, small enterprises report an impact of almost 30 percent of their total sales.

    Figure 2 Losses due to electrical outages, Pakistan

    [​IMG]
    Source: World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2007 and 2013

    By focusing the investment in coal, Chinese investment has the potential to fill this gap in energy production in an underutilized sector. In 2012 coal production in Pakistan represented only 4.5 percent of total energy supply and less than 1 percent of total electricity generation. (For comparison, coal production for all non-OECD members makes up about one-third of total energy supply, and Mongolia, which has similar levels of recoverable coal reserves, relies on coal for 66 percent of its total energy production.)[1] Since Pakistan’s coal production is minimal, increasing production and developing infrastructure electricity production can provide a short term solution to quickly add electricity to Pakistan’s grid.

    At the same time, coal is a highly polluting energy source that China itself has moved away from in recent months and in the long run Pakistan’s grid will benefit from increased connectivity to renewable sources. Currently, hydropower accounts for roughly 30 percent of total electricity production, while there is no solar or wind power infrastructure in the country. As wind and solar power take off in China, FDI from Chinese solar and wind firms could also benefit from further investment in renewable sectors in Pakistan. However, since these sustainable sources of power have longer timelines than the coal-based projects, it is crucial that energy investment not lose momentum after the initial coal-based power projects.

    Finally, the installation of a fiber optic cable could help Pakistan catch up in terms of the internet connectivity. Looking at trends in internet use over time shows that while Pakistan was initially a leader in internet use compared to both all of South Asia and countries with a similar income level, growth in internet connectivity now lags behind both comparison groups (Figure 3).

    Figure 3 Pakistan’s internet access compared to region and income level

    [​IMG]

    Note: Lower-middle-income economies are those in which 2013 GNI per capita was between $1,046 and $4,125 (includes Pakistan).

    Source: World Bank World Development Indicators

    All three cases present investment opportunities that are targeted towards shortcomings in Pakistan’s current economy and could, if implemented, foster development in Pakistan by facilitating trade, increasing energy production capacity, and increasing access to the internet. However, there are still hurdles to translate these promises into actual investment in Pakistan. Some of the instability that the investment seeks to curtail may also derail the projects themselves. There are also concerns about funding being diverted before projects can be completed. Up to this point, the Chinese investment strategy in Pakistan is the most ambitious piece of the larger Silk Road Economic Belt, and its success in developing infrastructure and connecting the two countries will set the stage for the future of the New Silk Road.





    [1] In 2011, Coal reserves were 2070 million metric tons for Pakistan, and 2520 million metric tons for Mongolia (sources: International Energy Administration, US Energy Information Administration)
     
    Neo likes this.
  8. Neo

    Neo Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,104
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Are you trying to be funny or are you really that naive? The requirement is growing by more than 1000mw per year and will pick pace as the economy grows. The 10.000mw addition is a long project spread over five years. Even if we complete it in time, the demand would have grown to cause small power shortages.
     
  9. Neo

    Neo Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,104
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    And how would you create a naval block when your shios sink even when they are docked safely in your ports?
    Get real, a naval blockade is a wet dream that will never come true.
     
  10. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    423
    No, Pakistan won' be bothered since they are sitting closer to Mideast than you. The only way you can block them is sending your fleet to the sea area covered by their land based bomber.

    Chinese won't be bothered either. You can't block their transportation without causing trouble to other Eastern Asian countries. That will invite American's interference.
     
    Neo likes this.
  11. DingDong

    DingDong Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,230
    Likes Received:
    3,674
    Location:
    Delhi
    Historical evidences speak otherwise, we did that to Pakistan back in 1971 (Operation Trident, Python). We very much did that to Pakistan during Kargil conflict (Operation Talwar) and then Pakistan's PM ran to Daddy SAM when he realized that Pakistan was left with just 6 days of fuel supply to sustain itself in a full-scale war.

    Who told you that India doesn't share intel with the Eastern Asian Countries and the US?
     
  12. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,524
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Regardless of what u may share with East Asia your attempts of sea blockade will jeopardize lifelines of East Asian economies. Unlike continental China who has overland supplies from Kazakhstan + Turkmenstan and Russia by pipeline, Japan and Korea are far more vulnerable to your disruption of free navigation. They for sure won't be sitting ducks no matter what sweet whispers u may have exchanged during peacetime.

    Mid East countries would hate u for yor blocking their flow of petrodollars - bearing in mind Saudi and Iran as regional big shots. The Gulf may start to repatriate 6million Indian laborers in return and cut off oil supplies to India at first.

    Then India would be the villain of the village in the lambast of condemnation by the intl community. The scale would be nothing like 1971 nor Kargil. India's reckless misadventure would rock the whole world. Hence US and China will have to intervene to restore the order.

    ~Tapa talks: Orange is the new black.~
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2015
    Neo likes this.
  13. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,121
    Location:
    India
    ^^

    A NAval blockade is done against a particular country. Someone confused it with building wall in the sea...disrupting..Japan..Korea. .....what not!!!! :D


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

    Pakistan is not paying for what they buy from Saudi and Iran anyway... :D [ Its all over in various news]
    Iran and Saudi will be very happy in saving some money..

    The Express Tribune explains foreign debt
    The Express Tribune explains Pakistan's foreign debt, how it works, and how, for all the calls of 'trade not aid', the dependence looks set to continue.
    3 A history of dependence

    http://labs.tribune.com.pk/foreign-debt/

    Meaning...Pakistan needs more than it can giveup.


    India had defied US many times before..If the stakes are high India will shove the intervention right up China's / USA's soft orifice.

    Condemnation....:D wow!! as if India has not had it before. It only made India much stronger.

    China would jump into save their retard brother (Pakistan) from getting kicked in the balls by INdia and USA..but India wont care if the stakes are high.. CHina needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs China. (CPEC and other project initiatives) unlike USA.
    Well!!! USA could use such a move to get what it needs in the region by partnering with India... That will be very interesting.

    B TW China has NOT intervened when pakistan needed China the most....many times :D..CCP in China makes a media statement..so much about intervention :D plus Pak has no option no matter what China does to or with Pak or doesnt do to Pak.

    China knows that India's reckless misadventure will rock the whole world for China in Balochistan and associate geographies which CHina wants key positions.

    Hey China!!!! Wake up and smell the changing US stance on Balochistan!!
     
    gpawar and DingDong like this.
  14. blueblood

    blueblood Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    1,429
  15. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    21,004
    Likes Received:
    11,847
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
    3000 km long route will be difficult to maintained and secured . one step by TTP willl be giant leap to recover:biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2:
     
    Survesh Sharma, Sameet2 and DingDong like this.
  16. I_PLAY_BAD

    I_PLAY_BAD Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    482
    Location:
    Chennai
    Wet dreams, dry dreams, stop your crap. Mine was a valid question. If you have an appropriate answer for that just post it like others did or sit tight as this is not a place for you to throw your chest thumping musings. Anyway, creating a naval blockade to a country with a limited coast line like yours will not be a big task as we already did that in 1971 and 1999. Pakistan is not a large country, it is a country with a small base which can be very well blocked. Your Navy is also not that great compared to ours. So come out of your empty dream and accept the reality.
     
  17. Neo

    Neo Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,104
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Whither our war preparedness?

    Thursday, 04 June 2015 | Pravin Sawhney | in Oped


    India has more of tanks, guns, aircraft and ships than Pakistan. But more assets don’t always translate into victory. Pakistan, at the strategic level, scores heavily over India in terms of war control, command and coordination

    Given the acrimonious relations between India and Pakistan, and the regular accusations and counter-accusations by both sides, foreign analysts are wondering how the Modi Government will react to another Mumbai attack?

    While the Defence and the Home Ministers have said that terrorists will be neutralised by terrorists, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval has warned Pakistan, “You do another Mumbai and you will lose Balochistan.” Until Pakistan provides evidence of India’s covert activities in Pakistan, the Indian bluster cannot be taken seriously.

    What has been taken seriously is the statement by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, considered close to the Prime Minister. In November 2014, he told NDTV, “Our conventional strength is far more than theirs (Pakistan). So if they persist with this (terrorism), they will feel the pain of their adventurism.”

    The Indian Army with an over 12 lakh-strength is double that of the six lakh Pakistan Army, as is the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy. India has more tanks, guns, aircraft and ships than Pakistan. The numbers disparity has been assessed by analysts as India having conventional war superiority over Pakistan. But, do more assets translate into victory in wars or is there something else which determines outcome of wars?

    Before we understand how wars are fought and won, a quick review of events in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks (November 26-29, 2008) would help. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought the military option from the three service chiefs 72 hours after it was clear that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence was behind the attacks. The Air Force Chief, Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major, favoured limited surgical strikes at targets (yet not established) in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

    The Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor, suggested the capture of Fort Abbas in Indian Rajasthan facing Pakistan’s Punjab province about 10-15km inside Pakistan territory in a quick action by troops on ground. It was argued that the capture of Fort Abbas in Punjab (which has no military value) would show Pakistan’s Punjabi Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani is poor light. Both the chiefs, however, made it clear that they lacked the wherewithal for war if Pakistan decided to escalate matters, adding that the Pakistan Army was unlikely to not retaliate. With this, the first and only war meeting ended.

    With its economic progress in mind, India decided to exercise ‘strategic restraint.’ More to the point, India’s political and military leaders were unsure about the nuclear factor — politicians about its deterrence value and military chiefs about its credibility. The chiefs were also worried about war preparedness including acquisitions, war wastage reserves (ammunition, stores and other war withal), operational logistics, training and mindset for a conventional war.

    India’s conventional war-fighting capabilities today are worse than they were in 2008, and chinks in the armour have not been closed. As the outcome of a conventional war is decided by three levels — strategic, operational and tactical — let us see how each side would fare.


    In Pakistan, the strategic level or the highest national forum for deciding war matters is the sole responsibility of the Army leadership. The Army and not the civilian leadership, determines and controls war objectives and timings. This gives it wider choices and options in planning and execution (hence retain surprise) at the operational level of war (campaign level which comprises various battles or tactical levels).

    Next, the General Headquarters has total command over all five war departments, namely, Army, Air Force, Navy, Strategic Plans Divisions (dealing with nuclear weapons), and sub-conventional assets (terrorists under the ISI). On the one hand, this will help Pakistan wage a war on two battlefields (conventional and sub-conventional) simultaneously. On the other hand, there will be seamless integration of conventional and nuclear war levels to meet desired military objectives with each level being fully conversant with other’s doctrines.

    As the coordination for war implying finances and arms purchases is also done by the Pakistan Army, this ensures necessary war stockings and regular sustenance of operational logistics during a war. Considering that bulk of Pakistan military’s machinery is of Chinese origin, uninterrupted supply of war material will not be a problem. Thus, Pakistan, at the strategic level, scores heavily over India in terms of war control, command and coordination.

    At the operational level, where the war campaign is formulated, Pakistan’s military has three distinct advantages. Its foremost advantage of interoperability with the Chinese military is little understood in India. Both sides have commonality of equipment, are conversant with each other’s doctrines, mind-set and operational areas, and have been conducting advanced exercises (especially Armies and Air Forces) regularly since 2010 in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

    This is not all. The laying of fibre optics-secure communications between Xinjiang and Rawalpindi; the development of the economic corridor across the Karakoram Highway which can be used for war sustenance; the acquisitions of Pakistani Raad and Babur cruise missiles with turbofan technology; and Pakistan becoming the first nation to share China’s secure BeiDou satellite system for military tracking, navigation and targeting — all point towards better interoperability than attained by the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at the height of the Cold War!

    The second advantage is Pakistan’s tactical nukes which it sought from China as answer to India’s Cold Start doctrine. These are referred to as operational level deterrence as distinct from strategic level deterrence and Pakistan has made it clear that command and control of these nukes will not be with field commanders but with Rawalpindi. The use of these nukes is unlikely as Pakistan, given its internal lines of communication, has unmatched Army mobilisation capability than India, and since 2008, it has moved 25 per cent of its troops to forward locations to mitigate surprise.


    Pakistan Army’s third advantage is its war preparedness. Unlike India, where the military operations directorate (and the Army Headquarters) spends more time monitoring counter-insurgency operations, Pakistan’s military directorate is committed to war preparation.

    In India, the three services work in silos, as do the scientists who own nukes. According to the former Naval chief, Admiral DK Joshi, “India has services’ doctrines, but these lack credibility and weight because they do not represent a comprehensive view of national priority.” Regarding strategic level direction, the Admiral says, “The Defence Minister’s operational directive does not seem like a substantial document up to the task.”

    On Indian Army’s unending zeal for counter-insurgency ops, which is directly responsible for its lack of war preparedness, inadequate war wastage reserves, and penchant for expansion rather than consolidation, the 1999 Kargil review committee report said, “Deployment in counter-terrorist operations disrupts the normal training programme of the Army and adversely impacts on its mind-set and state of readiness.” The report adds, “This tends to create an asymmetry vis-à-vis the Pakistani forces. The cross-border proxy was deliberately designed by Pakistan to offset the perceived overall conventional superiority of the Indian Army.”

    Given the war advantages enjoyed by Pakistan at both the strategic and operational levels, India is left with numbers superiority at the tactical level. Unable to deter Pakistan with needed kinetic capability to fight and achieve desirable aims, Indian generals are content with refining tactical level (anti-infiltration) manoeuvres best left to junior leaders. This is why India, despite a strong leadership, will find it difficult to give a befitting reply to another Mumbai attack.

    (The writer, who is editor FORCE newsmagazine, can be reached at [email protected])
     
  18. Neo

    Neo Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,104
    Likes Received:
    803
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Hope this shows where you stand now.
    Keep dreaming about naval blockade. :rofl:
     
  19. Rowdy

    Rowdy Co ja kurwa czytam! Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    2,959
    Location:
    Milky Bar
    We all know who needs lifelines :lol:
    [​IMG]
     
    Blackwater likes this.
  20. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    21,004
    Likes Received:
    11,847
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat

    is ur navy really capable????:):):):):):hat::hat::hat:
     
  21. I_PLAY_BAD

    I_PLAY_BAD Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    482
    Location:
    Chennai
    The article does highlight few shortcomings of Indian Army but as a whole it is missing a point.
    If this article says Israel is a powerful country even if it is surrounded by enemies, we can accept that.
    But it says Pakistan is strong and can retaliate in a massive way. What a joke !

    It is really funny to think how myopic and adamant you are.
    Whenever we show that we have a greater advantage than you run crying to your bigger daddy china.
    Do you think if India-Pakistan go to war the Chinese will jump in and fight with you? If that happens it will be world war and china will be skewered and dumped. Before China comes to your rescue we would have created the blockade as your coastline is closer to us than China is to you.

    And, about the advantage of interoperability with China, who has to cross Indian borders and support you logistically is a wet dream. But our interoperability with Afghanistan (who is always ready to hurt you) and Iran (who values our alliance more than yours) is enough to disintegrate your country.

    The only reason India does not want a war with Pakistan is its economic fragility. We are smart and we will strengthen ourselves over the years economically and militarily while you and your people expect war with India so that you can nuke us. Keep waiting and dream on. It will never happen, unless we do not launch an open offensive on your country your nuclear stockpile is a show piece to your army men.

    You cannot respond with a nuclear answer even if we conduct a minor scale surgical strike because you will not sustain a counter-attack from us militarily and economic sanctions on you by the world which will make your grass eating population to eat mud.

    So don't think you are superior than us.

    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-...navdropdownwidget&utm_campaign=topnavdropdown

    Pakistan needs to accept India as the senior partner or a big brother, while India needs to treat Pakistan with respect.

    Even if it 1000 years you will be you and we will be we.
     
    hit&run likes this.

Share This Page