I would think that R&AW would have enough human intel inside Tibet. Guess that’s not the case. I think the whole problem is that our focus has been just Pakistan in every spear . We need to shif towards China’s big time. Also we need direct recruitment into R&AW . Get the best talent and brains. Posting IPS officers in R&AW , only brings in police mentality. External intelligence is a specialised business.
India-China 2020 Border Dispute - Military and Strategic Discussion
- Thread starter tarunraju
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Messages
- 341
- Likes
- 961
We need Shivaji Maharaj type mentality with chicoms and porkis
He was always prepared for and heavily foresighted...made many dangerous forts to guard and equally captured dangerous forts from enemies...
War is ugly but if it's going to be reality then shopping for it does exposes our sleepiness from all department be it IF, MoD, PMO, etc all the players the leading or lagging teams
He was always prepared for and heavily foresighted...made many dangerous forts to guard and equally captured dangerous forts from enemies...
War is ugly but if it's going to be reality then shopping for it does exposes our sleepiness from all department be it IF, MoD, PMO, etc all the players the leading or lagging teams
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 14,104
- Likes
- 63,378
South China Sea: US clash with China now 'inevitable'
South China Sea: US clash with China now 'inevitable'
19 Jul, 2020 8:33am
9 minutes to read
The USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz in the South China Sea conducting joint exercises earlier this month.
news.com.au
A clash within the South China Sea is now almost inevitable. The US has declared China's territorial grab "illegal". It wants its "bullied" neighbours to stand their ground.
"We are making clear: Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them," a US statement issued earlier this week asserts.
It's not a change of opinion. But it is a loud declaration of intent to establish a "line in the sand" that Beijing should not cross.
Read More
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise with NZME.
"The next time China does engage in illegal harassment of its neighbours within their EEZs [exclusive economic zones], a more forceful US response might lead China to double down out of a sense of nationalism," he added.
China's "wolf-warrior" rhetoric has given it little wiggle room to back down.
Play Video
Explaining China's 'Wolf Warrior' diplomacy tactics. Video / CNN
"Perhaps now Beijing feels like it's pushed up against a wall," Australian National University School of International Relations doctoral candidate Hunter Marston told news.com.au.
"All these countries are now more or less affirming the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration decision. Perhaps they [Beijing] say what else do they have to lose? You know, the gloves are off."
And that lays the groundwork for open confrontation.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the United States will treat Beijing's pursuit of resources in the dispute-rife South China Sea to be illegal, ramping up pressure. Photo / AP
It's a fear echoed in a report by Council on Foreign Relations assistant professor Oriana Skylar Mastro: "China could see military action as its only recourse if it loses the diplomatic option to assert its sovereignty claims. The continued downward spiral in US-China relations could also encourage Xi to adopt a now-or-never approach to the South China Sea.
Related articles:
WORLDUN chief: World 'at the breaking point' due to inequalities
19 Jul, 2020 7:39am
3 minutes to read
WORLDCrushing Covid: Countries with female leaders have fared better
19 Jul, 2020 7:55am
3 minutes to read
BUSINESSPattrick Smellie: Walking the line between China and the US
18 Jul, 2020 5:00am
6 minutes to read
WORLD'Now I am become death': The legacy of the first nuclear bomb test
19 Jul, 2020 2:32pm
8 minutes to read
Wounded wolves
Beijing is getting irritated. The Chinese Communist Party has called Washington a "spoiler, saboteur and disrupter".
"Although Washington doesn't want to start a real war with China, there is the possibility of the unfolding of miscalculations if it continues to try and stir up trouble in the South China Sea," declares the editor of the Communist Party's China Daily.
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise with NZME.
Beijing's diplomats are racing to re-establish dominance over the narrative.
"China's position on the South China Sea issue has been consistent and clear-cut. While firmly safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China has been committed to resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation with countries directly involved, managing differences through rules and mechanisms, and achieving win-win results through mutually beneficial co-operation," a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the US said.
The embassy declares the South China Sea has "remained peaceful and stable and is still improving", ignoring a recent spate of rammings of fishing vessels, high-seas stand-offs over sea exploration efforts and its arbitrary construction of military bases on artificial islands.
"Under the pretext of endorsing rules, it is using UNCLOS to attack China while refusing to ratify the Convention itself. Under the pretext of upholding freedom of navigation and overflight, it is recklessly infringing on other countries' territorial sea and airspace and throwing its weight around in every sea of the world," the spokesperson added.
US navy sailors conduct pre-flight checks on an MH-60R Sea Hawk in drills in the South China Sea.
Beijing is a signatory to the UN's law of the sea (UNCLOS) but has declared all rulings against its interests as being irrelevant or invalid.
Washington is not a signatory of UNCLOS but is seeking to enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute. But, Marston points out, the US has been conforming to law where Beijing has not.
"I think Washington's really got international law at its back here, and so it's hopefully welcomed as a legally defensible and robust statement in support of international law."
'Bully' tactics
"Despite being a non-claimant of the South China Sea, the US desires to stir up troubles. It takes advantage of regional countries' claims to sow discord between these countries and China. It portrays a bully image of China," writes National Institute for South China Sea Studies director Yan Yan.
But Beijing has been actively cultivating a "strong man" image in the region, rejecting any attempt to reach a real consensus. The Philippines and Vietnam have had several fishing vessels rammed by Chinese militia and coast guard vessels in recent months.
Vietnam and Malaysia have had ocean-bed exploration efforts disrupted even as Beijing sent its own surveying vessels into their waters. And Japan and Indonesia have been experiencing sustained incursions by Chinese militia and coast guard vessels within the East and remote South China Seas.
It is against this background that Japan joined Australia and the US in decrying China's "dangerous and coercive" use of its ocean-going forces.
Australian Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, Japanese Minister of Defence Kono Taro and US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper have "expressed serious concern about recent incidents, including the continued militarisation of disputed features, dangerous or coercive use of coast guard vessels and 'maritime militia,' and efforts to disrupt other countries' resource exploitation activities".
Power struggle
The United States has a keen interest in preventing China from asserting control over the South China Sea.
"Maintaining free and open access to this waterway is not only important for economic reasons, but also to uphold the global norm of freedom of navigation," Mastro says.
"China's ability to control this waterway would be a significant step toward displacing the United States from the Indo-Pacific region, expanding its economic influence, and generally reordering the region in its favour."
China's Communist Party has again issued a veiled warning to its neighbours.
"It is to be hoped that countries in the region remain clear-eyed about the progress they have made in agreeing a code of conduct for the South China Sea and do not let Washington's 'official' meddling undermine the consensus that peace and stability benefit all in the region," the Global Times states.
The US, Marston says, is not dividing up territory. It remains neutral as to who has ownership over what established islands, arguing the United Nations has clearly defined procedures and standards under which such disputes can be resolved.
It's by those standards and criteria Washington reaffirmed in its statement.
"Washington will no longer remain neutral over the low tide elevation shoals that are not recognised as granting Exclusive Economic Zones or territorial waters," Marston says. "Nobody can claim them, but they can fall within the EEZ's rights from adjacent coastlines, so we're declaring Chinese fishing and oil and gas exploration in those waters illegal."
A line in the sand
Beijing's successful tactic until now has been "creeping" expansionism. It makes a bold move (such as putting a weather station on a contested reef). It weathers the criticism. It makes the situation "the new normal". Then it takes another bold move (such as turn that reef into a concrete island).
Washington's declaration makes it harder to get away with such behaviour.
"This new rhetorical position won't have much effect by itself. But as the opening gambit in a long-term effort to impose cost on China and rally support for US partners, it could be significant," Poling writes.
"It is much easier to rally international support against 'illegal' activity than against actions that are merely distasteful or destabilising.
"It is also much more damaging to a country that aspires to global leadership to be accused of gross violations of international law."
But framing the dispute in terms of international law is an opportunity for both Beijing and Washington, Marston says. It gives China the opportunity to argue it is being conciliatory and reasonable if it chooses to conform to its rule. It gives Washington the opportunity to present itself as the defender of weaker states if it does not.
However, Mastro argues Beijing's response will likely be to not back down.
"China could adopt more aggressive rules of engagement against other countries' air or sea operations in the area. This could include clipping a US naval vessel, locking radar onto a US aircraft, or conducting more frequent and provocative military exercises," she writes.
The military-grade airfields on China's illegal island fortresses could have combat jets stationed there to enforce an "air defence identification zone" over the Spratly Islands. It already has radars and missile defences in place.
Such a move would enable Beijing to declare – and enforce – the waters as territorial.
"This would significantly affect trade lanes, fisheries and fishing rights, and freedom of navigation through these areas," she says.
"While less likely, China could take military action against other claimants, or even US vessels. China could occupy or militarise the Scarborough Shoal — contested territory between China and the Philippines — that the United States has clearly communicated as a red-line that could lead to escalation."
What next?
The likelihood of some form of a standoff in the South China Sea has increased.
"This seems especially likely amid the current pandemic, which has led Chinese diplomats to favour chest-thumping nationalism over de-escalation with its neighbours," Poling argues.
Ultimately, however, he says, greater resistance could drive compromise.
The USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz in the South China Sea conducting joint exercises earlier this month.
"In the long term, if successfully couched within a broader policy combining pressure on Beijing and greater international coalition building to support Southeast Asian parties, it could help steer China toward a compromise that the international community could live with."
But Beijing has a well-established tendency to respond to pressure with escalation.
"One of China's main strategies in promoting its claims in the past has been to increase the risks for others exercising their rights by, for example, harassing other countries' oil and gas exploration platforms, fishing vessels, and military vessels," Mastro writes.
And Washington's declaration is likely to cause Beijing to double down.
"Xi could feel compelled to accelerate his timeline in the South China Sea to maintain his consolidated position within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)".
Then there's Beijing's new-found confidence in its vastly expanded, modernised military.
"With expectations that the first stage of China's military modernisation efforts will be completed in 2020, Xi could become more confident that China would succeed in pressing its claims militarily, especially if the United States is distracted internally."
Exactly what form any response will take is yet to pan out.
"Perhaps Beijing will think it is time to declare that air defence identification zone that has been rumoured about in the South China Sea for years," Marston says.
"But it has already done this in the East China Sea. It hasn't really enforced it. It's been more symbolic and a bit of an intimidation tactic. But it also sort of exposes the paper tiger nature of some of these acts
South China Sea: US clash with China now 'inevitable'
19 Jul, 2020 8:33am
9 minutes to read
The USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz in the South China Sea conducting joint exercises earlier this month.
news.com.au
A clash within the South China Sea is now almost inevitable. The US has declared China's territorial grab "illegal". It wants its "bullied" neighbours to stand their ground.
"We are making clear: Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them," a US statement issued earlier this week asserts.
It's not a change of opinion. But it is a loud declaration of intent to establish a "line in the sand" that Beijing should not cross.
Read More
- South China Sea: Chinese Coast Guard rams Vietnamese fishing boat - NZ Herald
- NZ may be pressed to take sides in dispute over South China Sea - NZ Herald
- Warning signs of a South China Sea clash - NZ Herald
- 'Show of force': US aircraft carriers patrol South China Sea for first time in 3 years - NZ Herald
- 'In the event of war': China's new monster warship built for 'face-to-face' encounters in South China Sea - NZ Herald
- Trump administration declares China has no rights to South China Sea - NZ Herald
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise with NZME.
"The next time China does engage in illegal harassment of its neighbours within their EEZs [exclusive economic zones], a more forceful US response might lead China to double down out of a sense of nationalism," he added.
China's "wolf-warrior" rhetoric has given it little wiggle room to back down.
Play Video
Explaining China's 'Wolf Warrior' diplomacy tactics. Video / CNN
"Perhaps now Beijing feels like it's pushed up against a wall," Australian National University School of International Relations doctoral candidate Hunter Marston told news.com.au.
"All these countries are now more or less affirming the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration decision. Perhaps they [Beijing] say what else do they have to lose? You know, the gloves are off."
And that lays the groundwork for open confrontation.
It's a fear echoed in a report by Council on Foreign Relations assistant professor Oriana Skylar Mastro: "China could see military action as its only recourse if it loses the diplomatic option to assert its sovereignty claims. The continued downward spiral in US-China relations could also encourage Xi to adopt a now-or-never approach to the South China Sea.
Related articles:
WORLDUN chief: World 'at the breaking point' due to inequalities
19 Jul, 2020 7:39am
3 minutes to read
WORLDCrushing Covid: Countries with female leaders have fared better
19 Jul, 2020 7:55am
3 minutes to read
BUSINESSPattrick Smellie: Walking the line between China and the US
18 Jul, 2020 5:00am
6 minutes to read
WORLD'Now I am become death': The legacy of the first nuclear bomb test
19 Jul, 2020 2:32pm
8 minutes to read
Wounded wolves
Beijing is getting irritated. The Chinese Communist Party has called Washington a "spoiler, saboteur and disrupter".
"Although Washington doesn't want to start a real war with China, there is the possibility of the unfolding of miscalculations if it continues to try and stir up trouble in the South China Sea," declares the editor of the Communist Party's China Daily.
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise with NZME.
Beijing's diplomats are racing to re-establish dominance over the narrative.
"China's position on the South China Sea issue has been consistent and clear-cut. While firmly safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China has been committed to resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation with countries directly involved, managing differences through rules and mechanisms, and achieving win-win results through mutually beneficial co-operation," a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the US said.
The embassy declares the South China Sea has "remained peaceful and stable and is still improving", ignoring a recent spate of rammings of fishing vessels, high-seas stand-offs over sea exploration efforts and its arbitrary construction of military bases on artificial islands.
"Under the pretext of endorsing rules, it is using UNCLOS to attack China while refusing to ratify the Convention itself. Under the pretext of upholding freedom of navigation and overflight, it is recklessly infringing on other countries' territorial sea and airspace and throwing its weight around in every sea of the world," the spokesperson added.
Beijing is a signatory to the UN's law of the sea (UNCLOS) but has declared all rulings against its interests as being irrelevant or invalid.
Washington is not a signatory of UNCLOS but is seeking to enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute. But, Marston points out, the US has been conforming to law where Beijing has not.
"I think Washington's really got international law at its back here, and so it's hopefully welcomed as a legally defensible and robust statement in support of international law."
'Bully' tactics
"Despite being a non-claimant of the South China Sea, the US desires to stir up troubles. It takes advantage of regional countries' claims to sow discord between these countries and China. It portrays a bully image of China," writes National Institute for South China Sea Studies director Yan Yan.
But Beijing has been actively cultivating a "strong man" image in the region, rejecting any attempt to reach a real consensus. The Philippines and Vietnam have had several fishing vessels rammed by Chinese militia and coast guard vessels in recent months.
Vietnam and Malaysia have had ocean-bed exploration efforts disrupted even as Beijing sent its own surveying vessels into their waters. And Japan and Indonesia have been experiencing sustained incursions by Chinese militia and coast guard vessels within the East and remote South China Seas.
It is against this background that Japan joined Australia and the US in decrying China's "dangerous and coercive" use of its ocean-going forces.
Australian Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, Japanese Minister of Defence Kono Taro and US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper have "expressed serious concern about recent incidents, including the continued militarisation of disputed features, dangerous or coercive use of coast guard vessels and 'maritime militia,' and efforts to disrupt other countries' resource exploitation activities".
Power struggle
The United States has a keen interest in preventing China from asserting control over the South China Sea.
"Maintaining free and open access to this waterway is not only important for economic reasons, but also to uphold the global norm of freedom of navigation," Mastro says.
"China's ability to control this waterway would be a significant step toward displacing the United States from the Indo-Pacific region, expanding its economic influence, and generally reordering the region in its favour."
China's Communist Party has again issued a veiled warning to its neighbours.
"It is to be hoped that countries in the region remain clear-eyed about the progress they have made in agreeing a code of conduct for the South China Sea and do not let Washington's 'official' meddling undermine the consensus that peace and stability benefit all in the region," the Global Times states.
The US, Marston says, is not dividing up territory. It remains neutral as to who has ownership over what established islands, arguing the United Nations has clearly defined procedures and standards under which such disputes can be resolved.
It's by those standards and criteria Washington reaffirmed in its statement.
"Washington will no longer remain neutral over the low tide elevation shoals that are not recognised as granting Exclusive Economic Zones or territorial waters," Marston says. "Nobody can claim them, but they can fall within the EEZ's rights from adjacent coastlines, so we're declaring Chinese fishing and oil and gas exploration in those waters illegal."
A line in the sand
Beijing's successful tactic until now has been "creeping" expansionism. It makes a bold move (such as putting a weather station on a contested reef). It weathers the criticism. It makes the situation "the new normal". Then it takes another bold move (such as turn that reef into a concrete island).
Washington's declaration makes it harder to get away with such behaviour.
"This new rhetorical position won't have much effect by itself. But as the opening gambit in a long-term effort to impose cost on China and rally support for US partners, it could be significant," Poling writes.
"It is much easier to rally international support against 'illegal' activity than against actions that are merely distasteful or destabilising.
"It is also much more damaging to a country that aspires to global leadership to be accused of gross violations of international law."
But framing the dispute in terms of international law is an opportunity for both Beijing and Washington, Marston says. It gives China the opportunity to argue it is being conciliatory and reasonable if it chooses to conform to its rule. It gives Washington the opportunity to present itself as the defender of weaker states if it does not.
However, Mastro argues Beijing's response will likely be to not back down.
"China could adopt more aggressive rules of engagement against other countries' air or sea operations in the area. This could include clipping a US naval vessel, locking radar onto a US aircraft, or conducting more frequent and provocative military exercises," she writes.
The military-grade airfields on China's illegal island fortresses could have combat jets stationed there to enforce an "air defence identification zone" over the Spratly Islands. It already has radars and missile defences in place.
Such a move would enable Beijing to declare – and enforce – the waters as territorial.
"This would significantly affect trade lanes, fisheries and fishing rights, and freedom of navigation through these areas," she says.
"While less likely, China could take military action against other claimants, or even US vessels. China could occupy or militarise the Scarborough Shoal — contested territory between China and the Philippines — that the United States has clearly communicated as a red-line that could lead to escalation."
What next?
The likelihood of some form of a standoff in the South China Sea has increased.
"This seems especially likely amid the current pandemic, which has led Chinese diplomats to favour chest-thumping nationalism over de-escalation with its neighbours," Poling argues.
Ultimately, however, he says, greater resistance could drive compromise.
"In the long term, if successfully couched within a broader policy combining pressure on Beijing and greater international coalition building to support Southeast Asian parties, it could help steer China toward a compromise that the international community could live with."
But Beijing has a well-established tendency to respond to pressure with escalation.
"One of China's main strategies in promoting its claims in the past has been to increase the risks for others exercising their rights by, for example, harassing other countries' oil and gas exploration platforms, fishing vessels, and military vessels," Mastro writes.
And Washington's declaration is likely to cause Beijing to double down.
"Xi could feel compelled to accelerate his timeline in the South China Sea to maintain his consolidated position within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)".
Then there's Beijing's new-found confidence in its vastly expanded, modernised military.
"With expectations that the first stage of China's military modernisation efforts will be completed in 2020, Xi could become more confident that China would succeed in pressing its claims militarily, especially if the United States is distracted internally."
Exactly what form any response will take is yet to pan out.
"Perhaps Beijing will think it is time to declare that air defence identification zone that has been rumoured about in the South China Sea for years," Marston says.
"But it has already done this in the East China Sea. It hasn't really enforced it. It's been more symbolic and a bit of an intimidation tactic. But it also sort of exposes the paper tiger nature of some of these acts
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Messages
- 341
- Likes
- 961
Just wanna know ...only give in brief
There was post that next day of balakot exposed many of our short coming of IAF please if you know can you list it
I tried to find that articles but didn't got the perfect answer
Synergy
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 680
- Likes
- 2,074
regarding shopping, I'm only finding some sam from Israel's (?) inventory and Excalibur rounds are only meant for this war. missiles from Russia was due and we have just taken delivery of that. every other weapon will come after some years and so is not specific for this war. it means probably we have enough reserves for now.
if I'm not mistaking, in 2013 CAG report showed we only had 13 days worth of war reserves but afaik, then we used to hold a 10 day war reserve. later that improved. so now are we maintaining a 40 day war reserve? (probably unlikely. and somewhere I saw we are told to hold a 30 day war reserve. but that was without backed by any source.).
cereal killer
New Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2020
- Messages
- 2,146
- Likes
- 8,416
I guess he is referring to Fort Demchok, that area was divided I don't know when though. Still 640 sq km is bit too much
Synergy
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 680
- Likes
- 2,074
sorry Sir, I'm not a professional.
but afaik, Pak AF went for LFE (large force engagement) that we defended beautifully. only problem was envelope of AMRAAM was greater than the envelope of aam we had. so they could fire first. and as we were in no mood for escalation, we respected ROE (rules of engagement) and didn't open up on aircrafts in Pak or until fired upon. they fired on Su from Pak airspace and returned. we dodged and didn't chased except that F16 which was within range of Sql Abhinandan and probably on our side or at LOC.
edit : oh, probably you were looking for some posts. sorry. I'm not aware of. then I was not a member and haven't payed that much attention as a lurker.
Last edited:
doreamon
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
- Messages
- 3,007
- Likes
- 15,164
If i remember correctly HAL required 2.7 times more man hour than dassault thus price wld have been multiplied .. Sometimes i believe its unfair to blame politicians for defence planing ... wht do they knw abt defence matters .. it requires long term planning . All they can do best is knee jerk reaction nd give army special power to buy wht they want.. It cld be true whn we had nt fought ny war during neheruvian era but now i believe army top people can convince political leadership to do whtev they want as per their threat perception ....
Synergy
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 680
- Likes
- 2,074
yep. 2.7x.
agreed...
ott, I was surprised to know we pay about 100cr more for an mki from HAL than an ready mki from Russia.
Illusive
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,691
- Likes
- 7,368
Not surprising, they are battle virgins, while our soldiers have been battling it out for decades. It's easy when all these decades you have been fighting against unarmed protesters.
Just imagine these battle virgin soldiers trying to take over Taiwan on foot, you see where this is going. These are just testing grounds for PLA to learn important battle lessons and boy are we going to teach them some.
HariPrasad-1
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 9,645
- Likes
- 21,138
May be to convey a message or presentation to teach small chinese a lesson in coming days.
Indian Navy carring out a massive naval combat exercise near the Andaman & Nicobar islands close to the Malacca strait. Several IN destroyers, frigates and submarines are taking part in the exercise. P-8I MPAs armed with Harpoon AShMs have also joined in.
HariPrasad-1
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 9,645
- Likes
- 21,138
It should be shifted to India immediately.
Huawei KMB by Taiwan....
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2020
- Messages
- 2,735
- Likes
- 5,773
Food for a thought's, if china could exercises it's historical claime's, then why couldn't we. Just a food for a thought's .
Does any body knew we have one of our's distance's relative's living in Vietnam's the Hindu Champ's numbering's around 1,50,000 .
cereal killer
New Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2020
- Messages
- 2,146
- Likes
- 8,416
Indonesia & Malaysia are Muslim countries so I think there nothing much to claim. However we can lay claim on Myanmar & Cambodia through cultural links. Anyways Cholas only ruled there for a brief period.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 32,663
- Likes
- 151,106
since Indonesia was mentioned, was checking some YouTube video from Indonesia on current indo China escalation.
Based on comments section, apparently Indonesians don’t like India much. Something about India being Vrindavan gang.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2020
- Messages
- 2,735
- Likes
- 5,773
Indonesia has around 2.5 to 3 crore's Hindu's. Malaysia's 10 Percentage population's is made of Indian's, 20 Lakh's Hindu's live in Myanmar's, 10 Lakh's Indian's live in Thailand's, 17 percentage of the Singapore's population's is made of Indian's why not increase's our's infulence's there's .
doreamon
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
- Messages
- 3,007
- Likes
- 15,164
Chinese entered our power sector since 2016 as per this article.. It took life of 20 soldiers to convince us that they r threat to our national security .. were they friend before that ... I hope this sudden realization remains there for a long time..
m.timesofindia.com
Chinese companies have made inroads into the power sector since 2016 - Times of India
Data shows Chinese companies have been making steady inroads in power transmission and distribution (T&D) projects, winning contracts for installing intelligent control systems in the national grid and at least 46 city networks between Aug 2016-2020. On July 3, the power ministry banned...
m.timesofindia.com
Bhadra
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,991
- Likes
- 23,756
Time to take on the neighbourhood bully
Shiv Kunal Verma
Georg Hegel says we learn from history that we have never learnt from history. In the context of Indo-Sino relations, this couldn’t be more true. Fifty-eight years after getting our tail tweaked, not so much by the Chinese, but by our own inept handling of the situation, we as a people and a nation are making a mockery of our own standing. In 2020, when the world is staring at multiple crises, perhaps among the worst ever, we didn’t light the fire on the northern borders, but now that it has been started, let’s play the game to win… for as Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw said to the Indian Military Academy passing out gentlemen cadets in 2002, “There is no place for a loser. If you lose, even your gharwali will not look at you.” That couldn’t be more true!
In 1962, whether it was 2 Rajput at Nam Ka Chu, 1 Sikh at Bumla, 4 Garhwal Rifles at Nuranang and Sela, 5 Guards at Thembang, 6 Kumaon and 4 Sikh at Walong, 5 Jat at Galwan or 13 Kumaon at Rezangla, the men fought and died with tremendous dignity and bravery. The trouble on all these occasions was the complete panic and chaos behind them—instead of reinforcing their success and taking the fight to the Chinese. Indian casualties galloped when the men were ordered to withdraw, not so much when they stood their ground and fought.
The Indian Army can more than easily take care of the borders, but the pin pricks and infiltration tactics will continue to make us bleed so long as we continue to deal with the border problem with blinkers on. Part of the Chinese game plan is to fan the fear psychology and I must say we have quite a few paper tigers amongst us doing just that. Chief among them is a person (I refuse to call him an officer) who in 2012 masterminded the blue print for India to withdraw from Siachen under instructions from the then powers that be. In 2020, he would have the government of the day rush headlong into an offensive just to counter his taunts. Anyway, the threat to India has always been from within and so long as we understand that, all the drum beaters who are behaving like a troop of twittering macaques at the sight of a leopard will be neutralised. On the larger canvas of time, I think the time has come for this country to stand up and change the narrative. And how!
We have been left with no option but to take the fight to the Chinese. It is not just with bayonets, rifles and missiles do we need to fight, we must fight them with everything we’ve got. But first we have to get our house in order—those not in power must not see this as Narendra Modi’s Waterloo a la Nehru, but stand together and shut the gates of Fortress India just this once. The government too must reach out to all parties and work out a common strategy. This cannot be an election issue, but a fight to take on the neighbourhood bully. We do that and half our battle is won!
As I said earlier, we didn’t start the fire—either in 2020 or in 1962. China, ever since it became the PRC under Mao, has ridden roughshod over India, which, in this bilateral relationship, ever since 1962, has adopted a submissive posture. Combined with the fact that most of mankind was exhausted by WWII and unlikely to take on Chinese expansion, Chairman Mao pulled off the largest real estate heist by annexing first Sinkiang and then Tibet. As a result, post-Independent India, which had nothing to do with China, suddenly had it as its northern neighbour, extending across 3,500 km of the most hostile terrain on the planet extending from Indira Point in Siachen in the west to Kibithu in the east.
Militarily, we as a nation failed to hold the Chinese in 1962 for a variety of reasons, most of which are brought out in my book published by Aleph (1962: The War That Wasn’t). At the time, 99% of India was too busy fighting for survival after 200 years of colonialism had ravaged the country, to be aware of the country’s frontiers, let alone worry about it. As a result, even after the military skirmish in 1962, few knew why we had fought the Chinese. Despite being the victim, we threw in the towel and a panicky leadership was just grateful that the Chinese went back to the McMahon Line.
The story is different now; 58 years later the history is known and the facts are indisputable. What China did in 1949, the 1950s and early 1960s was just plain and simple armed robbery—take what you want and kill those who stand in your way. They wanted Sinkiang and Tibet—they took it. They then needed the Aksai Chin to link these two—they took it.
Regardless of what and how the government of the day decides to do to defuse the immediate issue in Ladakh, we, as a nation, need to revisit these key issues. Today, in the comity of nations, China is striving to be seen as a “responsible” country and has repeatedly said it respects the “mechanisms” that are in place for a dialogue to sort out problems. So, let’s, for once, armed with the knowledge we have now, take them on. For a change let us start the fire! If we do not do that, India’s runt status in the face of Chinese aggression will keep haunting us and we will keep debating where Claim Line 1, Claim Line 2 and Claim Line 3 are. You may already have a Claim Line 4 and this will continue unless we outstare Xi Jinping and the rest of PRC.
TAKE CHINA TO ICJ
Let us revisit these key issues now—McMahon Line (1913/14), the ceding of the Shaksgham Valley by Pakistan to China, Aksai Chin, even Tibet. We put the facts before our people and also the rest of the world and ask China to walk the talk, take the matter to the International Court of Justice. The border with Tibet was based on the survey done by Captains Morshead and Baily in 1913, who demarcated the watershed (it is not a thick pencil line on a map open to interpretation, as again some of our learned friends would want us to believe!) and it was firmed up the next year at Simla.
Why would China agree to take the matter to the ICJ? Well, for a start, Government of India must start a major global campaign placing the facts before the rest of the world. The narrative is so blatantly in our favour, I wonder why we’ve never aggressively done it before. But more than the international community, the narrative needs to be understood by our own people, who then must unite and shut China out. Take your market away in real terms, it will hurt our northern neighbour much more than artillery guns opening up all along the border.
Xi Jinping is not an idiot, nor is the Communist Party that runs China today. A whimpering India grovelling at the feet of the US is a threat to their China and it is their natural instinct to rub the Indian nose further in the dust. Not just the Chinese, every bully will always whack the other guy every time he passes him by. Turn the tables, and let’s see where it goes. Geographically and logically, a Russia-China-India partnership benefits our northern friends a lot more than the current state of affairs.
I would actually go a step further and advocate we take on Pakistan as well—your two-front offensive! We took the matter of J&K to the UN in 1949 and it stalled mainly because of geo-political reasons that we failed to understand then. Post-1963, after Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley and cosily got into bed with Mao, it became the cat’s paw for China to play with India. The biggest chunk of Indian territory occupied in J&K is today effectively under Chinese control, and that includes the Northern Areas and the Gilgit Agency, which is legally Indian territory, again usurped by armed tribal hordes and the Pakistan army.
The basic evidence is all there in my two books, The Long Road to Siachen: The Question Why (Rupa) and the 1962 book. If with my limited resources and dedicated research I as an individual can trace these facts, I see no reason why all the evidence cannot be put together to make our case in front of the rest of the world. We the people need to see the situation with this historical perspective and then take on the Chinese with real facts, rather than flit around deliberately created “pinpricks” that throw everything off balance. We must also remember that all the Chinese records pertaining to Tibet are with the Taiwan government, and not the PRC. Those maps and agreements tell a very different story from what Mao and his successors would have us believe. This will probably apply to other occupied regions as well.
At the end of the day, geopolitics is a game of perceptions and we are dealing with China that today has the kind of resources which are hard to imagine. Economically and otherwise, they may be light years ahead of us, and they do not shy away from investing in “perception management”. After the communists came to power in Nepal, for example, the first thing the Chinese did was to buy out most of their media companies. Today, even our friendly neighbourhood brother, who has everything in common with us and nothing in common with China, is dancing in the streets and waving khukris in the air.
We are dealing with a dangerous adversary who will exploit every chink in our armour to keep us off balance. God alone knows we are our worst enemies, having systematically weakened our own security apparatus. But our Army and security forces have, thanks partly to the Chinese, become battle hardened from years of fighting insurgencies. We need to up the ante, especially vis-à-vis our paramilitary forces that need to be sharpened. It is worth remembering the PLA got its nose bloodied by the Vietnamese Border Guards when it last tried to venture forth into someone else’s land. We need to put all the gulli danda nonsense of the past behind us and get our act together.
There are plenty of domain experts out there. Prime Minister Modi and his government now need to pick the right team. We as Indians, have today run out of options. We either stand up and hold our ground, or we might as well open up our companies to 100% Chinese investment.
China is often depicted as the dragon. Our country’s motto is “Satyameva Jayate”…so let’s fight this war by these non-violent means and be prepared to fight if we have to. Tweak the dragon’s tail and let’s see what happens. Conventional wisdom tells us if you stand up to a bully, he quietly goes home. Otherwise he will always continue to have his knee on our neck.
Shiv Kunal Verma is the author of “1962: The War That Wasn’t” and “The Long Road to Siachen: The Question Why”. His forthcoming book, “1965: A Western Sunrise”, will be released by Aleph later this year.
In 1962, whether it was 2 Rajput at Nam Ka Chu, 1 Sikh at Bumla, 4 Garhwal Rifles at Nuranang and Sela, 5 Guards at Thembang, 6 Kumaon and 4 Sikh at Walong, 5 Jat at Galwan or 13 Kumaon at Rezangla, the men fought and died with tremendous dignity and bravery. The trouble on all these occasions was the complete panic and chaos behind them—instead of reinforcing their success and taking the fight to the Chinese. Indian casualties galloped when the men were ordered to withdraw, not so much when they stood their ground and fought.
The Indian Army can more than easily take care of the borders, but the pin pricks and infiltration tactics will continue to make us bleed so long as we continue to deal with the border problem with blinkers on. Part of the Chinese game plan is to fan the fear psychology and I must say we have quite a few paper tigers amongst us doing just that. Chief among them is a person (I refuse to call him an officer) who in 2012 masterminded the blue print for India to withdraw from Siachen under instructions from the then powers that be. In 2020, he would have the government of the day rush headlong into an offensive just to counter his taunts. Anyway, the threat to India has always been from within and so long as we understand that, all the drum beaters who are behaving like a troop of twittering macaques at the sight of a leopard will be neutralised. On the larger canvas of time, I think the time has come for this country to stand up and change the narrative. And how!
We have been left with no option but to take the fight to the Chinese. It is not just with bayonets, rifles and missiles do we need to fight, we must fight them with everything we’ve got. But first we have to get our house in order—those not in power must not see this as Narendra Modi’s Waterloo a la Nehru, but stand together and shut the gates of Fortress India just this once. The government too must reach out to all parties and work out a common strategy. This cannot be an election issue, but a fight to take on the neighbourhood bully. We do that and half our battle is won!
As I said earlier, we didn’t start the fire—either in 2020 or in 1962. China, ever since it became the PRC under Mao, has ridden roughshod over India, which, in this bilateral relationship, ever since 1962, has adopted a submissive posture. Combined with the fact that most of mankind was exhausted by WWII and unlikely to take on Chinese expansion, Chairman Mao pulled off the largest real estate heist by annexing first Sinkiang and then Tibet. As a result, post-Independent India, which had nothing to do with China, suddenly had it as its northern neighbour, extending across 3,500 km of the most hostile terrain on the planet extending from Indira Point in Siachen in the west to Kibithu in the east.
Militarily, we as a nation failed to hold the Chinese in 1962 for a variety of reasons, most of which are brought out in my book published by Aleph (1962: The War That Wasn’t). At the time, 99% of India was too busy fighting for survival after 200 years of colonialism had ravaged the country, to be aware of the country’s frontiers, let alone worry about it. As a result, even after the military skirmish in 1962, few knew why we had fought the Chinese. Despite being the victim, we threw in the towel and a panicky leadership was just grateful that the Chinese went back to the McMahon Line.
The story is different now; 58 years later the history is known and the facts are indisputable. What China did in 1949, the 1950s and early 1960s was just plain and simple armed robbery—take what you want and kill those who stand in your way. They wanted Sinkiang and Tibet—they took it. They then needed the Aksai Chin to link these two—they took it.
Regardless of what and how the government of the day decides to do to defuse the immediate issue in Ladakh, we, as a nation, need to revisit these key issues. Today, in the comity of nations, China is striving to be seen as a “responsible” country and has repeatedly said it respects the “mechanisms” that are in place for a dialogue to sort out problems. So, let’s, for once, armed with the knowledge we have now, take them on. For a change let us start the fire! If we do not do that, India’s runt status in the face of Chinese aggression will keep haunting us and we will keep debating where Claim Line 1, Claim Line 2 and Claim Line 3 are. You may already have a Claim Line 4 and this will continue unless we outstare Xi Jinping and the rest of PRC.
TAKE CHINA TO ICJ
Let us revisit these key issues now—McMahon Line (1913/14), the ceding of the Shaksgham Valley by Pakistan to China, Aksai Chin, even Tibet. We put the facts before our people and also the rest of the world and ask China to walk the talk, take the matter to the International Court of Justice. The border with Tibet was based on the survey done by Captains Morshead and Baily in 1913, who demarcated the watershed (it is not a thick pencil line on a map open to interpretation, as again some of our learned friends would want us to believe!) and it was firmed up the next year at Simla.
Why would China agree to take the matter to the ICJ? Well, for a start, Government of India must start a major global campaign placing the facts before the rest of the world. The narrative is so blatantly in our favour, I wonder why we’ve never aggressively done it before. But more than the international community, the narrative needs to be understood by our own people, who then must unite and shut China out. Take your market away in real terms, it will hurt our northern neighbour much more than artillery guns opening up all along the border.
Xi Jinping is not an idiot, nor is the Communist Party that runs China today. A whimpering India grovelling at the feet of the US is a threat to their China and it is their natural instinct to rub the Indian nose further in the dust. Not just the Chinese, every bully will always whack the other guy every time he passes him by. Turn the tables, and let’s see where it goes. Geographically and logically, a Russia-China-India partnership benefits our northern friends a lot more than the current state of affairs.
I would actually go a step further and advocate we take on Pakistan as well—your two-front offensive! We took the matter of J&K to the UN in 1949 and it stalled mainly because of geo-political reasons that we failed to understand then. Post-1963, after Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley and cosily got into bed with Mao, it became the cat’s paw for China to play with India. The biggest chunk of Indian territory occupied in J&K is today effectively under Chinese control, and that includes the Northern Areas and the Gilgit Agency, which is legally Indian territory, again usurped by armed tribal hordes and the Pakistan army.
The basic evidence is all there in my two books, The Long Road to Siachen: The Question Why (Rupa) and the 1962 book. If with my limited resources and dedicated research I as an individual can trace these facts, I see no reason why all the evidence cannot be put together to make our case in front of the rest of the world. We the people need to see the situation with this historical perspective and then take on the Chinese with real facts, rather than flit around deliberately created “pinpricks” that throw everything off balance. We must also remember that all the Chinese records pertaining to Tibet are with the Taiwan government, and not the PRC. Those maps and agreements tell a very different story from what Mao and his successors would have us believe. This will probably apply to other occupied regions as well.
At the end of the day, geopolitics is a game of perceptions and we are dealing with China that today has the kind of resources which are hard to imagine. Economically and otherwise, they may be light years ahead of us, and they do not shy away from investing in “perception management”. After the communists came to power in Nepal, for example, the first thing the Chinese did was to buy out most of their media companies. Today, even our friendly neighbourhood brother, who has everything in common with us and nothing in common with China, is dancing in the streets and waving khukris in the air.
We are dealing with a dangerous adversary who will exploit every chink in our armour to keep us off balance. God alone knows we are our worst enemies, having systematically weakened our own security apparatus. But our Army and security forces have, thanks partly to the Chinese, become battle hardened from years of fighting insurgencies. We need to up the ante, especially vis-à-vis our paramilitary forces that need to be sharpened. It is worth remembering the PLA got its nose bloodied by the Vietnamese Border Guards when it last tried to venture forth into someone else’s land. We need to put all the gulli danda nonsense of the past behind us and get our act together.
There are plenty of domain experts out there. Prime Minister Modi and his government now need to pick the right team. We as Indians, have today run out of options. We either stand up and hold our ground, or we might as well open up our companies to 100% Chinese investment.
China is often depicted as the dragon. Our country’s motto is “Satyameva Jayate”…so let’s fight this war by these non-violent means and be prepared to fight if we have to. Tweak the dragon’s tail and let’s see what happens. Conventional wisdom tells us if you stand up to a bully, he quietly goes home. Otherwise he will always continue to have his knee on our neck.
Shiv Kunal Verma is the author of “1962: The War That Wasn’t” and “The Long Road to Siachen: The Question Why”. His forthcoming book, “1965: A Western Sunrise”, will be released by Aleph later this year.
I might be wrong. But something is going to happen with respect to Taiwan very soon in my opinion.
China might invade Taiwan very soon. Not just for the territory but for another reason. Most of you know Trump imposed sanctions on companies supplying any technology to Huawei. Chinese were biding their time building and learning to become self reliant in Semi conductor manufacturing. The timeline was 2030 to become self reliant. To that effect they planned to invest $1 Trillion in Semi conductor industry. They used to source chips from TSMC which is Taiwanese company. Now TSMC has announced they won't be supplying any chips to Huawei and other Chinese companies. Chinese semiconductor foundry SMIC is still not upto the mark. TSMC was their lifeline. But now that is gone.
And in order to manufacture high performance chips you need EUV machines which ASML a Dutch company makes. They have 100% market share. US persuaded Netherlands not to supply EUV machines to China even after Netherlands gave the export licence to ASML in 2018. They outright banned the sale of any EUV machines to China. This is a direct threat to Chinese high tech industry and their companies which they call high tech Champions like Huawei, ZTE. With everyone now shy of adopting Huawei in their 5G networks, denying Huawei semi conductor chips is a double whammy to Chinese technology companies. Taiwan which hosts TSMC is a single point of failure in global supply chain in the Semi conductors. If anything happens to TSMC fabs in Taiwan we all would be toast as well. Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, Broadcomm all depend on TSMC to deliver their silicon chips. That is why Taiwan is diversifying their assets. They have planned to build a fab facility in Arizona.
Without the high performance chips Huawei and ZTE are screwed. Huawei said they have only 1 year stock of chips. I believe Chinese want to invade Taiwan soon otherwise their tech juggernaut might as well come to a halt if they don't take action now.
China might invade Taiwan very soon. Not just for the territory but for another reason. Most of you know Trump imposed sanctions on companies supplying any technology to Huawei. Chinese were biding their time building and learning to become self reliant in Semi conductor manufacturing. The timeline was 2030 to become self reliant. To that effect they planned to invest $1 Trillion in Semi conductor industry. They used to source chips from TSMC which is Taiwanese company. Now TSMC has announced they won't be supplying any chips to Huawei and other Chinese companies. Chinese semiconductor foundry SMIC is still not upto the mark. TSMC was their lifeline. But now that is gone.
And in order to manufacture high performance chips you need EUV machines which ASML a Dutch company makes. They have 100% market share. US persuaded Netherlands not to supply EUV machines to China even after Netherlands gave the export licence to ASML in 2018. They outright banned the sale of any EUV machines to China. This is a direct threat to Chinese high tech industry and their companies which they call high tech Champions like Huawei, ZTE. With everyone now shy of adopting Huawei in their 5G networks, denying Huawei semi conductor chips is a double whammy to Chinese technology companies. Taiwan which hosts TSMC is a single point of failure in global supply chain in the Semi conductors. If anything happens to TSMC fabs in Taiwan we all would be toast as well. Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, Broadcomm all depend on TSMC to deliver their silicon chips. That is why Taiwan is diversifying their assets. They have planned to build a fab facility in Arizona.
Without the high performance chips Huawei and ZTE are screwed. Huawei said they have only 1 year stock of chips. I believe Chinese want to invade Taiwan soon otherwise their tech juggernaut might as well come to a halt if they don't take action now.
- Status
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
India-China 2020 Border conflict | Indian Army | 29497 | |
| V | Non-Military implications of India-China Standoff 2020 | China | 61 | |
|
Memes & Jokes India China Standoff 2020 | Members Corner | 334 | |
|
India to overtake China in 2020: Swaminathan Aiyar | Economy & Infrastructure | 33 |
