India-China 2020 Border Dispute - Military and Strategic Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

ezsasa

Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
15,127
Likes
46,545
Country flag
When the US reduces a Middle Eastern country to rubble , they are thinking more of long-term strategically countering the likes of giants like China and India, than serving the interests of a small country like Israel and countering Israel's Arab and Persian enemies.

When the America's proxy Saudi Arabia, bombed Iranian backed Houthi rebels in Yemen with British arms, the West/America was thinking just as much of denying access of the deep-water Yemeni port of Aden to Indian and Chinese navies ,than keeping Iran and her allies in check.

Looking long-term at the bigger picture ,to the east of the Middle East, China and India , will develop powerful navies that will try to achieve maritime denial capabilities in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. This might potentially shutting down the supply of gas and oil from the Arabian Peninsula.
That is why it was critical than Libya and Syria in the Mediterranean West were destroyed so that long-term they could not used as base for Chinese forces. to stop supplies of Middle Eastern gas and oil to the West.

edit: yes, wrong thread. But since everyone is bringing Israel up and comparing it to India.
or simple reason could be that Americans are continuing the British policy of divide and rule in the middle east, after the saudi energy minister got cocky in an interview.

 

Chimpoo

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
113
Likes
175
Country flag
or simple reason could be that Americans are continuing the British policy of divide and rule in the middle east, after the saudi energy minister got cocky in an interview.
Well, ultimately divide and rule is done to serve a greater political or strategic aims. You could make a case that the support of Muslim League by Britain,, was begun in earnest. once it became clear that the Congress Party,under Gandhi and Nehru, would not subordinate the strategic interests of an independent India to the West.

A Pakistan,allied to the West and with a powerful military, served as critical buffer state between the USSR, China and India. Indeed Pakistan historically is one of the most useful allies to the US.

As we know, the US nearly went to full-scale war with India to save Pakistan in 1971 and it was only the Soviet Navy that prevented this. The US ultimately had to join forces with China, to preserve (west) Pakistan's territorial integrity. Pakistan's collapse in 1971 and Americas détente with China meant the US was beholden to China and,so, that a complete Cold War victory for the US in Asia, including a win in Vietnam was no longer possible

China was given permanent membership of security council ,with US support, in September 1971,taking the seat formerly occupied by Taiwan . Pakistan surrendered to India in December 1971 and the eastern wing of Pakistan broke away to form Bangladesh.

"The PRC also replaced Taiwan (Republic of China) as a permanent member of UN Security Council in 1971.
Its first veto was used to support Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.
In the early years of Bangladesh's independence, Dhaka was also close to the Soviet Union, which was a rival of China following the Sino-Soviet split.
Despite the support of most countries in the world, Bangladesh's UN membership was vetoed by China until 1974. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh–China_relations



A little thinking will make ,it will be clear why a violation of Pakistan's territorial integrity would've been a strategic red line for both the US and China.

America didn't want Soviet forces reaching the Arabian Sea and so threatening the global supply of gas and oil in the Middle East.

China(and this might be relevant to the thread) didn't want the Soviet and Indian armies linking up and threatening its soft underbelly , the Tibetan Plateau,from which the headwaters of major rivers in Pakistan ,Northern India, South-East Asia and China flow.
 
Last edited:

Chimpoo

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
113
Likes
175
Country flag
or simple reason could be that Americans are continuing the British policy of divide and rule in the middle east, after the saudi energy minister got cocky in an interview.


Saudi Arabia is interesting.

It was the British Empire that dismantled the Ottoman(Turkish) Empire and help the House of Saud to control most of the Arabian peninsular and Islam's holy places in the 1920's.

Since the end of the Second World War ,Saudi Arabia ,has been a de facto protectorate of the US . In return for this protection, they buy arms from the US . Since the 70's,when the US bought Saudi oil, the Saudis lent the money back to the US,through the purchase of US treasury bonds. This is the biggest protection racket in the world and it is called the petrodollar system .The petrodollar replaced the United States gold standard(which collapsed in 1971) as the underpinning of America's financial system.
 
Last edited:

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
7,640
Likes
25,838
Country flag
@tarunraju I know Israel had US. But still how the small nation behaved in each & every armed conflict, it has my respects. And you know very well what would have happened if India was Israel in this problem with the Chinkis. Hell!! there wouldn't be any problem in the first place. Chinkis wouldn't even have dared. :dude:
We would have behaved the same way with American support as side-wheels, too.

And chicoms got their reality-check in Galwan. India is no push-over. Reality: PLAAF has limited bandwidth, Americans ensured they can't use PAF air-bases, arty and MBRLs only look nice in propaganda videos shot in the Tibetan plateau, in a place like Ladakh they're limited in what they can deliver; and a ground-assault against Indian troops will end in a disaster for the PLAGF.

We can't wear this bandage of IA deployment for long, though. The wound will fester. We need to do something proactive that forces PLA to fuck off.

If diplomatic relations with China ever improve, India's priority #1 will be to have RAW infiltrate China. This whole situation is a result of lack of intelligence, rather than a failure of it.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,913
Likes
23,001
Country flag
Everything has gone quiet now 😴
Is not that what is required? The only problem is that Indian ultimate goals of "Om Shanti" should not be taken as Indias's inability to take on real and expressed threats to its security and Sovereignty. If our adversaries take a wrong message from the Indian desire to avert military conflicts, the resultant security environment will be more harmful and dangerous than being any beneficial.

India will keep preparing and "Arming without Aiming" till they are able to sort out India's Security Structure which is filled with huge liabilities and bloodsuckers and developed huge self-interests in managing and manipulating MoD.. India does not need govt's largest Industrial conglomerate busy is pursuits of self-service and there is no need of protection provided to its sickness and industrial inefficiency in the name of "Defense".

Many such organizations exist under Indian Security architecture which are sucking the MoD budget dry. How can paying salaries to a huge accountant organization and useless appendages to MoD out of Defence Budgets be justified when there is a shortage of funds to buy guns and shells.

This "Preparing for War" and inability to rise to the occasions will continue till Defence Budgets' is spend for maintaining a research organization aimed at providing employment to social justice adherents. That could be a great social cause but then the MoD budget can not be invested with political and social reform schemes. Govt must detach such schemes from Security Structures and Defence spending.

Atma Nirbharta must begin at home... first at the MoD level and then on the national level.
 
Last edited:

Indrajit

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
1,866
Likes
4,402
Country flag
A couple of heads or more must roll. It must include the NSA who has been spearheading the China policy. Some heads of intelligence guys must roll, especially those in charge of satellite imagery. If accurate information was passed to the army, heads must roll there too. Heads rolled even in the UPA regime after 26/11. No need to believe that no accountability now exists.
 

cereal killer

Senior Member
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
1,488
Likes
5,316
Country flag
Well, ultimately divide and rule is done to serve a greater political or strategic aims. You could make a case that the support of Muslim League by Britain,, was begun in earnest. once it became clear that the Congress Party,under Gandhi and Nehru, would not subordinate the strategic interests of an independent India to the West.

A Pakistan,allied to the West and with a powerful military, served as critical buffer state between the USSR, China and India. Indeed Pakistan historically is one of the most useful allies to the US.

As we know, the US nearly went to full-scale war with India to save Pakistan in 1971 and it was only the Soviet Navy that prevented this. The US ultimately had to join forces with China, to preserve (west) Pakistan's territorial integrity. Pakistan's collapse in 1971 and Americas détente with China meant the US was beholden to China and,so, that a complete Cold War victory for the US in Asia, including a win in Vietnam was no longer possible

China was given permanent membership of security council ,with US support, in September 1971,taking the seat formerly occupied by Taiwan . Pakistan surrendered to India in December 1971 and the eastern wing of Pakistan broke away to form Bangladesh.

"The PRC also replaced Taiwan (Republic of China) as a permanent member of UN Security Council in 1971.
Its first veto was used to support Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.
In the early years of Bangladesh's independence, Dhaka was also close to the Soviet Union, which was a rival of China following the Sino-Soviet split.
Despite the support of most countries in the world, Bangladesh's UN membership was vetoed by China until 1974. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh–China_relations



A little thinking will make ,it will be clear why a violation of Pakistan's territorial integrity would've been a strategic red line for both the US and China.

America didn't want Soviet forces reaching the Arabian Sea and so threatening the global supply of gas and oil in the Middle East.

China(and this might be relevant to the thread) didn't want the Soviet and Indian armies linking up and threatening its soft underbelly , the Tibetan Plateau,from which the headwaters of major rivers in Pakistan ,Northern India, South-East Asia and China flow.
Wait That means Nehru supported ROC not PRC as Permanent member in UNSC. I do know that PRC replaced ROC (Taiwan) as permanent member later.
 

MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00

VICTORIOUM AUT MORS
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
1,952
Likes
5,549
Country flag
Well, ultimately divide and rule is done to serve a greater political or strategic aims. You could make a case that the support of Muslim League by Britain,, was begun in earnest. once it became clear that the Congress Party,under Gandhi and Nehru, would not subordinate the strategic interests of an independent India to the West.

A Pakistan,allied to the West and with a powerful military, served as critical buffer state between the USSR, China and India. Indeed Pakistan historically is one of the most useful allies to the US.

As we know, the US nearly went to full-scale war with India to save Pakistan in 1971 and it was only the Soviet Navy that prevented this. The US ultimately had to join forces with China, to preserve (west) Pakistan's territorial integrity. Pakistan's collapse in 1971 and Americas détente with China meant the US was beholden to China and,so, that a complete Cold War victory for the US in Asia, including a win in Vietnam was no longer possible

China was given permanent membership of security council ,with US support, in September 1971,taking the seat formerly occupied by Taiwan . Pakistan surrendered to India in December 1971 and the eastern wing of Pakistan broke away to form Bangladesh.

"The PRC also replaced Taiwan (Republic of China) as a permanent member of UN Security Council in 1971.
Its first veto was used to support Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.
In the early years of Bangladesh's independence, Dhaka was also close to the Soviet Union, which was a rival of China following the Sino-Soviet split.
Despite the support of most countries in the world, Bangladesh's UN membership was vetoed by China until 1974. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh–China_relations



A little thinking will make ,it will be clear why a violation of Pakistan's territorial integrity would've been a strategic red line for both the US and China.

America didn't want Soviet forces reaching the Arabian Sea and so threatening the global supply of gas and oil in the Middle East.

China(and this might be relevant to the thread) didn't want the Soviet and Indian armies linking up and threatening its soft underbelly , the Tibetan Plateau,from which the headwaters of major rivers in Pakistan ,Northern India, South-East Asia and China flow.
What interested me the most is how ROC lost its seat in the UN? I always thought as part of the one of five Permanent members of the UN. ROC(Taiwan) could have literally vetoed the resolution calling for the Dissolving of its permanent member seat in the UN. Why did Taiwan not use this to there advantage? I hope Somebody can explain this to me. LoL
 
Last edited:

Sarjen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
157
Likes
261
Country flag
Israel would've been wiped out in the 1960s without a sugga-daddy like the US and a very animated Jewish diaspora in the US. Besides a conveyor belt of money, tech, and arms to Israel, the US kept the Arab world off Israel's back for the most part.

That's why I think Israel's and India's cases aren't comparable, although I agree, India needs to snap out of its NAMardgi, because hum ghanta ukhaad rahe hain with our "strategic autonomy."
In 60s no one could touch Israel.. Off topic anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top