Will another 20 years make any diff? Or do they think that lndia can grow more in those 20years and cld be in a better nego position?
...
India will not have a better negotiating position even if you give them another 20 thousand years if they don’t fundamentally change their ways.
Far more likely that China has concluded it’s easier to wait 20 years and let Mother Nature and climate change deal with the Jai Hinds rather than waste bullets on them.
India is a really surreal power in that even if you utterly curbstomp them on the battlefield in a limited engagement, as Pakistan just did, their ‘winnology’ spindoctors can still chalk that up as a win for India and they become even more emboldened and aggressive.
The only way to ensure the message is delivered to the Indian people and lesson learnt by them is to deal the Indian nation so much damage that they basically collapse into a failed state or a handful of warring states. The amount of resources that China would need to expend to teach that lesson is simply not remotely worth it. And then you have all the security problems that comes with having a failed state on your boarder.
Basically with India, the military option is a ‘go big or go home’ situation, where either you make the commitment for full regime change, multi-decade occupation and nation building like post WWII Germany and Japan, or you try to minimise the risks of a military engagement and/or minimise the cost of boarder clashes.
That is why China has opted to have the no-firearms rule with India. As annoying and distasteful it is to see PLA soldiers having forgo their technological and firepower dominance to fight the Indians hand to hand with stones and sticks like primitives, that’s far better than having regular exchanges of fire where more soldiers from both sides ends up dead just to maintain the same status quo.
