Nice video edit.
Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
I am really at a loss as to why and how these sort of "leaders" kept getting promoted within the Indian military. Look at this retired Air Marshall in which he was a guest on this defense oriented talk shop, discussing many issues and supposed development within Indian military in terms of their "indigenization." Whenever he's asked how are they going to compete with their supposed adversaries (Pakistan and China) the man would list the predictable litany of equipment, quantum technology, cyber and space domain, not to mention their obvious need to fully develop their own engine for their LCH, AMCA project, not to mention their super hyped Tejas I and Tejas MK2. These are all fantasies because all of these platforms and technologies require large sum of investments in R&D with massive support and investment in their education policies, plus civilian fusion and participation, maturation of these capital intensive laundry list of wants.
These folks are talking like money just simply fall from their trees or that they're economic standing is already firmly planted as the top dog of the economic food chain, which they are not even close to being there at the moment.
The interviewer hardly challenged the retired officer's assertion and happy talk even though he came across like more knowledgeable about the subject matter they're talking about than the retired Marshall.
Asked about service joint integration for tactical and military operation; the officer's response is well, we have done x, y, z...we are far ahead in joint operation than what the public knows b.s. If that was the case, then why create the position of Chief of Defense Staff (CDS) in the first place if joint operation, integration has been operationalized and institutionalized already as he seemed to have alluded to? Why is the IA trying to reform of integrating the Tri-services into various theatre commands, copying the reform already made by the PLA back in 2016.
I could go on and on...I really want to respect China's supposed enemy that's India. But the more I try to listen to their various experts, retired officers from every branch of their military, the more I become disappointed, disjointed, and even find them contemptible because all they do is talk big, boast nonsense that have no actual bearing to the reality of the situation. They are simply selling junk and feel good b.s. to their public which will unfortunately be set up for massive disappointment and shock. So I have come to an unfortunate conclusion that if and when India is stupid and reckless enough to pick a fight with China, the outcome and result would be a far worse repeat of 1962. India thinks too highly of it's capabilities, keeps repeating their so-called great victories of 1971 and 1999 Kargil war as if those experience will be replicated against the PLA at their current iteration and capabilities which far exceed that of India at the moment.
These folks are talking like money just simply fall from their trees or that they're economic standing is already firmly planted as the top dog of the economic food chain, which they are not even close to being there at the moment.
The interviewer hardly challenged the retired officer's assertion and happy talk even though he came across like more knowledgeable about the subject matter they're talking about than the retired Marshall.
Asked about service joint integration for tactical and military operation; the officer's response is well, we have done x, y, z...we are far ahead in joint operation than what the public knows b.s. If that was the case, then why create the position of Chief of Defense Staff (CDS) in the first place if joint operation, integration has been operationalized and institutionalized already as he seemed to have alluded to? Why is the IA trying to reform of integrating the Tri-services into various theatre commands, copying the reform already made by the PLA back in 2016.
I could go on and on...I really want to respect China's supposed enemy that's India. But the more I try to listen to their various experts, retired officers from every branch of their military, the more I become disappointed, disjointed, and even find them contemptible because all they do is talk big, boast nonsense that have no actual bearing to the reality of the situation. They are simply selling junk and feel good b.s. to their public which will unfortunately be set up for massive disappointment and shock. So I have come to an unfortunate conclusion that if and when India is stupid and reckless enough to pick a fight with China, the outcome and result would be a far worse repeat of 1962. India thinks too highly of it's capabilities, keeps repeating their so-called great victories of 1971 and 1999 Kargil war as if those experience will be replicated against the PLA at their current iteration and capabilities which far exceed that of India at the moment.
I can't believe am posting anything from WION but at least on this particular topic, this propagandist (who's now left WION) is on point with her observations and needs of Indian Military with respect to prioritization of military procurements with an eye to the reality that their wish lists are to be limited simply based on economics and also the need for joint theatre operation to reduce manpower as well as redundancy.
Lethe
Captain
There is some good footage here such as the below-deck arresting gear mechanism, and overall the production is well done, but if the editor were to go back and watch the original Top Gun sequence carefully, he would notice that the film does not actually cut to a new shot every 12 frames as this does.
Kids these days and their hyperactive digital editing...
Is the Nagaland independence movement affiliated in any way with terror groups advocating Balochistan independence (that carried out attacks in Pakistan against CPEC)?
Secondly, territorial sovereignty is one of the items the the Chinese government promotes, advocating independence movements elsewhere would just appear hypocritical (e.g. US "human rights & freedom" concerns). Also, despite the coverage, the HK riots were still resolved with the NSL.
Changing territorial boundaries by reframing as reunification of certain territories may be viable in the far future (post resolution of the US issue), however there's more than enough on the plate right now. When the time is right you might see support for the reunification of Irish / Scottish territories, Argentine territories (Malvinas), Cuba (Guantanamo), Hawaiian islands, etc.
Sorry if this is overdiscussed on here, but do you guys think there is a way to resolve the Sino-Indian border disputes in a way that leaves everyone somewhat satisfied? I would imagine that China's full claims on Arunachal are somewhat unrealistic, as it would leave India's eastern provinces vulnerable to being cut off. Similarly, India's claims on Aksai Chin are also a non-starter.
Both get half of each of the disputed areas lengthwise?
This wouldn't work because along Aksai Chin, it wouldn't be acceptable to China and along Arunachal Pradesh, it wouldn't be acceptable to India.
The main solution is the one China has been offering since the 1950s - Aksai Chin is Chinese and both sides formally demarcate the Ladakh side dispute with China's offers since that era or whatever version of it, arguing over 1% or 2% of entire disputed area so it's not as important as demarcating and settling. India refused in the 1950s and still refuses to demarcate. China formally stops claiming Arunachal Pradesh as the Ladakh side dispute is settled. I think China is more than happy to do this because, well it's been suggesting this since before China made a claim on Arunachal Pradesh. The main reason that I suspect for China to make a claim on Arunachal Pradesh is to pressure India to stop claiming Aksai Chin.
The history of this basically goes:
1. China under the Yuan dynasty invaded and annexed Tibet (this was well before European colonialism btw for those who aren't aware of history).
2. The land that is today's Aksai Chin was administered under the Kingdom of Tibet. As China incorporated Tibet (however one wishes to call it let's call it annex here), China administered Aksai Chin since the Yuan dynasty.
3. China went through many periods of internal warring and dynasties and every time there is weakness in the center of power in China, Tibet attempted to break away.
4. During China's revolution period and civil war period of the 20th century, Tibet wanted to break away and the idea was sort of supported by China's adversaries. Tibet did not manage to break away and as the civil war resolved with KMT escaping to Taiwan and calling themselves the Republic of China, PRC maintained rule over Tibet. It's important to note for context that India during the 20th century has already at the conclusion of the century, annexed multiple kingdoms that were independent of the new India. At this point in history, the USA has annexed many parts of Mexico to incorporate into California and Texas. What I'm trying to say is that if China is a "bad guy" for annexing, keep in mind that this was done during the Yuan dynasty under Mongol rulers. Throughout this time, Western powers have done much more "annexing". Tibet can be "freed" rightfully less so than Australia should be "freed" of Anglo rule, Canada should be returned to natives and the USA... well go figure.
5. India is a new country in 1950s during the initial confrontation and disputes on the only source of dispute (Aksai Chin area), China is a country going through revolution and just finished civil war and WW2. The British invited both sides to demarcate this stretch of land that no one previously settled in or used properly. China did not recognise the legitimacy of the British being involved due to viewing it as an imperialist power and having no genuine intentions so did not attend the meeting. The British and Indians simply then drew their own lines as they considered "fair" and "fit" and those included Aksai Chin as part of India. China disagrees and there is the beginning of the Ladakh side dispute. Made more complicated after Pakistan and the history following British India -> India transition.
6. India refused to stop claiming Aksai Chin because there is a false legitimacy from the British India unilateral demarcation during the transition to independent India. In an effort to mirror what China considers India's unilateral claim making, China also made a claim on a piece of land that was administered by India since day 1 (to use a figure of speech) and that piece of land is a stretch along Arunachal Pradesh which China knows is strategically worrying for India due to what's commonly referred to as the "chicken's neck" since Bangladesh became independent of India.
So if India stops claiming Aksai Chin, I personally think China would stop claiming Arunachal Pradesh since that claim was made to mirror India's claim of Aksai Chin. This of course isn't a known certainty but it's pretty obvious. Furthermore, I think that China has no desire to keep these dramas going and potentially flaring up every once in a while. China dislikes it. India cannot possibly prefer having it either BUT India has in more recent years, politicised these aspects of tensions and confrontations with China with the backdrop of ... well let's just say the obvious geopolitical shifts and grand power struggles happening. It has been militarising Hindu extremism and letting go of a claim that Hindu extremists and various bhakt varieties alike have been taught to hold close to their hearts in the context of India's "competition" with China, well that wouldn't work out for any Indian leader. Hence they are damned in they do, damned in they don't and right as things are is a comfortable place ... considering the alternatives that they have tried, Amit Shah declaring to Indians that India will "pay with blood" to get Aksai Chin during a speech back in 2019 (which btw Indian media has now scrubbed this of because it's a piece of evidence they had the desire to capture it in 2020).
Not going back to the Ladakh crisis discussions which have been covered n^n times in the Ladakh crisis thread, to answer the question is there a solution? Yes but is there a realistic one where Indian PM can actually perform as China has been waiting for them to do? Not really. China could cede Aksai Chin to India like China has done with some of the Stans and Russia wrt initial border disputes during the 20th century.
The tricky thing with borders is that as a country changes like these two have during their history with colonialism and civil war invasions etc, different ruling parties, different systems, different generations of leaders, will have their own designs on it. ROC's borders for China are much greater than PRC's. If the KMT won the civil war, China would have a lot more land in the Stans, in Russia, huge swathes of Mongolia, and demanded more from India in southern Tibet, not just Aksai Chin's borders but much further beyond, at least to PRC's "ideal" borderlines on the Ladakh side (many kilometers further than PRC's demarcation border offers since 1950s).
In time, these sorts of land disputes become increasingly pointless, non strategic, counterproductive. Resolution depends on how well these two countries develop. This Ladakh dispute is relatively worthless land in terms of natural resources and to China is also relatively non strategic. It is more strategically important for India due to proximity to Kashmir and Pakistan and of course its proximity to New Delhi.