Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

SteelBird

Colonel
Based on the latest news I think the picture couldn’t be any clearer. There is light or no casualties on the PLA side and they were in command of the situation through out the conflict. I find it hard to believe that the Indian soldiers were able to inflict heavy losses while (supposedly unarmed) against a larger force of club wielding Chinese with pretty much all of their commanding officers either killed or captured.
I'm afraid this is what somebody wants and it's not a good thing for China. Without going too far into politics, I can say that somebody want to sour up the China-India relationship and force India to become an enemy of China (IMO, Modi never want to be one). The Modi administration will have no choice but make up an ally against China.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I'm afraid this is what somebody wants and it's not a good thing for China. Without going too far into politics, I can say that somebody want to sour up the China-India relationship and force India to become an enemy of China (IMO, Modi never want to be one). The Modi administration will have no choice but make up an ally against China.

On the contrary I think that the decision had the blessing from the higher ups. Perceived Chinese weakness during Doklam gave the Indian decision makers the idea that they can divert attention from the current crises (covid, drought, locusts) by scoring points on the LAC. It backfired this time and time will tell whether Modi will succumb to populist pressure in India.

Rant over.
 

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
Amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics. CNN has no idea that with its Strategic Support Force, China has overwhelming advantage in electronic warfare and drone warfare. Without such capabilities, it's hard to imagine how India could prevail in modern warfare.
Im sure the Indian high command knows its position relative to China better than anyone else. Hence India's desire for de-escalation ... if the CNN analysis is correct, shouldnt the Indian side continue or even acclerate their pressure on China?
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Im sure the Indian high command knows its position relative to China better than anyone else. Hence India's desire for de-escalation ... if the CNN analysis is correct, shouldnt the Indian side continue or even acclerate their pressure on China?

It is not really a CNN analysis. They quoted an article from Belfer that was released earlier this year but obviously gained traction after the Sino-Indian escalation. I think the author of the article set out to grab attention with the title instead of doing authentic research.
 

caohailiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
But I can see China either teaming up with Pakistan and Nepal; and/or local indigenous peoples in northern India, and simply carve out a defensible chunk of northern India as either new independent buffer state, or a new Pakistani province so that China no longer have a land boarder with India.
Generally speaking i don't think carving out a piece of your rivalry's land as buffer state will really serve the purpose. First it is still going to cost you very much if you want keep that buffer state from collapse, maybe more than just building up defense at the border. Second (and more importantly), that is exactly the way to make that rivalry your mortal enemy without any hope of rapprochement, which seriously limit your strategic options in the future. When that country is someone as big as India, it is a really really bad option.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Generally speaking i don't think carving out a piece of your rivalry's land as buffer state will really serve the purpose. First it is still going to cost you very much if you want keep that buffer state from collapse, maybe more than just building up defense at the border. Second (and more importantly), that is exactly the way to make that rivalry your mortal enemy without any hope of rapprochement, which seriously limit your strategic options in the future. When that country is someone as big as India, it is a really really bad option.
It's a better idea than being nice but seen as being weak causing the other side to incessantly test your ability to defend your land. You've only got 2 options with countries like India who are angry at their loser past but also don't know how incompetent they still are: 1. keep them scared and on the defensive, 2. tolerate attack after attack because they think they can pull something over on you since they interpret your reticence as weakness. Besides, there is no such thing as beyond rapprochement when you are powerful enough. You'd think that the US dropping 2 nukes on Japan would make their relationship beyond rapprochement. Strength solves everything; weakness is the root of all problems.
 
Last edited:

caohailiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
well i think over the long run, say 50 years, you will see 3 countries at the top in terms of economic and military power: China, US and India. Or, with the most pessimistic view of India, they will have a huge population that can be armed with imported weapon. So i would not take that country so lightly in a future potential global conflict.
As opposed to Japan - that is a country, if you really try hard enough, can be uprooted altogether, like the US did in ww2, but i dont think any power could do the same to India. So i think your analogy is not appropriate.
I think a proper historical example, would be Germany vs France in 1870s, where i think Bismark made the mistake of taking alsace-lorraine, which makes France the mortal enemy for the next 70 years to come. Well you could argue military performance of France during that period, but you cannot deny alsace-lorraine poisoned the relationship to the root, and it limited Germans strategic option all those years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top