Because the border with Russia was settled through negotiation, not taken by force, unlike Hong Kong
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
Because the border with Russia was settled through negotiation, not taken by force, unlike Hong Kong
Nope, he is deliberately obfuscated the issue
Mr T
Senior Member
Err, Russia did take former Chinese lands by force. It then forced Imperial China to agree to that territorial annexation via the aforementioned treaties. China didn't get anything in return from Russia. That's why they're referred to as unequal treaties.
If people want to advance the argument that China will put historic grievances aside and make equitable, win-win agreements with countries today, I'll drink to that. But such a view would be incompatible with an opinion that "China will punish anyone who tries to take her territory" unless we're only talking about territory that China is holding in reality today (as opposed to territory not controlled by the PRC that it says it should control because of historical claims).
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Your thinking is far too rigid. First of all, "China will punish anyone who tries to take her territory" is in the present tense. It does not say that China will go to war with anyone who has ever taken her territory. India tried it now, and they're paying for it now. As for other territories, they are for China to decide on a case-by-case basis. There is no rule that says "all of these have to be taken care of as such." Flexibility is the ultimate asset. If China decides that a certain territory must be returned, then that's what it is. If it says that another territory, for any reason including but not limited to being too difficult to govern, too difficult to retake with current powers, or being in the hands of a friendly nation, it can say that it will not aim to reclaim the land. Or it can say nothing, because it's a non-issue. Or it can change its mind if the situation changes. China operates under total flexibility and will not be confined by your type of thinking.
Is that really the defense minister? Good god the delusions come from the top.
Why oh why. You always see negatives with China? Gee.
There you have it folks. The mind bending abilities of s magician. Under one breath, China is the aggressor that will get what it wants from another country.
Under a different breath, China is a pacifist and accepted loosing territory to another country to appease.
You can't make it up.
Defense ministry is probably the last institution you hope to speak about soft powers lmao. This amount of cope from the indian side is reaching a new level, that's for sure. It actually reminds me of the recent armenia-azerbaijan conflict; the armenians, especially the civilian side of the government, keep spouting about how they are a democracy, a liberal country that respects human rights, these so called soft powers aspect that authoritarian azerbaijan doesn't have. Yet those things, to the surprise of noone, clearly doesn't help them fight the actual war, and they lost. The azerbaijanis instead record a lot of stuffs during the war, like confirmed kills through drone footage, captured armenians soldiers, etc. as a form of propaganda. When victory looks to be nothing but certain in the later stage, propaganda videos are starting to become more sinister to taunt the armenians, like how they desecrate church, torturing/killing POWs, basically warcrime but as usual, history is written by the victors, not a chance they will get punished. To add insult to the injury, the so called 'soft powers' that armenia has doesn't get them any help either, not even from russia who officially has a military alliance CSTO with them; it's azerbaijan instead who got help from another country, turkey. And of course, real war footages that azerbaijan uses as a propaganda left a bigger, more lasting effect than empty words from the armenians, which kind of soft power is actually better then? 
Going back to the ladakh situation, I'm sure everyone can see the similarities between the nagorno-karabakh war and india-china; how the indians keep boasting about these soft powers with similar talking points with armenia and how imo those soft powers can't net them any meaningful help from the outside if conflict actually happens. China meanwhile as with the analogy above has quite a fat chance that it would get help from pakistan. Soft power is a meme, it doesn't mean anything without the actual hard power. This kind of talking point being spewed by a defence ministry is not a good look. They also somehow have the audacity to suggest that they have a power parity in that tweet, like lol sure dude, lying to your own people about that is actually helping us as well..
Going back to the ladakh situation, I'm sure everyone can see the similarities between the nagorno-karabakh war and india-china; how the indians keep boasting about these soft powers with similar talking points with armenia and how imo those soft powers can't net them any meaningful help from the outside if conflict actually happens. China meanwhile as with the analogy above has quite a fat chance that it would get help from pakistan. Soft power is a meme, it doesn't mean anything without the actual hard power. This kind of talking point being spewed by a defence ministry is not a good look. They also somehow have the audacity to suggest that they have a power parity in that tweet, like lol sure dude, lying to your own people about that is actually helping us as well..
Defense ministry is probably the last institution you hope to speak about soft powers lmao. This amount of cope from the indian side is reaching a new level, that's for sure. It actually reminds me of the recent armenia-azerbaijan conflict; the armenians, especially the civilian side of the government, keep spouting about how they are a democracy, a liberal country that respects human rights, these so called soft powers aspect that authoritarian azerbaijan doesn't have. Yet those things, to the surprise of noone, clearly doesn't help them fight the actual war, and they lost. The azerbaijanis instead record a lot of stuffs during the war, like confirmed kills through drone footage, captured armenians soldiers, etc. as a form of propaganda. When victory looks to be nothing but certain in the later stage, propaganda videos are starting to become more sinister to taunt the armenians, like how they desecrate church, torturing/killing POWs, basically warcrime but as usual, history is written by the victors, not a chance they will get punished. To add insult to the injury, the so called 'soft powers' that armenia has doesn't get them any help either, not even from russia who officially has a military alliance CSTO with them; it's azerbaijan instead who got help from another country, turkey. And of course, real war footages that azerbaijan uses as a propaganda left a bigger, more lasting effect than empty words from the armenians, which kind of soft power is actually better then?
Going back to the ladakh situation, I'm sure everyone can see the similarities between the nagorno-karabakh war and india-china; how the indians keep boasting about these soft powers with similar talking points with armenia and how imo those soft powers can't net them any meaningful help from the outside if conflict actually happens. China meanwhile as with the analogy above has quite a fat chance that it would get help from pakistan. Soft power is a meme, it doesn't mean anything without the actual hard power. This kind of talking point being spewed by a defence ministry is not a good look. They also somehow have the audacity to suggest that they have a power parity in that tweet, like lol sure dude, lying to your own people about that is actually helping us as well..
It isn’t just any dude.. It is the Indian Minister of Defense! They are drinking their own koolaid.
- Status