Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
In the 60s China was willing to trade Aksai Chin for South Tibet. Not sure about now.
It was the other way around actually. China offered to recognize South Tibet as Arunachal Pradesh in exchange for Indian recognition of Aksai Chin as Chinese territory. Naturally, the Indians rejected, which is responsible for the sorry predicament they are in today.
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
It was the other way around actually. China offered to recognize South Tibet as Arunachal Pradesh in exchange for Indian recognition of Aksai Chin as Chinese territory. Naturally, the Indians rejected, which is responsible for the sorry predicament they are in today.
This would have been a perfect deal, but they Indian side clearly through that they could bide their time and eventually take back Aksai Chin from China. You know what, they better be patient and wait for centuries more.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
It was the other way around actually. China offered to recognize South Tibet as Arunachal Pradesh in exchange for Indian recognition of Aksai Chin as Chinese territory. Naturally, the Indians rejected, which is responsible for the sorry predicament they are in today.
This would have been a perfect deal, but they Indian side clearly through that they could bide their time and eventually take back Aksai Chin from China. You know what, they better be patient and wait for centuries more.


But back then India was richer than China and had higher living standards.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
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).

Having reading comprehension problem lately? Don’t understand what “will” means?
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Then why did the PRC accept Russia's historic annexation of what was China's historic NE region? There was some territorial restoration in the modern era, but the vast majority of the land ceded by the Treaties of Aigun and Peking in the 19th centuries haven't been overturned - treaties that historically China referred to as unfair. Indeed the PRC's agreements with Russia recognise those formerly Chinese lands as Russian.

Is the PRC secretly plotting to retake that land in the future when Russia's guard is down? Or could it be that sometimes China makes concessions when it's in everyone's interests?

Apples and... not apples. Russia is a partner today, India isn't. And while Russia was also not apples, this happened:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


And that challenge to the Soviets was at a time when China was still the weaker side. Just like it decided to go to war against the US during Korea, also to protect against a territorial threat (before it even had nukes.) So why would you expect China to give in to India's shenanigans today?
 
D

Deleted member 14819

Guest
China will punish anyone who tries to take her territory, just like any normal country, Britain included
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).

The thing is russia used force to annex territories from china. BUT british India straight up drew lines on the map and said these belong to us. After indian independence china tried to negotiate with india to settle border issues. But never happened. Which brings us to today's conflicts.
 

FishWings

Junior Member
Registered Member
Consider the physical work involved in this attack:
  1. 2km+ march
  2. climbing 800m uphill, from a starting position of 4300m
  3. decked out in protective gear, riot shield and poles
  4. have to attack upwards into a well rested enemy in the final stretch
Anyone still want to argue PLA are spoiled single child soldiers?

That's the talking point of the 2010-2020 decade. Starting 2021, the new talking point will be about China using unethical genetic modification to engineer an army of super soldiers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View with incognito.
 

FishWings

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.. ;)

I would bet a non-zero number of their decisionmakers are in fact not lying at all. They actually believe their own statements because they are deluded into believing it is still 1985, where at least a good portion of the drivel they spew today would have held *some* weight back then, and the PLA was driving ZTZ-59s and flying J-7s in frontline units. For them, apparently the India of today is not the India of 1962 (their own quote), but China has strangely remained frozen for the past half-century or so. Rather than being similar to the Armenians (with military leaders similarly believing it is still 1993), I'd go as far as to say they resemble some of the hardliners of Iraq in 1990, i.e. having the belief that "We're strong, powerful, and can do whatever the hell we want". That is to say, it is a far more dangerous mindset (at least for them) than that of the Armenians, because from what we have continuously observed in previous years, they are confident to keep on *initiating* such engagements rather than just staying on the disputed territory that they hold (or used to hold before this year). Simply kicking them off some hills is not enough for them to change their outdated beliefs, nor will losing 20 soldiers do the job. Pakistan's similar lesson to them last year had no effect because, to no one's surprise, they tried another similar stunt this year with Pakistan also. They need to understand the precise degree of how much they are outmatched against the PLA in case a real war breaks out. If they can't learn the lesson the easy way with 0 casualties, then the hard way is to learn the lesson practically and take 10000 casualties. Until that happens, these sorts of 'flashpoints' will continue on even after we all die of old age.

E: Wording error
 
Last edited:

Nobonita Barua

Senior Member
Registered Member
Really? I'm pretty sure I've been told by people here that China never makes the first aggressive move and always acts defensively. If China wants to annex more territory on the basis that it can, as opposed to because India has already started an offensive, then that's a decision for it to make.
Yaa, I'm also pretty sure it's called obligation to "global duty". You told us having 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers is for defensive purpose. Or setting up military bases in other sovereign territory because your people couldn't control their feelings are not "aggressive move", but humanitarian act?
If it wasn't the case for you, how is it "aggressive" from China? After all, it's all national security, savvy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top