Ladakh Flash Point

steel21 said:

Yea, but even if PRC is that nefarious, why would it want what is essentially a nuclear armed failed state on its border? What is the ultiamte objective of this strive and chaos?

No, I don't buy that bullshit.

The optimum path for India from a PRC perspective is a permutation of its current state, semi-industrialized, providing a market and labor for low tech and labor intensive goods.

PRC wants a compliant India that it can work with in terms of development. It is in China's interest to have a stable and developing India. But not its long term interest to have a developed India.

So the best strategy is to string it along, economically and financially, never quite a friend, but definitely not a enemy, and never a competitor.

In some ways, this is how US played China back in the 1990s, but it will be much more careful in order not to fully outsource its technical and manufacturing capabilities, so that this bilateral and somewhat subservient relationship last far more than 40-50 years, as it played out for US vis a vis China.

Fortunately, India is a lot more fractured than China was in the 1980s. And with a democratic system, there is far more room for maneuver and influence to sustain this relationship.

Click to expand...

Kaeshmiri said:

I would also add the Pakistan factor.
India will never dare to attack China knowing very well that if war takes place with them, Pakistan will capitalize on it . India will not only lose Ladakh but also Kashmir (Losing Kashmir would yield a much significant psychological blow to India than Ladakh ever will).

A 2 front war will result in complete Indian capitulation in less than 3 weeks with/without US support.

Click to expand...

Mohsin77 said:

As much as Pakistan would like a joint Air-Land war against India, it won't solve China's actual strategic dilemma, which exists not on the high mountains, but on the high seas. Things are moving in the right direction here, with the US continually getting weaker, but the IN has an inherent advantage due to its placement on the map, directly threatening China's sea lines of communication, even without the USN:

There's still a lot of variables here and lots of different ways this game can play out. The goal of all strategy is to keep increasing your set of options, while reducing your opponent's options, until you corner them. At that point, you can go for the kill or force a diplomatic win. The Air-Land threat to India is just one move. The more resources India spends on its Army/Airforce, the less it has left to spend on its Navy. I expect that the Air-Land showdown will probably happen between Pakistan and India, without China getting directly involved, because of the complicated Naval dimension.. But you never know how it will play out in 10+ years. China and Pakistan are integrating their battle-systems, so the option for a joint-war is being stood-up. It never hurts to have more options.

Click to expand...

ZeEa5KPul said:

I find it puzzling why a Chinese alliance with Myanmar is never part of the strategic discussion here. That country is just perfectly placed - a long land border with China and a coastline to die for.

Click to expand...

vincent said:

You are assuming Myanmar is willing

Click to expand...

ZeEa5KPul said:

Heh, heh, heh... "willing" is a relative term. Some countries weren't very willing to enter into an alliance with the US, but after some "convincing" they saw the light (about the same time they saw the light of the nuclear explosions and firebombing). I think that given China's growing strength, the day will soon come when it will be able to make Myanmar an offer it can't refuse.

Click to expand...

vincent said:

Myanmar is useless. The land connection has to go through thick jungles and hills. Transportation is expensive and far from China’s prosperous coastal regions.

Click to expand...

ZeEa5KPul said:

I find it puzzling why a Chinese alliance with Myanmar is never part of the strategic discussion here.

Click to expand...

ZeEa5KPul said:

And of course, having a strong Chinese naval presence in Pakistan would allow for the interdiction of oil to India.

Click to expand...

reservior dogs said:

If India were a client state, then they would want to string India along as you described, provided that the U.S. would not cut in and take it over. The thing is, India is an independent country and they must deal with it as such. Since India wanted to be the hegemon in South Asia, the interests of the two countries oppose each other. There is no way for anyone to control a country that big, fail state or not. The best way is to break it up into smaller countries. Two things happen when you break up a country like India,

1. the smaller countries that formed will be fighting each other. As such, they will need help from the outside to win.
2. Since they are smaller countries, they would be easier to control.

This is no different than any other country on how they would operate. If India has the power, they would not hesitate to do the same thing. This is also how the U.S. views Russia. The best Russia is a Russia that is broken up.

The only fly on this ointment is the U.S., If India is sufficiently weakened, the U.S. will step in to protect it and China will have U.S. at its doorstep. If the U.S. is unable to interfere, and they no longer face the wrath of the West because they are too big and strong, and India falls outside of the sphere of influence of the West, they would be thinking about the break up of India.

Click to expand...