[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by rAijin_

China understands that the remaining territory belongs to India
Unlike Pakistan, which would like to conquer all of India.

Really? I thought the only bone of contention was Kashmir, didn’t realise they want UP, MP, Odissa too.

[carZest]

Great thread, so many detailed POVs.

My view is that on Feb 24th there might have been many power centers the Ukrainian government. It would have been impossible for President Zelenskyy to cede, negotiate or concede anything. Now that he is the man of the moment, unifying his country, being on every screen, talking to everyone possible - he is now the undisputed leader of Ukraine. So today if he negotiates a settlement that results in loss of small territory but enduring peace and economic prosperity, no one will accuse him of a sellout.

[Fuldagap]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Why is USA afraid to put boots on the ground in Ukraine?

IMHO it is premature to completely rule out USA's involvement. Were there no activities by the USA and its allies by means other than foots on ground, it wouldn't have reached such a point as we see it now. Moreover, there have been reports of personnel without insignias fighting each other in Donetsk and Luhansk for many years now. Such pro Russian personnel come from Russia but such pro Ukraine personnel come from various nations including the western allies, if they can be called that. Each nation has atleast one unit for this desired purpose. Does SAD of the US ring a bell for example?

Originally Posted by Samurai

Yet somehow it is assumed that No.3 military in the world would try to invade no.4 military and that the latter would be desperate enough accept US bases. The Indo-China fight will never go beyond the border clashes. Neither country can afford to sustain a long war, since both know there will be no winners. India will never have to accept US bases.

We did the same mistaken assumption once before in 1962. Plus, China has already been sitting on our land since May 2020. So much so that we have had to rush a lot of man and material from our western side to the eastern side and make changes in our ORBAT accordingly. There is little that we have done so far to drive them back or claim our lands. That has happened not only in Leh but also in other NE regions since then. I sincerely hope that taking our arch enemy so lighlty doesn't backfire in the future and I am not pointing at your post personally, it is the most widely accepted notion as of now that China won't dare do anything against us.

The Indo China war won't go beyond borders is also a weak assumption. To be honest, they are consistently preparing hard and very early for a decisive win against us in the years to come. We ignore it at our own peril. There are many in our machinery who would preach similarly that there is nothing to worry. Most of those don't even leave their plush offices in Delhi ever to actually understand the ground situation. I sincerely hope that in the years to come nothing happens and peace prevails. I can be very elaborate on our weaknesses and strengths when it comes to China but writing on an open forum is not right.

Neither of our two enemies at the west and the east is sitting idle or not thinking to go all in. Ladakh, Sikkim and Arunanchal, atleast these are the very big chunks of areas that are under threat in the east, whether somebody percieves it or not.

Also nobody in their right minds did percieve that Russia would actually invade Ukraine at such a large scale till it actually did. No citizens of either side, no other nationals residing there or any other source predicted the invasion till it became actually evident that it is going to start on or around 24th of Feb 2022.

As for US bases on our land, we can never be sure of that in the future. As of now BECA (2018), LEMOA (2016) and COMCASA (2020) give a feeble hint in that direction.

[rAijin_]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Really? I thought the only bone of contention was Kashmir, didn’t realise they want UP, MP, Odissa too.

Did you forget that dialogue from Border Movie

Subhe ka nashta Jaisalmer me karenge
Dopahar ka khana Jodhpur me
Aur raat ka Delhi me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r9Zf9vOBf8

If you think Pakistan will stop at Kashmir or even Delhi. Think again!!

[JithinR]

Originally Posted by SnS_12

So if America really wants to be a superpower it has to lead by eg and give up its nuke and get everyone else on the planet to do so. And I say this because they ahve the largest amount of nukes...

Not commenting on the rest of your post but last I remember Russia had more nukes than the U.S.A.

[SnS_12]

Originally Posted by rAijin_

If you think Pakistan will stop at Kashmir or even Delhi. Think again!!

They have far bigger problems to take care off. Country has been surviving on borrowed money and even during Kargil their armed forces could barely survive even a limited conflict economically beyond a few days.

People might think China will take control of the country then, but how will they mange the citizens. Protests in Gwadar against China will have given them an idea of things to come if they try to do so..

Originally Posted by JithinR

Not commenting on the rest of your post but last I remember Russia had more nukes than the U.S.A.

Sorry about that. But the point being a couple of nukes less or more only they can do this if they want, can't believe the world to be lead by Russia yet?

[thanixravindran]

Originally Posted by rAijin_

This again is not because China hates India. It is just because China is also scared of India becoming more powerful than China.

Excellent post. Few points to add to your post -

1. Chinese always wait till the opponent is down for border settlement agreements. So they have now concluded most borders with Central Asian countries. They will wait till the opportunity comes to settle (though temporarily) with India. I personally don't believe this will happen for the next decade or so given India's current economic and political landscape.

2. In 2049, centenary celebration of Chinese communist victory (in the civil war) will happen and it is their stated goal of Unification of China by that time. So Taiwan front will see action may be after a decade. I think Xi has got himself time till 2035 to accomplish the complete technological independence from west.

3. War does not mean always full scale war. In 1962, China crossed the border well into Assam and unilaterally declared ceasefire and returned to pre-war positions in the eastern front. It is a way of power projection to other neighbors to show that China can teach Powerful India a lesson. So a border skirmish like Kargil cannot be ruled out. Biggest understated objective of any war is how will others react to it. It may embolden some and quieten some depends on the result.

4. The above depends on how the QUAD shapes up. We have already snubbed them at the economic front - Belt and Road Initiative or RCEP. If Indian economy thrives in the next decade without these 'trade' alliances, it will be a blow to Chinese economic power projection.

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Really? I thought the only bone of contention was Kashmir, didn’t realise they want UP, MP, Odissa too.

Our western neighbor's Military-Political dream is always beyond Kashmir. It is tied to the the centuries old 'glorious' invasions of Hindustan and ideological. Kashmir may only be the 'Jugular vein' but there are other veins running in India that are needed for their integration.

[amit_snk]

Originally Posted by Samurai

So you think John Mearsheimer is wrong about it? I figured since he is one of the top ten political scientist in the world, we could take his word.

Even Macron (the French President) talked about western hegemony back in 2019.

https://thestandard.org.nz/macron-sp...tern-hegemony/

Now for the first time, here is a video from John Mearsheimer after the Ukraine invasion started. Keep in mind he is an American, a West point graduate, and he spent 10 years in US military (army followed by Airforce). He is also considered the top 10 most influential political scientists today.

Jump to 5:50 position, and he will tell you who is to be blamed for this war. The first 4 minutes, the audio is bad, avoid that part.

John Mearsheimer is scholar belonging to political realism school of thought, as a political science student when i argue against what he says its not personal, rather the argument is against his political philosophy, also criticism is not coming from me but from alternative political thought, that is liberal school. So no personal feelings here.

Now, Political realism or some say offensive realism, base its premise on a State as ever powerfull entity, which needs to be constantly in conflict with fellow states for power and influence. Thus explaining the reason for Russia, or i should say Putin, invading Ukraine to expand its influence. Criticism of this concept comes from Liberal school, which argues that Realism fail to take into consideration the internal political, economic and social dynamics of societies. Ukraine after 2014 revolution, has been moving away from Russian influence towards EU, Ukraine has a democratically elected government, 53% of Ukrainian population in a recent survey voted to join NATO, with 28% against it. If majority population in a Democracy wants to take there country in a particular direction, leaders have to work for the aspiration of there people, thats what Democracy is all about, and no, its not that America and western world has brain washed Ukrainians into this fight, that will be overestimation of there capabilities.

It looks like Putin was so influenced by Realism school of politics, that he forgot to take into consideration Ukrainian people, there aspirations (Liberal school of political thought) and now when they are standing up and giving a him a hard fight, they are teaching him and all of us a lesson in liberal political thought as well, that is the same lesson America got in Afghanistan. This was the first question asked to John Meirsheimer in the interview, about Ukrainian people having a primary say on this issue rather then America or Russia, to which his answer was "IF UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN SMART ENOUGH", thats where argument was lost, if a political theory cannot explain various aspects of a particular reality, it needs little bit more brainstorming and fine tuning.

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

Well, Here is one such study that is quite reputed. Please go thru it and see the relative rankings. It's in slide 20 if you don't want to go thru the entire study. I had shared it earlier but re-sharing it since this indirect critique of India's democracy may not be accurate.
The study is around the trust that people have in their government, media & leaders.
https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/file...INAL_Jan25.pdf

Trust, i dont think is a right metric for classification of a Democracy, highly Democratic societies have critical thinking, questioning ones in power, accountability as some of its traits, Trust has some Value judgement attached to it, and can lower the guard of people on primary traits of Democracy, so Democracy Indexes, i think, are best gauges of the Democracies of the world. By the way, according to this survey, China also score very high on the Trust metrics.

[PreludeSH]

The best hope or wish I read about is when the West will have a pro-West leader in Russia. It will be part of NATO and NATO troops will be at China border

US is losing respect and fear towards it. People today can remember its dirty past machinations and its present manifestations.

Ukraine has lost all leverage in its discussion with Russia. Unless someone mediates and makes Putin to compromise the end result looks like completely what Putin wants. It had some choices before the war.

[embee]

Originally Posted by DicKy

As far as we know, we may already have some back room agreements with the USA regarding it. Especially in case of China attacking.

But. The day, IMHO, USA bases are allowed in India, would be the day we failed as a nation.

India and the United States have signed the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). The agreement formalises an ad-hoc arrangement already in practice and furthers India-US military-to-military cooperation. The agreement, put simply, provides access to each other’s military facilities for fuelling and logistic support on a reimbursable basis.

LEMOA permits the US and India to use each other’s facilities and provides for easier access to supplies and services for the military forces of the two countries when they are engaged in specific types of activities. These activities are limited to joint military exercises, training, port calls and humanitarian missions and other military activities that both sides mutually agree to undertake. It does not give the US automatic access to Indian military bases or to logistical support, but simply smoothens existing practices.

Source: https://www.orfonline.org/research/l...ant-for-india/

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by amit_snk

Trust, i dont think is a right metric for classification of a Democracy, highly Democratic societies have critical thinking, questioning ones in power, accountability as some of its traits, Trust has some Value judgement attached to it, and can lower the guard of people on primary traits of Democracy, so Democracy Indexes, i think, are best gauges of the Democracies of the world. By the way, according to this survey, China also score very high on the Trust metrics.

Indexes which rank countries imposing national emergencies to break peaceful protests above India don't carry much credibility with the majority of Indians. And by your own logic, since the leaders of a "democratic" nation will work towards fulfilling the aspirations of the "majority" population, we could not care less about such sham indexes.

P.S: India had democracy in some form or the other when the people of these puny countries, which publish such idiotic indexes, lived as hunter-gatherers. They ought to take a dive in the nearest shallow ditch before lecturing us about democracy.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Whatever the theory, political, economic, personal... bottom line is that Putin is a brutal monster. Where will it end? I guess even Stalin started small: where will Putin end?

Ask this woman, imprisoned for singing a song: Pussy Riot’s Nadya Tolokonnikova: ‘You cannot play nice with Putin. He is insane. He might open fire on his own people’

Political opposition to Putin and his Soviet-Empire dreams? Alexei Nalvany

[srini1785]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

...Where will it end? I guess even Stalin started small: where will Putin end? [/url]

No comments apart from what is stated:

MOST PEOPLE HAVE A FAVOURABLE VIEW OF STALIN

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...a-survey-shows

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47975704

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-about-stalin/

[Poitive]

Quoting relevant parts of the rather long older quote for context and convenience of readers, with numbers and formatting added:

Originally Posted by Poitive

1) Nations decisions in international politics are about harsh solid practicality, and not about emotions and help.
.....

2) IMO, the need of Indian defence isn't limited to China and Pakistan. Be weak enough and all sorts of adversaries would show up, as it would be viable for them to bully us. How countries deal with us would change; from the weaker ones to the US, all would change. It is said that the best way to safeguard peace is to be well prepared for war.
.....
3) Other related thoughts:

• Russia openly going all for China at the cost of India, would push India towards the US. Not favourable for Russia.
• China going after us hammer and tongs would again push India towards the US. If pushed enough, we might have to accept US bases in India. Bad for China.
• US pushes us beyond a point, we end up leaning towards the Russia-China grouping, even if it means some compromises.
• In an ideal world, we would not want to have trouble in our immediate neighbourhood and be on good terms with China, whether or not the border is defined (as of now it is in China's interest to keep the border unclear), however peace between India and China is not in the US interest, as it combines two major emerging powers (at different stages though), which in times to come would be a counterweight to the US; more so when combined with Russia.

4) As before, gaming of scenarios is done for long periods (a 100+ years) and a peaceful border of India and China, with them spending less on defence and more on economic growth and being able to combine forces to take on others is not in the interest of current centres of global power, and rarely talked about on media - mainstream or social.

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is a very unlikely scenario. I am surprised you would even think this.

I suppose the last part of the post (marked (4) in the quote above) was quite missed.

It is not about things actually happening so with a high likelihood, but about how scenarios are gamed based on alignment of interests at a broad, and especially narrow level. Let me put it more simply for a wider audience; it is a bit like:
* If country A initiates action a1, how would country B react?
* A series of possible scenarios are worked out. Say b1, b2, b3 ...
* Based on those scenarios, one would consider how other countries might react to the situation at each stage, which would lead to further scenarios. Say a1-b1-c1..., a1-b1-c2, a1-b1-c3 ..., a1-b2-c1..., a1-b2-c2..., a1-b2-c3..., a1-b3-c1 and so on.
* The above is highly simplistic based on 3 variables of 3 countries. It could be worked out at numerous levels and reactions of each country and even each relevant leader of each country. Further possible influences to each leader could be added. It keeps getting more and more complex.

So, in the above example, if County A (China) acts on Country B (India) it would incentivize country B (India) to seek the support of country C (USA/West/Quad/etc). Country C would look at it's interests to make it's decisions based on it's own evaluation of the situation (not just military but on all fronts, including internal politics). Based on C's reaction to B, country A might not initiate the initial action at all.

While A (China) acting on B (India) might not happen, the relevance of considering C (USA etc) in the scenario should really not be missed.

It is really about pressure points and counter pressure points between countries/country groupings (and individuals/collective's interests). To not consider them in international politics and gaming of war situations would not be wise. Much of international politics is really based on that.

~~~~~

A note on US bases across the world:
The US has interests to have bases across much of the world, especially close to it's potential adversaries. Now, how does it sell the idea to a sovereign country to have bases on their soil being in the interest of the country?
- The said country needs to have a big enough perception of threat from it's adversary.
- It needs to find the US (or it's grouping) to be the most viable counter-measure to that threat.
- There can be many other points of individual leaders being settled with etc, but I'll not go there (it isn't even much relevant to the current discussion).

IMO, the perception of threat has effectively been worked upon across much of Europe/Eastern-Europe (not suggesting that the threat was imaginary).

~~~

Further, India feeling significantly threatened by China works in the interest of the US - potential (not likely) US bases in the region. Let that point not be missed (refer to 4 in the quote).

China realizing this, and it's fallout eventually working against China's interest, reduces the practical viability of China going hammer and tongs after us (even though the US might be happy if it did - to break any chances of a future Russia-China-India axis). So the very idea of their action potential bases in India, reduces the chances of them going hammer and tongs after India.

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is not a tennis match where the superior player will win and everyone goes home.

I agree. Of course it isn't, and saw no reason for it to be considered as a tennis or other match.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Yet somehow it is assumed that No.3 military in the world would try to invade no.4 military and that the latter would be desperate enough accept US bases.

It really is not assumed. It is factored into the possible scenarios to consider potential pressure points while gaming future scenarios.

To not even consider how interests and potential reactions might be, is also a bit like ignoring Nuclear Deterrence and even the whole of the Cold War. Decades spanned, huge expenses borne, the world on it's edge. In proportion, little actually happened on the ground.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Thanks to Ukraine invasion, US & West have exposed their cards. China is watching how US & West is helping a white European country under invasion by powerful nuclear neighbor. The help is limited to sanctions, harsh words and arms/money supply to the victim. That means if China invades a certain non-white asian island, the reaction will be even less. Sure, Taiwan can turn into a poison pill and give tough time to China. But they don't have to be afraid of sanctions at all. Heck, even when we were fighting China in 2020, we were importing huge from China. Even enemies of China can't afford to ban Chinese imports.

Quite an agreeable perspective on how things have unfolded till now, and likely to be correct. However much more might unfold over time. The lovely post by Fuldagap here clarifies much, including a very realistic threat from China (Army No 1, 2, 3 eventually has limited meaning as mentioned in one of the posts: US and USSR leaving Afghanistan).

Another perspective could also be that other countries are seeing the 'cost of not being in NATO'. Sharing such a large border with Russia, it might increase the perception of threat to reconsider joining NATO. The counter threat of Russia taking them on would of course also need to be considered. (Had talked about one of the aims of Russia in this war would be to give messages to other countries.)

Edit:
Wanted to reply to Fuldagap 's lovely post (link), but not doing so as beyond a point, Indo-China might be seen as too much off topic. I do agree with most of what is said in that post.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by srini1785

MOST PEOPLE HAVE A FAVOURABLE VIEW OF STALIN

So?

What does that prove? Above all, I suggest that it shows that Russia is fertile ground for Stalin II. Perhaps it suggests that most people may not know much about him. It suggests that they do not know how many of their forbears he killed.

News coverage suggests that many Russians do not have a favourable view of the Ukraine war. Putin may have put his foot in it with regards to his popularity at home. Since when did that matter to brutal monsters in power? He surely considers himself invincible? And he is: until the day he isn't.