Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 22 Sep 2017 11:50

President Xi emphasised that we should be each other’s development opportunities rather than be threats to each other — “dragon and elephant should dance together”. PM Modi shared the same idea and believes that the political effects of “making one plus one eleven” can be achieved in China-India relations.


The Chinese are very good in making castles out of thin air. Their version of mathematics allows 1 plus 1 to become eleven and anything beyond 11 too. Their GDP actually uses that math a lot to make up the numbers they put out in the public.

But me thinks the talk about 11 here is v interesting. Does Mr 11 know that we call him 11 out here? Im sure he does!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17285
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2017 12:56

Typical PRC Commie claptrap from an odious bunghole."We must be each others blah,blah,..." If so ,why is there amassive $50-60B trade deficit with China,in its favour,and whenever anyone in India speaks of it China warns us about "imposing extra duties,etc.) and the consequences to India which will follow,meaning teaching us another "lesson"!

Stopping the Chinese global invasion,which I've often remarked is another remake of that shattering event centuries ago by the Mongols,led by Genghiz Khan.The Chinese OBOR,etc.is nothing but a similar onslaught upon the globe ,to establish a domination over all,through trade (aka raid),supported by military presences all along the trade route. The Chins well know that the max amt. of trade is by sea and control of the seas the key to victory.Hence its massive investment in its navy,which is the priority service of its armed forces.It has just got another N-sub.UNless India gives similar importance to its navy,we'll keep falling behind the numbers of Chinese subs ,warships and aircraft and will be sorely placed to counter a future war which also involves Pak as China's ally.

Chinese navy gets new nuclear submarine
WORLD Updated: Sep 21, 2017 14:48 IST
Press Trust of India
The submarine was built at the Dalian shipyard which also made China’s second aircraft carrier, currently under trials.

China has added a new nuclear- powered submarine to its fast expanding fleet but experts believe that it is not the most advanced version as speculated earlier, official media reported on Thursday.

The new submarine is stated to be 69th conventional and nuclear submarines, according to unofficial estimates by global defence think-tanks.

A new nuclear submarine has been turned over to the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), state-run Global Times today quoted an official with the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) as saying.

However, experts believe that this submarine is not the most advanced Type 096, which is China’s next generation strategic nuclear submarine, the report said.

The submarine was built at the Dalian shipyard which also made China’s second aircraft carrier, currently under trials.
However, the shipyard did not reveal the submarine’s name and type, it said.

But some Internet users and military enthusiasts speculated the submarine is Type 096, China’s most advanced nuclear submarine and the successor of the current Type 094, which first appeared on China Central Television in 2013, the report said.

The submarine could be Type 094 or Type 093, but not the next generation nuclear-powered ballistic submarine Type 096, since Type 096 is too advanced and not to be completed soon, Song Zhongping, a military expert who served in the PLA Rocket Force, told the Times.

The strategic nuclear submarine, also called a nuclear- powered ballistic missile submarine, is capable of launching nuclear warheads from the sea and can provide “a second strike” to a country in nuclear warfare.

The nuclear submarines provide the nuclear triad, which means when the enemy has completely destroyed land-based launch positions, the submarines stationed at different far off locations take over.

Last year, India has achieved nuclear triad capability after the launch of first indigenously built nuclear submarine INS Arihant which provides the “second strike” capability for India’s military.

Under the massive reforms being carried by the Chinese military, navy is being given a prominent role over above the Army and Air Force to expand China’s global power.

The 2017 Annual Report to the US Congress on China’s military power by the US Defence Department claims that China’s next-generation nuclear submarine, Type 096, will likely begin construction in the early 2020s, and will reportedly be armed with the JL-3, a submarine-based ballistic missile.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 22 Sep 2017 15:06

Very interesting article and nicely written. Don't know if this was linked earlier:

https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/count ... of-doklam/


Editor’s Note: This is the fifth installment of “Southern (Dis)Comfort,” a new series from War on the Rocks and the Stimson Center. The series seeks to unpack the dynamics of intensifying competition — military, economic, diplomatic — in Southern Asia, principally between China, India, Pakistan, and the United States. Catch up on the rest of the series.



Two nuclear-armed powers have stepped back from the brink — for now. Yesterday India and China announced they had agreed to end a two-month border confrontation, in which a few hundred troops had faced off in the Doklam area claimed by both China and Bhutan, and many thousands more had been placed on heightened alert. The immediate crisis seems to be over, but it offers tantalizing insights into Chinese coercive strategies and how they may be thwarted. This has implications not only for India in its own land border disputes, but also for several Southeast Asian nations and the United States, as they all confront China’s attempts to expand its control and influence.

Background: The Standoff at Doklam

China had every reason to believe that a short stretch of new road, high in the remote Himalayas, would reinforce its claims on the “tri-junction” where the borders of China, Bhutan, and India meet. In mid-June, Chinese military road crews began to extend a road in an area known as Doklam, disputed by China and Bhutan. The road had been built into the disputed territory as early as 2003, and PLA troops had often conducted foot patrols in the area of the proposed road extension. But China knew the area was disputed, and had acknowledged as much in agreements with Bhutan in 1988 and 1998, and with India in 2012. Extending the road would be a relatively cheap and clear way for Beijing to advance its claims in the dispute. (The details of the competing territorial claims have been ably covered, including here at War on the Rocks.)

Almost immediately after the road crews began their work, however, they were surprised by an Indian Army intervention. Indian troops entered the disputed territory, with at least the tacit consent of Bhutan, and physically impeded the construction of the road. India saw the Chinese encroachment as a threat to its security and its regional influence — it historically regarded Bhutan as a pliant buffer and remains its security guarantor today, even as their alignment has loosened in the past decade. New Delhi denounced the Chinese road building as an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo in contravention of the 2012 agreement.

Monday’s agreement to end the standoff returns to the situation to the status quo ante, exactly as India and Bhutan demanded. Troops from both sides have disengaged, and China claims it will continue patrolling and asserting its sovereignty claims. The official statements are vague on some details, presumably to save face among their respective publics. Most importantly, the statements only imply — rather than saying outright — that China will abandon the road construction that triggered the crisis. Beijing seems to have blinked. What explains this setback for Chinese policy?

China’s Coercion Playbook

China used the same playbook in Doklam as it has in other territorial disputes, especially Vietnam and the Philippines. This playbook usually involves four elements. The first step is to develop a larger or more permanent physical presence in areas where China has already has a degree of de facto control — whether that means new islands in the South China Sea or roads in the Himalayas. Using its military to build infrastructure in the Doklam area was likely an attempt to consolidate China’s control along its southwestern border, including this disputed area where it has patrolled for some time.

This consolidation usually goes hand-in-hand with the second element, coercive diplomacy. Here, China couples its threats or limited military action with diplomatic efforts designed to persuade the target state to change its policies or behavior. The strategy is to put the onus on the other side, often in a weaker position militarily, to risk confrontation over these gradual changes to the status quo. The goal is to ensure the target country does not counter China’s consolidation attempts, and ideally to compel them to engage in bilateral negotiations. It is in such talks that China can then leverage its stronger physical position to secure a favorable settlement.

China has used this model of coercive diplomacy not only against weaker claimants in the South China Sea, but also against the United States. In the 2009 U.S. Naval Ship Impeccable incident, for example, it used coercive diplomacy and other elements of its playbook against U.S. maritime surveillance operations. The Doklam case carried the added enticing prospect of opening new channels of diplomatic communication — and influence — with Bhutan, with which China currently lacks formal diplomatic relations.

Third, China uses legal rhetoric and principles to present its position as legitimate and lawful, thereby staking a claim to a broader legitimizing principle in territorial disputes. In the case of Doklam, China portrayed the Indian response as a violation of Chinese sovereignty — it claimed Indian troops entered Chinese territory through the Sikkim sector of the Sino-Indian border and had been “obstructing Chinese border troop activities.” China declared its road construction was entirely lawful, designed to improve infrastructure for the local people and border patrols. China’s policy position was that the border was delimited in 1890, formally reaffirmed several times since, and reinforced by the routine presence of Chinese troops and herders. Its legal argument thus rested in part on the first element of the playbook: the physical presence that it sought to make permanent with the road at Doklam.

Lastly, China leverages its government-controlled media to highlight its narrative and issue threats. These tend to involve warnings about not underestimating Chinese resolve and the Chinese people’s determination to protect their sovereignty just because China has restrained itself so far. The Chinese media was replete with such articles, warning India, for example, not to “play with fire” lest it “get burned.” They cautioned the Indian government not to be driven by nationalism and arrogance, to avoid miscalculation and repeating the mistakes of the 1962 war. This is not just a war of words; research shows that escalating threats in the media can be a precursor to China’s use of force.

While other countries may also seek to impose a territorial fait accompli — such as Russia in Ukraine — China always follows its multi-pronged playbook. It consistently demonstrates a preference for ambiguity, risk manipulation and controlling the narrative to win without fighting. Any use of coercion — which involves threats and use of force — carries the risk of escalation to conflict, even if China has previously managed to resolve most of its disputes without war. How China advances its claims in South and East Asia will determine whether those regions remain peaceful and stable.

Thwarting Coercion With Denial

China’s playbook, however, did not go according to plan this time, because it did not account for India’s unexpectedly swift and assertive response to its road-building. India did not simply voice displeasure or threaten to punish China if it continued to pursue its territorial claims as the United States and Southeast Asian countries have done in the South China Sea. In those cases, China used its coercive playbook effectively, forcing its adversaries to either back down or raise the ante. And as China’s uncontested gains have shown, its adversaries have generally lacked the capabilities, and especially the political resolve, to escalate crises.

But in this situation, India thwarted China’s coercion through denial — blocking China’s attempt to seize physical control of the disputed territory. By physically denying China’s bid to change the status quo, India created a stalemate, which suited its strategic policy. It did not acquiesce to a Chinese fait accompli, and it did not have to summon the capabilities or resolve to reverse China’s position, which would have risked a general war. India was able to do this because of a local military advantage and its broader policy of standing up to China. As a result, China did not have the option of proceeding under the guise of peaceful legitimate development, per its playbook; pressing its claims on Doklam would have required it to ratchet up military pressure. The stalemate thwarted Chinese coercion — but as long as it lasted, it was pregnant with risks of escalation and conflict.

Disengagement, But Dangers Persist

The immediate risks of conflict have receded, but the border dispute remains unresolved, and the broader Sino-Indian relationship remains fraught. First, on Doklam, while China has backed down for now, its statement that “China will continue fulfilling its sovereign rights to safeguard territorial sovereignty in compliance with the stipulations of the border-related historical treaty” suggests it has not changed its position on the border tri-junction. Indeed, during the standoff, China reportedly offered financial inducements to cleave Bhutan away from its traditional relationship with India — it has other ways, and continued ambitions, to press its claims.

Second, the India-China relationship remains tense, and prone to military risk, especially if China seeks to reassert itself after a perceived slight at Doklam. This could include an incursion somewhere along the India-China Line of Actual Control — indeed, such actions have already been reported. Or China might pursue a “cross-domain” response, for example with punitive cyber attacks or threatening activity in the Indian Ocean.

Third, over the longer term, India should be wary of learning the wrong lessons from the crisis. As one of us has recently written, India has long been preoccupied with the threat of Chinese (and Pakistani) aggression on their common land border. The Doklam standoff may be remembered as even more reason for India to pour more resources into defending its land borders, at the expense of building capabilities and influence in the wider Indian Ocean region. That would only play into China’s hands. Renewed Indian concerns about its land borders will only retard its emergence as an assertive and influential regional power.

The Lessons of Doklam

With the crisis only just being de-escalated, it is too early to derive definitive lessons from Doklam. However, a few policy implications are already apparent. First, Chinese behavior in territorial disputes is more likely to be deterred by denial than by threats of punishment. China will continue the combination of consolidating its physical presence and engaging in coercive diplomacy, lawfare, and media campaigns unless it is stopped directly. This is what India did at Doklam — it directly blocked Chinese efforts to change the status quo. Denial in other areas would require different military tasks — for example, in the Indian Ocean, it may involve anti-submarine warfare and maritime domain awareness.

Second, denial strategies may be effective, but they have their limitations. Denial is inherently risky. Countering China’s playbook involves risks of escalation — which most smaller adversaries, and at times even the United States, are unwilling to accept. Moreover, denial strategies can only serve to halt adversary action, not to reverse what the adversary has already done. As Doklam shows, India could convince China not to proceed with its road-building — but China did not relinquish its claims or its established pattern of presence in the area. Denial by itself offers no pathway to politically resolving the crisis.

Third, the agreement to disengage suggests that Beijing’s position in crises can be flexible, and perhaps responsive to assertive counter-coercion. Domestic audiences, even those in autocracies, often prefer sound judgment to recklessly staying the course. If the Doklam standoff had escalated to a shooting war, anything short of a decisive victory might have put Xi Jinping in an unfavorable position at the 19th Party Congress and hurt the PLA’s image with the Chinese people. But short of that, the Chinese government was always in the position to sell Doklam as a non-event, something the decreasing domestic media coverage suggests it was preparing to do. Beijing will frame the disengagement agreement as further proof of Chinese strength, especially relative to India. As the stronger power, China could magnanimously agree to a mutual disengagement for now while reserving the right to move forward when it sees fit.

Finally, the Doklam agreement, even if it is temporary, tells us that when China confronts a significantly weaker target, such as Bhutan, it will only be deterred by the actions of a stronger third party — in this case, India. Had India not acted, China would likely have been successful in consolidating its control and extracting territorial concessions from Bhutan. Third-party involvement may not be as easy in other cases — India had a privileged position in Bhutan. Such a strategy may also have significant second-order effects. In the near term, it is potentially escalatory — China argued that India has no basis for interfering in this bilateral dispute, and had many options for escalating the crisis at a time and place of its choosing. More broadly, such third-party involvement could intensify geopolitical competition between China and other powers such as the U.S. or India, if they intercede in other countries’ disputes with China. The lesson of Doklam for the United States is that arming small states and imposing incremental costs may not be enough. Washington may have to accept the greater risks associated with intervening more directly if it hopes to counter Chinese expansion in East Asia.



Oriana Skylar Mastro is an assistant professor of security studies at Georgetown University. She can be contacted through her website: www.orianaskylarmastro.com. Arzan Tarapore is an adjunct researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation, and a PhD candidate at King’s College London.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17285
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2017 15:17

True,"war of words" as we're seeing with the NoKo crisis is only good for the gallery.The US should've also occupied Spratly islands earlier ,just as the Chinese have done and refused to vacate unless the Chinese did the same.Would the Chinese have stuck to its land grab with the [prospect of a permanent US mil. presence so close to Hainan,etc.? Mo way! The Chinese would've planted the flag but evacuated their mil forces from most of the disputed islands. US naval/air bases so close to the Chin mainland would've sent their leadership into paroxysms of fear and fright!

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 22 Sep 2017 15:40

The entire series (mentioned in WOTR) is pretty good - Southern Discomfort. I think the Doklam conflict will help countries assess their China strategy and allow tweaks in the newer forms in the upcoming months.

It will mean a fair bit to China too - thwarting smaller nations will become a wee bit more difficult. But the security guarantor (be it US / India et al) will need to make big commitments and also mean what they say. If that can be done, we can push it out by about 7-10 years... and furiously develop the border areas and their strategic access.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8455
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby UlanBatori » 22 Sep 2017 17:04

Concluding sentence from that RAND/Georgtown plant is always telling:
Washington may have to accept the greater risks associated with intervening more directly if it hopes to counter Chinese expansion in East Asia.

IOW, war against noko.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby TKiran » 22 Sep 2017 17:14

Philip wrote:True,"war of words" as we're seeing with the NoKo crisis is only good for the gallery.The US should've also occupied Spratly islands earlier ,just as the Chinese have done and refused to vacate unless the Chinese did the same.Would the Chinese have stuck to its land grab with the [prospect of a permanent US mil. presence so close to Hainan,etc.? Mo way! The Chinese would've planted the flag but evacuated their mil forces from most of the disputed islands. US naval/air bases so close to the Chin mainland would've sent their leadership into paroxysms of fear and fright!

Phillip sir, now also they can do what you are saying, but US doesn't have the will.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21492
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 22 Sep 2017 18:56

Singapore and China to deepen defence ties with more bilateral exercises - Straits Times
BEIJING - Singapore and China will further deepen military ties, such as through stepping up bilateral exercises between the two countries' navies and armies.

Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen said on Friday (Sept 22) that he had a successful trip to Beijing for defence relations, where he met Chinese State Councillor and Minister of National Defence General Chang Wanquan.

The two ministers agreed to reaffirm the commitment to deepen defence ties and build mutual trust and practical cooperation between both countries during their Thursday meeting, Singapore's Defence Ministry (Mindef) said in a statement on Friday.

Dr Ng wrote on Facebook that he and General Chang explored concrete and practical ways to deepen defence relations based on the Four-Point Consensus agreed to in 2014.

Under the Four-Point Consensus, Singapore and China pledged a steady development of the defence relationship, based on mutual respect and accommodating each other's security concerns for mutual trust {This is only to ask Singapore to stop its military exercises with Taiwan. Last year China seized Singapore Army's Terex armoured carriers at the Hong Kong port and released them only six months later after protracted negotiation. And, Changi Naval Base is practically a US naval base too.}. The two countries also agreed to enhance dialogue and mutual understanding through regular high-level meetings and strategic consultation, to promote confidence-building and mutual trust through practical cooperation such as joint training exercises, and to deepen friendship through increased exchanges and dialogues between both militaries.

Dr Ng had said in 2014 when he signed the consensus with General Chang that the document "goes beyond the motherhood statements" as it lays out the principle of mutual regard, respect and accommodation of each side's security needs for mutual trust, and substantively spells out ways to grow ties.

Since the agreement, Singapore-China defence relations have steadily progressed, including the introduction of a new bilateral naval exercise in 2015, Exercise Maritime Cooperation, which comprised conventional naval warfare serials, exercise planning, and combined simulator training ashore, Mindef said in the statement.

On Friday, Dr Ng said on Facebook of the latest meeting: "Gen Chang fully supported more and frequent high level exchanges among top commanders in the People’s Liberation Army and the SAF."

Dr Ng was part of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s delegation that was on a three-day official visit to China.

During his visit, which ended on Thursday, Mr Lee had meetings with President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Keqiang, top legislator Zhang Dejiang and anti-graft czar Wang Qishan as well as other Chinese officials. The four men sit on China's apex Politburo Standing Committee.

"That their four top leaders met with PM’s delegation at this busy period before the 19th Party Congress, was observed and repeated by many experts that this signalled Beijing’s high regard to advance bilateral ties with Singapore, comprehensively, in all spheres," Dr Ng wrote.

During the meeting with Dr Ng, General Chang acknowledged the role that Singapore, as the Asean-China Dialogue Relations Coordinator, has played to improve defence ties between China and Asean.

Looking ahead to Singapore's chairmanship of Asean in 2018, Dr Ng and General Chang agreed to further strengthen Asean-China relations in order to enhance regional peace and stability, Mindef said in the statement.

"As Asean-China coordinator and Asean chair next year...Mindef will do its part to step up practical cooperation between China and Asean, to promote stability and progress in this region," Dr Ng wrote on Facebook.

During the meeting with General Chang, Dr Ng congratulated the People's Liberation Army (PLA) on its 90th anniversary and acknowledged the pivotal role the PLA had played in China's founding and continued importance in shaping its future.

Dr Ng also invited General Chang and the PLA leadership to visit Singapore.

As part of his trip, Dr Ng was hosted to a visit of the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution by its curator, Major-General Dong Changjun.

China's Ministry of National Defence said in a release on Friday that leaders of both countries attach great importance to the development of bilateral relations, and the two countries should back each other on their core interests and major concerns.

General Chang also said China is willing to break new ground for cooperation with Singapore.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17285
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2017 19:22

The writing is on the wall.Gradually,more and more ASian/ASEAN states are gravitating towards China,or at least hedging their bets as the US displays its impotence against China (Spratlys take-away) and over NoKo. SPore,a city state like Venice of yore,that has grown very rich on trade,is so small that the Chins can imply fart it off the planet.With a dominant Chinese origin population,pro-Chinese sentiment must run high provided China leaves SPore to its own style of life,which in any case is v.authoritarian with no dissent allowed at all. As one superpower fades into the sunset,and a rising superpower,China,emerges.Smaller states will inevitably kowtow to it unless they have powerful benefactors/protectors-what the US used to be.
The last time the US displayed any cojones in the region was when it sailed a CBG through the Taiwan Straits decades ago.THat act made China buy Sov. era Sov, DDGs armed with Moskit anti-carrier supersonic missiles.Since then the US has backed off tickling the Chinese behind in its own backyard.
Who knows.In the future,we may even see annual Indo-Chin naval exercises in the IOR!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47571
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 23 Sep 2017 00:41

Philip, US policy under Clinton Administration was G2 where China becomes the Asian Giant and US the rest of the world.
So in effect this is happening as a policy matter.
The fly in the ointment was the US getting embroiled in Middle East, Financial crisis and China see its chance to breakout.

I still think the background policy is to let China take over the East Asia.

Vajpayee by testing prevent India getting dominated.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21492
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 23 Sep 2017 07:51

ramana wrote:Philip, US policy under Clinton Administration was G2 where China becomes the Asian Giant and US the rest of the world.
So in effect this is happening as a policy matter.
The fly in the ointment was the US getting embroiled in Middle East, Financial crisis and China see its chance to breakout.

I still think the background policy is to let China take over the East Asia.

Vajpayee by testing prevent India getting dominated.

If the detente followed by the entente between the US & China in the 70s thro' 90s was first to neuter, defang and dismantle the USSR, the biggest threat for both of them, they succeeded but in the process they both let loose jihadi terrorism all over the world. By its open association with jihadism, as opposed to the Chinese (whose participation in the Afghan jihad remains well concealed even to this day), the US became vulnerable to the very forces it let loose. That's another matter, but it weakened the US against China in the long run. The entente with China was what led Clinton to leak the private & confidential letter of Vajpayee to him on Shakti-II to the very Chinese who Vajpayee described as the root cause of India going nuclear and then allowed them to draft the UNSC draft condemning India.

If it was the policy of the Clinton administration to let China become a hegemon just in East Asia or even most of Asia, then that was stupid because China's history should have warned his administration that they would not just stop at that even if the Clinton administration was unaware of the intricacies and the import of the historical recording of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. Even if 9/11 and its aftermath, the Financial Crisis et al could not have been foreseen by the US, which weakened it considerably, giving a rising power (with a historical desire to rule the world) such a leeway, was a suicidal approach.

Why Clinton decided to release that Vajpayee letter to China and allowed it to take the centre-stage in UNSC and G-7 remains a mystery for at least three reasons. One, such a behaviour at that level was dramatic and Clinton did not cover himself with glory. Two, China was diplomatically very mute in international fora at that time and this was the first time it was allowed to lead the other powerful nations. That was a huge concession. Of course, a charitable explanation could be that the US did not want to lead directly such a frontal attack on India and cunningly used China to drive the wedge deeper between these two enemy countries for its own strategic purpose while at the same time appearing to be a strident anti-proliferationist. Three, the Vajpayee letter signified an opportunity for the US to have a strategic alliance with India because plainly that was what it hinted at. By that time, the US-China relationship had defrayed beyond repair.

Or, probably the Clinton administration had realized that the US was becoming more and more impotent vis-a-vis China and saw the writing on the wall.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 473
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ArjunPandit » 23 Sep 2017 08:43

Sssar illuminate us abouty the letter never heard of it..
,..,............,..............
Added later
NUCLEAR ANXIETY; Indian's Letter to Clinton On the Nuclear Testing https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/13/worl ... sting.html
You meant this

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21492
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 23 Sep 2017 08:59

Yes

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Gyan » 23 Sep 2017 09:13

Due to liquidity crisis in India, China will slowly buy out various business in India along with Babus and Netas. Delhi will be conquered before Doklam by investments and subsidised imports from China.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Manish_Sharma » 23 Sep 2017 09:29

^ yaar murdaa boley, kaffan phadey

You always have to paint such gloomey picture

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Marten » 23 Sep 2017 09:58

Gyan wrote:Due to liquidity crisis in India, China will slowly buy out various business in India along with Babus and Netas. Delhi will be conquered before Doklam by investments and subsidised imports from China.

The monies invested by China will have zero value if they precipitate a war. Remember enemy holdings and how they are treated. In effect this would actually help GOI become the largest stakeholder in a large set of companies, thanks to your theories.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9526
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby pankajs » 23 Sep 2017 10:08

I remember people $hitting once before on similar lines when GM sold it's Indian car plant to a Chinese company.

BTW, in my view stated before in this thread, one reason Modi allowed the Chinese a face saver because he wants Chinese investment in India. China is capital surplus while India is capital deficit. Nothing wrong with that.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby TKiran » 23 Sep 2017 14:30

^^^pankajs sir, capital surplus is being used as weapon by China.

The advice you are giving is exactly similar to the advice Arimardana received from 4 of his advicers, while the king ignored the advice of a wise advisor (Rakthaksha )in KAKA-ULOOKEEYAM in Panchatantra.

Take the example of US, andar se khokla bana diya hai cheen ne. US is rudderless now.

The problem with Indians in general is that they don't use the wisdom of their ancestors, but want to innovate. A wise man learns from others' experience.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9526
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby pankajs » 23 Sep 2017 16:20

^^
China has been one of the largest recipient of FDI in the last 3-4 decades. 20-30 years back Japan / Taiwan too started investing a ton of their surplus capital into China. So where are we know? Have Japan and Taiwan "conquered" China yet? Has Capital surplus proved a "weapon" for Japan and Taiwan in dealing with China?

The problem with Indians is that they don't use commonsense and near term case studies. Learn for other countries experience and especially from China. Yes .. yes .. China too can teach us quite a few lessons not just Japan and Taiwan.

TKiran you need to read on China development path. Start with the book "China's Economy: What Everyone Needs to Know" by Arthur R. Kroeber
https://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Economy-E ... 0190239034

Just started reading but here is an enticing line from the above book. "Foreign firms’ share of high-tech exports peaked at near 90 percent in 2005, and has since fallen to around 70 percent. It is hard to say, though, how much this shift owed to policy and how much simply to the maturation of China’s privately owned technology companies."

There are many such nuggets but this should suffice for now. Based on the above i.e. 90% of high-tech export from China was *Foreign firm* driven in 2005, would you say that *Foreign* firm's have conquered China?

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9526
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby pankajs » 23 Sep 2017 16:31

Another paragraph from the above book. If you do a google search on the text perhaps google book or something will even show the actual page so that you can read it yourself.

Another surge after China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization carried annual inflows of greenfield investment up to over $100 billion a year by 2010; the numbers are even higher if one includes reinvestment of profits. From 1993 to 2002, new FDI inflows accounted for about 10 percent of all fixed investment in China, although this figure has since fallen to under 4 percent. One of the enduring impacts of this is that, even today, nearly half of all Chinese exports—and three-quarters of high-technology exports—are produced by foreign firms. This is utterly different to the other East Asian countries, whose exports are virtually all recorded by domestic firms.

So which country has *conquered* China hanji? Which country has used surplus Capital as a *weapon* against China? With so much FDI from outside, surely there must be one going by your logic TKiran. Please name one country.

BTW, one does not need references to books to understand what is going on. I did not reach the conclusion just by reading the above book. The book references are for Data. Because I am reading the book the data was most easy to post.

One just has to admire China on how it has used access to its vast markets to extract concessions from *surplus capital* wanting to come into China. I have noticed 2 specific examples where the Modi playbook it similar to the Chinese. I am not saying that Modi has copied but the similarities are there. Perhaps I will write about them in a future post.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby TKiran » 23 Sep 2017 17:06

China is very strategic in its approach, there are no foreign companies in China, they don't allow that. Even when PV Narasimha Rao opened the economy, there has to be an Indian partner for foreign companies. But allowed private people. In China all companies have to have govt of China as 50% partnership.

The reason I made such blanket statement about Indians is on different context. When I was searching for authentic English language Panchatantra, I found that world over, be it Europe or USA or China or Indonesia or any other stable political establishment follows Panchatantra as standard to establish and conduct diplomacy, politics, war and economy, taxation etc., They may not explicitly say so just like yoga has become more practiced in other countries than in India.

Even today, many people think that the reason for USA power was because of innovation. No doubt about it, their intellectual property was their main strength. But they didn't share it, and as long as they were protecting their intellectual property, they were superpower.

China strategized to get that intellectual property. Where possible, they bought it, where not possible they stole it. The methods are tactical with the strategic aim of attaining the inventions that made USA a superpower. But they are not sharing their inventions, how clever.

The real danger that India faces now is that the entire population could be captive to the machinations of foreign companies, as they are allowed 100% stake. One TCS, one Infosys which had a unique business model, suitable for India cannot survive the competition from IBM or cognizant or any number of MNCs which have their 100% control. I am not saying we should dhotishiver about competition, but is it wise to allow Chinese companies to operate in India with 100% control to themselves? With this demonetization small companies are not able to start, as they have to worry about accounts, not on marketing, I know a number of entrepreneurs who are simply not interested in taking risks to start any new business. Statistics will not be available, don't even waste time searching, but the problem is phenomenal, a lot of unemployment is there, which we didn't hear for the last 2 and a half decades.

Though I admire a lot about the generally non corrupt, and hindu nationalist BJP govt, they don't know about statecraft. Intentions are good, but policies have no basis. I don't want to drift too much into politics, but all I am saying is that China investments or trade are a big no no for India.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9526
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby pankajs » 23 Sep 2017 18:58

TKiran wrote:^^^pankajs sir, capital surplus is being used as weapon by China.
Your original contention.

When I showed you the extent of *foreign* surplus capital invested in China by its competitors e.g Japan and Japan unable to used it as a *weapon* you turn around saying the Chinese are strategic. :rotfl:

All the while talking about panchtantra, etc followed by this gem :rotfl:
TKiran wrote:The reason I made such blanket statement about Indians is on different context.
I leave it to the forum members to reach their own conclusions.

TKiran wrote:The [b]real danger that India faces now is that the entire population could be captive to the machinations of foreign companies, as they are allowed 100% stake[/b]. One TCS, one Infosys which had a unique business model, suitable for India cannot survive the competition from IBM or cognizant or any number of MNCs which have their 100% control. I am not saying we should dhotishiver about competition, but is it wise to allow Chinese companies to operate in India with 100% control to themselves?

Now lets analyze that point. Mumbai Ahmedabad High speed railway will see a massive investment from Japan. Granted it is a loan and not equity. Lets just assume India defaults on the loan. Will Japan recover its money by uprooting the track and carting the whole *thing* back to Japan? :rotfl:

Lets get specific to China. Lets consider GM plant that one of their car companies bought. If GOI someday decides to shut down that plant due to say environmental concerns will China uproot the plant and cart the whole thing to China? There are other scenarios but I will let you spell them out.

One must also remember Indira Gandhi at this time in this context. I will leave it at that what?

TKiran wrote:Though I admire a lot about the generally non corrupt, and hindu nationalist BJP govt, they don't know about statecraft. Intentions are good, but policies have no basis. I don't want to drift too much into politics, but all I am saying is that China investments or trade are a big no no for India.

BJP/Modi GOI doesn't need you stamp of approval. They have done quite well without it on Doklam. You are entitled to you opinion but not to you facts the kind you tried to pull as I have highlighted at the beginning of this post.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2885
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vera_k » 23 Sep 2017 23:29

SSridhar wrote:Why Clinton decided to release that Vajpayee letter to China and allowed it to take the centre-stage in UNSC and G-7 remains a mystery.
Or, probably the Clinton administration had realized that the US was becoming more and more impotent vis-a-vis China and saw the writing on the wall.


What mystery? That administration was either on Chinese payroll or subject to blackmail.

1996 United States campaign finance controversy

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby TKiran » 23 Sep 2017 23:30

pankajs wrote:Your original contention.

When I showed you the extent of *foreign* surplus capital invested in China by its competitors e.g Japan and Japan unable to used it as a *weapon* you turn around saying the Chinese are strategic what?

You understood correctly. When Japanese investing it was business, but when China invests, it's a weapon.
BJP/Modi GOI doesn't need you stamp of approval. They have done quite well without it on Doklam. You are entitled to you opinion but not to you facts the kind you tried to pull as I have highlighted at the beginning of this post.

They have done quite well at doklam, but the end game is that China have been wounded, and are looking for revenge. That makes them much more dangerous for India. India didn't finish off the enemy, the game is still on. That is the reason I asked you to read Panchatantra.

In this story, first the owls win, and the crows run away. then, they sent one ​crow to win over the confidence of owls, that crow single handedly destroyed owls.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9526
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby pankajs » 23 Sep 2017 23:42

I agree ... The Chinese have super powers!!! BUT I fail to understand how they got played both at Doklam and BRICS? And that too by someone who doesn't know statecraft per you. I suspect the Chinese were being very strategic here too. What do you say sir? Eagerly waiting for your analysis.
TKiran wrote:Though I admire a lot about the generally non corrupt, and hindu nationalist BJP govt, they don't know about statecraft. Intentions are good, but policies have no basis. I don't want to drift too much into politics, but all I am saying is that China investments or trade are a big no no for India.


FDI in China is a strategic win for China but at the same time Chinese FDI is a strategic *weapon* :rotfl: TKiran you are better off writing bollywood scripts. Your talent is wasted on this forum.

BTW, why the change of heart on Doklam? How did an India defeat [per your view] change to an Indian victory even if temporary? Just read your own post immediately following the Doklam resolution for context.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3831
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Peregrine » 24 Sep 2017 00:17

X posted on the China's Global Strategy Thread

Working with India to take bilateral ties forward post-Doklam: China

KOLKATA: China and India are working together to "take forward" their relationship leaving behind the Doklam episode, the Chinese Consul General here has said.

Chinese Consul General Ma Zhanwu also asserted that by working together cooperation and exchanges can be further enhanced.

"India and China are working together. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping had a meeting on September 5 to discuss how to enhance the relationship," Zhanwu said here on Friday night while addressing an event to mark the 68th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China.

"As long as the two countries work together, we will able to enhance and develop exchanges and cooperation," he said.

Asked if both the countries have left behind the Doklam episode , Zhanwu said "Yes we have left that behind and are working together to take forward the bilateral relationship".

Prime Minister Modi had met President Xi on the sidelines of the 9th BRICS Summit on September 5

The two leaders had agreed that both the countries should put in more effort to strengthen the cooperation between their security personnel and ensure that Doklam-like incidents do not recur.

The Chinese and the Indian troops were engaged in a prolonged standoff in the Doklam area of the Sikkim sector since June 16 after the Indian side stopped the construction of a road by the Chinese Army.

On August 28, external affairs ministry announced that New Delhi and Beijing have decided on "expeditious disengagement" of their border troops in the disputed Doklam area.

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21492
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 24 Sep 2017 08:15

TKiran wrote:They have done quite well at doklam, but the end game is that China have been wounded, and are looking for revenge. That makes them much more dangerous for India. India didn't finish off the enemy, the game is still on.

TK, I agree with your following four assertions:
  1. China is wounded; it was not finished off
  2. China is looking for revenge
  3. China is more dangerous, therefore, than before.
  4. August 28 was not the end of the game and it is still on
I would like to know what your definition of 'finishing off the Chinese enemy' is.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 799
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Guddu » 24 Sep 2017 08:58

While I am not TK, "finished off" means a clear defeat which affects their psyche (eg 1962 for India). Wounded implies they still have some fight left in them, sort of like how we treat terroristanis, repeated jhapads wound them, but its not been enough to get a change of behaviour.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby TKiran » 24 Sep 2017 09:32

SSridhar wrote:
TKiran wrote:They have done quite well at doklam, but the end game is that China have been wounded, and are looking for revenge. That makes them much more dangerous for India. India didn't finish off the enemy, the game is still on.

TK, I agree with your following four assertions:
  1. China is wounded; it was not finished off
  2. China is looking for revenge
  3. China is more dangerous, therefore, than before.
  4. August 28 was not the end of the game and it is still on
I would like to know what your definition of 'finishing off the Chinese enemy' is.

SS sir, what I mean by finishing off of China is that they should come begging to India for border settlement, stop CPEC and think about India with respect and dhotishiver every time they want to do anything against the strategic interests of India and consult India on anything to do with Indian ocean, or India's neighborhood. Tibet should be completely autonomous, no Han colonization, Indian embassy in Lhasa and return of Dalai Lama to Tibet.

These things would happen even without fight, had we stayed put at doklam threatened China either privately or publicly. The capability is there (geography of Tibet is such that India has permanent advantage against China to militarily dislodge PLA), intent was confined to the stoppage of road construction.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15812
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chetak » 24 Sep 2017 09:36

TKiran wrote:
SSridhar wrote:TK, I agree with your following four assertions:
  1. China is wounded; it was not finished off
  2. China is looking for revenge
  3. China is more dangerous, therefore, than before.
  4. August 28 was not the end of the game and it is still on
I would like to know what your definition of 'finishing off the Chinese enemy' is.

SS sir, what I mean by finishing off of China is that they should come begging to India for border settlement, stop CPEC and think about India with respect and dhotishiver every time they want to do anything against the strategic interests of India and consult India on anything to do with Indian ocean, or India's neighborhood. Tibet should be completely autonomous, no Han colonization, Indian embassy in Lhasa and return of Dalai Lama to Tibet.

These things would happen even without fight, had we stayed put at doklam threatened China either privately or publicly. The capability is there (geography of Tibet is such that India has permanent advantage against China to militarily dislodge PLA), intent was confined to the stoppage of road construction.


you seem to be smoking really high quality stuff,

Where can we get some?? :)

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21492
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 24 Sep 2017 11:06

TKiran wrote: . . . what I mean by finishing off of China is that they should come begging to India for border settlement, stop CPEC and think about India with respect and dhotishiver every time they want to do anything against the strategic interests of India and consult India on anything to do with Indian ocean, or India's neighborhood. Tibet should be completely autonomous, no Han colonization, Indian embassy in Lhasa and return of Dalai Lama to Tibet.

I am left speechless & dumbfounded.

When I was in IIT-M, a friend used to say a vulgar similie involving elephants every time we could not do something that we wanted to do to the Operating System, reflecting our impotency. I can't say that here. I was inconveniently and immediately reminded of that. Thank you for bringing back old memories.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21492
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 24 Sep 2017 11:18

Guddu wrote:While I am not TK, "finished off" means a clear defeat which affects their psyche (eg 1962 for India). Wounded implies they still have some fight left in them, sort of like how we treat terroristanis, repeated jhapads wound them, but its not been enough to get a change of behaviour.

We are nearly seven times Pakistan in overall national strength. We have faced many wars, skirmishes, and above all unremitting Islamist jihadi terrorism from that country. It has vowed to wipe us off. Its sole aim is us and only us. And yet, we have been unable to 'finish it off'. All that we are engaging Pakistan at the moment with, is in a war of words at the UN (that is welcome, no doubt). It acts as the cat's paw extension of China.

I would therefore expect that our priority should be to 'finish off' Pakistan first, our wayward brother, which would automatically yank away a prime tool from the Chinese hands.

This is especially so when China is currently several times larger than us in national strength and capabilities and the gap is increasing every day, not narrowing.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 24 Sep 2017 14:03

A few areas where we should concentrate a lot and by that a real LOT:
a. Cyber warfare and hardening our critical assets. How strong are we there, really?
b. Not at all forget the IOR and we need working tirelessly to ensure A2AD and enough assets (be it subs / docks / whatever it takes) to ensure naval superiority there... with more to spare for the NA / SCS region - this can't be done alone, so work with Vietnam and Japan to creating a thwarting zone which China can't pierce so easily.

We should make it difficult, with costs attached, for China to break free from the first island chain.

OT: Lately, I wonder if Modi will stay will beyond 2019. The economy is doing a bit strange now and all it needs is a few bad quarters and people won't forget the Aadhar and DeMo etc.

We need a clear cut FP and BJP has done it reasonably well so far. We need another 5-7 years of this. I am not sure Cong can provide the same.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 24 Sep 2017 14:12

TKiran wrote:Even today, many people think that the reason for USA power was because of innovation. No doubt about it, their intellectual property was their main strength. But they didn't share it, and as long as they were protecting their intellectual property, they were superpower.

China strategized to get that intellectual property. Where possible, they bought it, where not possible they stole it. The methods are tactical with the strategic aim of attaining the inventions that made USA a superpower. But they are not sharing their inventions, how clever.


While we are at it, lets not forget that the US perhaps flicked a lot of the initial space / rocket tech from Hitler Germany. Ditto with Russia and UK. There is enough credible evidence to mention that the V-2 rockets design / design team et al were shipped en masse from Germany to multiple capitals of the world and they used it generously for their newer air planes, rockets etc.

All countries do this and innovation typically is not necessarily their own.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1566
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 24 Sep 2017 15:25

1. Cheen is in the position it is in today because it accepted MASSIVE FDI from its enemies — US, Japan, Taiwan, SoKo, etc. Without it, it would be just another turd world nation with a billion plus population. When someone is giving YOU money in YOUR house, you own the biggest lever in the equation — you can just take the investment without compensation if you feel like it. The biggest punishment is you won’t anymore investment from them. But if they had invested a lot in you already then YOU own the weapon by hanging the threat of nationalization over them.

2. The US is not going anywhere in E Asia regardless of what NoKo does. It wants to maintain a military cordon around Cheen. That First Island Chain will not be broken until war happens with Cheen not NoKo. The only bad thing with the US blocking Cheen in its own neighborhood is the PRC is forced to expand its influence westward and into the IOR. But a Cheen with free reign in E Asia and dominating it would be exponently more powerful so it is still better with the US on Cheen’s doorstep than not.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1797
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby AdityaM » 26 Sep 2017 16:53

Doklam faceoff: China deployed more, standoff began earlier
Doklam standoff: China posted over 12,000 soldiers, faceoff began in May, says report

Contrary to public perception that the border standoff between India and China at Doklam involved a small number of troops, the Chinese had posted more than 12,000 soldiers, 150 tanks and artillery guns opposite Sikkim at Phari Dzong in Chumbi Valley during the 73-day standoff, a new book has revealed.


Throughout the Doklam standoff, I read here that China was incapable of moving large number troops and heavy weapons, and that they neither had the will. That was the general narrative created here.

The research by "Nitin A Gokhale" tells a different story.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9526
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby pankajs » 26 Sep 2017 17:20

AdityaM wrote:Doklam faceoff: China deployed more, standoff began earlier
Doklam standoff: China posted over 12,000 soldiers, faceoff began in May, says report

Contrary to public perception that the border standoff between India and China at Doklam involved a small number of troops, the Chinese had posted more than 12,000 soldiers, 150 tanks and artillery guns opposite Sikkim at Phari Dzong in Chumbi Valley during the 73-day standoff, a new book has revealed.


Throughout the Doklam standoff, I read here that China was incapable of moving large number troops and heavy weapons, and that they neither had the will. That was the general narrative created here.

The research by "Nitin A Gokhale" tells a different story.

A couple of notes
1. First thing is to locate "Phari Dzong" on the Map.
2. I am sure China has more than 12,000 troops stationed on Tibet and would be able to assemble 12K of them at any one point in say a weeks time.


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby shiv » 26 Sep 2017 21:26

pankajs wrote:
AdityaM wrote:Doklam faceoff: China deployed more, standoff began earlier
Doklam standoff: China posted over 12,000 soldiers, faceoff began in May, says report



Throughout the Doklam standoff, I read here that China was incapable of moving large number troops and heavy weapons, and that they neither had the will. That was the general narrative created here.

The research by "Nitin A Gokhale" tells a different story.

A couple of notes
1. First thing is to locate "Phari Dzong" on the Map.
2. I am sure China has more than 12,000 troops stationed on Tibet and would be able to assemble 12K of them at any one point in say a weeks time.

True.

Another problem with the report -the usual inaccuracy - of looking at a map where Doklam can be covered by a breadcrumb
China had deployed over 12,000 soldiers, 150 tanks and artillery guns opposite Sikkim at Phari Dzong in Chumbi Valley during the 73-day faceoff, according to Indian Express report.


That place is not "opposite Sikkim". It is close to an area of bhutan that China has already occupied
It is not in the Chumbi valley. I am not sure that these guys actually look at maps.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9526
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby pankajs » 26 Sep 2017 21:32

This is post of mine from 14 August 2017. The first map is oriented upside down i.e looking from Tibet towards Doklam plateau. One of the end point on the map, the one that is circled in red at the left bottom, is that town in question. Since the question was on massed arty the post is in that context but extend it for Troops and tanks.

Now start walking the road towards Doklam and try to figure out where will the 150 tanks be used. Based on the terrain and presence of 150 tanks I *could* also claim that the concentration was a defensive posture by the Chinese because beyond that point there is no scope for a tank battle.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6863&start=7640#p2198549
pankajs wrote:The nearest flat area available for massing high number of 155 Arty with mobility in mind is about 50 km from Dokalam Plateau. This is not to say that such pieces could not be assembled nearer but they will not be mobile placed in narrow valleys further south.

Terrain map. Looking towards Doklam from Tibet
Image

Image
Last edited by pankajs on 26 Sep 2017 21:36, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deejay, Gagan and 38 guests