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

[g.sarkar]

Eleven ping is busy making calls to DT, either he has no time to think about Doka la or he does not think that it is a pressing issue,

Shortly after Trump tweeted that military solutions were “locked and loaded,” Xi told him in a call that all sides should avoid inflammatory comments while agreeing the Korean Peninsula should be denuclearized. The White House said that Trump looked forward to visiting China this year, and called his relationship with Xi “extremely close.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... im-jong-un

In a impromptu press conference DT had said that he was to have a telephone conversation with Eleven. So did he call Eleven or vice versa? In any case NK is China, just as Pak is China, no difference.
Gautam

[Prem Kumar]

To give hajjaar benefit of doubt to Chinese planners, the following could be their strategy too:

****Begin Theory****

Tie up a large Indian troops in a state of heightened arousal along multiple points in the LAC for years, without initiating any hostilities. This will serve the following objectives, all of which resemble the Paki strategy in LoC/Kashmir:

1) The necessity to commit such a large # of troops puts a burden on the Indian Economy
2) An increased level of stress among the Indian troops because we don't know where the next 500m incursion will happen. Nor will we know whether the "next incursion" will become the new war-flashpoint. A state of "impending war" will be maintained on & off.
3) Non-stop media barrage from Chinese mouthpieces, amplified by their fifth columnists in India. This will lead to Track-2 pressure, demands for concessions, stories of how jawans are needlessly dying defending a piece of land where no grass grows, how we share civilizational values with the Chinese & need to be more accommodative etc
4) Added later Asymmetry: cost of incursion by Chinese is a fraction of the cost to prevent/respond to incursion

In short, there is war coming: a 2.5-pronged attritional war, coordinated with Pakistan.

India can win 1 front attritional war.
We can hold our own against a 2.5 front hot-war.
But how about a 2.5 front attritional war?

**** End theory****

But, irrespective of whether this is the Chinese strategy, we need to account for this possibility. Playing pure-defense is a losing proposition (courtesy Prisoner's Dilemma). Unless incursion is matched by incursion & an element of irrationality/surprise is maintained by India, we will pay a very heavy economic price. On the LAC, "surgical strike" needs to be replaced by "targeted incursions"

[Prem Kumar]

perhaps the idea is to drain capex from the MSR / IN / IAF buildup into high opex high manning of the border. if a pathetic rag tag civil engg crew manned by scrawny border guards can get a entire corps to mobilize merely on basis of media threats isnt this a very cheap way ? no need to feed and fund terrorists either as the Pakis do . in economy of force it cannot be beat.

doing our own counter instrusions and squatting at 50 other places randomly is the only apt riposte.

400% agree. Paki & Chinese strategies both have the advantages of asymmetry.

Cost of preventing incursion >> Cost of incursion

Tit-for-tat imposes an equal cost on them. Our purely defensive tactic works against an economically weak Pakistan. But will be dangerous against an economically prosperous China

[Prem Kumar]

PremKumar Ji, interesting theory. Certainly a different take which in our alternate dhoti-shivering-sabre rattling modes we would have overlooked. Could you please take some time out and explain the Prisoner's Dilemma analogy you have proposed here. Would be much appreciated.

Mukesh: the game of "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma" appears under Game Theory. Talks about how to co-operate or not depending on the other guy's action. Here is a primer: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ev ... es-tit-tat

Traditionally, India has played this game rather poorly, adopting the Gandhian "show the other cheek" strategy. Its demonstratably stupid & results in us being taken advantage of. "Tit for tat" is another strategy, which yields equal rewards/punishments for both players (something that a kid playing with his friends learns intuitively!)

[g.sarkar]

To be taken with more than a pinch of salt: For whatever it's worth--

http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... m-plateau/
World View: China and India Prepare for Border War at Doklam Plateau
This morning’s key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
India reinforces its military in preparation for war
Bhutan makes it clear to China that its ally is India
SCMP: China and India on brink of war that could spread to the Indian Ocean
....
The border dispute involving China, India, and Bhutan over the Doklam Plateau continues to be unresolved and, in fact, appears to be escalating. As we have been reporting, a standoff between India’s army and China’s army on Doklam plateau in the tiny country of Bhutan. China is attempting to annex the region, and on June 16 sent Chinese troops and construction workers to begin road construction. Bhutan troops tried to prevent the Chinese troop incursion, but they were overrun. India sent in its own troops, saying that it did so when Bhutan invoked a treaty with India and asked for help, resulting in a standoff.
...
No bullets have been fired yet but, as we recently reported, China appears to have set an August 19 deadline for India to withdraw its troops from the Doklam Plateau.Even if August 19 passes with no military action, there’s another hard deadline: The Communist People’s Congress in Beijing in November....
According to an SCMP analysis, both China and India are preparing for an armed conflict in the event that negotiations fail.
The article quotes a Chinese military source:
The PLA [People’s Liberation Army] will not seek to fight a ground war with Indian troops early on. Instead it will deploy aircraft and strategic missiles to paralyse Indian mountain divisions stationed in the Himalayas on the border with China. Indian troops will probably hold out for no more than a week.
Chinese military sources believe that any conflict will be controlled, and not spill over into other disputed areas, of which there are currently three along the 2,000 km border.
However, an Indian defense expert, says that a conflict will not be limited, and could extend into the Indian Ocean.
China is vulnerable in the maritime area, because China is heavily reliant on imported fuel and, according to figures published by state media, more than 80 per cent of its oil imports travel via the Indian Ocean or Strait of Malacca.
....

Gautam

[ldev]

I think that China will do nothing till after the BRICs summit on September 3-5. Modi and Xi will meet on the sidelines to try and work out a political solution to this issue.

If there is no breakthrough at the Modi-Xi meeting, then a military clash looks inevitable.

China will not attack in Doklam because they are at a tactical disadvantage. They will seek to "punish" India, primarily to show to the rest of the world, especially to East/South-East Asia that no country should mess around with China. So look out for such military action where China has an undeniable advantage and the result of such Chinese action will be transparent to the audience watching from other countries and a public relations victory for China. India has to anticipate such Chinese moves and India has to counter attack to provide not only a military but counter public relations victory as well. Slogging away at the border and getting possession of a tactically valuable piece of terrain which nobody can even find on a map does not constitute a public relations victory although it will be a great miltary move. Images of a ship being sunk or pictures of a damage to cities with civilians being affected is fodder for the global news media and thereby for public relations. So India has to game all of these potential Chinese moves. It is not only a military confrontation but a public relations battle as well where the credibility of Chinese power into the future is at stake.

[nam]

I take the analogy of Saudis v/s Houthis. Everyone knows Saudi have overwhelming airpwoer over Houtis, and expect Saudis to bomb at will. So there is no PR value in Saudi destruction. What people are interested in Houthi attacks against Saudi and the videos they create.

The same analogy applies to India v/s China. There is a general perception of TFTA China 5 times the GDP of India yada yada will cause damages to India with it's uber rockets. Hence the usual dhoti shivering.

So when we pound Chini airbases with Prithvi, Smerch, IAF and release satellites images of bombed out airbase, the talking point will be how for the first time in the history of mankind a 12 trillion GDP Superpower got attacked and cannot even defend it's airbase.

Everyone loves a underdog. No matter where the Chinis attack, we need to make sure the lot in Tibet see kitchen sink falling from sky...

[ShauryaT]

China may make moves to either send forces or send a clear message that they will send forces to intervene in Pakistan on its behalf or to protect their interests. They will seek to join issue on Kashmir with Pakistan and seek to make it a tripartite issue. They will also get aggressive in courting BD and SL. They will ofcourse get tough with Bhutan and seek to put pressure in other disputed areas of Bhutan, where it will become difficult for India to intervene on Bhutan's behalf. In Sinchulumpa and Gieu in Ha and in the Jakarlung and Pasamlung areas.

I do not expect the Chinese to attack in Doklam or another place on the LAC. It would be premature. There are so money other ways to pressure India and come out on top, given current levels of Indian capabilities and historical policies that has not used hard power to further national goals, beyond defending current held sovereign areas.

[ldev]

There are so money other ways to pressure India and come out on top, given current levels of Indian capabilities and historical policies that has not used hard power to further national goals, beyond defending current held sovereign areas.

+1

I keep repeating this. Once the war starts India has to take it to the Chinese heartland. Even at the present moment India's posture is defensive. True deterrence is fighting a conventional battle such that it will affect the Chinese heartland. And India's hard power capability has to be built up to achieve that objective. Because without that ability to conventionally target the Chinese heartland, they will keep coming back every few years at their will and leisure whether in BD, SL, J&K, Arunachel, Sikkim etc. etc. to probe for weaknesses and lack of resolve. Unless India can reciprocate those actions, it will be in a perpetually defensive mode.

[Hari Seldon]

Trade war looming between India-China: Chinese state media (ET)

BEIJING: A trade war seems to be looming between India and China after New Delhi imposed anti-dumping duties on 93 Chinese products amidst a military standoff in Doklam area, two state media reports here said today.

An article in The Global Times, part of the ruling Communist Party's publication group, urged Chinese firms to "reconsider the risks" of investing in India and warned New Delhi to be "prepared for the possible consequences for its ill-considered action."

The article said that China "could easily retaliate" with restrictions on Indian products, but added that it "doesn't make much economic sense" for the country.

It cited figures from the Indian embassy in China to show that Indian exports fell by 12.3 per cent year-on-year to USD 11.75 billion while India's imports from China rose by 2 per cent to USD 59 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of USD 47 billion.

According to the Indian Commerce Ministry, the trade deficit with China last year mounted to over USD 52 billion when the bilateral trade stood at USD 70 billion.

"A trade war between China and India seems to be looming after the latter moved last Wednesday to impose anti-dumping duties on 93 products from China," the report said.

"If India really starts a trade war with China, of course China's economic interests will be hurt, but there will also be consequences for India," it said.

The report on trade comes as India and China have been locked in a tense military standoff in Doklam in the Sikkim sector.

India has protested the construction of a road by the Chinese military in the area claimed by its ally Bhutan, fearing it would allow Beijing to cut off India's access to its northeastern states.

The Global Times report warned that "given the tense bilateral trade ties, China may consider temporarily suspending investment or economic cooperation projects in India to ensure the security of these investments."

Another article in China Daily said boycotting Chinese goods would harm India.

Referring to the calls of boycott of Chinese products, it said the ongoing standoff in Doklam seems to have spilled over into bilateral exchanges.

"Suffice to say, calling for the boycotting of Chinese products and those related to Chinese investors is not just a fool's errand but also risks backfiring," it said.

"It is the Indian economy that will suffer because of the boycott," it said.

Any attempt to keep Chinese cellphone companies at bay or shut down Chinese-invested factories will hurt the Indian economy and cost Indian jobs, it said.

[ashish raval]

It is our fault that we have a large force in our borders. Instead of creating trouble to Pakis and Chinis, we waste resources defending Paki & Chini trouble.

So it is not some wonderful Paki or Chini strategy, it is our stupidity, which has lead us in to a attrition war. On LOC men & resources attrition, on LAC resource attrition.

Very well put. Instead of being defensive we shall move troops and shepherds every month and try to get our land back. This will mean that they will be on same footing as us keeping large forces on ground and defending it. I don't know why we don't do this already?

We should reduce imports to 0 from those pests.

[ashish raval]

Trade war with consequences for India. You must be joking China consumes almost nothing from India and India consumes many things from China which is mostly imported. I don't think we need to worry about any crappy Chinese threats on trades. Need to start diversyfy our infrastructure eggs into various baskets and band China from every infrastructure or technology arena. If they don't give a shit about opening up their markets for India to compete we should effing don't care either..

[SSridhar]

So, where did all this sanctimonious qutbah on trade disappear when China suddenly pulled the plug on 'rare earths' export to Japan in 2008? Or, violated the UN convention for land-locked countries when it wanted to punish Mongolia for hosting the Dalai Lama? Or , when the Korean chain of Lotte was targetted? Or, the Philippine export of bananas was stopped to punish that country?

[Gagan]

They are trying to extend that railway line to Nepal

if shots are fired and fighting starts.. that track should be destroyed... so they dump any plans to extend that into Nepal...

Does that make sense? any thoughts?

Nepal is slowly turning Chinese too. They just shifted their internet connections to Chinese fibre optic lines.
Which means that the Chinese will hack their entire telephone network and monitor phone calls.
There will be chinese intel all over - along with Paki terrorists, this could be more trouble for India longterm

[yensoy]

^^^^ At what point do we close the border with Nepal from the current unique open border arrangement? I like it that we have had this kind of an open arrangement with Nepal for much of history, but it's time we looked at it closely from a security perspective.

[nam]

On the question of where Chinis might attack, I have a feeling PLA is not going to give PLAN the opportunity to take the glory. If there is a naval attack, given the peace lover we are, it is possible we will not escalate in Tibet. And this means army of the party will have to sit with it's thumb in the backside and watch the action happening miles away.

Imagine the level of hurt on ego of PLA bosses.

So it is going to be border & water or only border. My 2 cents.

[Karthik S]

On the question of where Chinis might attack, I have a feeling PLA is not going to give PLAN the opportunity to take the glory. If there is a naval attack, given the peace lover we are, it is possible we will not escalate in Tibet. And this means army of the party will have to sit with it's thumb in the backside and watch the action happening miles away.

Imagine the level of hurt on ego of PLA bosses.

So it is going to be border & water or only border. My 2 cents.

Where such attack could take place?

[nam]

Where such attack could take place?

Chinis consider A&N as a threat. There could be ship based cruise attacks on A&N.

Pipe dream is to capture it. Recently one of the threat was "A&N could be a disputed territory".

[Karthik S]

Where such attack could take place?

Where such attack could take place?

Chinis consider A&N as a threat. There could be ship based cruise attacks on A&N.

Pipe dream is to capture it. Recently one of the threat was "A&N could be a disputed territory".

There was a fairly lengthy discussion on this, PLAN will have same problem as the PLA, A&N is too far from the main land. BrahMos near Indira Point can close the Malacca Straits for any invading navy. Place 1 2 MKI squadron there, it's highly unlikely any attack will be successful, OTOH their losses will be really high.

[nam]

Chinis consider A&N as a threat. There could be ship based cruise attacks on A&N.

Pipe dream is to capture it. Recently one of the threat was "A&N could be a disputed territory".

There was a fairly lengthy discussion on this, PLAN will have same problem as the PLA, A&N is too far from the main land. BrahMos near Indira Point can close the Malacca Straits for any invading navy. Place 1 2 MKI squadron there, it's highly unlikely any attack will be successful, OTOH their losses will be really high.

My answer was about where Chinis could attack. Not about the success of the attack. Just mentioned that PLA will not allow PLAN to take the glory of firing the first shot in the first war after 40 years...

[Singha]

i think opening of thai Kra canal the much delayed canal on BoB if it happens to ship oil from ULCC into china bound pipes or something similar at Sittwe in myanmar would be even more closer for us to wreak havoc on their POL supply chain than having to sort out between 100s of tankers headed to other nations in east asia. anyone heading in these ports can be struck down and hammered.

we can do a karachi 1971 on the fat oil tanks. I do not think the thais or burmese are dumb enough to let cheen open a naval base on their soil and face the wrath both of india and singapore but king khan as well.

china is at a disadvantage of geography on sea front, hemmed in by powerful rivals in the east and india sitting atop the bay of bengal.

it gained massive strategic advantage by taking over tibet and sinkiang and gaining a border with CAR states and TSP but fell short on the sea front. and sea remains the highway of world trade, far more efficient than road transport.

[ldev]

^^^
India definitely has an edge in a sea denial strategy vs China. But that strategy will take time to affect China e.g. an Indian blockade of oil shipments to China will take 30-60 days to affect the Chinese economy. I have no idea how large Chinese strategic oil reserves are. Chinese military action against India on the other hand especially say a 1000 missile attack on Indian cities and economic infrastructure will be felt and seen immediately. Hardened military targets such as air bases will be up and running within hours of such attacks but soft civilian economic targets will not.

As Doval says in that clip from many years ago, Pakistan does not have economic assets to destroy, India has and China has even more of them. So China will directly target Indian economic targets, India does not have the reach to directly cause equivalent direct economic damage via military strikes on China beyond say a handful of Agni 5s fitted with conventional warheads. And so it has to rely on a sea denial strategy and have the ba**s to grit your teeth, absorb the damage inflicted and wait those 30-60 days for the economic strangulation of China via that sea denial strategy. China is betting that India will not have the fortitude to go the distance.

[nam]

china is at a disadvantage of geography on sea front, hemmed in by powerful rivals in the east and india sitting atop the bay of bengal.

it gained massive strategic advantage by taking over tibet and sinkiang and gaining a border with CAR states and TSP but fell short on the sea front. and sea remains the highway of world trade, far more efficient than road transport.

It has always been my thought that China is actually a land locked country, with powerful navies blocking it's east and it does not have open access to big ocean like we, Unkil and Russians do. So CPEC is it's version of "Paki strategic depth", it's escape route, where it can get access to open sea and land routes in to Europe. Trying to replicate the "Look west" of the Russians, despite technically US being to the East.

I expect Gwadar to be a major PLA/PLAN base in the future. It also forces US naval forces to be distributed instead all of it being concentrated to the East.

We are the under belly of this escape route. And they would need someone to guard this underbelly. I wont be surprised if Paki mountain divisions are ferried through the CPEC routes in to Aksai Hind in a face with us.

[Iyersan]

Modi and XI will hold bilateral on 3 September. If it's a deadlock, we can expect military outcome. Else it will be as it is

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

what is all this complex social engineering and chankianess going to achieve. let the chinese society live as they wish and get the govt they want. sounds like a long set of excuses of why not use the size12 boot at the right place.

we should focus on taking away parts of tibet permanently from under their boots and making it impossible to sustain their policy of nibbling on the front.

^^^^Not for nothing, but I think it behooves Rakshaks to consider the lessons of history. Take for example the Viet Nam war (or rather, what the Vietnamese call 'The American War'). The much bigger and more powerful USA dropped more bombs on tiny Vietnam, than all sides did during the entirety of WWII. Yet, America lost that war and the Vietnamese resisted, persisted and won that war.

Singha, would you say the NVA was stupid to let Jane Fonda pose for pictures on AAA guarding their dikes? (Dikes, in a rice-eating country, are critical infrastructure for rice cultivation. Bombing dikes is akin to bombing food stores: Total war. With B52s and everything, including cluster bombs like nobody's business on top of napalm and agent orange -- a genocidal level of warfare -- and I truly shudder at the thought. While facing all this, the NVA found time to let Jane Fonda tour around the place with a coterie of camera-wielding journalists. What was the "effect on target" of that effort during the war? Ask yourself, how that war turned-out, and which country was more changed by it.

Understand my point here: Chinese society isn't living as they wish, because it's not like they vote for it. Until now, they've been largely complacent enough so long as economic growth continues on a certain upward pace. Of course, this is maintained by a brutal regime of state repression and secret prisons, sham courts, etc., but this can be totally upset by a shooting war with India especially if India and Rakshaks everywhere undertake a 'full spectrum approach' and simultaneously fight for hearts and minds, even while blasting their helmets either clear-off or through-and-through.

So therefore: When some talking head from China is remarking on China's GDP being X-times bigger than India's and so this represents un fait accompli, the immediate response should be that "Yes, China is a 'target-rich environment'. How many weeks of fighting will it take to send China back 20 years?"

Let them ponder that. Ask questions they don't have answers for.

As for size 12 boots: Remember that after the initial confrontation, the PLA showed-up with hundreds of men, only to find themselves outnumbered by thousands of Indians and Bhutanese. This has so far worked well, for India, given the situation, only because the PLA didn't hear Indian boots coming, and they certainly didn't read about them on BRF.

For best effect, a size 12 boot is better felt before it is seen or heard. Whether that's a stern kick in the behind, or a crushing force on the neck, depends entirely on how high up the escalation ladder the PLA wants to take things.

My point is, India should plan all the way to the end, given the wide array of options at any given juncture all to proceed towards a well-defined war aim (and I mean that in the full-spectrum, wide theater sense). TO WIT: Are there Indian journalists with satellite hookups "forward deployed" in anticipation of hostilities? If there isn't, there should be. It should be considered a strategic imperative to rush captured PLA soldiers onto TV screens around the world. For that matter, pictures and videos of PLA soldiers dead or alive, should be brought out of theater and onto global newspages and TV screens on a priority basis.

Is this "social engineering" or "chankiness" or whatever?

Call it what you will, but understand this is yet another step up the escalation ladder that China is not only loath to see taken, but cannot itself take against India. Were China to attempt the same sort of thing; they wouldn't get hardly the same PR value or international response as would India.

There should be news reports filed from inside Indian PoW camps filled with captured PLA soldiers. Of course, they should be well-treated, and organized Yoga and Tai Chi lessons going back and forth in equal measure. News like that would *CRUSH* the CCCPC's war narrative, and they would literally be forced to back down.

Sadly, if the IA can't capture them alive, they'll have to be killed -- that should go without saying. But it should also go without saying that India should actively seek to gain maximum advantage from any situation vis a vis China that presents itself, going forward (whether or not things escalate to a hot war).

[ArjunPandit]

To give hajjaar benefit of doubt to Chinese planners, the following could be their strategy too:

****Begin Theory****

Tie up a large Indian troops in a state of heightened arousal along multiple points in the LAC for years, without initiating any hostilities. This will serve the following objectives, all of which resemble the Paki strategy in LoC/Kashmir:

1) The necessity to commit such a large # of troops puts a burden on the Indian Economy
2) An increased level of stress among the Indian troops because we don't know where the next 500m incursion will happen. Nor will we know whether the "next incursion" will become the new war-flashpoint. A state of "impending war" will be maintained on & off.
3) Non-stop media barrage from Chinese mouthpieces, amplified by their fifth columnists in India. This will lead to Track-2 pressure, demands for concessions, stories of how jawans are needlessly dying defending a piece of land where no grass grows, how we share civilizational values with the Chinese & need to be more accommodative etc

In short, there is war coming: a 2.5-pronged attritional war, coordinated with Pakistan.

India can win 1 front attritional war.
We can hold our own against a 2.5 front hot-war.
But how about a 2.5 front attritional war?

**** End theory****

But, irrespective of whether this is the Chinese strategy, we need to account for this possibility. Playing pure-defense is a losing proposition (courtesy Prisoner's Dilemma). Unless incursion is matched by incursion & an element of irrationality/surprise is maintained by India, we will pay a very heavy economic price. On the LAC, "surgical strike" needs to be replaced by "targeted incursions"

1. While it is quite possible, if they dont follow it up with any action, they will make a fool of themselves. All said and done, Op Parakram, brought took out some anachronism from IA, & IAF. There have been some questions by one or two people that why we don't see large scale exercises on Eastern border. War no war, Doklam changes that.
2. India anyways has been underspending on its defense considering its challenging environment; that too should change as well (if we dont then we are the bunny on table)
3. 1962 has been a thorn in our national conscience, no PM would like to go down the drain as Nehru did and this govt (thanks to china) has set the ball rolling to stand ground and that too publicly
4. The 2.5 attritional war involves: offence and domination on one front (western) and holding on another (Eastern). If i am not mistaken 0.5 front is internal front handled by CRPF, state police etc. Do you think porki's will be able to engage IA/IAF in attrition war

[vasu raya]

Inspired by the above post by RK,

1) how many days of fighting will set the Chinese infrastructure in Tibet back by 10 years

2) how many weeks of fighting will set the Chinese economy back by say even 5 years - this one needs mil coverage on their eastern seaboard though Indo-China trade can be set back now

[Ravi Karumanchiri]

<snip> if a pathetic rag tag civil engg crew manned by scrawny border guards can get a entire corps to mobilize merely on basis of media threats isnt this a very cheap way ? no need to feed and fund terrorists either as the Pakis do . in economy of force it cannot be beat.

doing our own counter instrusions and squatting at 50 other places randomly is the only apt riposte.

Singha, IMO you're almost entrirely correct above here, except when you write that this "is the only apt riposte". In fact, India is a large country and collectively, India and Indians can do many different things at the same time. Please never convince yourself that there is only one option to undertake. There is always more than one option, and sometimes it makes the most sense to excercise multiple options at the same time.

Think 'full spectrum'. Think wholistically. Understand the 'Big Picture'.

It is our fault that we have a large force in our borders. Instead of creating trouble to Pakis and Chinis, we waste resources defending Paki & Chini trouble.

So it is not some wonderful Paki or Chini strategy, it is our stupidity, which has lead us in to a attrition war. On LOC men & resources attrition, on LAC resource attrition.

nam, You're really onto something here above, but let us for a time try to all focus on the same thing from the same angle, if we possibly can. Then let's all examine the same thing from different angles, and in this manner, devise a wholistic and full-spectrum policy-driven approach to 'Neutering and Defeating Chinese Threat'.

Need to use Operant Conditioning with the CxP.

It should be deeply ingrained into them that every time they try something funny, they will feel pain.

Careful calibration of that pain, and it's type, will ensure that the Rat will need to think ten times before pressing that lever.
<snip>

Once again, ryogi, a great idea, but let's all think it through a wee bit, rather than simply call for something but then not examine it with a view towards making it fly.



MY POINT in this post....

There is a 'pinch point' where India has refrained from causing the pain that anxiously and righteously wants to flow, from Balochistan and right through the hearts of seemingly everyone who wants to plot against India.

I say, the recent political revitalization of Haffiz Saeed and his Jud/Let is a thinly-veilled threat from China to 'take the chains off Pakistan'. It is another cowardly instance of China's leaders using a proxy against India. I say, if such a political entity can be allowed to operate in Pakistan, and can receive the political cover of the CCCPC in the UNSC; I say not only should they be forced to wear their shame (more on this next paragraph); but I see no reason why democratically-oriented political groups for 'Azad Balochistan' and Balochi people, should not receive sanctuary and succor from the GoI, as compatriots "fighting a common foe". Gwadar port should be in soveriegn Balochi hands, IMO, and thus India should dispense with the "One Pakistan" policy it first trampled in 1971, while at the same time adopting a "Free China" approach in every way possible.

We already know they have interests in the area, given the CPEC and all.

The GoI should issue postage stamps bearing the names and faces and laudatory messages for Chinese and Balochi dissidents who were killed by the CCCPC or the TSP, respectively.

Henceforth, let every mention of Haffiz Saeed be accompanied by the fact he is a terrorist who enjoys the sanctuary of the TSP and the political cover provided by the CCCPC in the USNC. Action on the ground should be matched by messaging in the halls of power and in the public consciousness of people around the world. (Recognize: This plan/approach is cohesive, attainable and it already has its own gravity. All India has to do is a little bit of pushing, and some supply of light arms.)

[DavidD]

Foreign affairs rarely have an impact on domestic politics. The U.S. sailed 2 carriers into the Taiwan Straits in '96 and then bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in' 99, Jiang Zemin did nothing and got to stay as the top military leader for 2 years longer than his political career.

You're just underlining why this situation WILL impact CPC politics . In 1996 China literally 'did nothing' - didn't go berserk issuing ultimatums to US and instead focused on the economy . The only time they went apeshit was during the Belgrade embassy oopsie. In other words the political firmament simply wasn't invested in fanning anger against US.

This time around, China isn't merely talking 'disputed territory', but every average Zhou at gobar times (it's how we see global times - gobar means cowdung) is hyperventilating about 'throwing Indians out of Chinese territory'. Well right now it's Indian territory anyway. And the decibel level of *official* Chinese anger is unprecedented .

Don't kid yourself that it won't hurt Xi in the coming plenary session . The rest of Asia already just saw PRC issue a 15-page fact sheet to India the other day only for us to pretty much respond 'go make love with yourself'

Ha that's pretty clever, I never knew that's what Gobar meant. I hope you guys realize though that Global Times is a tabloid, and what it says is as much "Gobar" to the Chinese as it is to you. In fact, even more so, as it seems like many foreigners actually take what they say seriously whereas nobody in China does. We get a good chuckle out of that on the Chinese boards.

As for what happened in '96 or '99, situation was pretty tense, but that's not really my point. As long as the CCP can control the narrative, and what happens in a desolate plateau long away from civilization is a narrative they can control, then they're not terribly concerned. This is why the Sino-Indian border is not a concern for the CCP. So what if China wins or loses a few square kms here and there, who in China will know?

Just my opinion, but it seems to me that the Chinese strategy along the LAC is mostly to keep India busy in the aforementioned desolate terrain, while China focuses on something/somewhere more productive. It's cheap to send a few patrols and build a few roads, but it's much more expensive to raise mountain corps' and purchase expensive foreign equipment for "imminent" wars while neglecting your own MIC.

[pankajs]

I feel obliged to point-out another couple of notable facts from history, because I think they pertain to the geopolitical situation evolving; but I think the best way to do that is slightly roundabout. Begging your forbearance.....

More than a few times, over the years, I've found the opportunity to ask Americans (fyi, I'm Canadian); often groups of Americans sitting around a breakfast table or lunch or dinner table -- I'll ask them "Who won world war two?". Always I get the same answer. Americans will always say "We did". Immediately I'll ask them in a surprised tone "Really? How much territory did the United States gain control over? How much treasure did the United States seize?" Invariably, the gathered Americans will look stunned for a moment, before I explain that this is how war is gauged, despite the fact that movies and television will reliably depict a narrative of victory, despite the fact that land was not won, or was even lost -- including in spite of the fact that American tax dollars funded the reconstruction of a destroyed Japan and Germany, rather than seeing their treasure shipped to the USA.

TO WIT: By any measure that counts, WWII was not won by the United States and the 'Western Alliance'. Rather, the second world war was "won" by the Soviets (while arguably and simultaneously, the Russian people lost that war, suffering more deaths than all other parties to WWII *combined*). Yet, of course, the USSR did expand over a large landmass, and resources from that landmass flowed "to the center" as it were..... By contrast the USA remained the same size, and spent money to rebuild defeated foes and stand them up against Russia during the duration of "The Cold War".

Lets start with "measure that counts" per you.

1. Landmass grab >>Where is USSR now compared to USA?
2. Resources grab question >> Which is the biggest debtor nation world in the world? The one who get to gobble products and resource from around the world by tossing out a bunch of paper in return.
3. Spent money to rebuild defeated foes >> Let us do a thought experiment. Lets say the US did not rebuild western Europe but turned its back on Europe. So who would be holding sway over Western Europe now? Marshall plan was not a charity. It made with hard-core American business and foreign policy goals in mind.

[nam]

Just my opinion, but it seems to me that the Chinese strategy along the LAC is mostly to keep India busy in the aforementioned desolate terrain, while China focuses on something/somewhere more productive. It's cheap to send a few patrols and build a few roads, but it's much more expensive to raise mountain corps' and purchase expensive foreign equipment for "imminent" wars while neglecting your own MIC.

If this is the Chinese strategy, it sounds very good .. on paper like the famous Paki tactical brilliance. Then it hits the wall of common sense.

What happens if mountain corps arrest these patrol for intruding Indian claimed area? Chinese media will go berserk, PLA will make declare war in press conference ..shake mountains etc..

Suddenly everyone realize there aren't enough PLA troops in Tibet to face off the expensive Indian Corps and "bring home the boys". 15th Airborne will hurriedly fly in, have breathing problems and reach LAC, where India will hand over the patrol with some packets of Indian sweets.

PLA goes home with half of them down with breathing problems, claim victory.

In a week time the Indian corps kidnaps few more patrol. The poor lot in 15th are back in the plane. .. And the cycle repeats, with more packets of Indian sweets! This time with paratroopers complain of tummy ache..due to the sweets.

And regarding the cost to India, we maintain these divisions at 1.7% of GDP.. with MOD actually given back money every year because they could not spend it.

We can keep the packet of sweets going for a very long time..

[williams]

Since India is very serious about two and half front war under a nuclear cloud, we need the mountain corps. Unless we bury our heads in the sand, this is the reality of India's crazy neighbourhood.

[sanjaykumar]

I think Pakistan will sit this one out. They can not be positive the Indians won't launch a decapitating, first strike. Without the two cities (perhaps only Lahore), there is no meaning to Pakistan.

[Gagan]

[UlanBatori]

Best way to end the border nibbling is to connect Uttar Arunachal to Mongolia. How to do that in the short term is a tough question. It would require some events that end the PeeAllSee as it is known today, leaving a Hannistan east of 100 deg. Longitude.

[Gagan]

I think Pakistan will sit this one out. They can not be positive the Indians won't launch a decapitating, first strike. Without the two cities (perhaps only Lahore), there is no meaning to Pakistan.

That is a very insulting comment on Youm-e-azadi for the land of the pure.
All BENIS maulanas protest!

[Suraj]

Ha that's pretty clever, I never knew that's what Gobar meant. I hope you guys realize though that Global Times is a tabloid, and what it says is as much "Gobar" to the Chinese as it is to you. In fact, even more so, as it seems like many foreigners actually take what they say seriously whereas nobody in China does. We get a good chuckle out of that on the Chinese boards.

That's not quite accurate. Gobar Times / Huanqiu is not just a tabloid. It's an internationally focused arm of the People's Daily / Renmin Ribao, with a tabloid bent to make it less high brow and more vernacular . What's more, the English version of Global Times is much more staid than the Chinese version at huanqiu.cn, which has a far more angry teenager tone about it .

I recommend that Indian watchers run huanqiu.com through translator sites, rather than read the more toned down English version at globaltimes.cn .

As for what happened in '96 or '99, situation was pretty tense, but that's not really my point. As long as the CCP can control the narrative, and what happens in a desolate plateau long away from civilization is a narrative they can control, then they're not terribly concerned. This is why the Sino-Indian border is not a concern for the CCP. So what if China wins or loses a few square kms here and there, who in China will know?

The difference here is that in this situation China painted itself into a position where the lack of free press at home and access to free press outside hurts you. 95% of the noise of this matter is coming from PRC. India is doing and saying very little, quite literally responding to a dozen+ page demand with a one line reply. It works in China's favor when the other side's shouting loudly and China is being the wise sagely one using one official channel to point at the other side and remind the public of China's role. It doesn't work in your favor when it's China that's yelling loudly and going way over the top, while the other side's mostly saying 'get a load of these Beijing nutcases ? they've lost their marbles'.

[samirdiw]

HOW MAO AND KHRUSHCHEV FOUGHT OVER CHINA-INDIA BORDER DISPUTE



Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev visited China at the end of September 1959 to hold a summit with the Chinese leadership. A little over a month
earlier, several Indian guards had been killed by the Chinese military along their disputed border. Khrushchev, who was about to visit the United States on a peace mission when the killings happened, released an announcement through the Russian news agency, TASS, calling on both sides to reach a negotiated settlement. The Chinese were greatly offended, seeing it as more evidence of the Soviets breaking ranks with their communist partners.


Khrushchev’s visit to China also came just months after the Dalai Lama had fled to India.
Following is a transcript of a meeting attended by Khrushchev, Mao Zedong (毛澤東), M.A. Suslov, A.A. Gromyko, Liu Shaoqi (劉少奇), Zhou Enlai
(周恩來), Lin Biao (林彪), Peng Zhen (彭真), Chen Yi and Wan Xia Sang.
The testy exchanges, much of which centred on differences over India, foretold the Sino-Soviet rift that would ensue. They offer a rare glimpse of
how the events leading up to the 1962 China-India war, usually seen as a localised border clash, had far wider implications than generally
understood.

Mao Zedong meets Nikita Khrushchev in 1955.
Nikita Khrushchev: You have had good relations with India for many years. Suddenly, here is a bloody incident, as a result of which [Indian
Prime Minister Jawaharlal] Nehru found himself in a very difficult position…If you let me, I will tell you what a guest should not say: the events in
Tibet are your fault. You ruled in Tibet (西藏), you should have had your intelligence [agencies] there and should have known about the plans
and intentions of the Dalai Lama.

Mao Zedong: Nehru also says that the events in Tibet [were] our fault. Besides, in the Soviet Union they published a TASS declaration on the
issue of conflict with India [supporting India].

Khrushchev: Do you really want us to approve of your conflict with India? It would be stupid on our part. The TASS declaration was necessary…
More on the China-India border dispute

Mao Zedong: Our mistake was that we did not disarm the Dalai Lama right away. But at that time we had no contact with the popular masses of
Tibet.

Khrushchev: You have no contact even now with the population of Tibet.

Mao: We have a different understanding of this issue.
….
Khrushchev: You were wrong to let the Dalai Lama go. If you allow him an opportunity to flee to India, then what has Nehru to do with it? We
believe that the events in Tibet are the fault of the Communist Party of China, not Nehru’s.

Mao: No, this is Nehru’s fault.
….

Mao: We also support Nehru, but in the question of Tibet we should crush him.

Khrushchev: Why did you have to kill people on the border with India?

Mao: They attacked us first, crossed the border and continued firing for 12 hours.

Zhou: What information do you trust more – India’s or ours?

Khrushchev: Although the Indians attacked first, nobody was killed among the Chinese, and only among the Indians.

Zhou: But what we are supposed to do if they attack us first? We cannot fire in the air. The Indians even crossed the McMahon line.
....
Chen Yi: I am outraged by your declaration that the aggravation of relationship with India was our fault.

Khrushchev: I am also outraged by your declaration that we are time-servers. We should support [Jawaharlal] Nehru, to help him stay in power.
Mao: The events in Tibet and the border conflict – these are temporary developments…
....
Khrushchev: Take back your accusations; otherwise we spoil relations between our parties. We are your friends and speak the truth. We never
acted as time-servers with regard to anybody.

Chen: But you also lay two political accusations at our door, by saying that both the aggravations of relations with India and the escape of the
Dalai Lama were our fault. I believe that you are still acting as time-servers.

Khrushchev: If you consider us time-servers, comrade Chen Yi, then do not offer me your hand. I will not accept it.

Chen: Neither will I. I must tell you I am not afraid of your fury.

Khrushchev: You should not spit from the height of your Marshal title. You do not have enough spit. We cannot be intimidated…

http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopoliti ... er-dispute

[DavidD]

Eh, we can debate the semantics on how to describe GT, or we can just agree that it's not a publication people take seriously. And while you're checking out the Chinese version of GT, you should also check out the Chinese version of say People's Daily or Xinhua and see if you can still find any news on Doklam or India for that matter. While 95% of the noise may come from China, my point is that 100% of that noise doesn't matter to China.

[Suraj]

There's no metric to quantify what 'people take seriously' . Really what is it that people do take seriously anyway ? 'China's Got Talent' ? We are talking about people's opinion in a country where people's opinion means squat . The Global Times is an arm of People's Daily, the official mouthpiece of the CPC. What the Chinese people think has never been relevant .

What does matter is that the mouthpiece of the government is going verbally nuts in a way even TSP doesn't . From an Indian perspective we're surprised and amused - 'these guys are the so called P2 ? Why are they indulging in dramabazi like a 5 year old separated from his candy ? Even Trump doesn't come up with this kind of drivel at 3am' .

That's the biggest takeaway from this for India . It strips away China's veneer of supposed omnipotence and reduces you to a common bully against whom standard tactics against bullying work - if we respond to a situation by covering the bases and just maintaining a stone faced silence , then China basically loses it - your Plan B is, to paraphrase John Cleese - to yell loudly while gesticulating frantically .