Yes but these things aren't completely anti India either. It's not like India is known for exporting submarines...they r just starting out for their own defense needs. China is further ahead...and so that's expected for BD to select Chinese submarines...same goes for building a submarine base. At most it could be viewed as lost sales for India(and even that's pushing it). I think the real test would be when the time comes where BD finds itself at crossroads...where if it was to make a decision that was good for BD and anti India(detrimental to Indian interests)...in that decision we will be able to truly guage Hasina's motives.
Agreed. This is why I think BD should make itself stronger and have strategic ties with China/Pak so that BD won't be bossed around. Of course no one wants war...and that's the very purpose of having a strong military and alliance with the other two foes of India on other fronts...it's to avoid war(aka deterrence).
While it is good to diversify instead of being reliant on one source...it also comes with its own set of drawbacks.
An example can be seen of both approaches and their pros and cons with PAF.
1) Relying on US(especially during the cold war USSR/Afghanistan saga)...US gave Pak F16s...and then there were sanctions. For a while US was the sole supplier(or at least the only one that mattered at that time) for PAF's most lethal fighter jet(F16). Yes there were F7s from China and Mirages from France but nothing compared to F16s which were a major counter for IAF. Due to this reliance on US...PAF was severely disadvantaged bcuz of US shutting out Pak(for military equipment). IAF was the first to get BVRs and enjoyed that edge on PAF(during the 90s I think).
--> The disadvantage being that one country(supplier) having major influence and leverage over the other(customer)
2) Learning from that PAF diversified more and went for an eastern and western mix. As seen by F16/JF17...and corresponding western and eastern AWACS. This makes PAF less susceptible to being sanctioned but it creates the headache of having two distinct platforms with no commonality whatsoever. All the avionics are different, engines are different...hence u gotta setup different supply lines and logistics. Different training and worst of all bcuz Chinese and Americans aren't willing to let the other in on things like datalinks...this means that Pak had to invest extra money in finding a workaround. It's called Link 17(there maybe other similar datalinks in use by Pak) but I assume the way it works is that whatever JF17 and ZDK AWACS see is shared with command centers on the ground...and whatever F16s and Erieye AWACS see is shared with the command center. The command center gets bits and pieces of info from both Link 16 and Link 17...and then this bigger picture is sent out to all the different assets in the air(whether Chinese or American or Swedish).
--> the disadvantage being that the customer(Pak in this case) would probably have to dish out some extra money and work on solutions to make all the different systems(from different sources) work well together.
Of course the best approach would be to have a robust domestic defense industry to meet all ur needs but only very few countries are capable of that. For countries like BD and Pak...it would take much much longer if that is to ever happen...and that is a discussion(more like wishful thinking) for some other day.
I agree with almost everything...except the part that BD is geographically challenged. I think BD is perfectly placed to be able to sort of intimidate India. If BD makes its military stronger and builds closer military ties with China, India would try everything not to piss off BD too much. Bangladesh's close proximity along with China near the chicken's neck...that's a nightmare scenario for India. Both China and Bangladesh working together can quickly cut India off in a war...from that area...that's the last thing India would want. It would mean smooth sailing for China to seize and occupy the areas it claims in East India(near Bhutan)...additionally there are separatist movements in Nagaland and other surrounding states...those can be "liberated". Bangladesh should recognize its strengths and use it to its advantage.
Man its depressing.
This discussion is pointless.
This type of news.....
BAF still has no new fighters.....
BD government position on 370........
Hindu public holidays.......
And then the sh$t happening stateside with Trump and Xi and the general chaos worldwide.......
Israeli raid on Iraq.......
General dysfunction in the middle east.......
Muslims going at each other both on PDF and of course in the real world......
Nothing good is happening it seems.......
http://www.newagebd.net/article/82258/fms-stance-likely-to-hamper-bangladesh-interests
FM’s stance likely to hamper Bangladesh interests
Shahidul Islam Chowdhury | Published: 01:18, Aug 23,2019 | Updated: 12:25, Aug 23,2019
AK Abdul Momen
Foreign minister AK Abdul Momen’s position for withdrawing objections lodged with the United Nations on the disputes with India and Myanmar involving Bangladesh’s claim in deep sea is likely to compromise the country’s interests, according to diplomats in New York.
After his meeting with Indian external affairs minister S Jaishankar on August 20, Momen told journalists at his office that they had discussed how to resolve disputes related to the claims on the continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal and both the countries would ‘mutually withdraw their objections lodged with the United Nations.’
A diplomat at the Bangladesh Permanent Mission in New York said that they were surprised when they came to know about the statement made by foreign minister Momen involving the disputes with India [and Myanmar].
‘It would be a disastrous decision if Bangladesh withdraws the objections without specific solutions to the claims we as a country have made on the deep sea,’ a senior diplomat in New York said.
‘Bangladesh may put its claims on about 10,000 square kilometres of areas in deep sea at risk and another dispute over a coordinate set by India along the Bangladesh border may remain unresolved.’
The disputes popped up as India, in 2009, submitted its claim on the continental shelf of the Bay of the Bengal cutting off Bangladesh’s access to the deep sea and creating a dispute over 9,000 square kilometres of areas claimed by Bangladesh.
India, in 2009, created another dispute by setting a coordinate 2.3 miles inside the Bangladesh territory on the official maps.
Bangladesh immediately lodged separate objections with the UN on the matters as the maritime boundary delimitation between the two countries was unresolved back in 2009.
Bangladesh submitted, on 25 February 2011, to the Commission on the Limits on the Continental Shelf information on the limits of the continental shelf within 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
India put an objection on record against Bangladesh’s claims, according to documents available at the UN website.
An arbitration proceeding with India came to an end in 2014 with a verdict fixing Bangladesh’s maritime border with the country.
Bangladesh, in accordance with the verdict, published a gazette in 2015 declaring its baseline, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone.
It said that the limits of the territorial sea of Bangladesh would be 12 nautical miles measured seaward from the baselines.
The outer limit of the exclusive economic zone of Bangladesh is traced in such a manner that every point of the outer limit mentioned is at a distance of two hundred nautical miles from the nearest baseline point.
Bangladesh, on 30 March 2016, submitted a list of geographical coordinates of points concerning the straight baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea.
The coordinates of points are Land Boundary Terminus (with India), Putney Island, Dakhin Bhasan Char, Cox’s Bazar and Southern end of St. Martin’s Island.
After two years of publishing the Bangladesh government document, India in 2017 raised its objections to the UN claiming that the base points used by Bangladesh for drawing the straight baselines ‘are at variance’ with the base points used in the award dated 7 July 2014 by the arbitral tribunal in the matter of Bay of Bengal maritime boundary arbitration between Bangladesh and India.
India also claimed that the exclusive economic zone of Bangladesh measured from the baselines using base points Putney Island Southern end of St. Martin’s Island ‘results in seaward shift of Bangladesh’s exclusive economic zone and consequently encroaches into the Indian exclusive economic zone in the grey area recognised by the tribunal’.
Myanmar also lodged a submission to the UN, in December 2008, to establish its claim in deep sea from the west coast abutting the Bay of Bengal, including around the Preparis and Co Co Islands, which Bangladesh disputes.
Bangladesh objected to the Myanmar submission claiming that the areas Myanmar was seeking in the outer continental shelf form part of the natural prolongation of Bangladesh.
The cases on objections recorded by Bangladesh, India and Myanmar are still pending with the UN.
. Married a Muslim and converted. She liked the beef eating Muslim d**k compared to vegan 2 inch hindu d**k.
