China-India Geopolitics: News & Discussions

[AUSTERLITZ]

You guys have no vision, just a bunch of street rogues feel complacent for some small gain. You will lose 10 times than what you have gained by phucking with China. If you want to run a arm race with China, suit yourself. I don't know whether your pocket is deep enough to handle it.

No NSG memberships or Permanent membership of UNSC for you, unless you can defeat China.

Let us see how long will Modi government insist. He won't be long.

India will have to live China's shadow, only we can contain from doing bad.

In other words,now you have admitted china can't do anything militarily.Now looking at china's diplomatic leverage and financial strength.All military bravado evaporated,now talking about arms race rather than chinese attack on delhi, lol.Here are the facts -the chinese already obstruct us in regards to UNSC and NSG,so nothing new there at all.China has been shown its proper place in this standoff,completely humiliated.whining like a child with daily dozen threats while the world laughs at their impotence.

As for arms race -
1.We don't need to match china weapon for weapon.We have the himalayas and andaman.Ad our troops are battle hardened,yours are green.Our land capabilities will only grow,chinese military has already reached its peak on land it can only improve in navy and air.In navy and air you have to engage in arms race with huge economies such as USA and Japan.You improve those areas,and you have to downsize army,making you weaker vs India.It is China that will be caught in an arms race with 3 huge economies - USA,japan and India if it tries so.'Phuck' with India if you want encirclement,otherwise buzz off and mind your own business,we won't be enemies either.

The final fact is this - India will rise as a power in the coming 2-3 decades.It will not be a 'superpower',but a major power and the 3rd largest economy in the world.How much poverty there is doesn't change anything because with GDP growth,automatically our military budget will increase.

There is nothing china or anybody can do stop the rise of india.India and China are the 2 great civilizations of the East and always have been major concentrations of world economic power.A few hundred years of european imperialism and colonialism disrupted the pattern,that is now returning to its normal position.China rose first and faster,and now we are coming up.Even if we grow at a modest 5%(forget 7% - 10%) we will be a very powerful economy in 2 decades.China is living in a delusion if it thinks it can treat India like it treats vietnam or Philipines.We have the population and the market,we have the territory,we have the natural resources,we have the strategic location.We are inevitable.It is the logic of history.Deal with it.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

yayaya the more u emphasis what u you are, the more you are exactly the opposite of what u claim to be in reality. Bharatiya lying culture at work again.

How much poverty there is doesn't change anything because with GDP growth,automatically our military budget will increase.

You are just like a planner is the Soviet Union. Perceving that military strength is the apex of everything at the cost of national and economical development. How are you gonna support your Defense industry with no solid ecnonomcial foundation to support them? That's the reason why the Soviet Union fell.

All Alpha nations in the world always take the long and tedious route for building that foundation first. The US and China are prime examples.

Havent even learn how to crawl, wanna keep talking about flying

''We will'
'We can'
'We shall'

The difference between India and the Soviet Union is while the latter indeed have advanced military industry, the former has virtually none. So India is worse than the Soviet Union- the former being the ultimate Omega of nations.

Plenty of talk, but no action. Dream of glory, but take no steps towards achieving that glory. No wonder no one looks up to Indians, cos Indians never have substance underneath to back up their statements.

Hence the saying that India is an open society with a closed mind.

 

[navtrek]

A huge portion of the North Eastern states of Hindustan are also disputed by the same parties. Why is India constructing projects over there?

I am sure China or even Pakistan would do the same if a third country would have done it in an area of their strategic interest.

e.g. SCS

 

[DarX]

I am sure China or even Pakistan would do the same if a third country would have done it in an area of their strategic interest.

e.g. SCS

Pathankot is of strategic interest to Pakistan. Should we occupy it and demand India to withdraw?

 

[NALANDA]

Pathankot is of strategic interest to Pakistan. Should we occupy it and demand India to withdraw?

Dude, try understand issue before assuming anything. That place is a disputed place between China and Bhutan ( it is not China's land). There is an agreement between China and Bhutan that no changes will be done in that area till its is duly settled and WITH the concurrence of INDIA. It is not a hidden fact that India is responsible for security of Bhutan and also manages foreign affairs of Bhutan vis a vis China. Bhutan does not have any diplomatic relation with China. Bhutan deals through India. Post China annexing Tibet, Bhutan and Sikkim would not deal with Communist Aggressor China. They are Buddhist people adn do not want any curbs in their practice the way China does in Tibet and Xinxiang.

Now think and analyze . Put your common sense. Its not difficult.

 

[DarX]

Dude, try understand issue before assuming anything. That place is a disputed place between China and Bhutan ( it is not China's land). There is an agreement between China and Bhutan that no changes will be done in that area till its is duly settled and WITH the concurrence of INDIA. It is not a hidden fact that India is responsible for security of Bhutan and also manages foreign affairs of Bhutan vis a vis China. Bhutan does not have any diplomatic relation with China. Bhutan deals through India. Post China annexing Tibet, Bhutan and Sikkim would not deal with Communist Aggressor China. They are Buddhist people adn do not want any curbs in their practice the way China does in Tibet and Xinxiang.

Now think and analyze . Put your common sense. Its not difficult.

Dude why are you acting so naive? Kashmir is a disputed land. Why is India actively suppressing the Kashmiri people and carrying on activities in spite of Pakistan's objections? By your logic, we can request China to occupy Kashmir. Considering the extremely poor voters turnout of Kashmir elections, the Hurriat can sign a deal with China and invite them to occupy Srinagar?

It is amazing how Indians try to justify their comically inept actions with weak arguments. The fact of the matter is that India has transgressed. Now it is finding it difficult to climb down. And we are enjoying the show.

 

[帅的一匹]

Dude, try understand issue before assuming anything. That place is a disputed place between China and Bhutan ( it is not China's land). There is an agreement between China and Bhutan that no changes will be done in that area till its is duly settled and WITH the concurrence of INDIA. It is not a hidden fact that India is responsible for security of Bhutan and also manages foreign affairs of Bhutan vis a vis China. Bhutan does not have any diplomatic relation with China. Bhutan deals through India. Post China annexing Tibet, Bhutan and Sikkim would not deal with Communist Aggressor China. They are Buddhist people adn do not want any curbs in their practice the way China does in Tibet and Xinxiang.

Now think and analyze . Put your common sense. Its not difficult.

Most of Chinese is Buddhists, and you are Hindu. They are better with China.

 

[nature is]

I am sure China or even Pakistan would do the same if a third country would have done it in an area of their strategic interest.

e.g. SCS

No one country fully control SCS, it's a chain of uninhabited islands claimed many countries. Dolkam is different, it's under the jurisdiction of China, though Bhutan claims it. The situation is akin to India building road in Arunachal Pradesh (claimed by China) And China send troops to cause disruption. Or Chinese troops entered into India controlled Kashmir citing security concern.

You can't infringe into another country's jurisdiction simply due to your security concern, international laws would go hay wire if countries act this way. You can raise the issue diplomatically.

According to various analysts, Dolkam area has indeed been demarcated.
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopo...elf-fine-mess-doklam-its-time-get-out-and-let

 

[Han Patriot]

The Indians initiated something. Of course there going to play ball if they joined in on it. But that doesn't say anything about winnie the poo. What ever happens Xi may could afford to loose face but not the CCP in view of Chinese attention if there is on this situation. Modi can not afford to loose. Otherwise, he'll loose his job. Xi doesn't have replacement lined up nore does the CCP to another party.

Huh? the one begging is India, the winnie here is Modi wishing Xi Hepi Birdday. LOL. Damn such a cute Hindu. Cannot afford to lose does not mean he will win OK, India had been losing since the 80s, the gap now is so huge, it's not funny anymore.

 

[帅的一匹]

Huh? the one begging is India, the winnie here is Modi wishing Xi Hepi Birdday. LOL. Damn such a cute Hindu. Cannot afford to lose does not mean he will win OK, India had been losing since the 80s, the gap now is so huge, it's not funny anymore.

The most possible Scenario is confrontation going on, and bilateral relationship get worse.

China will also play its card.

 

[LeGenD]

Any progress?

 

[Nan Yang]

AFTER ALL THAT EMBRACING, HAS US LEFT INDIA OUT IN THE COLD OVER STANDOFF WITH CHINA?
India’s ‘natural ally’ has maintained a baffling silence on the Doklam dispute

BY SUMIT GANGULY

31 JUL 2017

For nearly two months, troops from the Indian Army and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have been deployed at close quarters on the Doklam plateau near the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction. Amid much feverish commentary on the risks of a wider conflict, there has been a deafening silence on one critical issue – the role of the United States. Apart from one very anodyne – not to mention obvious – response from the US Department of State that India and China should seek ways to resolve the conflict peacefully, India’s supposed “natural ally” has said precious little.

For well over a decade, both Indian and American commentators and analysts have argued about the growing strategic convergence between India and the US. Though neither side has explicitly stated as much, it is tacitly understood that they share a common set of concerns about the rapid rise of China in Asia and its possible adverse consequences for regional order. This was first reflected in the US decision to consummate the US-India nuclear agreement during the second George W. Bush administration. Once in place, it led to the lifting of a raft of sanctions that the US and its allies had imposed on India.

A Chinese soldier, left, and Indian soldier repair a barbed wire fence at the Nathu La border crossing between India and China in India's northeastern Sikkim state. Photo: AFP

Subsequently, after an initial fitful outreach towards India on the part of the Obama administration, the US came to see India as a critical player in the US pivot or rebalancing strategy towards Asia. Obama’s secretary of defence Leon Panetta, while on a visit to India in 2012, even referred to the country as the linchpin of the strategy. Not a single Cabinet member of the last Indian government, several of whom harboured misgivings about too close a relationship the US, publicly took issue with this characterisation.

From 2014 until the end of the Obama administration in 2016, Indo-US relations continued its upward trajectory. Indeed the new government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi seemed to have even fewer inhibitions about pursuing strategic partnership with the US. Among other matters, it signed a version of an important logistics agreement that had been in abeyance for several years. At a more symbolic level, Modi broke with tradition and invited President Barack Obama as the chief guest to the Republic Day parade in New Delhi in January 2016.

Leon Panetta, US defence secretary under the Obama administration, said India was a linchpin to the nation’s Asia policy in 2012. Photo: AP

Given the evident bonhomie as well as the strategic convergence between the two countries, the apparent abnegation of involvement in the current border impasse on the part of the Trump administration at this pivotal moment in Sino-Indian relations appears downright baffling, even more so given that the administration has not relented on other issues involving China’s role in Asia. It has not, for example, eased off on the maritime discord with China in the South China Sea. On the contrary, its posture appears to have a distinct similarity to that the Obama administration had adopted. It has, despite otherwise cordial discussions with Xi Jinping , also continued to lean on Beijing to rein in North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

India’s China policy off target, says Modi’s Mandarin-speaking ‘guided missile’
What then explains the seeming unwillingness of the administration to adopt a more clear-cut stance on an issue that seriously concerns the national security interests of a country with which it has had a growing strategic relationship? Given the paucity of public statements from the higher levels of the Trump administration, an answer needs to be constructed mostly on the basis of inference and attribution.

 

[StraightShooter]

AFTER ALL THAT EMBRACING, HAS US LEFT INDIA OUT IN THE COLD OVER STANDOFF WITH CHINA?
India’s ‘natural ally’ has maintained a baffling silence on the Doklam dispute

BY SUMIT GANGULY

31 JUL 2017

For nearly two months, troops from the Indian Army and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have been deployed at close quarters on the Doklam plateau near the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction. Amid much feverish commentary on the risks of a wider conflict, there has been a deafening silence on one critical issue – the role of the United States. Apart from one very anodyne – not to mention obvious – response from the US Department of State that India and China should seek ways to resolve the conflict peacefully, India’s supposed “natural ally” has said precious little.

For well over a decade, both Indian and American commentators and analysts have argued about the growing strategic convergence between India and the US. Though neither side has explicitly stated as much, it is tacitly understood that they share a common set of concerns about the rapid rise of China in Asia and its possible adverse consequences for regional order. This was first reflected in the US decision to consummate the US-India nuclear agreement during the second George W. Bush administration. Once in place, it led to the lifting of a raft of sanctions that the US and its allies had imposed on India.

A Chinese soldier, left, and Indian soldier repair a barbed wire fence at the Nathu La border crossing between India and China in India's northeastern Sikkim state. Photo: AFP

Subsequently, after an initial fitful outreach towards India on the part of the Obama administration, the US came to see India as a critical player in the US pivot or rebalancing strategy towards Asia. Obama’s secretary of defence Leon Panetta, while on a visit to India in 2012, even referred to the country as the linchpin of the strategy. Not a single Cabinet member of the last Indian government, several of whom harboured misgivings about too close a relationship the US, publicly took issue with this characterisation.

From 2014 until the end of the Obama administration in 2016, Indo-US relations continued its upward trajectory. Indeed the new government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi seemed to have even fewer inhibitions about pursuing strategic partnership with the US. Among other matters, it signed a version of an important logistics agreement that had been in abeyance for several years. At a more symbolic level, Modi broke with tradition and invited President Barack Obama as the chief guest to the Republic Day parade in New Delhi in January 2016.

Leon Panetta, US defence secretary under the Obama administration, said India was a linchpin to the nation’s Asia policy in 2012. Photo: AP

Given the evident bonhomie as well as the strategic convergence between the two countries, the apparent abnegation of involvement in the current border impasse on the part of the Trump administration at this pivotal moment in Sino-Indian relations appears downright baffling, even more so given that the administration has not relented on other issues involving China’s role in Asia. It has not, for example, eased off on the maritime discord with China in the South China Sea. On the contrary, its posture appears to have a distinct similarity to that the Obama administration had adopted. It has, despite otherwise cordial discussions with Xi Jinping , also continued to lean on Beijing to rein in North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

India’s China policy off target, says Modi’s Mandarin-speaking ‘guided missile’
What then explains the seeming unwillingness of the administration to adopt a more clear-cut stance on an issue that seriously concerns the national security interests of a country with which it has had a growing strategic relationship? Given the paucity of public statements from the higher levels of the Trump administration, an answer needs to be constructed mostly on the basis of inference and attribution.

US & China are part of G2.

US needs China to counter Russia.

US needs Pakistan to counter India.

Why would US abandon either China or Pakistan?

Finally, it would be a gross miscalculation/misinterpretation by China if it thinks that India is countering China at doklam either to appease US or with the support of US.

India is doing what it is doing on its own strength and for its own interests.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Now that India has accepted a position of subordination to America, it needs to understand that it doesn't get to question the boss. Know your place.

 

[ito]

India wanted no third party mediation on any stand off between India and China. China was the one which went to other countries to complain about India's intruding into Chinese 'territory'.