China-India Geopolitics: News & Discussions

[Super Falcon]

Given a history of Indian mentality poking nose on other problems issues if u look a list of South East Asia problem u get one common countries hand in all issues of South East Asia it's India

Kashmir
West pakistan
Sikim
Afghanistan
Tibet
It means issue is with India China and Pak should settle this matter once it for all

 

[Arsalan 345]

grave situation on the border.china preparing for a war.india must prepare itself.chinese live drills were impressive.i think there is no solution for this standoff.all diplomatic channels are failed.

 

[dray]

The Indians are already showing signs of caving in...let's see how it goes. They know they can't win in a conventional war.

If China really wants to threaten India Chicken neck, Doklam plateau is not even the best strategic place. It shall be the very tip of of the chicken neck.

Indian this time over react and give themselves trouble. CPC are thinking whether this war shall be limited border skirmish or complete solved border issue by cutting off Indian chicken neck and force India into armistice. They even contemplate asking Pakistan side to solved their kashmir issue once and for all with two way attack.

China never lost a war since 1949

 

[ashok321]

India is in jitters, Ajit Doval would put forward New Delhi's position before his Chinese counterparts later this month.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

China never lost a war since 1949

How come South Korea exists then?
Or RoC?
Or Vietnam?

Currently there is only one front. The others has no worry. You see Japan as a bitter rival but still join China OBOR. The japanese are smart. They advise India not to join but they themselves join OBOR. Then they join India war exercise on pretext of supporting India in events of war but actuallly will do nothing to help besides being a big cheerleader to encourage India.

I pity India being taken a ride by Japanese.

India has no choice. Japan has a sea to save them. They can take some risks.
Himalayas are not that good an obstacle today.

So, I assume, PR China is going to thin the other fronts to reinforce the one with India.

1. Don't you think other nations will get emboldened by it?
2. When India is attacked (I know PR China eventually will), don't you think the other nations will be more interested to get together and drag the US into the conflict?
3. Do you genuinely think that the PR Chinese forces can conquer all of India and/or force a regime change here? When it comes to culture, self esteem and honor, we are as emotional as a Pakistani is to his watan/faith.
If your answer is no, what is the objective that the PLA will likely pursue?
4. Since nukes are likely to be used, do you still think PLA will engage IA militarily?

 

[terranMarine]

How come South Korea exists then?
Or RoC?
Or Vietnam?

How come South Korea exists? What does it have to do with China? Do you even know the history?
A division of North & South was created because USA and USSR influence right after the end of WW2 all due to the Cold War mentality. It has nothing to do with China, i guess in India they teach you sh!t thus the world sees Hindus as less intelligent. If you meant the Korean War well China certainly didn't lose. DPRK initiated the war for unification, had trouble fighting 17 countries so China entered the war. The war never ended and both sides are basically still in a state of war as of today. So how can China have lost the damn war? There was no victor BUT we achieved a strategic win from China's point of view. We made sure DPRK is still here today.

To make the silly claim China lost The Korean War is like saying USA lost The Vietnam War when everybody knows the Yankees simply abandoned the war after fighting 20 years and no sight of winning. Without China's assistance the Yankees wouldn't have stumbled upon such fierce resistance.

Next The China - Vietnam War was not an act of hostile takeover. China never wanted to attack VN, but since VN and Cambodia were at war and VN was invading Cambodia, we entered the war with less troops. Again China achieved strategic victory against VN because a lot of damage was done to them , the objective wasn't even conquering VN but to make them stop the war against Cambodia. Yes we didn't succeed but certainly not lost the war. Eventually VN illegally occupied Cambodia, USA punished VN severely with International Sanctions crippling VN's economy for a long time. So who is the loser?

I wasn't aware PRC lost to ROC or did you mean ROC still exists today so PRC lost? What kind of a dumb logic is that? It is the PRC who is in control of the HUGE landmass while ROC is only controlling an island.
I know logic and math can be very difficult for Hindus. It's like saying Donald Trump who owns the Trump Tower, many luxurious Trump hotels but not owning a small B&B hotel. Almost every country on this planet points PRC = China only a couple of countries view ROC as China. Yes the war between PRC and ROC also never ended but comparing between these two it's obvious PRC has the biggest assets, biggest landmass, more populous and the funny thing is ROC is helping PRC to become even greater as they make lots of contributions to Mainland.

 

[T-Rex]

If China really wants to threaten India Chicken neck, Doklam plateau is not even the best strategic place. It shall be the very tip of of the chicken neck.

Indian this time over react and give themselves trouble. CPC are thinking whether this war shall be limited border skirmish or complete solved border issue by cutting off Indian chicken neck and force India into armistice. They even contemplate asking Pakistan side to solved their kashmir issue once and for all with two way attack.

China should establish border with BD. This will permanently dampen india's war mongering against China and her other neighbours. As for Pakistan they don't have the record of standing up to the occasion. Most probably they will act like Field Marshal Ayub did in 1962.

 

[neem456]

War is coming soon. Its all depend on India response.

We already gave our response and we are not retreating.
We are waiting for war from more than a month. Chinese were giving the excuse of malabar exercise, even that is over now.
What more excuses you want, grow some balls this time ?

 

[T-Rex]

How many fronts will PR China open?

One against India, one against Vietnam, one against Japan, one against the Korean peninsula!

Are they not stretching their forces too much?

China stretching herself too much, India should be happy, don't you think so? Why is it that I get the feeling that instead of being happy india is showing signs of doing it in her pants?

 

[Skies]

Wishing a BD-China border....and access to the Bay of Bengal....

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I get the feeling

I don't know how you get your feelings, man.

 

[T-Rex]

Wishing a BD-China border....and access to the Bay of Bengal....

Good prospect for BD and China!

 

[SarthakGanguly]

How come South Korea exists? What does it have to do with China? Do you even know the history?
A division of North & South was created because USA and USSR influence right after the end of WW2 all due to the Cold War mentality. It has nothing to do with China, i guess in India they teach you sh!t thus the world sees Hindus as less intelligent. If you meant the Korean War well China certainly didn't lose. DPRK initiated the war for unification, had trouble fighting 17 countries so China entered the war. The war never ended and both sides are basically still in a state of war as of today. So how can China have lost the damn war? There was no victor BUT we achieved a strategic win from China's point of view. We made sure DPRK is still here today.

To make the silly claim China lost The Korean War is like saying USA lost The Vietnam War when everybody knows the Yankees simply abandoned the war after fighting 20 years and no sight of winning. Without China's assistance the Yankees wouldn't have stumbled upon such fierce resistance.

Next The China - Vietnam War was not an act of hostile takeover. China never wanted to attack VN, but since VN and Cambodia were at war and VN was invading Cambodia, we entered the war with less troops. Again China achieved strategic victory against VN because a lot of damage was done to them , the objective wasn't even conquering VN but to make them stop the war against Cambodia. Yes we didn't succeed but certainly not lost the war. Eventually VN illegally occupied Cambodia, USA punished VN severely with International Sanctions crippling VN's economy for a long time. So who is the loser?

I wasn't aware PRC lost to ROC or did you mean ROC still exists today so PRC lost? What kind of a dumb logic is that? It is the PRC who is in control of the HUGE landmass while ROC is only controlling an island.
I know logic and math can be very difficult for Hindus. It's like saying Donald Trump who owns the Trump Tower, many luxurious Trump hotels but not owning a small B&B hotel. Almost every country on this planet points PRC = China only a couple of countries view ROC as China. Yes the war between PRC and ROC also never ended but comparing between these two it's obvious PRC has the biggest assets, biggest landmass, more populous and the funny thing is ROC is helping PRC to become even greater as they make lots of contributions to Mainland.

A lot of chest thumpings and PR China stronk!

Let me sum up what you wrote.

i. DPRK exists - PR China successful. But the objective of the Chinese offensives was to evict the Americans/South Koreans. Farthest you got was Busan.
VERDICT- tactical stalemate, strategic failure.

ii. The US did not 'lose' the Vietnam war - Nope. They lost it. Tactically they were winning when on the ground. But it counts as a decisive strategic defeat - especially when RoV fell.

iii. Vietnam war - PR China wanted Vietnam to adhere to its diktats. Vietnam refused. PR China invaded and got grounded down. Casualties and damage was done to both sides, that alone can't count as a victory/defeat. In the end, PR China did not meet its objectives (of pressuring Vietnam to do PR China's bidding). They don't toe your line to this day.
VERDICT - tactical stalemate, Pyrrhic local tactical victory, operational failure, strategic failure

iv. PRC wanted/WANTS to rule all of the subcontinent of China. But is unable to evict/bring RoC into the fold entirely. Diplomatically PRC has done well in this case. But militarily, PRC has not been successful in finishing the job.
VERDICT: Tactical and operational victory, Partial Strategic victory

v (additional). PR Chinese invasion of India,62
Major success in NEFA, ground to halt in Ladakh near Chusul, heavy losses to both sides, 'voluntary withdrawal'. But India, like Vietnam, refused to cooperate even in future. India pushed to Soviet arms, Indian military buildup. PR China starts 'cultural' revolutions.
VERDICT: Tactical, operational victory. Strategic defeat.

In short, it is clear that the PR Chinese actually only had some measure of long term strategic victory when fighting against fellow Chinese. I admit, you are probably good in Civil war, but against other nations - don't you think that even the recent history shows that you should not try out misadventures? Even against small nations (Bhutan/Nepal/Mongolia/Vietnam/Philippines)?

 

[Han Patriot]

A lot of chest thumpings and PR China stronk!

Let me sum up what you wrote.

i. DPRK exists - PR China successful. But the objective of the Chinese offensives was to evict the Americans/South Koreans. Farthest you got was Busan.
VERDICT- tactical stalemate, strategic failure.

ii. The US did not 'lose' the Vietnam war - Nope. They lost it. Tactically they were winning when on the ground. But it counts as a decisive strategic defeat - especially when RoV fell.

iii. Vietnam war - PR China wanted Vietnam to adhere to its diktats. Vietnam refused. PR China invaded and got grounded down. Casualties and damage was done to both sides, that alone can't count as a victory/defeat. In the end, PR China did not meet its objectives (of pressuring Vietnam to do PR China's bidding). They don't toe your line to this day.
VERDICT - tactical stalemate, Pyrrhic local tactical victory, operational failure, strategic failure

iv. PRC wanted/WANTS to rule all of the subcontinent of China. But is unable to evict/bring RoC into the fold entirely. Diplomatically PRC has done well in this case. But militarily, PRC has not been successful in finishing the job.
VERDICT: Tactical and operational victory, Partial Strategic victory

v (additional). PR Chinese invasion of India,62
Major success in NEFA, ground to halt in Ladakh near Chusul, heavy losses to both sides, 'voluntary withdrawal'. But India, like Vietnam, refused to cooperate even in future. India pushed to Soviet arms, Indian military buildup. PR China starts 'cultural' revolutions.
VERDICT: Tactical, operational victory. Strategic defeat.

In short, it is clear that the PR Chinese actually only had some measure of long term strategic victory when fighting against fellow Chinese. I admit, you are probably good in Civil war, but against other nations - don't you think that even the recent history shows that you should not try our misadventures? Even against small nations (Bhutan/Nepal/Mongolia/Vietnam/Philippines)?

I am lazy to corrrect you, but I realize you fail to admit India lost 4000 soldiers. How many Chinese POWs did you get? How many Chinese killed? The main objective was to stop India's advancement policy in Tibetan region, it did stopped India from moving forward, peaceful until today with all our claims intact except AP which we couldn't hold due to logistical issues and which India hurriedly scampered back like dogs to occupy once we leave. We could have killed more had we wanted to. Aksai Chin is still Chinese until today, Pakistan saw the Chinese victory as potential for alliance, due to this reason, we settled our borders, built an alliance which lasted to this day. With Pakistani help, we normalize relations with US, and this created today's China, integrated to the international economic system, having access the best civilian technologies and yes vast new markets.

As for the other strategic failures, I am lazy to say it, but last I checked, SU didn't help Vietnam when we attacked them.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

With Pakistani help, we normalize relations with US, and this created today's China, integrated to the international economic system, having access the best civilian technologies and yes vast new markets.

As for the other strategic failures, I am lazy to say it, but last I checked, SU didn't help Vietnam when we attacked them.

Yes, diplomatically you have done well with the US and Pakistan. I am talking about military misadventures.

Yes, SU did not directly intervene. But Vietnam was able to halt the PRC offensive on their own. Or if you like - the PRC stopped on their own and withdrew. Same as they withdrew 'on their own' from Busan/Pusan back to the frontier. Perhaps some superior tactical move the world does not know about?