China’s border row with India has misfired, says regional security expert

[Genesis]

I take your point on a general perception of threat not being enough to unite but you are misinformed about the likely Indian reaction, especially in the face of an immediate & focused threat.. Indians reaction can be judged by how they reacted the last time such an event happened. Kargil(1999) united India more than any other incident. Any reading of newspaper articles will show that. It happened across the length & breadth of India with no exceptions. A serious threat/conflict will always unite Indians. Indians may differ about how to deal with China but in the event of any conflict/ serious threat, would quickly close ranks

oh I don't doubt Indians uniting, but this is a proposed Alliance of countries. Would the alliance work. I listed the things that I think could go wrong in such an alliance, and whether it be an alliance at all.

 

[Chill.Indian]

Hi everyone

 

[Dillinger]

Hi everyone

@Bang Galore this avatar here burns my eyes...IT BURNS MY EYES

GET IT AWAY FROM ME!

Yaara, a new poster hunh? This is not the tread to introduce yourself. Kindly introduce yourself in the members section by opening a new thread.

 

[Chill.Indian]

@Bang Galore this avatar here burns my eyes...IT BURNS MY EYES


Yaara, a new poster hunh? This is not the tread to introduce yourself. Kindly introduce yourself in the members section by opening a new thread.

matlab ki cheez toh saari chhupi hui hai.. !! Aap bhi na

 

[Bang Galore]

oh I don't doubt Indians uniting, but this is a proposed Alliance of countries. Would the alliance work. I listed the things that I think could go wrong in such an alliance, and whether it be an alliance at all.

I agree with you. Japan & India might work, Vietnam with a long history of anti-China feeling may work with the other two. That however is about it. I believe China has erred in picking a fight with India. Whether as powerful or not, India will always be a serious threat that China will not simply be able to bulldoze through. Hardening opinions in the Indian establishment(& in the general populace) by recent provocations that gained little but damaged plenty for China could possible act as a catalyst for the Indian role in any alliance. I simply don't understand why China did what it did if its aim was to prevent any alliance building against it. Indians who are notoriously wary of any such alliances normally,(especially if China had displayed friendly behaviour) would have been loath to take the plunge. China decided that by its actions.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

see you avoided my question, can these countries work as well as the Allies did in WW2 if there isn't a country such as US taking the lead?

BTW even with the leadership it still had much problems that the Nazis and Japanese didn't have. The Burma campaign is a perfect example of how US, China, and British command not only failed to work together, but also took steps to undermine each other.

The Japanese elite troops in Burma at that time is more real threat to all party than China is today or am I mistaken?

it is not like all world under one command , its like every navy, army world in coordinated manner. difference between the two's.

 

[OrionHunter]

This "expert" is either stupid or just blind.

Back in the warring states in China. 7 states exist. One is the eventual ruling state, Qin. The other six attempted an Alliance to bring down Qin through an masterful politician called Su Qin.

The Alliance on paper was stronger, but each individually was much weaker. The Qin politician used his diplomacy skills to dissolve the alliance and paved the way to eventual unification by Qin.

He used the common mistrust, the weakness of the weaker states, and used bribes, and other means to stop a few other nations. The Alliance collapsed before it even did anything meaningful.

The 6 states, were much like Europe in the sense they had much in common, as well as differences. The proposed alliance by this author has nothing, and much like BRICS, there power, interest and everything else has pretty much nothing in common, and even worse, some of these countries are developed or soon to be developed like SK, Japan and Australia, while some are pretty low on the food chain.

Moral of the story, unlike Nato where US is the undisputed leader and has command over all Allied forces, there isn't and won't be a command structure that would work in a India Japan + whatever.

India won't listen to Japanese command, and I know the Japanese won't listen to Indians, Vietnam and Philippines also won't listen to another's command, while Australia and Indonesia has at least some bad feelings, from my understanding.

With out an effective Chain of command, a mistrust between the countries, economic interests with China as well as countries friendly with China, European and American interests with China and other countries.

All these things are things that would doom any alliance against China. All China has to do is offer unification for South Korea, negotiate with Vietnam and Philippines on a common ground (they won't really want to go to war with China so the end result is irrelevent, all it needs is to delay or stop them from taking action) and the way US China trade is going, US will do all it could to hold back Japan.

India, let's face it won't move alone, Australia loves Chinese Yuan, while Indonesia, Malaysia somehow seems indifferent to the SCS issue.

No there won't be an Anti China Alliance

I agree to an extent. India’s security apparatus is more concerned about terrorism and neighboring Pakistan than it is about global geopolitics especially in the far off Asia Pacific region/South China Sea. South East Asia, Japan and India remain deeply different countries with divergent strategic goals.

One can sign on the dotted line and enter into military or strategic partnerships but translating this into action is a different ball game altogether.

 

[cirr]

Masturbation。

 

[Nan Yang]

This "expert" is either stupid or just blind.

Back in the warring states in China. 7 states exist. One is the eventual ruling state, Qin. The other six attempted an Alliance to bring down Qin through an masterful politician called Su Qin.

The Alliance on paper was stronger, but each individually was much weaker. The Qin politician used his diplomacy skills to dissolve the alliance and paved the way to eventual unification by Qin.

He used the common mistrust, the weakness of the weaker states, and used bribes, and other means to stop a few other nations. The Alliance collapsed before it even did anything meaningful.

Qin use the "Befriending the distant states while attacking those nearby" to break up the 6 state alliance. Qin first befriended and pacify Qi and Chu and attack Han and Wei.

Neighboring states tends to have a history of fighting each other and is thus harder to befriend.
India is a distant state and in its ancient history have never fought each other. So China should befriend India to break up that alliance.

 

[Supply&Demand]

LOL India should not trust in Yankees, America changes side very frequently. Once China become superpower , America will started taking side of China, even may offer China lets go we together rule the world.

You r rite.. India does not trust America...But neither do we trust a Chinese.. Infact here whenever we want to curse some one for being a cheat or fraud..we call them Chinese

 

[JSCh]

First, Chinese foreign policy is based on long term principle. I think China meant to show that there are things that are considered intolerable/unfair. It is India that leaked the incident to the media and make it to be viewed as whatever it is viewed now.

It does not mean China view India as enemy, it is just a line that need to be drawn. China is not shutting the door as it should be clear by subsequent action, but if India want to blow this out of proportion, well it is up to India to make that choice.

Second, the whole world could see and understand what Abe is doing and where he is going, he is walking down a path that could have consequence that other might not want to be drag into.

 

[Dillinger]

First, Chinese foreign policy is based on long term principle. I think China meant to show that there are things that are considered intolerable/unfair. It is India that leaked the incident to the media and make it to be viewed as whatever it is viewed now.

It does not mean China view India as enemy, it is just a line that need to be drawn. China is not shutting the door as it should be clear by subsequent action, but if India want to blow this out of proportion, well it is up to India to make that choice.

Second, the whole world could see and understand what Abe is doing and where he is going, he is walking down a path that could have consequence that other might not want to be drag into.

AND pray tell, what is Abe doing? Claiming the SCS to be your own sole property for economic exploitation itself is also unbearable for the countries in the region..Japan, Vietnam and the rest aren't getting aggravated because China stole a cookie or something. Although that at least is none of our business.

We are simply sitting down with other nations and trying to rationalize a framework for dealing with aggression over a theater level, nothing more nothing else. Otherwise Uncle Sam has been coaxing India to join a formal grouping with Japan and Australia along far more militaristic lines. So far we've taken part in the joint naval exercises under the proposed framework but refused any such formal grouping despite multiple carrots from the States..including an all out assurance that command would devolve to us under such a grouping if push came to shove.

So will India coordinate its actions in areas where it has a convergence of interests with certain nations, yes- could such actions go against China's interests, very much so. Will we join some formal alliance against China, NO!

 

[faithfulguy]

When did some one taken over india???? Yes sovereignty may be during a war.... Btw you havent read the article properly to have a feeling that those pricely state is going to help india in trouble..... Its just a thought mate.... nothing materialized.... and my dear friend indian leadership know what is good for the country.....

India was not taken over by anyone before. It was just created by the British. Before British India, there were no nation of India. The princely states were controlled by a British envoy.

I am sorry mate your knowledge on Indian history is Poor..... Before British there was no india....So the question of sovereignty doesnt araise.....

My statement on indian leadership was clear..... Ie... There was indirect pressure on india even before this boarder dispute to have a partnership with those countries whom you called "Princy states".... But india had a very clear stand.....

I'm happy to see that many Indians agree that before British there was no India. So many Indians fight with me on this point but the fact is the fact. Can't change it by arguing about it.

While it is a fact that India wasnt a unified political entity until 1947 (if you discount the Mauryan period) the leadership which you are saying came from the various HIndu freedom fighters and also the Congress to an extent.
The princely states did not have asense of nationhood at that time. Also Indians need to work doubly hard to maintain this hard fought freedom and unification for the very reason that the concept of nationhood itslef is weak , India being politically more like a stronger EU than a USA.

Wow, thanks for echoing my points. I have been arguing that India is more of a more unified EU than any other political entity out there.

 

[President]

India was not taken over by anyone before. It was just created by the British. Before British India, there were no nation of India. The princely states were controlled by a British enjoy.



I'm happy to see that many Indians agree that before British there was no India. So many Indians fight with me on this point but the fact is the fact. Can't change it by arguing about it.



Wow, thanks for echoing my points. I have been arguing that India is more of a more unified EU than any other political entity out there.

India was ruled as united India including pak, bangladesh, afghanistan..in previous times..similarly china..was big and small ..and not exactly the same geography as it is today

 

[GR!FF!N]

India was not taken over by anyone before. It was just created by the British. Before British India, there were no nation of India. The princely states were controlled by a British enjoy.



I'm happy to see that many Indians agree that before British there was no India. So many Indians fight with me on this point but the fact is the fact. Can't change it by arguing about it.



Wow, thanks for echoing my points. I have been arguing that India is more of a more unified EU than any other political entity out there.

for our little "Expert on Indian History" chinese member,I'm posting the same link like,20th times..please read and educate...

Political integration of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia