Aestu
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2015
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Why would India make such an incendiary speech against its neighbor Pakistan and be fearless of the consequences? Easy: because they think they can get away with it.
India knows that the world's attention - particularly that of the United States and China - is focused on the DPRK-Japan situation. Therefore, the US and China will seek to resolve any India-Pakistan tension in the fastest and most efficient way possible: siding with India, the stronger and more stable player.
Consider the 1956 Suez War, in which Israel, France and the UK conspired to attack Egypt to achieve a variety of goals - the result being the marginalization of France and the UK as global powers while aggrandizing IDF capabilities and probably setting back the inevitable Six Day War for a decade or so. An unlikely result of that war was that the Soviet counter-insurgency in Hungary went unchecked by the United States, which would've otherwise been strongly inclined to attack the USSR.
It just goes to show that, in today's globalist era, the internal politics of one country often has a reciprocal effect on the foreign policy of two other countries on a different continent. We can call this the Hungary-Suez Principle.
I personally believe that when DPRK made the fateful decision to fire nuclear weapons in Japan's general direction, the regime crossed an invisible line. Now that the nuclear genie has officially left the bottle, the US and Japan have likely decided they can no longer afford to follow their heretofore strategy of waiting for the regime to collapse from within.
I believe the US and Japan may already be plotting a sneak attack on DPRK. Remember that it took nearly a year between the Bush II administration's public commitment to a war against Iraq (and private commitment that went much further back) and combat operations actually getting under way.
China's position has not changed since the Korean War (which, as everyone knows, never ended): China is committed to a buffer state between itself and any Western-aligned nation such as ROK. China will never permit a unified Korea that does not include some kind of assurance of their security. Meanwhile, Seoul is right in the line of fire of thousands of pieces of antiquated but still deadly DPRK artillery.
Therefore, the US and Japan cannot go to war with DPRK until they complete a lot of tenuous negotiations with Seoul and Beijing over security issues. The US may wind up giving Seoul a beefed-up missile shield (which would not be effective against artillery).
I am in the market for any information about whether Seoul is quietly working on civil defense bunkers for its civilian population - large excavations that can't be explained, sudden work on large subway or sewer projects, hydraulic equipment or large pieces of prefabricated concrete being hauled around, etc. If the Seoul authorities have suddenly decided to pick up work on new sewer mains or subway tunnels, that would suggest war is imminent.
The question remains: why did DPRK take such a suicidal risk in provoking Japan in the first place?
The answer lays in North Korea itself. North Koreans hate their neighbor Japan much, much more than the US due to serious wartime atrocities (forced labor, sex slavery, massacres) for which Japan has never apologized. A common refrain in DPRK propaganda is that the South should unite with them against the Japanese sycophants.
It therefore stands to reason that the reason DPRK chose to take such a provocative action that would risk the ire of the United States, is that DPRK is in fact having serious internal political conflicts, to which provoking an escalation with Japan is a convenient solution. I would not rule out the possibility that we may see some senior DPRK leaders die mysteriously in the near future.
India's wise leaders are well advised of the mischief afoot on the Korean peninsula. Clearly, they have decided to take advantage of the situation, perhaps encouraged by their new Israeli friends: remember that Hamas' biggest donor is neither the UN nor the EU nor their Arab "brothers" nor the Iranian regime, but the Pakistanis, who despite being 4,000km from Tel Aviv and having never participated in a war with that country, feel they must champion all Islamic terrorism everywhere by giving money to Hamasniks even as Pakistan continues to receive American aid to fight polio and starvation in their own country.
Which brings us to the next possible repercussion of the present events: Israel may have finally decided to take it upon themselves to decapitate the Hamas regime - a conclusion corroborated by Netanyahu's unlikely decision to back down against the Waqf following the violence on the Temple Mount. I believed at the time Bibi's real motive may actually have been to prepare the Israeli public - which strongly disapproved of his "cowardice" - for a major wave of offensive action in the next round of conflict.
Also note that Syria's strongest ally - and vice versa - is not China or Russia but DPRK. Israel may believe that the key to "winning" the Syrian Civil War is to take out the DPRK and break down the Sino-Pakistani supply route which continues to fuel the Syrian government's need for ammunition and other materiel.
So, there you have it. I very much believe that conflict in any one of these theaters - India-Pakistan, DPRK-Japan, Israel-Syria-Gaza - is likely to presage an escalation followed by a longer-term resolution in all. Interesting times!
India knows that the world's attention - particularly that of the United States and China - is focused on the DPRK-Japan situation. Therefore, the US and China will seek to resolve any India-Pakistan tension in the fastest and most efficient way possible: siding with India, the stronger and more stable player.
Consider the 1956 Suez War, in which Israel, France and the UK conspired to attack Egypt to achieve a variety of goals - the result being the marginalization of France and the UK as global powers while aggrandizing IDF capabilities and probably setting back the inevitable Six Day War for a decade or so. An unlikely result of that war was that the Soviet counter-insurgency in Hungary went unchecked by the United States, which would've otherwise been strongly inclined to attack the USSR.
It just goes to show that, in today's globalist era, the internal politics of one country often has a reciprocal effect on the foreign policy of two other countries on a different continent. We can call this the Hungary-Suez Principle.
I personally believe that when DPRK made the fateful decision to fire nuclear weapons in Japan's general direction, the regime crossed an invisible line. Now that the nuclear genie has officially left the bottle, the US and Japan have likely decided they can no longer afford to follow their heretofore strategy of waiting for the regime to collapse from within.
I believe the US and Japan may already be plotting a sneak attack on DPRK. Remember that it took nearly a year between the Bush II administration's public commitment to a war against Iraq (and private commitment that went much further back) and combat operations actually getting under way.
China's position has not changed since the Korean War (which, as everyone knows, never ended): China is committed to a buffer state between itself and any Western-aligned nation such as ROK. China will never permit a unified Korea that does not include some kind of assurance of their security. Meanwhile, Seoul is right in the line of fire of thousands of pieces of antiquated but still deadly DPRK artillery.
Therefore, the US and Japan cannot go to war with DPRK until they complete a lot of tenuous negotiations with Seoul and Beijing over security issues. The US may wind up giving Seoul a beefed-up missile shield (which would not be effective against artillery).
I am in the market for any information about whether Seoul is quietly working on civil defense bunkers for its civilian population - large excavations that can't be explained, sudden work on large subway or sewer projects, hydraulic equipment or large pieces of prefabricated concrete being hauled around, etc. If the Seoul authorities have suddenly decided to pick up work on new sewer mains or subway tunnels, that would suggest war is imminent.
The question remains: why did DPRK take such a suicidal risk in provoking Japan in the first place?
The answer lays in North Korea itself. North Koreans hate their neighbor Japan much, much more than the US due to serious wartime atrocities (forced labor, sex slavery, massacres) for which Japan has never apologized. A common refrain in DPRK propaganda is that the South should unite with them against the Japanese sycophants.
It therefore stands to reason that the reason DPRK chose to take such a provocative action that would risk the ire of the United States, is that DPRK is in fact having serious internal political conflicts, to which provoking an escalation with Japan is a convenient solution. I would not rule out the possibility that we may see some senior DPRK leaders die mysteriously in the near future.
India's wise leaders are well advised of the mischief afoot on the Korean peninsula. Clearly, they have decided to take advantage of the situation, perhaps encouraged by their new Israeli friends: remember that Hamas' biggest donor is neither the UN nor the EU nor their Arab "brothers" nor the Iranian regime, but the Pakistanis, who despite being 4,000km from Tel Aviv and having never participated in a war with that country, feel they must champion all Islamic terrorism everywhere by giving money to Hamasniks even as Pakistan continues to receive American aid to fight polio and starvation in their own country.
Which brings us to the next possible repercussion of the present events: Israel may have finally decided to take it upon themselves to decapitate the Hamas regime - a conclusion corroborated by Netanyahu's unlikely decision to back down against the Waqf following the violence on the Temple Mount. I believed at the time Bibi's real motive may actually have been to prepare the Israeli public - which strongly disapproved of his "cowardice" - for a major wave of offensive action in the next round of conflict.
Also note that Syria's strongest ally - and vice versa - is not China or Russia but DPRK. Israel may believe that the key to "winning" the Syrian Civil War is to take out the DPRK and break down the Sino-Pakistani supply route which continues to fuel the Syrian government's need for ammunition and other materiel.
So, there you have it. I very much believe that conflict in any one of these theaters - India-Pakistan, DPRK-Japan, Israel-Syria-Gaza - is likely to presage an escalation followed by a longer-term resolution in all. Interesting times!
