Is India not Taiwan next in line for a Chinese liberation

[K_Bin_W]

pakistan can take care of india china will sort out usa

It will not be easy keep in mind India is a US proxy..

 

[applesauce]

As an Indian I am in full support to Sino-Indian settlement. But China must understand there has to be mutual respect.. especially in a democracy where the opposition is always ready to scuttle such efforts.
It may sound unreal, but a highly popular strongman like Modi is the best chance for China to close a deal. A border deal will never come from a weaker leader..


They didn't snatch it, it was first come first serve yourself


Buddhu, China did not take Aksai chin in 1962.i was talking of 62 war. South Tibet is where they went back.. meaning a situation similar to their invasion of Vietnam in 79

india had its chance to settle for literally decades and decades. it isnt that china doesn't want to settle, its india that doesn't want to. and unfortunately india's continued provocations are hardening chinese stances too.

and at this point it may be too late, china has zero trust in india especially after they attacked unarmed negotiators and unilaterally changed the status of kashmir.

and in 62 china retreated after the war from some area because of logistics, specifically china was very poor and could not supply nor defend those areas.

 

[etylo]

A lot of Indians and western media outlets keep saying that when Russia occupies Ukraine a brutal insurgency will follow but Russia will get its buffer zone with NATO. Even though Russia my prevail, I stand with Ukraine for I believe that an illegal occupation has been started by Russia. It is never ok for a strong country to occupy a weaker people like India does with innocent Kashmiris



The west and the Indians believe that after Ukraine China would take on Taiwan. I disagree and my reasons are based on why I believe Russia invaded Ukraine

1. there is no formal defense alliance between Ukraine and NATO vis a vis the US. This means that Russia will not face any direct military intervention for its actions
2. The Ukrainian are significantly weaker than Russia, economically and militarily hence there would be brave and nationalistic defense like we see on TV but in the end the Russian numerical and material superiority will prevail. We see this today with Russian taking their time in encircling KIYV. It took NATO with 350k ground troops and 1000+ aircraft 19 days from March 20 to April 9 to occupy Baghdad. It took Russia 1 day to take over bases and effectively encircle kIYV by day 5 they have a massive armored presence in all direction of KIYi and have soldiers inside the second largest city Kharkiv. This is partially due to the Russian capability in terms of a ground war rather than a longer range amphibious assault.
3. The lack of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine
4. The Russians feel it’s an existential threat for them if NATO deploys in Ukraine as every invasion of Russia in the last 400 years has come vis Ukraine, the French, the UK and Germany for crimea and more recently the Germans in WW2

With this in mind the question comes up why China would invade Taiwan or India

1. American has laws on the books that say that they would defend Taiwan. There are no such laws on the books for India
2. China feels that it’s trade routes and access to warm waters is threatened by India in Kashmir hence the threat from India is existential. No such threat is perceived by Taiwan
3. China enjoys a significantly larger military advantage over India due to its land border. It also has a massive military ally in Pakistan which would engage and neutralize a significant portion of Indians army, Air Force and navy. It would be an easy way to show off its superpower capability against India. With Taiwan the assault will need to be amphibious which is not China’s strength yet and other Asian Allies like Japan and South Korea will hinder China’s ability to dominate till they build 6-10 ford class carrier groups
4. India does not have tactical nukes. Would India be willing to go to a full nuclear exchange with China and Pakistan over territory in the north which it does not really care about? Kashmir too is a major drain why try to keep it if Delhi , Gujarat, Punjab, bihar snd UP are at threat?
5. A lot of land india occupies today is considered part of China and Pakistan.

What do you think I am looking for discussion not chest thumping

K

Indians are just too delusional and paranoid as hell about China. Chinese don't give a dam about India or have any interest to invade India as long as the Indians are not making troubles at the borders all the time.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

It will not be easy keep in mind India is a US proxy..

India is US lackey.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

India needs to wake up and realize who their real enemy is. They need to sign a border settlement pact with China so it opens the door for future cooperation instead of constantly doing the bidding of Anglo zionist scum.

India is a lackey of the US. China should not make the mistake of offering any deal to India.

 

[K_Bin_W]

India is US lackey.

That too

 

[Imran Khan]

We bit pretty hard in 1971. The guy lost a leg and an arm.

Here cames galwan ka pehelwan

 

[chinasun]

It is wrong and outdated to encroach on the territory of other countries. Global capital and technology like countries and regions with long-term peace. Areas that like war will never develop. China is not interested in the territory of other countries. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia can judge how much Europe has lost by comparing the exchange rates before and after the euro. Peace is the key reason why China surpasses India, and the long-term peace in North America is also the key reason why the United States has become an empire.

 

[MilSpec]

Honestly, nothing impressive about defeating an army that is 2,200km away from base and across enemy territory with no supply line.

Except the army was 0km from the base, was East Pakistan not Pakistan?

If anything it was impressive how long Pakistan held off in E. Pakistan all while fighting a civil war. So are you saying you can only win under the most favorable conditions?

Yupp Fortnight, Largest unilateral surrender since WWII within a fortnight. And as far as favorable conditions hell yeah. I don't want to fight a war at parity, Fight a war when you can win it, not for a participation medal.

Fact is India has never defeated Pakistan on the western theater in any war. All wars resulted as a stalemate on western theater, with both sides making minor gains or winning some battles, but ultimately wars in the western theater resulted in a stalemate. That is at least what objective third-party sources confirm.

Except the difference is in objectives.

 

[Khan vilatey]

Except the army was 0km from the base, was East Pakistan not Pakistan?


Yupp Fortnight, Largest unilateral surrender since WWII within a fortnight. And as far as favorable conditions hell yeah. I don't want to fight a war at parity, Fight a war when you can win it, not for a participation medal.

Except the difference is in objectives.

Ouch that’s a burn

Will do a very Indian thing now

K

 

[KedarT]

71 was our loss not your win.

Still a win for us

Don’t delude yourself. You leveraged a civil war against an isolated force 10 times smaller than your forces and not to mention the Mukhti Bahni.

You need to ask a few questions:
Who isolated those forces?
Why was Pakistan caught unprepared when India attacked?
I see many Pakistani posters earnestly reasoning that there were far more Indian troops on the Eastern side and that the Pakistanis were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the Indian attack. My question would be: Why didn't Pakistan Army increase their numbers on the Eastern side? Was it a lost cause already? Or was India superior in isolating the Eastern wing from the Western wing? Why did the Bangladeshis revolt? What led them to finally revolt for independence to free themselves from the clutches of the Western wing?

If you try to answer these questions yourself, I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that it was as much India's win as Pakistan's loss since India was strategically superior and timed the final assault to perfection by wrapping it up within 15 days. Pakistan could've easily prolonged the war if they had the will, but India was decisive and swift. And lest we forget this was a win for the Bangladeshis as well as they were the most severely affected and bore the maximum brunt of the Pakistan Army.

Why hasn't a similar Bangladesh-like situation occurred in India by the way?

 

[Joe Shearer]

It’s very interesting we have the same experience in Pakistan, sanctions led to JF-17, Al Khalid , various other weapons systems

K

After writing and posting my note, I suffered some moments of guilt, thinking of the difficulties that our neighbours in Pakistan had gone through, perhaps as steep a set of barriers as we had faced. I was responding to a gentleman with whom I have had and continue to have very sharp differences of opinion, and one who does not hesitate to slander me personally at every opportunity. I hope you will dismiss the tone in which my note was written and recognise it for an expression of personal pique and resentment directed to an individual, and not to the members of the community on PDF with a Pakistani connection.

Apologies.

Ouch that’s a burn

Will do a very Indian thing now

K

You clearly have a well-developed sense of humour. I look forward to your posts.

 

[IblinI]

The way more experienced mighty Russian army is performing, should be an eye opener for any other military with similar designs.. Even Taiwan seems way more difficult as it shares no land border and any amphibious assault in such scale will be improbable to execute.

Russians were basically fighting with both hands tied up, they didn't cut down Ukriian's power, even internet is still up and running, videos are prohibited to avoid both Ukraine and Russian hatred mainly because even though Ukrainian don't see them as brothers but more than 60% of Russian still thinks they are brother in blood, Russian were good in psychological warfare but Ukrainian is taking all these advantages for their information warfare.

Secondly, Russia's poor economy has also shown its negative side as its large amount of old soviet era equipment can not fully comply with their military reform, and many more set back but not going to list all out here.

 

[SIPRA]

In my opinion, China-India dispute is, fundamentally, not territorial in nature; though, it has found its expression in territorial war and clashes. It is basically geopolitical, in its essence, with strong elements of one-upmanship and hegemony.

 

[proudindian20]

Lol so many triggered Pakistanis. I guess it's hard to digest that India is decent military power and no pushover. Don't worry wait for next 10-15 years once we start manufacturing our own weapons on a mass scale. Things will get interesting once there's no threat of sanctions on weapons.