What's new

Will India join strategic containment of China?

There is nothing wrong in trying to go for a strategic containment of China. If China is trying to do this to India for decades (by forming Strategic relations with Pakistan) and trying to keep India in check, I don't know why India wont do same to China.

But going for strategic encirclement of China also would be a independent decision only. If you take your decisions Independently then forming strategic relations to secure your interests is also your own Independent decision!

and what is expected of India? to give up its interests in Kashmir, Indian Ocean and SCS to China and try nothing to counter, while China keeps on pestering and promoting Indian encirclement in these spheres. :rofl:

It is a chess game and since China has not offered a draw, obviously for Chinese to expect India to offer to resign is little stupid!

That's a really stupid perception, when China has good relation with nations around India is labeled as strategic containment,
ask yourself the question have we support or stirring them against India interest in the region?? Your gorverment had made stupid mistake to anger these neiboring countries and then blame us not to be on your side.

..and yes we sold some arm to this region but all are purely defensive and not even worthy to compare to India military acquisition, you guys just like to fabricate a China threat theory to serve the internal political purposes such: get more money for defense or serve as diversion to the real issue such poverty...
 
Hey Dude, just Chill ok, never meant to disrespect you, but if you feel offended then I am sorry about it, no need to start cussing n all, I am just telling you that whatever your opinion and way of thinking is very wrong and it doesn't serve as good precedent, don't u think we all asian bro's should try to live peacefully with each other rather than bare our fangs towards one another.

P.S. m no commie sympathizer and please try not to use the F- word ever so often, makes you look like a foul mouthed idiot, Peace bro :angel:




Sry, your post kinda irked me. And I wasn;t sure where you were from. With regard to the question, Of course we should all get along. Peace will always lead to more productive and stable economies. Nobody gains but outsiders. But dude, I think that has been our biggest problem all these yrs. We, Indians, always want and cherish peace but our neighbors are hell bent on getting what they want and will use any tactic at their disposal. That;s why I said we need to hope for the best, prepare for the worst. China can easily, very easily allay India's threat perceptions but it doesn;t. For some in CHina, they think they are loosing face if they do so. But they aren;t, in fact by doing so would show the world CHina has come a long way. The bottom line is that in 30 yrs since Rajiv they have kept this border issue unresolved and pestering. They have suppplied our enemies with weapons that can harm us. You need to wake up and stop wishing for peace. It takes a lot more than just India to want it. On top of that, peace has to be verified. When I see who is behind gov;ts failing in our neighborhood and who is supplying them weapons, it's a no brainer. Ever notice how mnay times Pakistani military officials go to China after talks with us? They keep them very informed. They have been working together for quite sometime. Wake up man.




There is no reason for India to join the strategic containment of china, Unless we are forced to and that too by China Only.




When China presses you and yo know about it, it will be too late.
 
Time to Contain Mighty Panda is Gone ,Its too powerful and economic powerhouse which is running global economy ,
Please read this article

the Pentagon in an alliance to contain China on a global scale, cut its economic growth rate in half or more, and starve the domestic Chinese economy of the funds to pay for military expansion. The methods proposed include “restricting Chinese exports into their markets, denying raw materials to China insofar as possible, and stopping whatever technology transfers China would still need.” Recruits for such an American “geo-economic” strategy include midgets like Australia, whose export income is dependent on mineral exports to China, and tourism and educational services with the Chinese; bankrupt war criminals like the Japanese right-wing; Vietnam and Mongolia.

It doesn’t occur to Luttwak that if Australia tries to curtail its exports to China, Russia will fill the gap, and earn the premium on rising commodity prices which American strategy has already provided by its hapless warmaking in the Middle East over the past two decades.

Russian strategic doctrine clearly treats trade embargoes, financial sanctions, and naval blockades as acts of war which cannot be justified except by such collective security bodies as the United Nations. Russian strategy is also explicit that an attack – military or economic — on one member of a Luttwak goofs again, claiming Japan might be game for a Russian ally to take the place of China: this, says Luttwak, is because Japan never attacked the Soviet Union and was the victim of Soviet attack itself in 1945. Apparently, Luttwak has missed the Japanese war of May to September 1939, Japan’s defeat by Generals Georgy Zhukov, Grigory Shtern, and Yakov Smushkevich at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, and the Japanese capitulation on September 15, 1939. Had the German attack in the west managed to take Moscow and St. Petersburg, the Japanese are likely to have tried again their so-called Northern Doctrine for occupation of Siberia. As things turned out, Moscow’s victory in east and west led the Japanese to aim their warmaking eastward and south — at the US Navy, at the British colonial bases, and at southeast Asian sources of raw material.

Russia has this, plus the earlier lessons of the defeat by the Japanese Navy in 1905 – assisted then by the British, Germans, and Americans – as a reminder that hegemony in the Asian-Pacific theatre should always be denied to everyone. Accordingly, the driver of Soviet and Russian strategy remains the aggressive expansion of the Americans, with their allies.

This isn’t to say that Russian strategy is blind to the potential for Chinese threat. It’s just that in the Russian calculation of likelihood of danger, priority, and timing, the US and its allies come first. NATO is the only military threat identified by name in The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, issued by the Kremlin in February 2010. According to the naval version, the Russian Maritime Doctrine for 2020 – published in July 2001 — the concern for China is implied. “The significance of the Pacific coast to the Russian Federation is enormous and continues to grow. The Russian Far East has huge resources, especially in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, while sparsely populated and relatively isolated from the industrialized regions of the Russian Federation. These contradictions are compounded by the heavy economic and military development of neighboring countries in Asia Pacific, providing a very significant impact on economic, demographic and other processes in the region.” But China is also included on list of Russian strategic allies to deter and prevent military conflict.

Containment of China, as recommended by Luttwak and his Pentagon friends, isn’t new, but the case for it gets clumsier, and without the communist bogey, more racial in tone.

Vietnam is a special case – a traditional rival of China, which has defeated the French and the Americans, and fought a Chinese invasion force to a standstill in 1979, the Vietnamese don’t qualify for Luttwak stooges in a US-led plan of containment of China. The Vietnamese also say they stand to gain from a multiplicity of military deployments in the region up to the level of aircraft carriers. If Russia grows in military strength and presence, including the reopening of the Camh Ranh naval facility to Russia’s Pacific fleet, the less likely any single state will emerge as hegemonic and threatening to all. In its latest version, Russian naval strategy appears to concur – the more aircraft carriers, the merrier.

Dwarves on the shoulders of giants like Australia are viewed in Russian strategy as nothing but stooges for US hegemonic strategy; they are also stooges because they are trapped by the limitations of an economic dependence on China from which there can be no American rescue. Although Oleg Deripaska’s Rusal has a stake in northeastern Australian alumina and Vladimir Potanin’s Norilsk Nickel a stake in western Australian nickel, their commercial significance has been stagnant, their political influence minimal. So Russian strategic interest has shifted to the Pacific islands.

Luttwak acknowledges that “if a China/anti-China world does emerge…Moscow would be its strategic pivot, conferring much leverage to its rulers, who would certainly use it to the full.” But so bent is Luttwak on furthering the case for economic war against China, he recommends a scheme of buying off the Russians with gifts from Japan. ‘Barbarian handling’ is apparently an uncivilized throwback when practised by delusional Chinamen, but clever if the Japanese try it “to enlist the Russian Federation for the anti-China coalition – indeed, it could do more than any other country.” Luttwak also recommends that Japan forgive and forget “patently dishonest revocation of contracts” (Gazprom’s takeover of the Sakhalin-2 project), the Kurile Island dispute, etc. In Luttwak’s scheme of things, the Russians are only waiting for the Japanese to arrive with suitcases of cash.

That there is a well-developed Sino-Russian strategy of collective security and cooperation isn’t apparently known to Luttwak, or his Pentagon pals; without mention in the book of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Luttwak aims to convince his soldier and sailor readers they need not look beyond his pages for all they need to know about their enemies, and the means to overcome them.

This “state autism” as Luttwak sees everywhere but his own head is convenient for Russia, if it remains convincing to the Americans. There is a 3rd Barnum law, by the way. It’s that the best disinformation agent is the fool with rank (retired).

Read more: CONTAINING CHINA
 
Naah, don't wanna wake up nobody wants war, and this proxy bull ****, well that's fair game if u think about it, if everything was hunky dory then lets face it, lots of people would be out of jobs if u know what I mean :suicide:
 
Time to Contain Mighty Panda is Gone ,Its too powerful and economic powerhouse which is running global economy ,

Read more: CONINING CHINA
That is correct. China is too powerful now with our stealth fighters, aircraft carriers and missile arsenal. If India is smart, we split South Tibet / Arunachal. Otherwise, India will be partitioned.
 
120745xrcg31aa5adjzpy4.jpg


I would encourage indians to honestly look at the widening gap before making any decision.
 
China pay Russia hard cash to help them keepin it's skilled worker. The engine procurement deal will help big China and Russia in the long run. Russia count China to balance USA and China need Russia's help to go through dilemma of lacking fighter engines.

Win win situation:

Denigrating Chinese weapon may make you feel alright at the moment, but won't help you grow up in the long run. No matter copy or not, only matters is whether it works or not. Standing on the morale highland won't help you defeat your enemy in the future.
 
China pay Russia hard cash to help them keepin it's skilled worker. The engine procurement deal will help big China and Russia in the long run. Russia count China to balance USA and China need Russia's help to go through dilemma of lacking fighter engines.

Win win situation:


Denigrating Chinese weapon may make you feel alright at the moment, but won't help you grow up in the long run. No matter copy or not, only matters is whether it works or not. Standing on the morale highland won't help you defeat your enemy in the future.

Win win situation:

Aree why so angry? Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai :cheers: BTW WE are also developing tech but by using joint development projects to keep our noses clean as shown above ! Problem is countries don't want to share tech with you guys because you create an unliscenced copy. If you start CBMs with nearby nations then maybe they will?

Anyway Y-20 IS an improvement over IL76 in terms of payload from 50 - 66 so calling it IL 76 + won't hurt will it? ;)

Best of luck
 
Time to Contain Mighty Panda is Gone ,Its too powerful and economic powerhouse which is running global economy ,
Please read this article


Read more: CONTAINING CHINA


This article is whole load of BS!

here is why , for yrs into the future , China is depended on the world , much more than others on it , perhaps except the resource country like Australia , Russia , middle east(oil) , Brazil and Canada whose GDP will take a beating if china stops buying

If there is a trade war / embargo with US , EU and Japan. it wont be able to sell her goods , with 3 ( 1,2,3rd) major trading partners gone , her GDP will crash , goods will stuck at port , unemployment will rise over night , there will be lots of unhappy Chinese demanding answer from the government , with thousands of riots in current environment , this will double to massive scale

what is the point of Russia selling all the raw material at premium?

There is only so many new roads, rail , towns and mall's you can build ..

Also most will argue , china can use its large Forex to crash dollar and Euro , in fact it cant, Forex are largely liability ,

If china sell all her USD tomorrow it wont crash the US dolor , china will take a beating on its saving ( also what will she buy instead of USD - Euro or Yen)

Like someone once said " if you owe china 100 billion ; you got a problem , if you owe it 1 trillion ; then she's got a problem .

nowadays , most elected leaders( including Chinese) are businessman more than politician , everyone is in it for the money/agenda for their business partners/lobbyist ...

so these type of articles are for " Chinese feel good " with vested interest ..

update- this my take on the article don't mean to offend anyone
 
Will India join strategic containment of China?

China and India will hold the first joint military drill since the past five years.

All of the observers knew that the symbolic meaning of the military drill is more far-reaching than the actual meaning. However, in the face of the lobbying of Japan and the United States in New Delhi, India's unexpected action and the military interaction with China sparked discussions of the public. What is the China policy of India, the emerging arms buyer of the United States, the key chain of Japan's "Arc of Freedom and Prosperity" and the largest territorial dispute object of China? Will it be on the same side with Japan and the United States, or sincerely tolerate the simultaneous rise of China and India?

Regarding the China-India relations, many Chinese media organizations are very interested in the question- Will India be courted or forced by the United States and Japan to join them to contain China? In fact, it is likely to be a false proposition.

As a major regional and even world power full of sense of pride, India has an independent foreign policy. It never thinks itself the client state of other countries. Instead, it has always been proud of its independent foreign policy.

India had taken the "Arc of Freedom and Prosperity" proposed by former Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso in a detached way, neither opposing nor supporting it. The reason is very simple: India did not agree with the foreign strategy of Taro Aso and was reluctant to be a stepping stone of Japan. Therefore, the diplomatic strategy of Shinzo Abe certainly will not reach a result much better than that of Taro Aso who visited India five years ago.

Although India will not be a client state of other countries and go against China, it does not mean that India has a friendly and constructive policy toward China. India also has a good reason to adopt the policy of containing China. There are considerable structural disputes between China and India on safety including the territorial disputes, the issues of Tibet, Pakistan and Indian Ocean and even the difference about the adjustment of the world political and economic order. These disputes cannot be solved fundamentally through a slight friendliness and interaction in diplomatic or military circles.

After all, India decides the policy toward China for itself. It will neither go against China under the instigation of other countries nor intentionally avoid going against China for not being criticized for lack of independence.

China should know where the crux of China-India relationship is, and realize that it is the core issue of China and India and is irrelevant to other countries. Only when the both sides have a full understanding of each other, China and India can go beyond the symbolic meaning and improve the bilateral relations.

Will India join strategic containment of China? (2) - People's Daily Online

AAj mujhe genral musharraf ka wo bayan yaad aa raha hai jo usne 9/11 ke baad diya tha

:azn:
 
As I know, many Australia workers might get unemployment without china market. You guys make Chinese money while spew venoms at our country, shame on you!
 
That is correct. China is too powerful now with our stealth fighters, aircraft carriers and missile arsenal. If India is smart, we split South Tibet / Arunachal. Otherwise, India will be partitioned.

:pdf: is :rofl:
 
As I know, many Australia workers might get unemployment without china market. You guys make Chinese money while spew venoms at our country, shame on you!

wanglaokan, i didn't mean to offend you , took a stab at the article ( which says that west is trying to contain china) merely pointing out the facts.

no country will do any of what is mentioned .. like i said everyone will end up looser..
 

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom