Ladakh Flash Point

[Bellum_Romanum]

I hear and to some extent share your concerns when it comes to the perceived timidity of the PLA initiating "decisive battle" to teach the Indians a lesson and to a greater degree the assumed victory against the IAF would send a strong and clear message that China will not hesitate to act and use force whenever it wants. But such actions would only invite further strong resistance and may actually emboldened and give countries that were ambivalent to take sides or were even sympathetic to China -- contrary to your opinion since the news you read and consume are all primed for western audiences -- but would now have the raison d'etre to move against China solidifying the propaganda that Communist China is out to subjugate the world.

I am also just going to leave this passage from the current book am reading on the current China vs U.S. strategic struggle. The book's titled is Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides Trap? by Graham Allison.

From page 310/751

"Although it will treat warfare as a last resort, should China conclude that long-term trend lines are no longer moving in its favor and that it is losing bargaining power, it could initiate a limited military conflict to teach an adversary a lesson. As political scientist Taylor Fravel has shown in a study of its twenty-three territorial disputes since 1949, China employed force in only three of them. As these cases suggest, China becomes more likely to resort to force if it believes an adversary is shifting the balance of forces against it at a time of domestic unrest. In his analysis of Beijing’s attacks on India in 1962, the Soviet Union in 1969, and Vietnam in 1979, Fravel also demonstrates that China tends to use its military against opponents of comparable or greater strength, while it is more willing to negotiate with weaker adversaries."

"Fravel also demonstrates that China tends to use its military against opponents of comparable or greater strength, while it is more willing to negotiate with weaker adversaries."

China is willing and more than satisfied to negotiate with India because it frankly sees India as a weak opponent not worthy of losing anymore of it's soldiers lives if it can be helped. And I happen to agree with that assessment; beating up on an India that's largely an ineffectual country in the grand scheme of things that even the people who are involved with the Quad sees the country as it's weakest link

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What's the upside for China to take a preemptive action against India? Would the resulting assumed victory deter or emboldened it's actual strategic nemesis which is the U.S. from it's own strategic approach against China or such violent action and a predictable Chinese battlefield victory would actually result for China’s loss or straying in it's overall strategic objectives? War is the most unpredictable human endeavor none of us here can predict the reactions of it's adversaries and friends alike whether the terrain after everything is said and done is going to be in China’s advantage. The outcome is for all of us to guess. But one thing is for sure, China mustn't take or change it's strategic objective or to take the western views in life as in taking actions that feels good to satisfy short term gain for long term losesses.

 

[Yodello]

I hear and to some extent share your concerns when it comes to the perceived timidity of the PLA initiating "decisive battle" to teach the Indians a lesson and to a greater degree the assumed victory against the IAF would send a strong and clear message that China will not hesitate to act and use force whenever it wants. But such actions would only invite further strong resistance and may actually emboldened and give countries that were ambivalent to take sides or were even sympathetic to China -- contrary to your opinion since the news you read and consume are all primed for western audiences -- but would now have the raison d'etre to move against China solidifying the propaganda that Communist China is out to subjugate the world.

I am also just going to leave this passage from the current book am reading on the current China vs U.S. strategic struggle. The book's titled is Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides Trap? by Graham Allison.

From page 310/751

"Although it will treat warfare as a last resort, should China conclude that long-term trend lines are no longer moving in its favor and that it is losing bargaining power, it could initiate a limited military conflict to teach an adversary a lesson. As political scientist Taylor Fravel has shown in a study of its twenty-three territorial disputes since 1949, China employed force in only three of them. As these cases suggest, China becomes more likely to resort to force if it believes an adversary is shifting the balance of forces against it at a time of domestic unrest. In his analysis of Beijing’s attacks on India in 1962, the Soviet Union in 1969, and Vietnam in 1979, Fravel also demonstrates that China tends to use its military against opponents of comparable or greater strength, while it is more willing to negotiate with weaker adversaries."

You make a reasonable point, in that if China initiates a war against India and wins a decisive victory, it might drive the 'fence-sitters' to run for cover and seek protection from the 'other party', thus letting China lose out to the propaganda machinery.
On the other hand, there could be just the opposite effect. It might make those 'fence-sitters' and those nations that bear ill-will to China to realise that China is truly a Military power to be respected and that its goodwill and patience are not to be taken for granted. It may bring the 'fence-sitters' into China's orbit and drive the hostile nations to be more cautious.

Regarding the passage you quoted from the book, the author makes a valid point regarding the manner in which China used force in those instances, but I also feel that the author missed to point out that China might have truly felt threatened in those instances, and that the actions of those nations directly trampled on Beijing's interest.
In the 1962 war, China's objective was to deliver a quick decisive blow to India and halt India's expansionist policy at the time, which it succeeded. The Chinese even withdrew after reaching as far as Assam. Assam is the gateway to Northeast India.

What has all the Kind gestures and 'win-win' policy begotten China from those Propaganda spinning nations? What has China even gained by its proclamation of 'peaceful rise' time and time again and again? More scorn, more lies and more sanctions and bans on its companies.
Is it time for China to try a different set of policies for once and see if it works better?
No amount of trying to please the US -led Western order will let them ease the pedal on trying to find every means to halt China's economy, or even destroy China, no matter if Millions die.

China has demonstrated many things in recent decades, it has demonstrated an enormous capability to build, lift hundreds of Millions out of poverty, help Africa and other developing nations to develop their Infrastructure, it has demonstrated tremendous technological prowess and the staggering ability to adapt those technologies for its societal benefits, China is second to none as a space-faring nation, it is the greatest trading nation etc, ( too numerous to write them down.)
One thing that China has not demonstrated, the one thing that will truly protect all its achievements and abilities, and culminate to a point of catapulting it to True 'Superpower' status is Military Power.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

If America didn't take or make the cardinal sin of toppling Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq under false pretenses/lies thereby committing what many military and strategic analysts in that country called as "The biggest/worst strategic blunder" in it's history the current Sino-American conflict wouldn't be so problematic for the U.S. but because American strategic imperative post Soviet collapse seem to run on emotional process rather than on pure strategic considerations America has allowed it's most consequential adversary that is China to arrive at such a position where it's finding itself unable to dislodge or push China in a manner that would have been probably possible had it not distracted itself trying to play "civilization" in Mesopotamia. The undoing of the 2008 financial crisis is what also woke up China to the realization that U.S. ain't what it cracked up to be and that the CPC leadership found or gained further confidence into it's system when along with the U.S. China also spent about $586 Billion in stimulus resulting in a massive infrastructure boom in the country by building the bridges, High Speed rail system etc..that has actual benefit to the country. Whereas the U.S. spent about $981 Billion approx. with nothing to show for, no wonder most Americans have become embittered and disillusioned with their government, political parties and to a certain degree their political system.

The military actions the U.S. had undertake since 911 have not made the U.S. safer or even feared as most people assumed to be the case. Such short sighted feel good views must not be ever at all emulated in China and thankfully this scenario would not be the case due to China's cultural and historical grasp of the situation. The country and people has been around for 5 millenia and it's fair to say that the county has pretty much seen almost every problem a country, a civilization can face. In other words it hasn't seen anything new under the sun. The U.S. on the other hand has only been around for less than 300 years and yet it feels and act like it's ways of doing things must be the only path to success or some messianic b.s. it has taught itself to believe, the manifest destiny b.s.

 

[Yodello]

If America didn't take or make the cardinal sin of toppling Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq under false pretenses/lies thereby committing what many military and strategic analysts in that country called as "The biggest/worst strategic blunder" in it's history the current Sino-American conflict wouldn't be so problematic for the U.S. but because American strategic imperative post Soviet collapse seem to run on emotional process rather than on pure strategic considerations America has allowed it's most consequential adversary that is China to arrive at such a position where it's finding itself unable to dislodge or push China in a manner that would have been probably possible had it not distracted itself trying to play "civilization" in Mesopotamia. The undoing of the 2008 financial crisis is what also woke up China to the realization that U.S. ain't what it cracked up to be and that the CPC leadership found or gained further confidence into it's system when along with the U.S. China also spent about $586 Billion in stimulus resulting in a massive infrastructure boom in the country by building the bridges, High Speed rail system etc..that has actual benefit to the country. Whereas the U.S. spent about $981 Billion approx. with nothing to show for, no wonder most Americans have become embittered and disillusioned with their government, political parties and to a certain degree their political system.

The military actions the U.S. had undertake since 911 have not made the U.S. safer or even feared as most people assumed to be the case. Such short sighted feel good views must not be ever at all emulated in China and thankfully this scenario would not be the case due to China's cultural and historical grasp of the situation. The country and people has been around for 5 millenia and it's fair to say that the county has pretty much seen almost every problem a country, a civilization can face. In other words it hasn't seen anything new under the sun. The U.S. on the other hand has only been around for less than 300 years and yet it feels and act like it's ways of doing things must be the only path to success or some messianic b.s. it has taught itself to believe, the manifest destiny b.s.

Quite a way to put it. Makes a lot of sense.... hmmmm.
That is wisdom

I just hope, there will be a time for action vis-a-vis India.. Some people only learn the hard way.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Agreed that China is pretty stupid allowing India to keep attacking it without consequences. Like what self-respecting country allow another country to attack it multiple times without imposing them costs.

China idiotically believes on this whole "muh civilization friendship" bs, they always like to be seen as a benevolent power that it will "forgive" the "inexperienced" India.

That's rich! A person who once told others to "learn to better articulate your arguments" now writes ""muh civilization friendship" is calling a government that has advanced its nation faster than any other in history (while under pressure from an unprecedently powerful adversary), "stupid" and "idiotic"... Reminds me of trailer park Trumpanzees calling the scientists at the CDC stupid LOL

Bunch of bs. Simples. You get attacked then you respond and grab a nice piece of land and then go for peace WITHOUT giving the land back. If they come back again, then you grab another, larger piece of land and keep repeating that process.

China's military strategy towards India has been idotic and self-harmful. Hopefully China's leaders have learnt their lesson this time around.

Jai Hind dont respect anything, so next time grab a lot of strategic valuable land

That would be the knee jerk reaction, and without any further strategic insight, it would be my choice as well. But I've learned over the years that whenever the CCP makes a choice, the wisdom may not be obvious, but suddenly become apparent years or decades later. I'd learned to trust every decision that they make because these decisions are made by men who have an unrivaled track record in success and who hold privileged information that the public may never know. It is extremely idiotic and harmful to insist on your methods from a position of ignorance and inexperience.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

You make a reasonable point, in that if China initiates a war against India and wins a decisive victory, it might drive the 'fence-sitters' to run for cover and seek protection from the 'other party', thus letting China lose out to the propaganda machinery.
On the other hand, there could be just the opposite effect. It might make those 'fence-sitters' and those nations that bear ill-will to China to realise that China is truly a Military power to be respected and that its goodwill and patience are not to be taken for granted. It may bring the 'fence-sitters' into China's orbit and drive the hostile nations to be more cautious.

Regarding the passage you quoted from the book, the author makes a valid point regarding the manner in which China used force in those instances, but I also feel that the author missed to point out that China might have truly felt threatened in those instances, and that the actions of those nations directly trampled on Beijing's interest.
In the 1962 war, China's objective was to deliver a quick decisive blow to India and halt India's expansionist policy at the time, which it succeeded. The Chinese even withdrew after reaching as far as Assam. Assam is the gateway to Northeast India.

What has all the Kind gestures and 'win-win' policy begotten China from those Propaganda spinning nations? What has China even gained by its proclamation of 'peaceful rise' time and time again and again? More scorn, more lies and more sanctions and bans on its companies.
Is it time for China to try a different set of policies for once and see if it works better?
No amount of trying to please the US -led Western order will let them ease the pedal on trying to find every means to halt China's economy, or even destroy China, no matter if Millions die.

China has demonstrated many things in recent decades, it has demonstrated an enormous capability to build, lift hundreds of Millions out of poverty, help Africa and other developing nations to develop their Infrastructure, it has demonstrated tremendous technological prowess and the staggering ability to adapt those technologies for its societal benefits, China is second to none as a space-faring nation, it is the greatest trading nation etc, ( too numerous to write them down.)
One thing that China has not demonstrated, the one thing that will truly protect all its achievements and abilities, and culminate to a point of catapulting it to True 'Superpower' status is Military Power.

Beating up against a pretend superpower or a regional hegemon that is India isn't something worthy or worthwhile doing nor such resulting action would illicit or even drive fear into the enemy's political and military calculus. But if on the other hand China is forced to engage militarily against the perceived Superpower that is the U.S. in the S.C.S. and end up being Victorious vanquishing what most of us assumed as the Titan of the world then what you wrote above aptly applies in this scenario but not against India.

Beating up on India would in my opinion illicit sympathetic media and heroic portrayals around the world being the largest yet poor democratic country was mauled and manhandled by Red Communist China. The EU pests and NATO would now have their gravy train and reason for reorienting itself into the Asia-Pacific to deal with the Chinese military threat etc..whereas if China beats the U.S. Forces in the South China Sea the narrative isn't going to be so anti-China and the resulting loss of the U.S. prestige would actually bring forth countries that were only with the U.S. out of fear from their vaunted military. If China has to fight it must fight against a stronger opponent and that's the U.S. anything less than that is a distraction and a disruption to it's overall objective IMHO.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

Quite a way to put it. Makes a lot of sense.... hmmmm.
That is wisdom

I just hope, there will be a time for action vis-a-vis India.. Some people only learn the hard way.

I try to emulate the thinking of Prof. Kishore Mahbubani's admonishment of looking at things through a helicopter view and avoid looking at the situation from an emotional perspective. The same can be said of an American general officer Gen. Wesley K. Clark's strategic views and approach after reading his book "Don't Wait for the Next War."

Quite a way to put it. Makes a lot of sense.... hmmmm.
That is wisdom

I just hope, there will be a time for action vis-a-vis India.. Some people only learn the hard way.

I don't know about wisdom, I just try to read China's history the best way I can from reading various sources and writers that's outside China and from vast Chinese strategic books available to read.

 

[weig2000]

Although a tiny minority, there are Indian analysts out there who are much more rational and cool-headed. This interview with ThePrint is such an example. From the introduction:

"India and China cannot afford to remain engaged in a border standoff for a long time. Both leaders — Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping — will have to eventually enter into a strategic dialogue and settle this kind of recurrence in border standoffs, Zorawar Daulet Singh — Adjunct Fellow, Institute of Chinese Studies, and author of Powershift: India-China Relations in a Multipolar World — tells ThePrint’s NayanimaBasu. "

 

[Maula Jatt]

But I've learned over the years that whenever the CCP makes a choice, the wisdom may not be obvious, but suddenly become apparent years or decades later. I'd learned to trust every decision that they make because these decisions are made by men who have an unrivaled track record in success and who hold privileged information that the public may never know. It is extremely idiotic and harmful to insist on your methods from a position of ignorance and inexperience.

This is such a different way of looking at governments...

No government in the history of the world was and will ever be good enough that one can blindly trust tham

 

[manqiangrexue]

This is such a different way of looking at governments...

No government in the history of the world was and will ever be good enough that one can blindly trust tham

I certainly don't mean just any government; I hold this view for only a government that has a track record of consistently achieving immense world-beating results. If a government can act efficiently and in the interest of the nation always delivering these results, the people should have faith in them and follow orders like soldiers follow the orders of their general. This makes the nation united and powerful. When common people question everything and wish only to act on their own knowledge, you have a broken and divided force, like an army where soldiers argue with generals and everyone tries to fight his own way. Of course, this is predicated on the delivery of successful results. If the government can continuously do that, then it has proven that it can turn trust and unchecked power into efficiency and secrecy that confounds the nation's enemies without taking advantage of its people. But if the results start becoming negative, then the government has shown that it has turned trust and unchecked power into corruption and loss of accountability and this government must be brought back to basic standards where it is not efficient, unable to keep many things secret from rivals, but also accountable and able to move forward slowly under the watchful eyes of the under-educated and scattered masses. The CCP has certainly proven itself the former and I have learned that as a layman, my decision-making abilities are far lesser than theirs.