Ladakh Flash Point

twineedle said:

Bhutan has been holding border negotiations with China for decades

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1449067172504883200

Click to expand...

Yes. Thanks for bringing this up. I'm actually glad to hear this. So it turns out that they have been negotiating for decades. But they haven't come to an agreement during all those years. So why now?

First, it's because there was mutual distrust during those earlier years. Second and most importantly, there was considerable Indian influence over Bhutan's foreign policy. Bhutan was happily acting as an Indian vassal state for decades. Until now.

Now Bhutan no longer distrusts China as much as it did decades ago. Now Bhutan is starting to have doubts about India. Bhutan has realised that being India's vassal brings no tangible benefit. Bhutan had witnessed the great socio-economic progress of China. It has seen the promise of BRI development with China among its other South Asian neighbours. Contrast that to India. Its economy is no longer as promising as it once was. Human development in India is worse, its in fact regressing. Now with Hindutva ideology taking a hold on the general Indian society and govt, this is starting to spook Bhutan.

Bhutan can see the two contrasting development of Lhasa and Tawang. Lhasa is progressing well today, while Tawang is stagnating. All that Western and Indian accusations of Chinese cultural genocide have been proven to be a myth. The Bhutanese don't need to watch Chinese propaganda on TV. They can just cross over into Tibet to witness it for themselves.

For Bhutan today, the choices are stark. Getting along with China promises economic development, and some regaining of national sovereignity. While getting more in line with India risks economic stagnation, more erosion of sovereignty, and worse, the risk of annexation.

So, if Bhutan can finally settle its border disputes with China. The threat of war with China effectively disappears. There will be less obligation for India to station troops in Bhutan as 'protection' from China. Less Indian troops on Bhutanese soil = more independence from India. Bhutan can finally pursue a more independent foreign policy, and progress forward. While India is left behind by its only vassal. This is the greater implication that we should be talking about.

Tenzing Lamsang is like Adolf Hitler commenting on Jewish people.

ougoah said:

Tenzing Lamsang is like Adolf Hitler commenting on Jewish people.

Click to expand...

He is the editor of bhuthan'd argest newspaper. Don't know what you msan

UAV deploy in Ngari Gunsa airbase from Henri K detresfa

Your reasoning has some very strange blind spots, @ougoah. You seem to understand the core of my argument

ougoah said:

They don't do it (despite having the means) because they fear this may unleash actual mechanised war.

Click to expand...

But then you say this

ougoah said:

if India doesn't shoot, China won't and India will prefer to use manpower advantage which they clearly have.

Click to expand...

This is totally wrong. Moreover, if it were true, then China would have no escalation dominance and thus no deterrent capacity. The essence of Chinese deterrence in this region (if your thesis that India has a manpower advantage is true, which I'm skeptical about) is that it reserves the option to respond to human waves by opening fire with precision artillery, if not escalating further into aerial war.

ougoah said:

Like what though?

Click to expand...

This is not the venue in which to discuss this in detail. Suffice to say that it's not a matter of "chauvinism" or "imperialism", it's a matter of national security. It should be clear by now that this is not a boundary dispute about 20% of some tiny Himalayan moonscape. India doesn't accept that Tibet is part of China and can't wait to participate in the West's dreamed of conquest of China. That they don't have the means to effect this is a secondary consideration, that they have the intent alone merits a response.

ougoah said:

If China invaded India proper, it would need to invest trillions over many years and still fight Indian insurgents.

Click to expand...

This is what I mean when I say you have blind spots. Who said invasion means "regime change" and "nation building"? You seem to think that if China invaded, it would do so to replace the Indian regime with a friendlier one and would stick around to support it. The first objection to this is a minor one, insurgencies need a neighbour to fuel them (Vietnam - China, Iraq - Iran, Afghanistan - Pakistan); who's the Indian neighbour who would play this role?

The real objection to this is that if China decided to invade India, American regime change silliness wouldn't be its objective at all. Let's use a sanitized analogy once again: Suppose my neighbour and I have a dispute over where some section of fence sits on the property. I often hear him having shouting matches with his family that he intends to take not just the disputed region, but all he can get his hands on just as soon as the guy down the street arming and helping squatters on another of my properties makes his move. You advise me not to take serious action to defend myself because taking over his house means I'll have to feed his family and renovate the house all while dealing with his provocations and that's just too expensive.

I respond that it's not my intention to feed his family and remodel his house, and it's not too expensive to burn his house to the ground if he ever tries to make his sick fantasies a reality.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Your reasoning has some very strange blind spots, @ougoah. You seem to understand the core of my argument

But then you say this

This is totally wrong. Moreover, if it were true, then China would have no escalation dominance and thus no deterrent capacity. The essence of Chinese deterrence in this region (if your thesis that India has a manpower advantage is true, which I'm skeptical about) is that it reserves the option to respond to human waves by opening fire with precision artillery, if not escalating further into aerial war.

This is not the venue in which to discuss this in detail. Suffice to say that it's not a matter of "chauvinism" or "imperialism", it's a matter of national security. It should be clear by now that this is not a boundary dispute about 20% of some tiny Himalayan moonscape. India doesn't accept that Tibet is part of China and can't wait to participate in the West's dreamed of conquest of China. That they don't have the means to effect this is a secondary consideration, that they have the intent alone merits a response.

This is what I mean when I say you have blind spots. Who said invasion means "regime change" and "nation building"? You seem to think that if China invaded, it would do so to replace the Indian regime with a friendlier one and would stick around to support it. The first objection to this is a minor one, insurgencies need a neighbour to fuel them (Vietnam - China, Iraq - Iran, Afghanistan - Pakistan); who's the Indian neighbour who would play this role?

The real objection to this is that if China decided to invade India, American regime change silliness wouldn't be its objective at all. Let's use a sanitized analogy once again: Suppose my neighbour and I have a dispute over where some section of fence sits on the property. I often hear him having shouting matches with his family that he intends to take not just the disputed region, but all he can get his hands on just as soon as the guy down the street arming and helping squatters on another of my properties makes his move. You advise me not to take serious action to defend myself because taking over his house means I'll have to feed his family and renovate the house all while dealing with his provocations and that's just too expensive.

I respond that it's not my intention to feed his family and remodel his house, and it's not too expensive to just burn his house to the ground if he ever tries to make his sick fantasies a reality.

Click to expand...

If China gives them protection

Every single one of Thier neighbors, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka all of em
They're democracies and thier people hate India

2 reasons they don't act
1- Indian economic clout in Thier countries
2- huge power dynamics

Sardaukar20 said:

So, if Bhutan can finally settle its border disputes with China. The threat of war with China effectively disappears. There will be less obligation for India to station troops in Bhutan as 'protection' from China. Less Indian troops on Bhutanese soil = more independence from India. Bhutan can finally pursue a more independent foreign policy, and progress forward. While India is left behind by its only vassal. This is the greater implication that we should be talking about.

Click to expand...

Excellent post overall, but I think it misses an unfortunate fact that Bhutan faces. If Bhutan were sovereign and free to decide its policies it would do weigh its choices exactly as you outlined. But it isn't. Not only does India exercise direct control of the Bhutanese government (in a relationship that looks like something out of the 18th century), it also threatens Bhutan with annexation if it doesn't comply. It's not just a matter of Bhutan and China reaching a border agreement.

Successfully aligning Bhutan with China requires that China be willing to commit to protecting Bhutan militarily from any hostile action by India. I'm skeptical that China would make that commitment, though less skeptical now than I used to be.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Successfully aligning Bhutan with China requires that China be willing to commit to protecting Bhutan militarily from any hostile action by India. I'm skeptical that China would make that commitment, though less skeptical now than I used to be.

Click to expand...

This could be accomplished when during the negotiations, China would say that it supports Bhutan territorial integrity.

There is no reason why border negotiations couldnt be used by China to insert another dagger into India. Just have the diplomatic speech about territorial integrity and sovereignty while emphasizing no interference in internal matters.

There a lot of ways that China can either salami slice or outright eliminate such Indian threats to Bhutan. (It all depends on how much diplomatic capital China is willing to invest)

Overbom said:

This could be accomplished when during the negotiations, China would say that it supports Bhutan territorial integrity.

There is no reason why border negotiations couldnt be used by China to insert another dagger into India. Just have the diplomatic speech about territorial integrity and sovereignty while emphasizing no interference in internal matters.

There a lot of ways that China can either salami slice or outright eliminate such Indian threats to Bhutan. (It all depends on how much diplomatic capital China is willing to invest)

Click to expand...

Standard boilerplate diplomatic language isn't going to accomplish anything here. If China wants to signal that it's prepared to defend Bhutan against India, it would say something like "China will stand with Bhutan against any threat to its sovereignty", etc.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Standard boilerplate diplomatic language isn't going to accomplish anything here. If China wants to signal that it's prepared to defend Bhutan against India, it would say something like "China will stand with Bhutan against any threat to its sovereignty", etc.

Click to expand...

I mean lets be real. Diplomacy must always be backed by military power. China could move more troups on its border, do more military exercises, invite some troops from Bhutan to participate or Bhutanese officials to observe etc. There are many ways to signal to another country your intentions and how strongly you feel about it.

But nevertheless, whats the worry? Bhutan is ultimately a small player/pawn (of India). If India annexed it, it would cause a gigantic backlash from its neighbours who will open their arms and literally beg for China to protect them. China would have a grand party with Indian influence evaporating overnight in all those countries.

India thinks that it can pressure its neighbors but if it crosses a line, everyone will bond together to stop them.

We can see that already, India's influence relative to China's is declining in all of its neighbors. Is it worth it risking Bhutan annexation for the whole region turning hostile to India..

Anyway, back on topic, this MoU sends another signal to the Indian negotiating team to hurry up and finally decide on what they want to with the Chinese. Will they accept the PLA's proposal or will they stay there