Indian Soldiers Die Following Standoff with Chinese Forces

[James_xenoland]

This is the height of irony, privilege and non critical thinking. On a site made possible (free) by a side you are badmouthing and claiming to be just as bad as the other, who locks people up for merely not agreeing with it completely enough. There, there is one way it will be significantly worse!

“The west is freer than China, so a western-dominated world will be freer than a Chinese-dominated one.”

See, I don’t buy that line of reasoning at all. However free the United States is at home, American diplomats promoting American foreign policy has made it very clear pretty much since there was such a thing as American foreign policy that they’re not interested in promoting democracy or freedom abroad.

US allies may be free countries, but they’re not free because they are US allies. Correlation-causation.

“The west is freer than China, so a western-dominated world will be freer than a Chinese-dominated one.”

See, I don’t buy that line of reasoning at all. However free the United States is at home, American diplomats promoting American foreign policy has made it very clear pretty much since there was such a thing as American foreign policy that they’re not interested in promoting democracy or freedom abroad.

US allies may be free countries, but they’re not free because they are US allies. Correlation-causation.

Laughs in Saudi Arabia

So your counterargument is that the US doesn't impose it wills on its allies, as an argument for why it's "as bad" or worse than a country that already tries?

[Plzen]

So your counterargument is that the US doesn't impose it wills on its allies, as an argument for why it's "as bad" or worse than a country that already tries? :eyebrow:

Oh, the US absolutely does enforce its will on its allies, or even not-allies, all the time. Unfriendly governments are sanctioned or, if the country is weak enough, replaced with CIA coups or NATO interventions of one sort or another. Semi-friendly governments and allies are diplomatically pressured if they show signs of stepping out of the US diplomatic line. The US absolutely does impose its will on its allies.

The counterargument is that this will that is being imposed has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. The US wants compliant pro-American governments, and will gladly undermine other countries' democracy and freedom if it thinks a dictator will serve their purpose better than an elected government.

[Novus America]

The US is far from perfect, but again drop the false equivalency excuse to do nothing but surrender to Xi.

The US again will not try to get you fired for criticizing the US as a private citizen. Xi will.
Xi is a totalitarian, it is not merely enough your government aligns its policies somewhat with his (US allies can and do criticize and disagree with the US all the time) but that you say nothing against Xi.

It is a very different approach.

And this thread is about INDIA. In the case of India the choice is obvious. A hostile power claiming vast parts of its territory literally killing its soldiers, or a power who is not doing those things AND is the only power that can stand up to the hostile power.

When you are already being attacked neutrality and staying out of the conflict is not an option.

[Rusozak]

The US is far from perfect, but again drop the false equivalency excuse to do nothing but surrender to Xi.

The US again will not try to get you fired for criticizing the US as a private citizen. Xi will.
Xi is a totalitarian, it is not merely enough your government aligns its policies somewhat with his (US allies can and do criticize and disagree with the US all the time) but that you say nothing against Xi.

It is a very different approach.

And this thread is about INDIA. In the case of India the choice is obvious. A hostile power claiming vast parts of its territory literally killing its soldiers, or a power who is not doing those things AND is the only power that can stand up to the hostile power.

When you are already being attacked neutrality and staying out of the conflict is not an option.

What about Russia? India and Russia both share borders with China, and have historically clashed with them over border disputes. If not for Russia's power I'd bet China would be trying to Anschluss Russian land.

[Novus America]

The US is far from perfect, but again drop the false equivalency excuse to do nothing but surrender to Xi.

The US again will not try to get you fired for criticizing the US as a private citizen. Xi will.
Xi is a totalitarian, it is not merely enough your government aligns its policies somewhat with his (US allies can and do criticize and disagree with the US all the time) but that you say nothing against Xi.

It is a very different approach.

And this thread is about INDIA. In the case of India the choice is obvious. A hostile power claiming vast parts of its territory literally killing its soldiers, or a power who is not doing those things AND is the only power that can stand up to the hostile power.

When you are already being attacked neutrality and staying out of the conflict is not an option.

What about Russia? India and Russia both share borders with China, and have historically clashed with them over border disputes. If not for Russia's power I'd bet China would be trying to Anschluss Russian land.

Russia is not remotely in the same league as the US or PRC, and seems completely blind to the PRC threat.
Russia is not standing with India here, and will not even criticize the PRC here, because Russia cares more about appeasing the PRC.

Russia could be useful and it makes sense for India to keep on good terms with Russia BUT Russia cannot provide the power the US can if it wanted to, and it does not even want to get involved.

The only real significant power Russia has is in nuclear weapons. Its economy is sad, its population quite small.
The only thing keeping the PRC from (yet) Anschlussing parts of Russia is the PRC still needs some Russian weapons and it has other priorities.

Short of using nuclear weapons Russia would be crushed if the PRC attacked Vladivostok.
Russia is almost completely defenseless in the region.

[Genivaria]

It is probably the case that the PRC viewed the border agreement with Russia as temporary agreement of convenience and will violate it as soon as it becomes convenient to do so.
The PRC does not believe in treaties to be anything more than short term propaganda.

Someone posted a site called "international centre for defense and security", its from Estonia. On that site they have an article by a Russian political scientist who says China in the future might even give Russia ultimatums. The article - https://icds.ee/vladivostok-political-s ... he-future/

any neigboring land: Exists
China: Mine now

[Plzen]

Speaking of Russia... if I remember Cold War world history correctly, Soviet-Indian relations used to be very warm, and a shared hostility to China was, perhaps not the largest, but certainly a significant factor in why.

One wonders what changed. Is it because India has a more pro-western government now, that Russia is more reluctant to work with them?

---

Even in the case of India, I’m inclined to question whether submitting to the US sphere is the best response to the current crisis. India has a privilege denied many other countries in that situation, which is that it is a major regional power capable of independently putting up a substantial resistance to any international pressure.

In the end crises like the one currently playing out along the Line of Actual Control are not settled by what the belligerent parties can do to each other (which, come right down to it, is to turn each other’s cities into radioactive ash) but what they are willing to do to one another.

Demonstrate a strong eagerness to escalate if need be. China will either back off, in which case problem solved, or it won’t, in which case conflict was inevitable anyways.

Alternately... well, I’d say consider negotiations with China, but I’m not really sure what China wants in the short term. Probably some kind of economic or diplomatic concession, as a stepping stone towards (they hope) an eventual future puppet regime in India, but not really clear at this point. I don’t think it’s territory that they actually want.

Certainly a good idea to open negotiations with the US, too, whether or not anything comes out of those discussions. Never a good idea to burn bridges, especially when you have a bit of leverage to throw between the competing parties.

[Novus America]

Speaking of Russia... if I remember Cold War world history correctly, Soviet-Indian relations used to be very warm, and a shared hostility to China was, perhaps not the largest, but certainly a significant factor in why.

One wonders what changed. Is it because India has a more pro-western government now, that Russia is more reluctant to work with them?

---

Even in the case of India, I’m inclined to question whether submitting to the US sphere is the best response to the current crisis. India has a privilege denied many other countries in that situation, which is that it is a major regional power capable of independently putting up a substantial resistance to any international pressure.

In the end crises like the one currently playing out along the Line of Actual Control are not settled by what the belligerent parties can do to each other (which, come right down to it, is to turn each other’s cities into radioactive ash) but what they are willing to do to one another.

Demonstrate a strong eagerness to escalate if need be. China will either back off, in which case problem solved, or it won’t, in which case conflict was inevitable anyways.

Alternately... well, I’d say consider negotiations with China, but I’m not really sure what China wants in the short term. Probably some kind of economic or diplomatic concession, as a stepping stone towards (they hope) an eventual future puppet regime in India, but not really clear at this point. I don’t think it’s territory that they actually want.

Certainly a good idea to open negotiations with the US, too, whether or not anything comes out of those discussions. Never a good idea to burn bridges, especially when you have a bit of leverage to throw between the competing parties.

Well the PRC does claim large chunks of Indian land, and true the PRC’s exact intentions are hard to gauge because it lies without any qualms and has a extreme degree of secrecy.
Unlike an open government where people debate and help determine policy in the public arena the PRC makes most decisions in secret, with no open public input (it will sometime data mine public opinion but it has no free and fair elections at the foreign policy levels in which it has to explain or justify policies or decisions.

What you do know is it only wants a beat down subservient India that will not compete for influence, something India can never accept.

But it is not a simple all or nothing thing. Negotiations with the PRC are not always bad even though the PRC cannot be trusted and treaties with them mean basically nothing.
You might get some short term concessions IF you hit them with enough leverage (although they will knife you in the back as soon as they think they can).

But you need strong allies to have leverage against the PRC,

India alone is weaker than the PRC, BUT India and the US together are much stronger than the PRC.

You can only successfully negotiate from a position of strength.
So by working with the US you go from a bad negotiation position (being not as strong as the PRC) to a good one (being stronger).

But nobody is saying India has to “submit to the US sphere”, relations with the US are much more complicated than “take it or leave it”.

Each country can negotiate its own relations with its own terms that may differ greatly from the US relations with other countries.
IFRC you are from South Korea and do not like the current terms of the US South Korea arrangement but a US India arrangement would have VERY different terms.

It would be very different.

The US takes a very specialized approach, you only have to work with the US on certain things (none of which are set in stone) but can disagree with it on other things.

India has to go in telling the US what it wants. Be firm but fair. Tell the US what you want, what your demands are. But approach it in open good faith, looking at areas that are not conflicting and not zero sum. Limit your terms to the essentials, do not try to make them all encompassing or bring up unrelated things.
It might be hypocritical but even if the US does sometimes do the zero sum thing do not get into the zero sum game with the US.

The US is likely to agree to favorable terms (for India) because we really want India on our side. And we are unlike the PRC not real threat to India.

Russia is simply not the Soviet Union. Many thing changed since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Congress Party used to have an ideologically affinity to the Soviets but that is gone.
Russia is no longer a super power either, and yes Indus moving more pro Western has changed things, Russia is ideologically against western principles that India is not.

But basically the situation is reversed. The Russians and PRC are pretty much in the exact opposite the Soviets and PRC were.

The Soviets were a superpower whereas the PRC (after Stalin) was and great power, but still secondary power trying to strike its own path in the shadow of two far stronger superpowers.
Now Russia is the lesser power, the second tier great power in the shadow of two superpowers.

So what the PRC was in the 60s Russia basically is now.

Russia is reliant on the PRC and not an independent superpower.

Still India and Russia have good relations BUT if Russia has to choose between the PRC and India Russia will go with the PRC. Russia would rather have good ties with both but it prioritizes the PRC more. So it will at best stay neutral in a PRC India conflict.

So Russia can provide help to India on OTHER issues, but is no help against the PRC, as Russia will not stand up to the PRC to defend India. Russia values its ties with the PRC more than its ties with India. Russia would rather sit this one out.

[KingFerdinand1]

China Is Evil.

[Rusozak]

What about Russia? India and Russia both share borders with China, and have historically clashed with them over border disputes. If not for Russia's power I'd bet China would be trying to Anschluss Russian land.

Russia is not remotely in the same league as the US or PRC, and seems completely blind to the PRC threat.
Russia is not standing with India here, and will not even criticize the PRC here, because Russia cares more about appeasing the PRC.

Russia could be useful and it makes sense for India to keep on good terms with Russia BUT Russia cannot provide the power the US can if it wanted to, and it does not even want to get involved.

The only real significant power Russia has is in nuclear weapons. Its economy is sad, its population quite small.
The only thing keeping the PRC from (yet) Anschlussing parts of Russia is the PRC still needs some Russian weapons and it has other priorities.

Short of using nuclear weapons Russia would be crushed if the PRC attacked Vladivostok.
Russia is almost completely defenseless in the region.

I think you're underestimating Russia's strength. I mean, yes, Russia would be crushed if their far east territories got invaded, initially. But once they can mobilize their forces and organize a counter-offensive, history has proven time and again invading Russia isn't wise. And forget about the Chinese hoping Russia would back off and let them keep any captured lands. All this, plus considering China would be pretty much without allies of any kind in such a conflict, doesn't bode well for China. So I think going to Russia for help instead of the U.S. is still an option for India.

[Genivaria]

China Is Evil.

The People's Republic of China is evil, the Republic of China is good friend.

[Genivaria]

Russia is not remotely in the same league as the US or PRC, and seems completely blind to the PRC threat.
Russia is not standing with India here, and will not even criticize the PRC here, because Russia cares more about appeasing the PRC.

Russia could be useful and it makes sense for India to keep on good terms with Russia BUT Russia cannot provide the power the US can if it wanted to, and it does not even want to get involved.

The only real significant power Russia has is in nuclear weapons. Its economy is sad, its population quite small.
The only thing keeping the PRC from (yet) Anschlussing parts of Russia is the PRC still needs some Russian weapons and it has other priorities.

Short of using nuclear weapons Russia would be crushed if the PRC attacked Vladivostok.
Russia is almost completely defenseless in the region.

I think you're underestimating Russia's strength. I mean, yes, Russia would be crushed if their far east territories got invaded, initially. But once they can mobilize their forces and organize a counter-offensive, history has proven time and again invading Russia isn't wise. And forget about the Chinese hoping Russia would back off and let them keep any captured lands. All this, plus considering China would be pretty much without allies of any kind in such a conflict, doesn't bode well for China. So I think going to Russia for help instead of the U.S. is still an option for India.

I wonder if recent events concerning the PRC'S claim of Vladivostok will change Russia's willingness to oppose the PRC.

[Novus America]

Russia is not remotely in the same league as the US or PRC, and seems completely blind to the PRC threat.
Russia is not standing with India here, and will not even criticize the PRC here, because Russia cares more about appeasing the PRC.

Russia could be useful and it makes sense for India to keep on good terms with Russia BUT Russia cannot provide the power the US can if it wanted to, and it does not even want to get involved.

The only real significant power Russia has is in nuclear weapons. Its economy is sad, its population quite small.
The only thing keeping the PRC from (yet) Anschlussing parts of Russia is the PRC still needs some Russian weapons and it has other priorities.

Short of using nuclear weapons Russia would be crushed if the PRC attacked Vladivostok.
Russia is almost completely defenseless in the region.

I think you're underestimating Russia's strength. I mean, yes, Russia would be crushed if their far east territories got invaded, initially. But once they can mobilize their forces and organize a counter-offensive, history has proven time and again invading Russia isn't wise. And forget about the Chinese hoping Russia would back off and let them keep any captured lands. All this, plus considering China would be pretty much without allies of any kind in such a conflict, doesn't bode well for China. So I think going to Russia for help instead of the U.S. is still an option for India.

Russia could not retake those territories either.
Look at the Russo Japanese war.

Beijing is far closer to Vladivostok than Moscow is, and the PRC has far better infrastructure in the region.
Russia cannot defend the region.
Russia’s (not very large, its land forces including the Airborne Troops (which oddly are a separate branch from the other ground forces)) are only 350,000 men and almost all concentrated in Europe. Russia’s Pacific Fleet is very small.

Russia does not have the logistics to fight in the Far East.
It cannot get large numbers there, and then supply or support them. Actually invading Russia works quite well historically IF you merely take out the peripheral regions. Russia being a logistics nightmare can work against an invader IF the invader goes too far into Russia, but Russia being a logistics nightmare also leaves Russia weak to an attacker who avoids going on deep.

The PRC merely needs to overrun Outer Manchuria and then they can easily defend it against an Russian counterattack.
Obviously the PRC cannot march to Moscow but does not need too.

Loss of strength gradient means you get weaker the farther you go from your logistics base.
Russia’s logistics base is in Europe. The PRC’s is in East China.
East China is much closer to Outer Manchuria than Europe.

Besides the Russian economy is surprisingly small, (Texas has a bigger economy than all Russia) too small for a prolonged war against the PRC and the PRC has ten times the population. The PRC can fight to the last Russian and still have plenty of men to spare.

Russia is in bad shape. Sure the PRC would have no real allies, BUT neither would Russia.
By alienating the West Russia has no where left to turn. Russia would need the US and Japan to save it.

In the end Russia would at best merely sit the thing out.
Russia cannot beat the PRC in the Far East on its own, has few allies, and India would be little help, because India cannot really get supplies or troops to Russia, India can tie down large numbers of PRC troops in the south but the PRC does not need many to beat Russia in the Far East, where Russia has only a minimal screening force. The largely defensive Indian Navy cannot fight the PRC in the Pacific (without US and Japanese help that is).

Russia (incorrectly) fears NATO more than the PRC (fighting the PRC would require Russia pulling nearly all its troops from Europe, as including Ukraine) leaving it defenseless in the west.
Russia cannot fight a two front war. Although NATO would not attack, Russia fears it would.
Would Russia really leave Europe undefended to try to move its entire military thousands of miles across horrible terrain with limited roads and railroads to try to counterattack? And how are the Russians going to successfully counter attack far larger PRC forces?

In WWII the Soviets were fighting in Europe and had a numerical advantage (not as large as some make it out to be but it still had one).
Half the Soviet Union (Russia was only half of it) against a far larger enemy in Asia would be a completely different game.

[Rio Cana]

Kind of off-topic but it has to do with China. Found out that a few days ago the Philippines warned China big time not to cross there sovereign waters. Before all this, the Philippines Pres. was kind of trying to get close to China. Chinese investments were supposedly planned for the Philippines. But it seems the investments have not really materialized while China has been reinforcing there positions in the South China sea.

The following is the Filipino Foreign Secretary in the speech in which he warns China - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIfwZeQ03Qw

[Rio Cana]

I think you're underestimating Russia's strength. I mean, yes, Russia would be crushed if their far east territories got invaded, initially. But once they can mobilize their forces and organize a counter-offensive, history has proven time and again invading Russia isn't wise. And forget about the Chinese hoping Russia would back off and let them keep any captured lands. All this, plus considering China would be pretty much without allies of any kind in such a conflict, doesn't bode well for China. So I think going to Russia for help instead of the U.S. is still an option for India.

Russia could not retake those territories either.
Look at the Russo Japanese war.

Beijing is far closer to Vladivostok than Moscow is, and the PRC has far better infrastructure in the region.
Russia cannot defend the region.
Russia’s (not very large, its land forces including the Airborne Troops (which oddly are a separate branch from the other ground forces)) are only 350,000 men and almost all concentrated in Europe. Russia’s Pacific Fleet is very small.

Russia does not have the logistics to fight in the Far East.
It cannot get large numbers there, and then supply or support them. Actually invading Russia works quite well historically IF you merely take out the peripheral regions. Russia being a logistics nightmare can work against an invader IF the invader goes too far into Russia, but Russia being a logistics nightmare also leaves Russia weak to an attacker who avoids going on deep.

The PRC merely needs to overrun Outer Manchuria and then they can easily defend it against an Russian counterattack.
Obviously the PRC cannot march to Moscow but does not need too.

Loss of strength gradient means you get weaker the farther you go from your logistics base.
Russia’s logistics base is in Europe. The PRC’s is in East China.
East China is much closer to Outer Manchuria than Europe.

Besides the Russian economy is surprisingly small, (Texas has a bigger economy than all Russia) too small for a prolonged war against the PRC and the PRC has ten times the population. The PRC can fight to the last Russian and still have plenty of men to spare.

Russia is in bad shape. Sure the PRC would have no real allies, BUT neither would Russia.
By alienating the West Russia has no where left to turn. Russia would need the US and Japan to save it.

In the end Russia would at best merely sit the thing out.
Russia cannot beat the PRC in the Far East on its own, has few allies, and India would be little help, because India cannot really get supplies or troops to Russia, India can tie down large numbers of PRC troops in the south but the PRC does not need many to beat Russia in the Far East, where Russia has only a minimal screening force. The largely defensive Indian Navy cannot fight the PRC in the Pacific (without US and Japanese help that is).

Russia (incorrectly) fears NATO more than the PRC (fighting the PRC would require Russia pulling nearly all its troops from Europe, as including Ukraine) leaving it defenseless in the west.
Russia cannot fight a two front war. Although NATO would not attack, Russia fears i would.
Would Russia really leave Europe undefended to try to move its entire military thousands of miles across horrible terrain with limited roads and railroads to try to counterattack? And how are the Russians going to successfully counter attack far larger PRC forces?

In WWII the Soviets were fighting in Europe and had a numerical advantage (not as large as some make it out to be but it still had one).
Half the Soviet Union (Russia was only half of it) against a far larger enemy in Asia would be a completely different game.

You mentioned Outer Mongolia which is the nation of Mongolia. US would become involved if they were invaded. After all, Mongolia is the US fifth strategic partner. Chances are NK. would also get involved since Mongolia is one of the few nations they have good ties too. Has for the Russians, they know that the still undeveloped Russian Far East is a security concern. But they have been trying to turn things around. Russia currently has four military districts. The Russian Far East makes up the Eastern Military District. Compared to the other three military districts which has two armies each, the Eastern Military district has four armies of which two are stationed by the Chinese border.
Not for decades but for centuries the Russians have been worrying and working on how to better defend there borders. Then we have Japan. Seems Japan, even though they have island disputes with Russia which tend to flare up every once in a while, have a few times been cooperating with the Russian military since they perceive China has the biggest threat.

The growing threats from North Korea and China, as well as heightened concerns about the long-term reliability of the United States, have led Japan to cultivate closer security relations with other regional players. Priority has been placed on Australia, India, South Korea and south-east Asian countries, yet Japan's National Security Strategy also states that cooperation with Russia is crucial.

[Novus America]

Russia could not retake those territories either.
Look at the Russo Japanese war.

Beijing is far closer to Vladivostok than Moscow is, and the PRC has far better infrastructure in the region.
Russia cannot defend the region.
Russia’s (not very large, its land forces including the Airborne Troops (which oddly are a separate branch from the other ground forces)) are only 350,000 men and almost all concentrated in Europe. Russia’s Pacific Fleet is very small.

Russia does not have the logistics to fight in the Far East.
It cannot get large numbers there, and then supply or support them. Actually invading Russia works quite well historically IF you merely take out the peripheral regions. Russia being a logistics nightmare can work against an invader IF the invader goes too far into Russia, but Russia being a logistics nightmare also leaves Russia weak to an attacker who avoids going on deep.

The PRC merely needs to overrun Outer Manchuria and then they can easily defend it against an Russian counterattack.
Obviously the PRC cannot march to Moscow but does not need too.

Loss of strength gradient means you get weaker the farther you go from your logistics base.
Russia’s logistics base is in Europe. The PRC’s is in East China.
East China is much closer to Outer Manchuria than Europe.

Besides the Russian economy is surprisingly small, (Texas has a bigger economy than all Russia) too small for a prolonged war against the PRC and the PRC has ten times the population. The PRC can fight to the last Russian and still have plenty of men to spare.

Russia is in bad shape. Sure the PRC would have no real allies, BUT neither would Russia.
By alienating the West Russia has no where left to turn. Russia would need the US and Japan to save it.

In the end Russia would at best merely sit the thing out.
Russia cannot beat the PRC in the Far East on its own, has few allies, and India would be little help, because India cannot really get supplies or troops to Russia, India can tie down large numbers of PRC troops in the south but the PRC does not need many to beat Russia in the Far East, where Russia has only a minimal screening force. The largely defensive Indian Navy cannot fight the PRC in the Pacific (without US and Japanese help that is).

Russia (incorrectly) fears NATO more than the PRC (fighting the PRC would require Russia pulling nearly all its troops from Europe, as including Ukraine) leaving it defenseless in the west.
Russia cannot fight a two front war. Although NATO would not attack, Russia fears i would.
Would Russia really leave Europe undefended to try to move its entire military thousands of miles across horrible terrain with limited roads and railroads to try to counterattack? And how are the Russians going to successfully counter attack far larger PRC forces?

In WWII the Soviets were fighting in Europe and had a numerical advantage (not as large as some make it out to be but it still had one).
Half the Soviet Union (Russia was only half of it) against a far larger enemy in Asia would be a completely different game.

You mentioned Outer Mongolia which is the nation of Mongolia. US would become involved if they were invaded. After all, Mongolia is the US fifth strategic partner. Chances are NK. would also get involved since Mongolia is one of the few nations they have good ties too. Has for the Russians, they know that the still undeveloped Russian Far East is a security concern. But they have been trying to turn things around. Russia currently has four military districts. The Russian Far East makes up the Eastern Military District. Compared to the other three military districts which has two armies each, the Eastern Military district has four armies of which two are stationed by the Chinese border.
Not for decades but for centuries the Russians have been worrying and working on how to better defend there borders. Then we have Japan. Seems Japan, even though they have island disputes with Russia which tend to flare up every once in a while, have a few times been cooperating with the Russian military since they perceive China has the biggest threat.

The growing threats from North Korea and China, as well as heightened concerns about the long-term reliability of the United States, have led Japan to cultivate closer security relations with other regional players. Priority has been placed on Australia, India, South Korea and south-east Asian countries, yet Japan's National Security Strategy also states that cooperation with Russia is crucial.

Outer MANCHURIA, not Mongolia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Manchuria

The Russian “Armies” of the Eastern Military District are woeful under strength, most consisting of a a few combat brigades plus some supporting units. The 29th “Army” is a single mechanized brigade plus supporting units. It is really just a single brigade combat team despite the name.

The are not actually armies, just glorified divisions (some under strength). Russia is more bark than bite in many cases.

Russia simply does not have the men to maintain a large force in the East when it focuses its limited military resources on Europe.

True Japan is seeking improved relations with Russia, and maybe Russia will wise up to the threat, but right now it is more interested in retiring to scare NATO than defend the East.

So for now Russia cannot be reliable support to India.
Especially as Russia is friendly with and arming the PRC with weapons it can use against India.

Russia would at best sit the fight out most likely.

[Plzen]

Well the PRC does claim large chunks of Indian land, and true the PRC’s exact intentions are hard to gauge because it lies without any qualms and has a extreme degree of secrecy.

It's hard to believe that they're claiming that territory because they actually want that territory. It's a scrap of mountainous wasteland far, far away from the coast, and it's - to adopt a quote from elsewhere - wrong culture, wrong religion, wrong everything. I suspect that the PRC just wants a confrontation where it can win some influence, and a small out-of-the-way territorial conflict against a smaller power is a good excuse to make a confrontation.

Unlike an open government where people debate and help determine policy in the public arena the PRC makes most decisions in secret, with no open public input (it will sometime data mine public opinion but it has no free and fair elections at the foreign policy levels in which it has to explain or justify policies or decisions.

The difference between a democratic government and an authoritarian government is zero if you don't happen to live in the country. Decisions are always imposed from above with no room for debate or appeal if one does not happen to be a citizen of the country making those decisions, even if that country is democratic at home.

Really, in the last century your ideological predecessors would have been telling me that of course Indians should take up arms and die by the hundreds of thousands to defend Britain because Britain is a democracy. Of course it's the right thing to do. Shouldn't we fight against tyranny? Hmm?

Empire is empire, even if they're not so explicitly demarcated anymore, and the so-called interests of the empire upon closer inspection always turns out to be the interests of the core, only rarely those of the periphery. That's true within a country, and that's true for something broader like the "western world", too.

But it is not a simple all or nothing thing. Negotiations with the PRC are not always bad even though the PRC cannot be trusted and treaties with them mean basically nothing.

In that way, the PRC is exactly like any other great power now and throughout history.

The fundamental constraint of international relations is anarchy. I agree with the realists on that much. No treaty is worth even the scrap of paper it's printed on if you can't enforce it with some kind of leverage, regardless of who's sitting on the other side of the negotiating table.

But you need strong allies to have leverage against the PRC,

Secondary powers since time immemorial survived under one condition: be more trouble than you're worth. Every infantry, diplomat, propagandist, or businessman the PRC (or, for that matter, the US) has to commit to force your cooperation is another reason for them to negotiate for it instead. Leverage doesn't mean you have to be able to go at it alone, it just means you're a significant bother to coerce.

So by working with the US you go from a bad negotiation position (being not as strong as the PRC) to a good one (being stronger).

India maintains the best possible negotiating position against both the US and China by not cementing themselves as the firm ally of either and leaving open the possibility of returning neutral or going to the other side.

India has to go in telling the US what it wants. Be firm but fair. Tell the US what you want, what your demands are. But approach it in open good faith, looking at areas that are not conflicting and not zero sum. Limit your terms to the essentials, do not try to make them all encompassing or bring up unrelated things.
It might be hypocritical but even if the US does sometimes do the zero sum thing do not get into the zero sum game with the US.

If you're not willing to withhold cooperation on matters where you have no conflict, then you're just begging to be exploited by the other party where you do.

[Rio Cana]

Snip ....

Outer MANCHURIA, not Mongolia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Manchuria

The Russian “Armies” of the Eastern Military District are woeful under strength, most consisting of a a few combat brigades plus some supporting units. The 29th “Army” is a single mechanized brigade plus supporting units. It is really just a single brigade combat team despite the name.

The are not actually armies, just glorified divisions (some under strength). Russia is more bark than bite in many cases.

Russia simply does not have the men to maintain a large force in the East when it focuses its limited military resources on Europe.

True Japan is seeking improved relations with Russia, and maybe Russia will wise up to the threat, but right now it is more interested in retiring to scare NATO than defend the East.

So for now Russia cannot be reliable support to India.
Especially as Russia is friendly with and arming the PRC with weapons it can use against India.

Russia would at best sit the fight out most likely.

On a long offensive line, the Chinese would have to cross the Argun, Amur and Ussuri rivers to get into Russia. Rivers provide defensive positions. Map - http://www.geologypage.com/wp-content/u ... vermap.png

Then there are the defensible Sikhote-Alin mountain range, Stanovoy mountain range (which early on formed the border between the Empire of Russia and the Qing empire ) and the Bureinsky Ridge.

Map - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Phy ... _329093359

[Atheris]

Snip ....

Outer MANCHURIA, not Mongolia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Manchuria

The Russian “Armies” of the Eastern Military District are woeful under strength, most consisting of a a few combat brigades plus some supporting units. The 29th “Army” is a single mechanized brigade plus supporting units. It is really just a single brigade combat team despite the name.

The are not actually armies, just glorified divisions (some under strength). Russia is more bark than bite in many cases.

Russia simply does not have the men to maintain a large force in the East when it focuses its limited military resources on Europe.

True Japan is seeking improved relations with Russia, and maybe Russia will wise up to the threat, but right now it is more interested in retiring to scare NATO than defend the East.

So for now Russia cannot be reliable support to India.
Especially as Russia is friendly with and arming the PRC with weapons it can use against India.

Russia would at best sit the fight out most likely.

On a long offensive line, the Chinese would have to cross the Argun, Amur and Ussuri rivers to get into Russia. Rivers provide defensive positions. Map - http://www.geologypage.com/wp-content/u ... vermap.png

Rivers provide defensive positions, indeed. However, there's not necessarily impenetrable, especially when it's just a few divisions against an army.

Then there are the defensible Sikhote-Alin mountain range, Stanovoy mountain range (which early on formed the border between the Empire of Russia and the Qing empire ) and the Bureinsky Ridge.

Map - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Phy ... _329093359

The mountain ranges are probably Russia's best bet for defense if they do go to war with China. Mountains are basically geographical forts, but again, not necessarily impenetrable.

[Rio Cana]

This is getting quite repetitive. Just found out via Indian source. Seems China is claiming a nature park in Eastern Bhutan. The thing is that nature park is near the border with India. Seems that part of India which borders China is also claimed by China which explains why China claims that part of Bhutan. Bhutan which has no official diplomatic ties with China, said that territory is rightfully there's.

Map - https://www.organiser.org/Encyc/2020/7/ ... TH_600.jpg

Short Video news of it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHSqR-XKxEM

[Novus America]

Snip ....

On a long offensive line, the Chinese would have to cross the Argun, Amur and Ussuri rivers to get into Russia. Rivers provide defensive positions. Map - http://www.geologypage.com/wp-content/u ... vermap.png

Rivers provide defensive positions, indeed. However, there's not necessarily impenetrable, especially when it's just a few divisions against an army.

Then there are the defensible Sikhote-Alin mountain range, Stanovoy mountain range (which early on formed the border between the Empire of Russia and the Qing empire ) and the Bureinsky Ridge.

Map - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Phy ... _329093359

The mountain ranges are probably Russia's best bet for defense if they do go to war with China. Mountains are basically geographical forts, but again, not necessarily impenetrable.

And if Russia defends the Stanovoy mountains they still lose Outer Manchuria anyways.
The Stanovoy Mountains are NORTH of Outer Manchuria.

The PRC does not need to cross them. That is like saying the US could defend the Appalachian mountains, the problem is we still would lose the East Coast if we did.

[Plzen]

If Russia decides against maintaining a no-first-use doctrine, the entire military question is moot.

Putin’s Russia is uncompromising enough that a threat to retaliate against a conventional invasion with a strategic nuclear response can, if one is made, not easily be dismissed.

Why do you think the US is so eager to disarm and leave defenceless countries they don’t like? They know perfectly well how damaging an insecure dictator with weapons of mass destruction can be to the US military-diplomatic position. Same logic applies here.

Beijing would, if they have any sense, want to avoid a situation that leaves Putin or his eventual successors feeling like they have to respond. They would not want Russia feeling insecure and threatened.

[Novus America]

Well the PRC does claim large chunks of Indian land, and true the PRC’s exact intentions are hard to gauge because it lies without any qualms and has a extreme degree of secrecy.

It's hard to believe that they're claiming that territory because they actually want that territory. It's a scrap of mountainous wasteland far, far away from the coast, and it's - to adopt a quote from elsewhere - wrong culture, wrong religion, wrong everything. I suspect that the PRC just wants a confrontation where it can win some influence, and a small out-of-the-way territorial conflict against a smaller power is a good excuse to make a confrontation.

Unlike an open government where people debate and help determine policy in the public arena the PRC makes most decisions in secret, with no open public input (it will sometime data mine public opinion but it has no free and fair elections at the foreign policy levels in which it has to explain or justify policies or decisions.

The difference between a democratic government and an authoritarian government is zero if you don't happen to live in the country. Decisions are always imposed from above with no room for debate or appeal if one does not happen to be a citizen of the country making those decisions, even if that country is democratic at home.

Really, in the last century your ideological predecessors would have been telling me that of course Indians should take up arms and die by the hundreds of thousands to defend Britain because Britain is a democracy. Of course it's the right thing to do. Shouldn't we fight against tyranny? Hmm?

Empire is empire, even if they're not so explicitly demarcated anymore, and the so-called interests of the empire upon closer inspection always turns out to be the interests of the core, only rarely those of the periphery. That's true within a country, and that's true for something broader like the "western world", too.

But it is not a simple all or nothing thing. Negotiations with the PRC are not always bad even though the PRC cannot be trusted and treaties with them mean basically nothing.

In that way, the PRC is exactly like any other great power now and throughout history.

The fundamental constraint of international relations is anarchy. I agree with the realists on that much. No treaty is worth even the scrap of paper it's printed on if you can't enforce it with some kind of leverage, regardless of who's sitting on the other side of the negotiating table.

But you need strong allies to have leverage against the PRC,

Secondary powers since time immemorial survived under one condition: be more trouble than you're worth. Every infantry, diplomat, propagandist, or businessman the PRC (or, for that matter, the US) has to commit to force your cooperation is another reason for them to negotiate for it instead. Leverage doesn't mean you have to be able to go at it alone, it just means you're a significant bother to coerce.

So by working with the US you go from a bad negotiation position (being not as strong as the PRC) to a good one (being stronger).

India maintains the best possible negotiating position against both the US and China by not cementing themselves as the firm ally of either and leaving open the possibility of returning neutral or going to the other side.

India has to go in telling the US what it wants. Be firm but fair. Tell the US what you want, what your demands are. But approach it in open good faith, looking at areas that are not conflicting and not zero sum. Limit your terms to the essentials, do not try to make them all encompassing or bring up unrelated things.
It might be hypocritical but even if the US does sometimes do the zero sum thing do not get into the zero sum game with the US.

If you're not willing to withhold cooperation on matters where you have no conflict, then you're just begging to be exploited by the other party where you do.

Your extreme “realist”/moral relativist view is absurdly reductionist and thus a poor basis for foreign policy. In fact not all great powers behave in the same manner, and in fact the morals, culture and political systems impact foreign policy greatly.

For example the US could invade Canada. Without military difficulty.
The reason we do not is in no small part because a majority of our population would find this to be morally wrong, and moreover the people can impact foreign policies via their vote, so this constrains the government.

Meanwhile a government like the PRC which has no moral or democratic constraints is more likely to engage in open conquest and imperialism simply because it can, whereas a more democratic society with moral traditions in foreign policy is constrained from engaging in open imperialism to a degree an authoritarian “realist” regime is not.

“Realist” regimes are the least trustworthy and more likely to engage in hostile actions as a result.

The only things preventing the PRC invading Taiwan is fear of the economic and political blowback, and the fact they might lose. Whereas the things preventing the US from invading Canada are based on the fact we think such imperialism is now wrong as much as those other things.

Morals impact foreign policy.
Perfect example in the very relevant case of India, Gahandi‘s tactics ONLY worked because the UK had a free press with many willing to side with India, and a democratic political system that felt that the methods required to defeat his tactics were morally indefensible.

And because they voted Churchill out and replaced him with Attlee.

Had Churchill been a dictator the outcome would have been very different. The moral concerns, free press and democratic elections in the the UK were DECIDING factors.

See Vietnam as well. Had LBJ or Nixon been dictators and controlled the press, the US would have stayed in Vietnam. We left because of our free press, democratic pressures and elections, not “realpolitik”.

It actually does matter. A foreign country with a free press can be used to your advantage if you convince the press to side with you against your government.
You can use the free press and open democratic systems in a society to your advantage.
India knows the people of the US view India as better than the PRC, and that is why the US will lean towards India. The fact the US views India as morally superior plays a part in our foreign policy decisions.

Before you point out the US can be hypocritical and still side with regimes we find morally reprehensible it is important to note moral concerns are not the only political constraint, but they are a significant thing. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is undermined by Saudi Arabia’s harsh theocracy which is increasingly unpopular with the US public.
And in fact it is possible we we elect more people who vote will cut off arms sales to them as a result. Of course in the US there is a political conflict between the people in areas with arms factories having different concerns than college liberals but still, who wins is impacted by our elections.

Sure you still need hard power leverage as well, but realists dismiss the importance of the softer things to their detriment. It is not only about hard power.

And playing both sides against each other is a dangerous game because neither side will trust you.

If India for example tried to play that game, the US would probably refuse to sell India weapons because India might just sell them to the PRC.

For us to trust India with our most advanced weapons we need to know India can be trusted not to sell us out.
Look at Turkey. Turkey tried to play the whole not cementing themselves as the firm ally of either the US or Russia and got booted from the F-35 program as a result.
Sometimes you have to pick a side, and by picking neither, neither will help you when you need.

And also on the last thing, if you overplay you’re hand you lose. All or nothing usually gets you nothing. The more issues you bring up, the more difficult negotiations become.
Thus it is best to avoid over complicating them.

[Novus America]

If Russia decides against maintaining a no-first-use doctrine, the entire military question is moot.

Putin’s Russia is uncompromising enough that a threat to retaliate against a conventional invasion with a strategic nuclear response can, if one is made, not easily be dismissed.

Why do you think the US is so eager to disarm and leave defenceless countries they don’t like? They know perfectly well how damaging an insecure dictator with weapons of mass destruction can be to the US military-diplomatic position. Same logic applies here.

Beijing would, if they have any sense, want to avoid a situation that leaves Putin or his eventual successors feeling like they have to respond. They would not want Russia feeling insecure and threatened.

You grossly overestimate the power of nuclear weapons:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4

Pointing a gun to your own head is a poor negotiating technique.

The thing is unless you have been driven to the point where you view suicide as preferable to living with a loss, you are probably not going to start a nuclear war with a nuclear power.

Even if they attack you. Russia can lose Vladivostok without dying as a country. Vladivostok is not essential to Russia’s existence.
But Russia cannot really survive the loss of Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

Would Russia really sacrifice Moscow to avenge the loss of Vladivostok? Almost certainly not.
Starting a nuclear war risks losing most of your population, which is a bad deal if the alternative is only losing a relatively small percentage of the territory you now hold.

Unless you show yourself actually willing to use them in the case in question, they lose their deterrent value. Although true calculated ambiguity is superior to no first use, it is not a silver bullet. Even though you refuse to say if you would use them or not, the opponent can still estimate with a reasonable degree of certainty which lines they can, or cannot cross.

From a cost benefit standpoint, starting a nuclear war to avenge (not even save as it would be destroyed as well) Vladivostok, is not worth the cost.

Russia is not as uncompromising as they like to claim in their propaganda, and Putin is not a suicidal fanatic. Putin is more bark than bite, and not likely to want to probably die for Outer Manchuria. He can survive the loss of Outer Manchuria much easier than survive a nuclear war.

[Plzen]

For example the US could invade Canada. Without military difficulty.
The reason we do not is in no small part because a majority of our population would find this to be morally wrong, and moreover the people can impact foreign policies via their vote, so this constrains the government.

Canada is a firm US ally with a politically stable government. The US doesn’t have anything to gain from putting an army up there except another diplomatic headache and military quagmire.

Had Canada been a country of middling economic development and less certain loyalties, it would have been a very different story, and the US government would have been able to mollify the public with any of a dozen excuses while they reshuffle the Canadian regime in their favour. How much did democracy in Allende’s Chile stop democratically-elected US governments from waging economic war on Chile to get them back in line? Where was this public backlash you assure me would happen if the US behaves immorally?

The ability of the US voter to keep the US government in check means absolutely nothing for me when I’m pretty sure the average US voter has interests and opinions actively hostile to mine. How long did it take the government to drum up huge public support for invading Iraq after 2001 - all of a few months? It’s a foreign power that owe me nothing and over which I have neither voice nor vote - exactly the same as any other government except my own.

Let’s not forget that Trump got elected into the White House on a platform that includes - among other things - economic warfare on US allies. Some democratic “responsibility” that is.

Before the US gets to point fingers at China’s imperialist attitude towards Southeast and East Asia, it needs to take a long good look in the mirror.

Meanwhile a government like the PRC which has no moral or democratic constraints is more likely to engage in open conquest and imperialism simply because it can, whereas a more democratic society with moral traditions in foreign policy is constrained from engaging in open imperialism to a degree an authoritarian “realist” regime is not.

The keyword is, of course, “open”. The US never engages in imperialism, it merely fights against socialism, or Islamic radicalism, or authoritarianism, or whatever the public enemy of the day is this decade.

The end result, of course, is that US targets other countries with economic pressure, covert operations, and military interventions aimed at establishing more pro-US governments - no less than the Soviets did, and certainly a lot more than China does - and not calling it imperialism is entirely a matter of semantics and not substance.

-snip-

The public backlash against the Vietnam War - or the coalition war in Iraq, for that matter - didn’t materialise in scale until after the American public realised that the quick victories that they were promised were not materialising.

Which implies to me that the best way to get the United States public to care about an issue is to have that issue send back lots of Americans in body bags. Just like any other realist actor, the only way to convince the US not to seize some advantage is make it costly to do so - not ineffectively appeal to the morals of the apathetic and poorly-informed American public.