Indian Soldiers Die Following Standoff with Chinese Forces

[Novus America]

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.

The US does not invade Mexico (anymore) either. Or invade or annex Haiti for example. It is not simply because Canada is wealthy and stable.

It is also because we decided seizing new territory by force is morally wrong. And before you say “but the US did invade and annex part of Mexico” yes we did. Over 160 years ago.
The thing is 1800s attitudes towards foreign policy were quite different than contemporary western ones. The US no longer has a 1800s attitude. The PRC however does have an 1800s attitude.

It does play a role. Not all US leaders a complete amoral sociopaths either.
Your system relies on the assumption that all countries behave purely as amoral sociopaths. Which is not always the case. Although none are perfectly moral, few behave quite as sociopathic as the PRC does.

Openly is pretty important. Actions against Chile we were more covert.
When you are constrained from acting openly, you are still constrained from certain acts.

Yes we are not completely morally constrained, but we are not completely morally unconstrained either. We can only do so much, because doing too much becomes unpopular with the public.
Public opinion is still a constraint. It is not an Hobson’s choice, to be perfectly moral or perfectly amoral. It is possible to be somewhere in between but it is important to note that all countries are not equally in the middle either. Many lean more to one side than another.

The problem is your arguments lack nuance. Just because the US does amoral or bad things, does not mean we are EQUALLY amoral or bad. We still have constraints on our actions from our elections and media the PRC does not have.

Sure public opinion takes time to manifest, and sure the ability to inflict a heavy cost matters, it is not the only thing that matters.

And what about India? The UK pulled out not because of military casualties.
But because the less imperialist side won the election.
Point is you cannot say the domestic political and media situation is irrelevant to foreign policy when it absolute plays a role.

Which gets back to the topic. What matters here. Besides the US having more moral constraints, even if you find that unconvincing the US has no reason to fight India. While the PRC is fighting India.

Thus even if we assume the US and PRC are equally morally flawed, it still makes sense for India to side with the US, and playing a Turkey game of playing both against each other will probably backfire just as badly as it did for Turkey.

The US will require at least some assurances that India sides with the US and not the PRC or we will not give India access to everything India wants.

If you will not be committed friends with anyone, you will have no friends.
Few like a mercenary attitude, which usually drives people away.

[Plzen]

Thus even if we assume the US and PRC are equally morally flawed, it still makes sense for India to side with the US, and playing a Turkey game of playing both against each other will probably backfire just as badly as it did for Turkey.

This point, I will concede. It’s probably easier to hold neutrality and stay out of the fray than it is for a country already in the fray to get out, and any Indian attempts to do so could potentially backfire.

As for all your other points, I think at this point I have to admit that we are just never going to see things from each other’s perspective. Any claims you make towards American moral superiority seems to me like they stand in total defiance of publicly-known facts, and it appears that my claims towards American realist foreign policy seems the same to you.

In the interests of not cluttering up the thread too much, I will reiterate my stance that my country should absolutely resist any US attempts to strongarm us into taking a stance in the India-China dispute, and leave it at that for this thread.

There will no doubt be plenty of other threads in the future where we can discuss imperialism both American and Chinese.

[Novus America]

Thus even if we assume the US and PRC are equally morally flawed, it still makes sense for India to side with the US, and playing a Turkey game of playing both against each other will probably backfire just as badly as it did for Turkey.

This point, I will concede. It’s probably easier to hold neutrality and stay out of the fray than it is for a country already in the fray to get out, and any Indian attempts to do so could potentially backfire.

As for all your other points, I think at this point I have to admit that we are just never going to see things from each other’s perspective. Any claims you make towards American moral superiority seems to me like they stand in total defiance of publicly-known facts, and it appears that my claims towards American realist foreign policy seems the same to you.

In the interests of not cluttering up the thread too much, I will reiterate my stance that my country should absolutely resist any US attempts to strongarm us into taking a stance in the India-China dispute, and leave it at that for this thread.

There will no doubt be plenty of other threads in the future where we can discuss imperialism both American and Chinese.

Well again it is nuanced. Remember being morally superior to the PRC does not make one good.
I never said the US was good, simply less bad. The lesser evil is still evil, but is still less evil. There are still different perspectives on what is and is not acceptable between us.

Sure I get why some uninvolved countries might want to try to sit this out, although that is easier said than done, as both the US and PRC want assurances that someone is with us, before we will help them. Sitting it out means you are on your own. Which only works if you are strong enough or unimportant enough to not be in dragged in against your will.

But that is not an option for India, because India declaring neutrality will do nothing to protect it against the PRC’s border conflicts. Which the PRC will continue.

Plus the Indian public wants to avenge the deaths of its people, the Indian government cannot be seen as surrendering or backing down or it will face massive public backlash in the next election.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

This point, I will concede. It’s probably easier to hold neutrality and stay out of the fray than it is for a country already in the fray to get out, and any Indian attempts to do so could potentially backfire.

As for all your other points, I think at this point I have to admit that we are just never going to see things from each other’s perspective. Any claims you make towards American moral superiority seems to me like they stand in total defiance of publicly-known facts, and it appears that my claims towards American realist foreign policy seems the same to you.

In the interests of not cluttering up the thread too much, I will reiterate my stance that my country should absolutely resist any US attempts to strongarm us into taking a stance in the India-China dispute, and leave it at that for this thread.

There will no doubt be plenty of other threads in the future where we can discuss imperialism both American and Chinese.

Well again it is nuanced. Remember being morally superior to the PRC does not make one good.
I never said the US was good, simply less bad. The lesser evil is still evil, but is still less evil. There are still different perspectives on what is and is not acceptable between us.

Sure I get why some uninvolved countries might want to try to sit this out, although that is easier said than done, as both the US and PRC want assurances that someone is with us, before we will help them. Sitting it out means you are on your own. Which only works if you are strong enough or unimportant enough to not be in dragged in against your will.

But that is not an option for India, because India declaring neutrality will do nothing to protect it against the PRC’s border conflicts. Which the PRC will continue.

Plus the Indian public wants to avenge the deaths of its people, the Indian government cannot be seen as surrendering or backing down or it will face massive public backlash in the next election.

Why are you so confident that the US has a moral advantage?Your troops are slaughtering all over the world and never see you in places where humanitarian aid is really needed.What was the last thing America did that didn't bring chaos and crying?simply less bad？Why don't you ask the Middle East.I suggest that the U.S. government should pay more attention to the American people. They are suffering from viruses, chaos and unemployment.Otherwise, some people will begin to doubt your electoral system and your moral advantage.

[Novus America]

Well again it is nuanced. Remember being morally superior to the PRC does not make one good.
I never said the US was good, simply less bad. The lesser evil is still evil, but is still less evil. There are still different perspectives on what is and is not acceptable between us.

Sure I get why some uninvolved countries might want to try to sit this out, although that is easier said than done, as both the US and PRC want assurances that someone is with us, before we will help them. Sitting it out means you are on your own. Which only works if you are strong enough or unimportant enough to not be in dragged in against your will.

But that is not an option for India, because India declaring neutrality will do nothing to protect it against the PRC’s border conflicts. Which the PRC will continue.

Plus the Indian public wants to avenge the deaths of its people, the Indian government cannot be seen as surrendering or backing down or it will face massive public backlash in the next election.

Why are you so confident that the US has a moral advantage?Your troops are slaughtering all over the world and never see you in places where humanitarian aid is really needed.What was the last thing America did that didn't bring chaos and crying?simply less bad？Why don't you ask the Middle East.

Again the US is not good, but not the one attempting to seize and annexing territory from its neighbors here. The US has moved on from the 1800s, the PRC has not.

Not that it again really matters, as the PRC is attacking India here, not the US.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Why are you so confident that the US has a moral advantage?Your troops are slaughtering all over the world and never see you in places where humanitarian aid is really needed.What was the last thing America did that didn't bring chaos and crying?simply less bad？Why don't you ask the Middle East.

Again the US is not good, but not the one attempting to seize and annexing territory from its neighbors here. The US has moved on from the 1800s, the PRC has not.

Not that it again really matters, as the PRC is attacking India here, not the US.

India is a powerful country. In fact, they have rejected the US mediation request. PRC is attacking India？We're not Americans. We don't use preemptive tactics.That's what Indians said the last time they lost.

The US has moved on from the 1800s, the PRC has not.

exactly. There were virtues in America at that time.Although it likes to bully Americas countries, it is not harmful to the whole world.Later, the United States took over the scepter of the British Empire and inherited its evil.George Kennan once said that the Soviet Union could only communicate by strength. The same is true of America.

[Novus America]

Again the US is not good, but not the one attempting to seize and annexing territory from its neighbors here. The US has moved on from the 1800s, the PRC has not.

Not that it again really matters, as the PRC is attacking India here, not the US.

India is a powerful country. In fact, they have rejected the US mediation request. PRC is attacking India？We're not Americans. We don't use preemptive tactics.That's what Indians said the last time they lost.

The US has moved on from the 1800s, the PRC has not.

exactly. There were virtues in America at that time.Although it likes to bully Americas countries, it is not harmful to the whole world.Later, the United States took over the scepter of the British Empire and inherited its evil.George Kennan once said that the Soviet Union could only communicate by strength. The same is true of America.

The PRC is not above launching unjustified attacks, and did so here: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3952297
And the PRC is claiming large amounts of Indian land.

The PRC is engaging in open imperialism here, something the civilized world has move on from.
That is the fundamental point here.

All your whataboutism does not change that.

The PRC made a massive blunder here, and is paying the price for it.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

India is a powerful country. In fact, they have rejected the US mediation request. PRC is attacking India？We're not Americans. We don't use preemptive tactics.That's what Indians said the last time they lost.

exactly. There were virtues in America at that time.Although it likes to bully Americas countries, it is not harmful to the whole world.Later, the United States took over the scepter of the British Empire and inherited its evil.George Kennan once said that the Soviet Union could only communicate by strength. The same is true of America.

The PRC is not above launching unjustified attacks, and did so here: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3952297
And the PRC is claiming large amounts of Indian land.

The PRC is engaging in open imperialism here, something the civilized world has move on from.
That is the fundamental point here.

All your whataboutism does not change that.

The PRC made a massive blunder here, and is paying the price for it.

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — according to a U.S. intelligence source.
I think it's a direct indication that news sources are unreliable.
Whatever you say.But when America decide what to do something,I hope US will not violate China's warning.The US did not do in North Korea at that time, but it did good in Vietnam later.Hope the present American leaders still remember this.

[Novus America]

The PRC is not above launching unjustified attacks, and did so here: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3952297
And the PRC is claiming large amounts of Indian land.

The PRC is engaging in open imperialism here, something the civilized world has move on from.
That is the fundamental point here.

All your whataboutism does not change that.

The PRC made a massive blunder here, and is paying the price for it.

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — according to a U.S. intelligence source.
I think it's a direct indication that news sources are unreliable.
Whatever you say.But when America decide what to do something,I hope US will not violate China's warning.The US did not do in North Korea at that time, but it did good in Vietnam later.Hope the present American leaders still remember this.

Here is another source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehin ... 8.ece/amp/

This is the doing of the deranged madman Xi.
Unless you can provide an alternative source proving India attacked the PRC it is moot.
Also the fact the PRC constantly threatens to attack Taiwan shows the PRC is trying to aggressively expand its territory by force and threat of force.

As to what “warning” you are referring to I am not sure, but it changes nothing in the fact India has turned against the PRC. The PRC is not helping its cause by issuing threats.

And answer this! How did this fight with India help the PRC?

It only pushed India closer to the US, made Indians angry with the PRC and got PRC tech companies shut out of the the worlds largest market of young people. For what exactly?
What did this accomplish?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — according to a U.S. intelligence source.
I think it's a direct indication that news sources are unreliable.
Whatever you say.But when America decide what to do something,I hope US will not violate China's warning.The US did not do in North Korea at that time, but it did good in Vietnam later.Hope the present American leaders still remember this.

Unless you can provide an alternative source proving India attacked the PRC it is moot.
Also the fact the PRC constantly threatens to attack Taiwan shows the PRC is trying to aggressively expand its territory by force and threat of force.

As to what “warning” you are referring to I am not sure, but it changes nothing in the fact India has turned against the PRC. The PRC is not helping its cause by issuing threats.

And answer this! How did this fight with India help the PRC?

It only pushed India closer to the US, made Indians angry with the PRC and got PRC tech companies shut out of the the worlds largest market of young people. For what exactly?
What did this accomplish?

China warns India against "strategic miscalculation".If India wants to fight, China will accompany it to the end.As an adult, you should learn to search and filter information yourself.I suggest you read the original speech of the Prime Minister of India and find out if he said PLA invaded Indian territory.
India's behavior is based on its own consideration, they choose to violate the WTO.India needs a topic to shift domestic tensions, because this year they have done badly. America needs one, too.In electoral countries, governments have always acted on the basis of emotions rather than rationality.India's economy is over this year. If India chooses to join United States side at this time, it will be severely plundered by the United States.

[Novus America]

Unless you can provide an alternative source proving India attacked the PRC it is moot.
Also the fact the PRC constantly threatens to attack Taiwan shows the PRC is trying to aggressively expand its territory by force and threat of force.

As to what “warning” you are referring to I am not sure, but it changes nothing in the fact India has turned against the PRC. The PRC is not helping its cause by issuing threats.

And answer this! How did this fight with India help the PRC?

It only pushed India closer to the US, made Indians angry with the PRC and got PRC tech companies shut out of the the worlds largest market of young people. For what exactly?
What did this accomplish?

China warns India against "strategic miscalculation".If India wants to fight, China will accompany it to the end.As an adult, you should learn to search and filter information yourself.I suggest you read the original speech of the Prime Minister of India and find out if he said PLA invaded Indian territory.
India's behavior is based on its own consideration, they choose to violate the WTO.India needs a topic to shift domestic tensions, because this year they have done badly. America needs one, too.In electoral countries, governments have always acted on the basis of emotions rather than rationality.India's economy is over this year. If India chooses to join United States side at this time, it will be severely plundered by the United States.

I went over that, Modi was saying it in a political way to counter opposition claims that India lost territory, he still fully acknowledged the PRC was at fault for starting it.
Which is supported by sources I provide, this was clearly planned n advanced by the PRC.

The PRC has been acting irrationally, because Xi is a maniac and there are no checks on his megalomania. One mane rule is not rational. Xi is not always rational. If the PRC wants to improve its image, it should remove Xi. That alone would greatly improve the PRC’s international standing.

Again threats solve nothing, the more the PRC threatens and bullies India, the more India turns against the PRC. So how are these threats improving the PRC’s strategic position? You only say it it “warns against “strategic miscalculation”” which says nothing.

The fact is the PRC’s economic and strategic situation is worse because of this.
This hurt the PRC economically and politically.

India will recover from their current economic downturn this year, and the US is not claiming Indian territory. The US will not attack India. The PRC already has.
Obviously India knows this.

Follow your own advice. Stop just reciting PRC propaganda and admit Xi made a big mistake here. Why are you unable to admit Xi is making big mistakes?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

China warns India against "strategic miscalculation".If India wants to fight, China will accompany it to the end.As an adult, you should learn to search and filter information yourself.I suggest you read the original speech of the Prime Minister of India and find out if he said PLA invaded Indian territory.
India's behavior is based on its own consideration, they choose to violate the WTO.India needs a topic to shift domestic tensions, because this year they have done badly. America needs one, too.In electoral countries, governments have always acted on the basis of emotions rather than rationality.India's economy is over this year. If India chooses to join United States side at this time, it will be severely plundered by the United States.

I went over that, Modi was saying it in a political way to counter opposition claims that India lost territory, he still fully acknowledged the PRC was at fault for starting it.
Which is supported by sources I provide, this was clearly planned n advanced by the PRC.

The PRC has been acting irrationally, because Xi is a maniac and there are no checks on his megalomania. One mane rule is not rational. Xi is not always rational. If the PRC wants to improve its image, it should remove Xi. That alone would greatly improve the PRC’s international standing.

Again threats solve nothing, the more the PRC threatens and bullies India, the more India turns against the PRC. So how are these threats improving the PRC’s strategic position? You only say it it “warns against “strategic miscalculation”” which says nothing.

The fact is the PRC’s economic and strategic situation is worse because of this.
This hurt the PRC economically and politically.

India will recover from their current economic downturn this year, and the US is not claiming Indian territory. The US will not attack India. The PRC already has.
Obviously India knows this.

Follow your own advice. Stop just reciting PRC propaganda and admit Xi made a big mistake here. Why are you unable to admit Xi is making big mistakes?

Because the behavior of India and the United States has so far been predicted by our scholars.The behavior is still in line with the professors' predictions.I learned from their lectures a few months ago what some countries are going to do this year.The reality proves our ideas, not the nonsense of the media.
Remember when I told you a few months ago that if your electoral government didn't solve the problems, they would explode?I can say a little more. You can see back a few month later.

The epidemic situation in the United States is very serious, and the economy will continue to decline in Q3 and Q4.Trump will take more tough and irrational measures against China in order to win the election.He will continue to hype Hong Kong, Taiwan, technology and trade issues, and build a encirclement circle with vassals like Japan and Australia.If trump is not elected, the next president will continue to hype these issues. It may lead to a new cold warBritain will keep a wait-and-see attitude. The EU will not stand on the US side, because the dispute between China and the United States is in its favor.Since May, the PLA has predicted that the United States will strengthen its military forces in the South China Sea.If re elected, Mr. trump may lead the United States to the world second.
The epidemic in India is developing rapidly. The decline in the quality of life of the domestic people will cause unrest in some areas. The economy will continue to slide, and it will be difficult for the government to control.So they will continue to increase their forces on the Sino Indian border, but there will be no war. It's just a political show.India's economy will not improve. Its main industry is services. The next few years will be at a low growth rate.If the economy in Europe and the United States is weak, it can hardly be strong.

[Novus America]

I went over that, Modi was saying it in a political way to counter opposition claims that India lost territory, he still fully acknowledged the PRC was at fault for starting it.
Which is supported by sources I provide, this was clearly planned n advanced by the PRC.

The PRC has been acting irrationally, because Xi is a maniac and there are no checks on his megalomania. One mane rule is not rational. Xi is not always rational. If the PRC wants to improve its image, it should remove Xi. That alone would greatly improve the PRC’s international standing.

Again threats solve nothing, the more the PRC threatens and bullies India, the more India turns against the PRC. So how are these threats improving the PRC’s strategic position? You only say it it “warns against “strategic miscalculation”” which says nothing.

The fact is the PRC’s economic and strategic situation is worse because of this.
This hurt the PRC economically and politically.

India will recover from their current economic downturn this year, and the US is not claiming Indian territory. The US will not attack India. The PRC already has.
Obviously India knows this.

Follow your own advice. Stop just reciting PRC propaganda and admit Xi made a big mistake here. Why are you unable to admit Xi is making big mistakes?

Because the behavior of India and the United States has so far been predicted by our scholars.The behavior is still in line with the professors' predictions.I learned from their lectures a few months ago what some countries are going to do this year.The reality proves our ideas, not the nonsense of the media.
Remember when I told you a few months ago that if your electoral government didn't solve the problems, they would explode?I can say a little more. You can see back a few month later.

The epidemic situation in the United States is very serious, and the economy will continue to decline in Q3 and Q4.Trump will take more tough and irrational measures against China in order to win the election.He will continue to hype Hong Kong, Taiwan, technology and trade issues, and build a encirclement circle with vassals like Japan and Australia.If trump is not elected, the next president will continue to hype these issues. It may lead to a new cold warBritain will keep a wait-and-see attitude. The EU will not stand on the US side, because the dispute between China and the United States is in its favor.Since May, the PLA has predicted that the United States will strengthen its military forces in the South China Sea.If re elected, Mr. trump may lead the United States to the world second.
The epidemic in India is developing rapidly. The decline in the quality of life of the domestic people will cause unrest in some areas. The economy will continue to slide, and it will be difficult for the government to control.So they will continue to increase their forces on the Sino Indian border, but there will be no war. It's just a political show.India's economy will not improve. Its main industry is services. The next few years will be at a low growth rate.If the economy in Europe and the United States is weak, it can hardly be strong.

This really answers nothing, you keep dodging the fundamental point. This hurt, not helped the PRC’s economy and political standing, thus it was stupid.
You have not addressed that.

Many of Xi’s policies are irrational and one many rule is an irrational concept. Although more collective leadership can still be irrational checks and balances do lead to checks on the most irrational decisions.

Xi made a very bad and irrational decision here that hurt the PRC economically and politically.
Why not just admit it? No man is perfect, which is why checks and balances are required.
I am not afraid to admit Trump and Modi have made mistakes, but they have checks on their power. Just admit Xi is making a big mistake here.

None of your attempts at deflection change that.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Because the behavior of India and the United States has so far been predicted by our scholars.The behavior is still in line with the professors' predictions.I learned from their lectures a few months ago what some countries are going to do this year.The reality proves our ideas, not the nonsense of the media.
Remember when I told you a few months ago that if your electoral government didn't solve the problems, they would explode?I can say a little more. You can see back a few month later.

The epidemic situation in the United States is very serious, and the economy will continue to decline in Q3 and Q4.Trump will take more tough and irrational measures against China in order to win the election.He will continue to hype Hong Kong, Taiwan, technology and trade issues, and build a encirclement circle with vassals like Japan and Australia.If trump is not elected, the next president will continue to hype these issues. It may lead to a new cold warBritain will keep a wait-and-see attitude. The EU will not stand on the US side, because the dispute between China and the United States is in its favor.Since May, the PLA has predicted that the United States will strengthen its military forces in the South China Sea.If re elected, Mr. trump may lead the United States to the world second.
The epidemic in India is developing rapidly. The decline in the quality of life of the domestic people will cause unrest in some areas. The economy will continue to slide, and it will be difficult for the government to control.So they will continue to increase their forces on the Sino Indian border, but there will be no war. It's just a political show.India's economy will not improve. Its main industry is services. The next few years will be at a low growth rate.If the economy in Europe and the United States is weak, it can hardly be strong.

This really answers nothing, you keep dodging the fundamental point. This hurt, not helped the PRC’s economy and political standing, thus it was stupid.
You have not addressed that.

Many of Xi’s policies are irrational and one many rule is an irrational concept. Although more collective leadership can still be irrational checks and balances do lead to checks on the most irrational decisions.

Xi made a very bad and irrational decision here that hurt the PRC economically and politically.
Why not just admit it? No man is perfect, which is why checks and balances are required.
I am not afraid to admit Trump and Modi have made mistakes, but they have checks on their power. Just admit Xi is making a big mistake here.

None of your attempts at deflection change that.

China's actions have dealt a blow to American hegemonism, so they are beneficial to China.Because the United States has challenged after 2016, we have to fight back.Peace in the world needs a force to contain what the US does.Otherwise, the US and the international capitalism behind it will lead the world into chaos.American neoliberalism, voice, financial and trade protection measures, as well as its vassals and partners in the Indian Pacific region pose a threat to China's interests.In particular, its propaganda of "democracy" in the 21st century has caused many countries of turmoil and tens of millions of refugees.It is the US that harms China's economy. If the United States accepts China's demands, China's interests will not be damaged.Why not just admit it? The situation is irretrievable.Trump's trade war is the declaration of war.We have no illusions about western society and their vassals.
Are you satisfied?What you say is good for China is that you want China to accept your request?Then I suggest that you accept China's request, which is better for us.

[Organized States]

Are you satisfied?I think it is time to eliminate international capitalism and liberate the oppressed people.

Eliminating international capitalism means eliminating China.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Are you satisfied?I think it is time to eliminate international capitalism and liberate the oppressed people.

Eliminating international capitalism means eliminating China.

China has a history of more than 40 years.

[Organized States]

Eliminating international capitalism means eliminating China.

China has a history of more than 40 years.

Yeah, one of private enterprise dating back thousands of years.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

China has a history of more than 40 years.

Yeah, one of private enterprise dating back thousands of years.

So it's time to establish real communism.

[Stellar Colonies]

Yeah, one of private enterprise dating back thousands of years.

So it's time to establish real communism.

Establishing communism within China requires a revolution against the current regime.

[James_xenoland]

Well again it is nuanced. Remember being morally superior to the PRC does not make one good.
I never said the US was good, simply less bad. The lesser evil is still evil, but is still less evil. There are still different perspectives on what is and is not acceptable between us.

Sure I get why some uninvolved countries might want to try to sit this out, although that is easier said than done, as both the US and PRC want assurances that someone is with us, before we will help them. Sitting it out means you are on your own. Which only works if you are strong enough or unimportant enough to not be in dragged in against your will.

But that is not an option for India, because India declaring neutrality will do nothing to protect it against the PRC’s border conflicts. Which the PRC will continue.

Plus the Indian public wants to avenge the deaths of its people, the Indian government cannot be seen as surrendering or backing down or it will face massive public backlash in the next election.

Why are you so confident that the US has a moral advantage?Your troops are slaughtering all over the world and never see you in places where humanitarian aid is really needed.What was the last thing America did that didn't bring chaos and crying?simply less bad？Why don't you ask the Middle East.I suggest that the U.S. government should pay more attention to the American people. They are suffering from viruses, chaos and unemployment.Otherwise, some people will begin to doubt your electoral system and your moral advantage.

*facepalm*

You should really probably stop talking at this point.

And this is just from 30 secs of searching of things and off the top of my head.

EDIT: Just remembered who you are... The ironic hilarity of listening to a ccp employee attempt to 'what about' others over their electoral systems and democracy/voting in general. To say nothing (for now) of talk over the virus that china's actions gave to the world. *there isn't a set of eyes strong enough to handle this level of rolling*

[Rightonrighton]

So... what should be done, war or nah?

State power needs to be taken out of the hands of the capitalist classes that make war just to protect their financial interests.

[Rightonrighton]

Balkanize China

I would like to see independent Tibet, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang. I would also like to see the Indian subcontinent reunified.

[Rightonrighton]

What is the performance record of India's military exactly?

1947: defeated Pakistan
1954-: worked with Bhutan and Bangladesh to defeat Tai-Kradai, Munda, and Viet-Khmer indigenous nationalist insurgencies
1960-1962: with Irish, Swedish, Malayan, and Ethiopian allies, and backing from the U.S., UN, and Belgium, defeated Soviet-backed leftist government in Congo
1960-1963: backed by U.S., UN, and USSR, with Irish, Swedish, Malayan, and Ethiopian allies, defeated Belgian-backed Katanga secessionists in Congo
1961: defeated Portugal
1962: lost war to China
1965: defeated Pakistan
1967-: defeating far left rebels backed by leftist factions in China
1967: defeated China
1971: with Bengali secessionist allies, defeated Pakistan
1984-2003: defeated Pakistan
1984-1995: defeated Sikh nationalist rebels
1986: with loyal military, defeated coup attempt by right-wing military officers backed by South Africa, Britain, and Australia in Seychelles
1987: skirmishes with China leave both countries weaker
1987-1990: Tamil nationalist rebels defeat Sri Lanka-allied Indian forces
1988: India and Maldives defeat Tamil nationalist insurgents in Maldives
1989-: losing a war with Taliban, al-Qaeda, and allied Pakistani factions
1999: defeated Pakistan
2001: skirmishes with Bangladesh left India weakened
2009-2016: India, NATO, Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and allies defeat pirates
2020: skirmishes with China leave India stronger

[Rightonrighton]

Piracy then.

In either case we're well out of the envelope of anything a future US administration would do, and as an Australian I have no further interests in your decadent power projection wanking.

Unlike Nobel here, I stand firmly with the United States of America no matter who the president is. I also doubt his country's PM or the vast majority of Australians agree with him, thankfully. ScoMo has done an absolutely terrific job of keeping the Wuhan coronavirus at bay, so he's not going anywhere. Australians are not going to take too kindly to their country being labeled "gum on China's shoe" by Chinese state media and being threatened with economic blackmail for daring to demand an independent investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.

Chamberlainian appeasement is the very last thing the world needs right now. Direct action is what's needed. Boycott. Divestment. Sanctions. A full-scale Cold War with China. Everything short of a deadly military confrontation. But if China dares to make the first move, we respond, and India is likely to respond, with guns blazing. Now is not the time to hold back. The only language the biggest enemy of freedom and world peace understands is the language of might makes right. It's time for the world to give China a taste of its own toxic Kool-Aid and show them who's on the right side of history and who isn't.

I have a feeling if a conflict breaks out between the Chinese and Indians, the Indians would be strongly supported by SK, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, the ROC and Malaysia. Probably add in Australia and NATO/EU for good measure. Relations aren’t exactly as warm as they used to be before.

I doubt Malaysia, the Philippines under Duterte, Brunei, and Singapore would even bother to join in the hostilities. Our corrupt, unelected, backdoor government would sooner sell Malaysia out to the CCP than stand up to it. Even our two-time former PM Mahathir Mohamad has proved to be somewhat unreliable in opposing China's imperialist interests in the region when he granted Huawei free rein to operate in the country, stating that he would refuse to toe the American line. (He's also a self-proclaimed antisemite, increasingly irrelevant and well into his 90s.) Cambodia is also known to be a neocolonial extension of China. Hun Sen would more than likely back the Chinese side in exchange for more Belt-and-Road goodies and a greater ability to oppress his own people. I think Indonesia is more likely to side with India. The country claims the southernmost section of the South China ASEAN Sea, known as the North Natuna Sea. I don't know how much, if any, of a beef South Korea has with China compared to its longstanding spat with North Korea and, to a lesser extent, Japan.

Lol..China is the worlds dominant superpower. It is not going anywhere.

America remains by far the world's preeminent superpower. India + the USA, Australia, Japan, and a whole host of other countries would be able to shift the odds in India's favor. India, like any reasonable, democratic country, has allies. China, like every playground bully, stands alone, fearful of even its own shadow. And they better be afraid because we're gonna fuck them in more ways than one. I know it.

I imagine this would lead to heightened military activity along the Korean DMZ between China+NK and US+SK, increased naval patrols in Senkaku and the SCS, and others.

China and the pro-Chinese unification KMT on Taiwan claim the Senkakus as a part of "Chinese" territory for vague "historical reasons" that nobody who isn't a Chinese ultranationalist, Han chauvinist, irredentist imperialist even remotely gives a shit about. The ruling, pro-Taiwan independence DPP could care less and does not consider the islands to be "Taiwanese". May the Senkakus remain in Japanese hands for the next 10,000 years. China can shove right off with its "historical claims". The entirety of the ASEAN Sea belongs to ASEAN and Taiwan, and China doesn't have the right to unilaterally lay claim to any other border regions, aggressively send troops over, and then gaslight, project, and falsely accuse the other side of "imperialist aggression". Call a fucking bluff.

Duterte is China’s puppet. Hun Sen is Vietnam’s.

[Rightonrighton]

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.

Why wouldn’t NATO attack?