Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates

[Saaho]

Sir (s ) , I am slowly loosing faith in GOI

On One Hand EAM Mr Jaishankar says that We dont need any alliance

One needs to remember that Jaishankar even though is our foreign minister, is a former bureaucrat. "Non alignment" or its various flavours is something ingrained into Indian Foreign Services bureaucrat to the core.

BTW, the time for an alliance with USA was in 200X when Russia started to provide military technology to China and via China to Pakistan. India is a bit allergic to military blocs but they are a reality. And all those who think that "India will be this big and that big in future to fit in a military bloc", need to relax. We will cross that bridge when we reach there. As far as US "counter balancing" India goes, Honestly, we need to counter China first and than fear anything about US.

Non-Alignment came out of theoretical "erudition" of Menon and Nehru and their fear of a new form imperialism. It was not fully reconsidered and only changed as a reaction to our crisis in 60s. We missed all the investments from USA during 50s and 60s. We missed inflow of military tech later. Had we been a part of the military bloc, China would have thought twice before these misadventures.

 

[Saaho]

EAM is speaking in terms of our foreign policy objectives. Do we really need an alliance when we have groupings of mutual interests already converging? I would label his assertions rather pragmatic. No alliance will ever allow us the flexibility of concentrating on our core interests. But by stitching up loose groupings based on shared interests, specific to the interests, we insure and ensure our own core objectives.

India has "core interests". Sorry sir, when did that happen?
As much as I know, India has no national interests that it actually pursues. Majorly, there are interests of cabals in India.

 

[Saaho]

We have not gone blindly into US camp and sent troops into Afghanistan. It does not serve our purpose. But we have coordinated with them increasingly over matters of Freedom of Navigation, SCS, Indo-Pacific and now trade, technology, clean and green energy.

Sir, IMHO, the price for dealing with different problems is different. Price for dealing with Pakistan once, for instance, is a tactical coordination with US. Price for dealing with China for a long term is a strategic realignment with US. Given the two devils we are facing, I will take US any day over dealing with China by ourselves. At least for the coming next 20 years.

India does not have what it takes to develop its MIC and deep-state with willingness to take even a defensive position with respect to China. Given that situation, the next best thing is to be in an alliance where China will avoid a direct confrontation with you. Sure, you will be facing Russia in that case as well but IMHO, its better to have a treaty bound alliance than to have the wishy - washy alliance where you need to run to Russia with lollipops of emergency purchases everytime Beijing gets PMS.

Would have been ideal if we had our own industrial complex supplying our forces and our bureaucracy acting proactively. But then, we wouldn't have been Indians, don't we?

 

[Saaho]

Entering an alliance with the US is a losing proposition in the long run.

In the long run, we all are dead.

To be honest, this long run argument has been running for too long. It has been running since 50s and here we are with no alliance, a depleted airforce, not enough ammunition to sustain an intese war for even a month and no equipment for all the different types of terrains that our geography throws at us. Hell we don't even have enough roads to reach to the fronts.

Its about time we accept this reality : There is no long term for India because we cann't do long term planning and follow it to completion. We have to deal with future as it comes.

 

[lcafanboy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1285510337261785090

Reservation quota chaap employees securing their jobs...
Security of Nation be damn...

 

[Saaho]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1285593374636965888

These purchases come with a caveat that most should be from Indian supplies. I am all for buying Indian and supporting Indian but not the government Indian types. Government bodies usually have hard time meeting deadlines or doing a halfway decent work in producing wares that our forces need.

Reservation quota chaap employees securing their jobs...
Security of Nation be damn...

Its not just problem of reservation, its problem of rent seeking. Basically using your job to seek money from public without doing a damn thing. Only renting one's posteriors to sit on the chair.

Its not just an India thing it exists all over the world. India suffers more because government enterprises also fill the role of social justice and our innate hatred and distrust of private enterprise.

 

[Saaho]

Rather than WASTING MONEY on these Emergency procurements , Just Give TWO Airbases To USA

And then See XI Jinping become XIII Jinping Overnight.

Surprisingly, this is actually the sanest choice.....

 

[Saaho]

You are of the belief that we can't fight a two front war, which is why you are clamouring for an alliance.

Let me qualify it a bit : India cannot decisively fight any battle, single double or two and a half front due to lack of will in its leadership (across all heads). If the enemy goes for a real push, we will languish till we are about to lose Delhi and then pay massive price to stop that. The only solution is to create a situation in which enemy is dissuaded from attacking India in the first place. Alliance seems to be one good way.

 

[Saaho]

eg. We would have been nudged into sending troops in Afghanistan.
Buying oil from Iran would be even more troublesome.
Dont get me started on the S400.
Rafales over US jets

Lets see, we are NOT buying oil from Iran anymore to the point Iran is now firmly going to China.
We are out of Afghanistan --not necessarily a bad thing-- but we have also lost one lever over Pakistan. I am not sure if that is a good thing.
Our S-400 deal was so god damned delayed that we are getting in 2020s what China got in 2014. This had nothing to do with US but our own snail pace procurement. If we had ordered in 2014, we would be having the damn thing with us.
As far as Rafale goes, well, being in alliance with USA does not mean that we cann't take Rafale or any french fighter. That said, a situation in which we had sufficient F-16s since 200X would have been better than a situation in which we have nothing in 2020 where we have to now run to Russia to get more Migs and Flankers.

 

[Saaho]

Not at all. We are ready to fight both Pakistan and China.

I told ya, it's you who believes we can't fight a two front war. Not at all true.

Even with in adequate fighter jets and support craft, we can still fight China and Pakistan. And we are much better off on the ground compared to the air force.

I doubt south block will allow forces to fight. Not till they can see Pakistan army and Chinese Army hand in hand at Canaught Place. Till then, RoE will be : "if you see enemy, reach for your walkies to inform us and not your guns".

 

[_Anonymous_]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1284143853671415815

 

[Jaymax]

Lets see, we are NOT buying oil from Iran anymore to the point Iran is now firmly going to China.
We are out of Afghanistan --not necessarily a bad thing-- but we have also lost one lever over Pakistan. I am not sure if that is a good thing.
Our S-400 deal was so god damned delayed that we are getting in 2020s what China got in 2014. This had nothing to do with US but our own snail pace procurement. If we had ordered in 2014, we would be having the damn thing with us.
As far as Rafale goes, well, being in alliance with USA does not mean that we cann't take Rafale or any french fighter. That said, a situation in which we had sufficient F-16s since 200X would have been better than a situation in which we have nothing in 2020 where we have to now run to Russia to get more Migs and Flankers.

Your counters all of them are totally invalid.

We bought Iranian oil when the oil price was booming. Saved us a lot of cash while USA frowned.
Putting our boots on ground in Afghanistan would have made us dependent on Iran for moving supplies. Not a good place to be. No matter what you think Pakistan would not allow Indian military supplies through its land. Moving soldiers is worth shit if you cant keep them supplied.
S-400 would not even have been bought and we would have twiddled our thumbs or bought 36/114th of our requirement citing budget constraints from the US
You want to buy a fighter that the PAF has been playing with for the last 20 years?
Also you need to brush up on how quid pro quo works in international relations. US allies dont buy outside stuff until US declines to sell them.

most importantly it would have angered chinese paymasters of liberals.

If you want to do the liberals are bad item number go ahead. just dont tag me in it. Muted.

 

[Jaymax]

Mr Ravi Rikhiye is someone I have an immense respect for. One voice which was never really heard. He used to run his updates on Orbat.com but had dropped off about the time Mr Trump came to power.

I have his book - Analysis of India's ability to fight a two front war on my device for long. I guess this would be the best time to read it.

 

[Arvind]

The number of strategic assets of Pak Establishment continue increasing, now starting to send those pakistanis of KPK who have now been in Afghanistan for 2-3 decades. And launch pads are coming up across the LoC where nothing such happened for years.

The anti infiltration grid has been improved on our side considerably, making it costly for the guys in Rawalpindi to maintain such huge number of terrorists, feed them, house them, etc. So it is only a matter of time another big attack will happen on security forces.

We know it, we try to stop it, but someone is always gonna slip through. And hopefully when that happens, we will ensure those new spots along LoC are dominated through capture of important points across the present LoC, hopefully further north up. That should be the starting point.

Ok, two questions-

1. Why do you think Pakistan will not want to settle the score after losing few strategic areas at time India is engaging with a bigger enemy and becomes vulnerable?
2. Why would China let India neutralize threats from west which means more Indian focus on East with more resources?

 

[Saaho]

We bought Iranian oil when the oil price was booming. Saved us a lot of cash while USA frowned.

Only once. Since then Iran offered us EVEN better deals but we stopped buying. I remember one minister from Iran coming to India for exactly that deal.

Putting our boots on ground in Afghanistan would have made us dependent on Iran for moving supplies. Not a good place to be. No matter what you think Pakistan would not allow Indian military supplies through its land. Moving soldiers is worth shit if you cant keep them supplied.

There is "being present with US" and there is "being present always". How many, how long those things can be negotiated. Things are not binary. I mean how many Japanese troops are in Afghanistan? I think zero.

S-400 would not even have been bought and we would have twiddled our thumbs or bought 36/114th of our requirement citing budget constraints from the US

True, we would have went for something else like PAC-3 or similar. Infact US offered that. There are indeed compromises. Plus we might have inducted a fifth gen fighter by now. Something which failed miserably with Russia. A lot of US allies are now flying fifth gen fighters. The strategic alignment is not a perfect replacement, but a over all picture.

Also you need to brush up on how quid pro quo works in international relations. US allies dont buy outside stuff until US declines to sell them.

Not really true. Lots of European allies of US use a mix of European and US weapons. Pakistan used to use (before it shifted to China) a mix of US and French platforms and weapons. There is indeed quid pro quo, its just its more granular and and more nuanced.

I have his book - Analysis of India's ability to fight a two front war on my device for long. I guess this would be the best time to read it.

Its a great read.

 

[Jaymax]

Ok, two questions-

1. Why do you think Pakistan will not want to settle the score after losing few strategic areas at time India is engaging with a bigger enemy and becomes vulnerable?
2. Why would China let India neutralize threats from west which means more Indian focus on East with more resources?

For what its worth Pakistan Army is pretty cavalier in its approach. The resentment of Meghdoot led to Kargil. Deep analysis is not their strength.

The seniors here feel that PA wont mess about with the whole world rooting for India, but I'd like to share my 2 cents

in 98, the entire world came carrot and stick on Mian Sahab after Pokhran II. He was advised by his minister - Mian Sahab, je tussi dhamaka nhi kita te tuhada dhamaka ho jana hai (Mian Sahab, if you dont test the bomb, you will blow up - meaning you ll lose your post).

When India comes in the picture all sensible thinking goes out of the window. Pakistan went all in despite the threat of sanctions on its tattered economy.


The 370 move caused them deep pain. There is deep rooted resentment and anger against India. There will be tremendous pressure from the general population, opportunistic politicians and the War faction in the Pak Army.

How that pressure impacts the decision makers in PA is anyone's guess. They could nod their heads and break for golf or they could head for the borders.

 

[Jaymax]

Only once. Since then Iran offered us EVEN better deals but we stopped buying. I remember one minister from Iran coming to India for exactly that deal.

We moved out when US engineered comparable deals and turned the screws tighter.

There is "being present with US" and there is "being present always". How many, how long those things can be negotiated. Things are not binary. I mean how many Japanese troops are in Afghanistan? I think zero.

No boots no real leverage. WRT to Pakistan/Afghanistan all Japan can manage is a smile and a reasonably firm handshake.

True, we would have went for something else like PAC-3 or similar. Infact US offered that. There are indeed compromises. Plus we might have inducted a fifth gen fighter by now. Something which failed miserably with Russia. A lot of US allies are now flying fifth gen fighters. The strategic alignment is not a perfect replacement, but a over all picture.

We did not have the money to buy 114 Rafales. You think we could afford 50 F-35s?
PS - They are a bitch to maintain as well.

Not really true. Lots of European allies of US use a mix of European and US weapons. Pakistan used to use (before it shifted to China) a mix of US and French platforms and weapons. There is indeed quid pro quo, its just its more granular and and more nuanced.

And US also arm twists countries when its industries need a boost. The order when conceived was 10 Billion USD. At a time when US jet makers were shutting down lines no way in hell US would let this chance go.

Its a great read.

Duly noted

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Ok, two questions-

1. Why do you think Pakistan will not want to settle the score after losing few strategic areas at time India is engaging with a bigger enemy and becomes vulnerable?
2. Why would China let India neutralize threats from west which means more Indian focus on East with more resources?

1. Pakistan is not exactly under full Chinese control as of today. We just need to play it well.

2. Obviously they won't. But I would bank on possible threats to China from their east to launch a full fledged campaign against us.

 

[maint1234]

People looking for easy well packaged answers to this incursion or future friction, are not going to find any.
People looking for help from usa in the form of manpower are going to be disappointed. Did we put our manpower in harms way in Afghanistan for the Americans ? Why will they ?
But they will help us with equipment and intelligence. Will that be adequate ? No one knows.
More importantly are we serious about defending ourselves and defending our territory or is all this equipment movement just for show ?
Before armed conflict, have we come to terms with the fact that the Chinese are not our friends or even neutral, but have been systematically opposing India with the help of Pakistan from decades ? Not just harming us economically but also on the ground, through Pakistan, of which the 20 odd dead soldiers is a recent more blatant manifestation .
If we are not ready to impose a serious economic cost on the Chinese, why do we expect usa to suddenly sacrifice all its interests and form a anti Chinese pact with us ?
Its like us clamoring for Pakistan to be declared a terror sponsoring state internationally but we officially never did the same in our parliament .
All this rushing of all sorts of equipment to ladakh looks like optics to me and fools no one.
You want to put the Chinese on notice,
Ban their highly lucrative pubg.
Put punitive tariffs on Chinese goods which are not essential for us and can be immediately substituted.
Expel half of their embassy staff .
Restrict Chinese passport holders to a few cities like we treat the green salwars.
Start increasing the profile of Dalai lama.
Etc.
Basically hurt them . They are a money minded people and a overreaction from our side will be a once bitten lesson for them.

 

[_Anonymous_]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1285667875659841540

Apparently, the US Congress is also mulling an Act empowering the US to consider a protection treaty with Taiwan which would entitle the US to come to Taiwan's assistance in case of an invasion.

I refuse to believe that this article along with the protection treaty contemplated , etc are unlinked from the China India face off at the LAC.