War risk between China and India is increasing dramatically

[jobyts]

It seems like the first incident probably happened as an impulsive road rage like situation, not a pre-planned from the upper levels (from both the countries). Soldiers don't do brawl, they only shoot, if it's directed from their officers.

[muscleman]

 

Thanks.

 

I now lower the probability of war to 5% after learning more details.

They first had an accident in the disputed territory and 3 Indian soldiers fell off the cliff and died, and the Chinese army promptly retreated. Then the Indian soldiers vowed to revenge, and they took big blade weapons and went into the actual Chinese territory, not the disputed territory, and killed 40 Chinese soldiers. 17 of the Indian soldiers died in the fight.

That's invasion. It is ugly.

 

What is your source of information? It's hard to get the true info on these issues.

 

The source is from a youtuber who have been spot on with COVID since December.

[muscleman]

It seems like the first incident probably happened as an impulsive road rage like situation, not a pre-planned from the upper levels (from both the countries). Soldiers don't do brawl, they only shoot, if it's directed from their officers.

 

Right.. But at the moment Modi seems to have lost control of the Indian army. There have been massive Indian troops coming to the border yesterday, and India just ordered 21 jet fighters from Russia. (China was such a fool to think Russia is its ally, and it kept buying crude oil from Russia at $110 per barrel to support this relationship when they could have bought it from Texas at negative $37.)

[Pelagic]

Thanks.

 

I now lower the probability of war to 5% after learning more details.

They first had an accident in the disputed territory and 3 Indian soldiers fell off the cliff and died, and the Chinese army promptly retreated. Then the Indian soldiers vowed to revenge, and they took big blade weapons and went into the actual Chinese territory, not the disputed territory, and killed 40 Chinese soldiers. 17 of the Indian soldiers died in the fight.

That's invasion. It is ugly.

 

Now I understand why the Chinese government remained silent on this matter now. If it speaks publicly about what happened, since an invasion actually happened, it has to do something about it. Otherwise its people will be pissed off. The fact that China wants to down play this invasion makes me think they don't want a war yet.

 

Doesn't this speak to the quality of troops and leadership in the region on both sides? Why were Indian officers not able to stop their troops from entering Chinese territory seeking revenge? And why did a modern military suffer ~40 casualties to troops armed with blade weapons and batons?

 

Scary to imagine a larger regional war starting over what sounds like it is essentially a local feud between border guards.

[rranjan]

Thanks.

 

I now lower the probability of war to 5% after learning more details.

They first had an accident in the disputed territory and 3 Indian soldiers fell off the cliff and died, and the Chinese army promptly retreated. Then the Indian soldiers vowed to revenge, and they took big blade weapons and went into the actual Chinese territory, not the disputed territory, and killed 40 Chinese soldiers. 17 of the Indian soldiers died in the fight.

That's invasion. It is ugly.

 

Now I understand why the Chinese government remained silent on this matter now. If it speaks publicly about what happened, since an invasion actually happened, it has to do something about it. Otherwise its people will be pissed off. The fact that China wants to down play this invasion makes me think they don't want a war yet.

 

Doesn't this speak to the quality of troops and leadership in the region on both sides? Why were Indian officers not able to stop their troops from entering Chinese territory seeking revenge? And why did a modern military suffer ~40 casualties to troops armed with blade weapons and batons?

 

Scary to imagine a larger regional war starting over what sounds like it is essentially a local feud between border guards.

 

Based on all readings, I don't think it was a local spontaneous fued between guards.

 

 

Here is one view point of how China sees it. Not sure if it's correct, but you can read.

 

CHINA’S STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE LADAKH CLASH

 

https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/chinas-strategic-assessment-of-the-ladakh-clash/

[muscleman]

Thanks.

 

I now lower the probability of war to 5% after learning more details.

They first had an accident in the disputed territory and 3 Indian soldiers fell off the cliff and died, and the Chinese army promptly retreated. Then the Indian soldiers vowed to revenge, and they took big blade weapons and went into the actual Chinese territory, not the disputed territory, and killed 40 Chinese soldiers. 17 of the Indian soldiers died in the fight.

That's invasion. It is ugly.

 

Now I understand why the Chinese government remained silent on this matter now. If it speaks publicly about what happened, since an invasion actually happened, it has to do something about it. Otherwise its people will be pissed off. The fact that China wants to down play this invasion makes me think they don't want a war yet.

 

Doesn't this speak to the quality of troops and leadership in the region on both sides? Why were Indian officers not able to stop their troops from entering Chinese territory seeking revenge? And why did a modern military suffer ~40 casualties to troops armed with blade weapons and batons?

 

Scary to imagine a larger regional war starting over what sounds like it is essentially a local feud between border guards.

 

That is because back in 1970s India and China reached an agreement that troops along the border should not carry firearm weapons. They can only carry sticks. So when the Indian soldiers crossed the border with blades, the Chinese troops could only fight back with sticks. That caused all 20 of them to die. The other 20 died in a separate camp where one side claimed it was an unfortunate natural disaster of landslide, and the other side claimed that the India army engineers plotted a small bomb that caused the landslide.

[jobyts]

 

They first had an accident in the disputed territory and 3 Indian soldiers fell off the cliff and died, and the Chinese army promptly retreated. Then the Indian soldiers vowed to revenge, and they took big blade weapons and went into the actual Chinese territory, not the disputed territory, and killed 40 Chinese soldiers. 17 of the Indian soldiers died in the fight.

That's invasion. It is ugly.

 

I was reading https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53118473

 

y understanding (from my 10 minute reading) is, the LAC is a line, and the patrolling happens by the countries only on their own side. So in the first clash where the 3 Indian soldiers died, some invasion happened - don't know who did it. Since you mentioned "Chinese army promptly retreated", it sounds like the first clash happened on the Indian side, so an invasion happened first by the Chinese soldiers, right? While the revenge encounter done by the Indian soldiers, as you mentioned, the Indians must have crossed the LAC to the Aksai Chin (China administrated) area.

 

By "disputed area", are you referring to the poorly defined LAC line where there is some dispute on the exact location of the line, or the whole Aksai Chin region?

 

[wisdom]

One should not look at the incident in isolation.

 

PLA started building up troops in the Galwan valley after 40 odd years and this happened. Coincidence? This is most likely a plan by CPC to distract its population and create support for the CPC amongst all the economic hardship.

 

The same is being experienced by countries from Taiwan, Vietnam to India. The only difference was that Indians responded unlike the smaller countries.

 

The deal on HK has been thrown out. In diplomatic circles you see the wolf warrior policy in play - from Canada to Australia. This is all part of the larger plan for China to dominate the region and show it's power.

 

CPC feels the time has come to take its position in the world and have things happen their way. The question to consider is whether they have calculated correctly or will the world respond if they upset enough countries.

 

That will define what the next few decades look like.

[rranjan]

One should not look at the incident in isolation.

 

Yes, there are other events happening at same time. Even this incident doesn't look like just a fight gone bad.

 

-----------

 

U.S. Intel: China Ordered Attack on Indian Troops in Galwan River Valley

 

...

The assessment contradicts China's subsequent assertions about what happened last week. And it indicates the deadly and contentious incident – in which at least 20 Indian and 35 Chinese troops died, and reportedly a handful on each side were captured and subsequently released – was not the result of a tense circumstance that spiraled out of control, as has happened before, but rather a purposeful decision by Beijing to send a message of strength to India.

...

On June 15, a senior Indian officer and two non-commissioned officers traveled unarmed to a meeting place where they expected to be met by a comparable delegation of Chinese troops to discuss the withdrawal, according to the source familiar with the U.S. assessment of the incident. Instead, dozens of Chinese troops were waiting with spiked bats and clubs and began an attack. Other Indian troops came in to support, leading to a melee that caused more casualties from the improvised weapons, rocks and falls from the steep terrain.

....

Analysts say it's clear the incident did not pan out as China intended, not in the least because its state media outlets have all but erased the incident from their pages in the week since it took place.

...

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-06-22/us-intel-source-china-ordered-attack-on-indian-troops-in-galwan-river-valley

 

---------------

 

Given other incidents happening at same time with different countries, all events  could well be a planned and co-ordinated. If that's the case then I don't think that we have seen the end of it.

 

Usnews could be simply getting information from Indian sources and may be biased as well , but I don't have much trust in information coming out of China as well. 

 

Hopefully, I am wrong and it's simply a coincidence that all events are happening at same time.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

People in the western world would think it is irrational for the war to break out because there is nothing to gain from it. But they probably don't understand the Chinese government. In the past, leaders used wars to grab power and gain full control of the army. The 1979 China-Vietnam war was the typical example for Xiaoping Deng to grab power.

 

Similar is said about Putin in this article:

 

Putin’s goal today is the same as when he invaded my country in 2008: to tighten his grip on the levers of power in Russia. Whenever Putin’s domestic popularity dips, he either escalates an ongoing conflict or launches a new offensive.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/15/russias-next-land-grab-wont-be-in-an-ex-soviet-state-it-will-be-in-europe-putin-saakashvili-sweden-finland-arctic-northern-sea-route-baltics-nato/

[muscleman]

The youtuber I listen to got the list of 38 Chinese solider who died in this conflict. The Chinese government told their relatives to keep it as a top secret and no funeral is allowed and they should not tell their neighbors that their sons died. This is complete disrespect of these soldiers. I feel sad for these folks and their relatives.

At the same time, both sides continued to add more and more troops to the border, and China started building more bunkers in areas they just promised to retreat in the negotiation days ago.

That's how China does things. People who believe China will respect the US phase one trade deal or the original WTO treaties are just fools.

 

[jobyts]

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports

 

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/experts-warn-of-chinas-influence-at-us-ports

 

 

China owns ports in SriLanka, Pakistan, and lots of african countries. To African and other poor countries, China helps to improve their country's infrastructure, on condition that it would be the Chinese workers doing the job. These are all going to be military bases, when a conflict arises.

 

This is a long term defense strategy of China on its way to become the super power. India does not hold a chance to fight against China, if China decides to use Pakistan and SriLanka as military bases.

[Spekulatius]

The youtuber I listen to got the list of 38 Chinese solider who died in this conflict. The Chinese government told their relatives to keep it as a top secret and no funeral is allowed and they should not tell their neighbors that their sons died. This is complete disrespect of these soldiers. I feel sad for these folks and their relatives.

At the same time, both sides continued to add more and more troops to the border, and China started building more bunkers in areas they just promised to retreat in the negotiation days ago.

That's how China does things. People who believe China will respect the US phase one trade deal or the original WTO treaties are just fools.

 

Isn’t the fact that the chinese keep this under wraps consistent with trying to prevent escalation. If they wanted to escalate,the first hing to do is getting your population screaming for revenge by parading the dead soldiers as hero’s.

 

Also owning a harbor is akin to owning a commercial license to operate a harbor. It does not mean they can use them as a staging ground for the military, which als most certainly would get them into trouble with the host country.

 

Now the Chinese build these infrastructure projects not just as an investment, and a way to recycle their trading surplus, but also to buy influence, but I doubt it buys enough to allow them to use those countries as a staging ground for their military.

[Jurgis]

Now the Chinese build these infrastructure projects not just as an investment, and a way to recycle their trading surplus, but also to buy influence, but I doubt it buys enough to allow them to use those countries as a staging ground for their military.

 

You are very likely right about EU ports (especially in NATO countries).

Outside EU is another question. NPR article claims:

 

For instance, Chinese investments in the ports of Djibouti, Sri Lanka and Pakistan have been followed by Chinese naval deployments.

 

I did not search further what exactly "naval deployments" mean.

[mcliu]

For instance, Chinese investments in the ports of Djibouti, Sri Lanka and Pakistan have been followed by Chinese naval deployments.

 

I did not search further what exactly "naval deployments" mean.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_People's_Liberation_Army_Support_Base_in_Djibouti

[Xerxes]

I don't mean to derail, those interested in the "muddiness" of the central Asian countries borders would be interested in this book.

It is a favorite of mine.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=great+game&qid=1593185601&sr=8-1

[Spekulatius]

For instance, Chinese investments in the ports of Djibouti, Sri Lanka and Pakistan have been followed by Chinese naval deployments.

 

I did not search further what exactly "naval deployments" mean.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_People's_Liberation_Army_Support_Base_in_Djibouti

 

Yes, but this port in question is a dedicated chinese naval base and it is next to an US naval base. it is not a port with unauthorized second use as naval base.

 

But I agree that thing could be quite muddy in some neighborhoods around the globe.

[Castanza]

FWIW, it looks like there is some footage of the incident and the aftermath that has surfaced on various websites. However I won't share them here, but if you dig hard enough I'm sure you can find them if you really want to see them. All I will say it, there were plenty of bullets exchanged.

[alpha]

Both sides have been adding lots of militants along the entire China-India border but only Indian media have been reporting this.

 

People in the western world would think it is irrational for the war to break out because there is nothing to gain from it. But they probably don't understand the Chinese government. In the past, leaders used wars to grab power and gain full control of the army. The 1979 China-Vietnam war was the typical example for Xiaoping Deng to grab power.

 

The past presidents have been forcing army generals to state their loyalty to the president, and that created a big problem. When the next president came in power, he tries everything he could to remove these generals, and force the new generals to state their loyalty. Now with the current president, no generals want to state their loyalty anymore because they don't want to go to jail when the next president comes. So the current president is very upset with that. I think he may plan the China-India war on purpose for his personal gains.

 

 

I don't think this is a credible risk. There have always been skirmishes along the Indian border and China's focus is on the South China sea right now. The CCP won't allow a skirmish with India to escalate and risk bringing further international attention to their operations in the South China Sea which is their strategic priority.

[Castanza]

I know this is about India and China but I figured it was better than starting a new thread.

 

How long will the world stand by and watch this happen?

 

- People blindfolded and loaded on buses (verified by western intelligence)

- Forced sterilization of women including forced abortions

- Suspected organ harvesting

- 12 tons of human hair confiscated (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/01/china-muslim-labor-camps-uighur-hair-products)

 

How would you go to war with a country that provides so much of your resources and products?

[muscleman]

I think the war risk is close to zero now.

I heard a shocking news today that in June, some Chinese soldiers died inside armored vehicles after the Indian soldiers poked through the armor by spear and knife.

It smells like big corruption in the Chinese army and their suppliers.

 

[muscleman]

I am bumping the probability of the war risk up again to 50%.

China has finally acknowledged a lot of death during the June border conflict. This could be a prelude before the war.

[ValuePadawan]

I am bumping the probability of the war risk up again to 50%.

China has finally acknowledged a lot of death during the June border conflict. This could be a prelude before the war.

 

Any confrontation would surely bog down both armies in the Himalayas and end up with some sort of peace agreement. This pushes India closer to Japan the USA and Australia. Not in China's interest and a big mistake for China in my opinion. China keeps picking fights with everyone the US is trying to court.

[Spekulatius]

I am bumping the probability of the war risk up again to 50%.

China has finally acknowledged a lot of death during the June border conflict. This could be a prelude before the war.

From zero to 50% War risk  based on a fact that everyone new already. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. This was a stupid but in the end inconsequential incident. I think chances of war are very remote.

[muscleman]

I am bumping the probability of the war risk up again to 50%.

China has finally acknowledged a lot of death during the June border conflict. This could be a prelude before the war.

From zero to 50% War risk  based on a fact that everyone new already. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. This was a stupid but in the end inconsequential incident. I think chances of war are very remote.

 

Based on a fact that everyone knows? What fact?

The fact that China suddenly started to acknowledge its heavy loss in the June conflict is quite new and only in Chinese media. Do you read those?

Yes we all knew China lost soldiers in June but the fact that it refused to acknowledge that back then implies that it had no intention to escalate. Now is the exact opposite. It wants to escalate.