Posted on 06/20/2020 5:01:14 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
New Delhi: The People’s Republic of China has, since 1949, had three transformational leaders: Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and now Xi Jinping. All three threw into the waste basket the agreements and protocols agreed upon till then and negotiated their own versions for adoption, whenever they regarded doing so as advantageous to China. Mao charted an entirely new course in domestic and foreign policy, as did Deng. The latter had the advantage of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership rungs all but destroyed by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. He was, therefore, enabled to slice through the opposition of the ideologues to his plans at bringing China into the front rank of the world’s economies when at the time it was lagging behind India, a country that saw a much lower growth rate during the 1950s to the 1970s than even Pakistan.
When Xi Jinping took over from Hu Jintao in 2012, the rest of the party leadership was strong to a degree that it had not been during the period in office of the growth-focused Jiang Zemin and the first term of the softer hand of Hu Jintao. Xi moved carefully but steadily in consolidating his control over the entire machinery of the CCP. The war that he unleashed on corrupt officials proved effective in getting rid of several within the various rungs of the party machine who had been less than enthusiastic about the new boss in town. Although reports continue to surface, especially outside China, about fissures and cabals designed to weaken the now limitless-termed General Secretary of the CCP, the reality remains that by 2017, Xi had achieved mastery over even the People’s Liberation Army, an important—indeed vital—component of the Party. It was perhaps not entirely coincidental that this was the year when
(Excerpt) Read more at sundayguardianlive.com ...
[I saw an episode of Firing Line with Daniel Moynihan as guest.
Buckley mentioned that India would take food given to India by America and stamp it as a gift of the USSR. Moynihan who had been Ambassador to India, confirmed that was true.]
India supported the USSR during the cold war. We shouldn’t forget.
Moynahan was the ambassador under Nixon who let that stuff pass. Trump won’t.
Not really, yet.
Go shop for anything, anywhere.
“Made in China”
Russia is not a viable me threat to any super power. They do not have the wealth or population to fund prolonged war making.
“US-India-Japan should free Tibet
“Yeah, we’ll mobilize and invade./s
What about US neutrality in the India-China war?
[India supported the USSR during the cold war. We shouldn’t forget.]
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/printthread.php?t=3473&pp=50&page=2
If we got anything beyond moral support from the Indians, we’d be ahead of the game, or at least the Russians.
As I’ve said before, the only reason Chinese aren’t the rudest people on Earth is because there are Indians.
Muscle mussel muss ill
Russia has backstabbed India on a lot of arms purchases and sold them fourth rate garbage they usually don’t sell anyone else except African countries.
India has had better luck with Israel and NATO equipment, and would be better going there to get more. There is talk about selling F-35’s to India, as well as modern Abrams tanks if they ditch Russia completely.
F-35’s? No way. One will end up in the hands of who knows?
[India has had better luck with Israel and NATO equipment, and would be better going there to get more. There is talk about selling F-35’s to India, as well as modern Abrams tanks if they ditch Russia completely.]
This is why so many foreign investors made a beeline for China instead of India when both countries had comparable income. Even at a time when Chinese incomes are almost 5x India’s, foreign investors still largely prefer China, because doing business in India is like pulling teeth, and this is when investors are looking to put capital into India. When you’re talking about selling arms, you don’t want to know what the Indian will demand. It won’t necessarily be your first-born, but it probably won’t be far off.
A while back, I was traveling through the Orient and got into an involved conversation with an Indian-American with a thick Indian regional accent who was on his way to meet a supplier in China. I asked him why he was dealing with Chinese suppliers. Surely Indian suppliers were cheaper. He said, basically, that the Indian stuff was way crappier, and the bureaucracy was just byzantine. In essence, he said life’s too short.
Back then India was run by a hard left political party and their leader(Neru) was a Soviet loving communist.
Interesting info about their 1950s-1970s low growth rate, "lower even than Pakistan".
Maybe we could supply India with the weaponry to deter or defeat the Chinese (at reasonable prices).
We could thereby gain one of the world’s biggest arms markets, and take it from Russia (which is increasingly in bed with China).
As the article points out, just an economic decoupling of India from China, will weaken the Chinese strategically over time.
Its kind of a big deal, with many factors, many variables shifting over time. But the Chinese killing a bunch of Indian soldiers, and seizing some Indian land, seems to be a making a pretty big shift in India - driving them toward the US and its allies, on many fronts.
If India plays its cards right, it could pick up a lot of the business that is getting pulled out from China - a once in a generation opportunity, perhaps the only one of this magnitude that could ever be available to a country as big as India. There is that strong incentive, at the same time that the strong stick of Chinese aggression is driving them in the same direction.
Flipping India into active competition/opposition to China, would be a major geostrategic shift.
Given that both countries have killed off a substantial portion of their females due to abortion, it doesn’t surprise me.
How and why? Who would want to wage nuclear war to conquer a dirt poor province of China? To what end?
Blah, blah, blah. This is a empty threat to China, IMHO. Posturing. Just when India loses a little border skirmish with China, suddenly they “might not be neutral” in some theoretical war against the USA? Seriously? They would be idiots to NOT take advantage of China while we are kicking their asses. Gee, thanks India.
No, we should not help India, even in the current border dispute. If there is war between the US and China, India will do what is best for India. They are seeking military cooperation with the US, Japan, and Australia, and I don’t oppose that. But if they are serious about countering China, they should be building defense alliances with their neighbors, the ASEAN nations, as they offer land access to China’s southern provinces (and troops) without crossing the Himalayas. If they wait until China controls the ASEAN countries, it will be too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.