IbnAbdullah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,584
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Salaam
The author makes good points from Indian pov.
The fact is you have to show intent to fight to keep the enemy in check.
This the same reason why Pakistan chose to respond quickly to the Balakot incident despite not wanting to go to war. This is the same reason why the DG ISPR kept saying we will dominate the escalation ladder. Not because Pakistan, at that time, wanted war with India but because that was the only way to deter India.
It's similar to why Prophet Muhammad pbuh marched with his forces to some distance towards the Makkan forces after suffering losses at Uhud. The idea was to show resolve to deter the enemies.
So it's not a new concept. You must show resolve to fight, even if means you may incur loses at the time. This would deter future aggression. If, however, you show weakness the long term cost would be higher even if you manage to secure temporary peace.
The author gives the example of 2017 incident where the Indians showed weakness, to avoid further escalation. That emboldened the Chinese side and you are seeing results of that.
My guess is that this whole episode probably has emboldened the Chinese further and would probably bring more episodes like this in the near future.
The cost of long term security on the Northern side would increase exponentially for India now. It would have to spend a great deal of money trying to guard the whole border lest the Chinese make further moves like this.
I also wonder how much these repeated concessions and retreats would impact India China relationship dynamics on the political and international fronts. How the allies and enemies of each would see these engagements and their results.
The Indians are making a grave strategic mistake by showing such clear lack of resolve despite being of somewhat comparable size. In addition to that the international forces that are being threatened by the rise of China would certainly try to aid India (even if not directly) much.
The author makes good points from Indian pov.
The fact is you have to show intent to fight to keep the enemy in check.
This the same reason why Pakistan chose to respond quickly to the Balakot incident despite not wanting to go to war. This is the same reason why the DG ISPR kept saying we will dominate the escalation ladder. Not because Pakistan, at that time, wanted war with India but because that was the only way to deter India.
It's similar to why Prophet Muhammad pbuh marched with his forces to some distance towards the Makkan forces after suffering losses at Uhud. The idea was to show resolve to deter the enemies.
So it's not a new concept. You must show resolve to fight, even if means you may incur loses at the time. This would deter future aggression. If, however, you show weakness the long term cost would be higher even if you manage to secure temporary peace.
The author gives the example of 2017 incident where the Indians showed weakness, to avoid further escalation. That emboldened the Chinese side and you are seeing results of that.
My guess is that this whole episode probably has emboldened the Chinese further and would probably bring more episodes like this in the near future.
The cost of long term security on the Northern side would increase exponentially for India now. It would have to spend a great deal of money trying to guard the whole border lest the Chinese make further moves like this.
I also wonder how much these repeated concessions and retreats would impact India China relationship dynamics on the political and international fronts. How the allies and enemies of each would see these engagements and their results.
The Indians are making a grave strategic mistake by showing such clear lack of resolve despite being of somewhat comparable size. In addition to that the international forces that are being threatened by the rise of China would certainly try to aid India (even if not directly) much.
