Balakot: Pakistan vows to respond after Indian 'air strikes'

Apr 2018
1,487
Mythical land.
So what is the status as of today ?

Who is doing what (if anyone is doing anything ) ?
military tension has de-escalated from the time air strikes took place,although caesefire violations are same.
india is pushing for diplomatic stand against pakistan while china is blocking it by veto,so nothing changed here....
 
Oct 2015
896
India
That point can be certainly made at the UN and elsewhere and our politicians should try to take maximum advantage of that. But the Chinese play it smart. Our politicians will have to wait for the right opportunity. Something that will sting like Doklam.

However, from an observer's point of view its quite clear that they are doing for their buddies exactly what USSR used to for us in 70s.
The two situations are are not comparable.

Today China is supporting a terror state and a specific terrorist. Both are widely accepted facts, and China also does not deny them - says 'we are studying' etc

In 1970, USSR was not supporting a terror setup. On the contrary, later in 1971, USSR was supporting a humanitarian cause by stopping the genocide in East Bangladesh which others were willing to overlook.

I am talking of ethics of supporting terrorism (in/by Pakistan) for self-interest by China.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2015
896
India
So what is the status as of today ?

Who is doing what (if anyone is doing anything ) ?
Pakistan Army has gathered troops on border - esp Kashmir border. Pakistan Army once again has a hurt ego now - terrorists killed, including its officers in Balakot. It has to avenge or at least make a show of it.Conventional War / Sub-conventional War late during Indian elections or just after should not be ruled out.

During early elections, it is unlikely since conflict will work in favor of BJP's re-election - Pakistan's enemy #1. In late-phase of elections or immediately after conflict is possible.

Anyway, I suppose, India also must be already alert & prepared.
 
The two situations are are not comparable.

Today China is supporting a terror state and a specific terrorist. Both are widely accepted facts, and China also does not deny them - says 'we are studying' etc

In 1970, USSR was not supporting a terror setup. On the contrary, later in 1971, USSR was supporting a humanitarian cause by stopping the genocide in East Bangladesh which others were willing to overlook.

I am talking of ethics of supporting terrorism (in/by Pakistan) for self-interest by China.
I was comparing the two situations purely based on the technicalities of how they happened, not based on the underlying causes. The Russians used to veto every attempt by the West to bring East Pakistan under UNSC resolutions in the same way the Chinese are doing it today. That was all I wanted to point out.

As for the moral argument, it is the job of our leaders to prove themselves right and the Chinese wrong. That's what they are for. They have the advantage, lets see how things turn out.
 
Oct 2015
896
India
I was comparing the two situations purely based on the technicalities of how they happened, not based on the underlying causes. The Russians used to veto every attempt by the West to bring East Pakistan under UNSC resolutions in the same way the Chinese are doing it today. That was all I wanted to point out.

As for the moral argument, it is the job of our leaders to prove themselves right and the Chinese wrong. That's what they are for. They have the advantage, lets see how things turn out.
@HardtackJuniper , Why are you leaving moral argument to leaders?
 
talking of ethics of supporting terrorism (in/by Pakistan) for self-interest by China.
Well, this is actually not the first time they are doing it nor are they the first ones to do that. Only thing is that like any other successful political entity they do so (or try to do so) within the bounds of controlability. This is why we see the occasional fistfights and altercations at the border or reports of Chinese intelligence officers at joint meetings of NE insurgents but no Chinese soldier/citizen has ever martyred his behind for UNLF or KYKL.

We know the Chinese to be longtime supporters of the junta in Burma. What many may not know that they are literally the godfathers of some of Burma's largest insurgent groups. Mon State Army and United Wa State Army are two examples. However we don't see them in the news because these guys are currently not at war with Burmese Govt and the Chinese, to a good extent see to it that it reamins that way. Meanwhile the economy of Wa state doesn't function without wealthy chinese tourists showering money at their nightclubs. Curious fact, unlike our 'brave fidayeen', Wa State Army has APCs and Helos, all Chinese supplied. Rangoon prefers to look the other way.

Obnoxious game, right? But effective. Means there will always be loyal dogs as contingencies but they are leashed so as not to cause trouble when not needed.

Same goes for Pol Pot's Cambodia. They couldn't bother less about what Khmer Rouge did in their own backyard. As long as they could act as an effective counterweight against the 'unruly' Vietnamese, they got wagonloads of AKs, RPKs and RPGs.

Also note how this policy of remotely manipulating contrasts with their early approach of direct involvement for the slightest reasons. And also note how this paradigm shift took place as their politics became mature (read Mao's influence waned), their trade grew and they became rich (read successful transition from communist to market economy while CPC managed to rule supreme).
 
May 2013
1,710
The abode of the lord of the north
That point can be certainly made at the UN and elsewhere and our politicians should try to take maximum advantage of that. But the Chinese play it smart. Our politicians will have to wait for the right opportunity. Something that will sting like Doklam.

However, from an observer's point of view its quite clear that they are doing for their buddies exactly what USSR used to for us in 70s.
USSR didn't support a terrorist cause, it just supported an action against India. Whereas, Chinese didn't veto an action against Pakistan, but against a terrorist group. Now the fact that both (JeM and Pakistan) aren't mutually clearly distinguishable is the sad reality we face.
 
Likes: Zanis
USSR didn't support a terrorist cause, it just supported an action against India. Whereas, Chinese didn't veto an action against Pakistan, but against a terrorist group. Now the fact that both (JeM and Pakistan) aren't mutually clearly distinguishable is the sad reality we face.
As I have already clarified above, I merely pointed out the similarity between the approaches taken by the USSR then and China now in the UNSC. Please don't misread my post as an allegation against the USSR.
 

Similar History Discussions