Military Review

Conflict in the Himalayas. Will we continue or it's time to stop

39

The first days of summer I associate with one "long-lasting" conflict, which, like a mountain flower, blooms every year right after the mountain passes open, exists all summer, sometimes bears bloody fruits in the form of dead and wounded and fades with the onset of cold weather. This conflict, without exaggeration, accompanies me all my life.


In recent years, it is at the beginning of summer that I see a war in the distant, I hope, future. When two nuclear states literally engage in clashes with each other using the most modern weapons - metal scraps of pipes and clubs with nails! At the same time, both countries fulfill the agreements on the withdrawal of troops, on the prohibition of the use of heavy weapons and other agreements that were signed by their representatives.

Those who follow the events in the world have already guessed that it will be about the Himalayas. More precisely, about the long-term Sino-Indian conflict over the disputed territories of the Sino-Indian border. To be legally precise, about the confrontation between the Chinese and Indian military personnel on the line of actual control (LFC). The borders are not legally agreed - the line is 3448 kilometers long! And this despite the fact that the common border between these states is a little more than 4000 kilometers.

A mine laid by the British more than half a century ago is still claiming lives today.


To understand the essence of the matter, it is necessary to go back half a century. Conflicts never arise out of nothing. There is always not only a reason, but also the head that invented, created and implemented this reason. The same Karabas-Barabas, who pulls the strings so that the dolls move, while always remaining behind the screen. In this case, the British Empire is the author of the conflict.

At one time, Britain, which owned India, did not really think about drawing the boundaries of its possessions and neighboring countries. Everything depended on the wishes of the colonialists. The border between India, China, Nepal and Bhutan was drawn in this way. They simply drew conditional lines, which received the names "Ard-Johnson line" and "McMahon line".

Naturally, such borders caused disputes between states at the beginning, in this case China did not agree - because of the "lost territories".

The first crisis in relations dates back to 1959, when China expressed its indignation over the loss of territories in a diplomatic note. It is clear that there was no reaction from India. In 1962, after a short but violent conflict, the Chinese army seized the strategically important Aksaychin region on the western section of the border, which made it possible to connect the road between the two most unstable regions of the PRC - Tibet and Xinjiang.

The territorial dispute was frozen. The 1993 and 1996 agreements did not demarcate the border and turned into an exercise therapy line of actual control. Hence the periodic clashes between the Chinese and Indians at the border. The first "stick-and-stick war", in my opinion, took place in 2017 on the Dolam plateau, when the Chinese tried to pave a road at the junction of the borders of China, India and Bhutan. Indian soldiers tried to push back the Chinese, but were met with a rain of stones from the enemy. There were no officially killed people at that time.

The bloodiest clash took place last year on the night of June 16 in the Ladakh region. Only the killed, the data of official and unofficial sources differ significantly, there were from 20 to 40 Indian soldiers and from 4 to 43 Chinese. Up to 500 people participated in the conflict on both sides.

By the way, an interesting fact, the soldiers of both armies categorically refuse to use weapon in such conflicts.

Why?

Probably, they do not consider such clashes to be something out of the ordinary.

I will step aside from the topic and describe this conflict in a little more detail. The way it was described in News 18 India.

So, when disengaging forces, the Chinese needed to remove one of the tents in which the soldiers lived. But then the whole platoon was deprived of "housing". Therefore, the Chinese simply moved the tent to another place. Then the Indians crossed the exercise therapy and simply began to push the Chinese out. A fight ensued, in which the Indians piled well on the Chinese. They retreated. The incident seemed to be over.

But at night the Chinese climbed the mountain and pelted the sleeping Indians with stones. Hand-to-hand combat began again, but the surprise of the attack played a role. And, unlike the Indians, the Chinese came armed with the very same sticks, fittings and other improvised means. The Indians were pushed back to the Galvan River (Jialevenhe, flowing along the line of control).

Beaten and wounded Indian soldiers jumped from a 5-meter height into a stormy mountain stream and ... The bodies of the dead were then collected downstream. The cause of death is hypothermia, injuries from being hit by fittings or from hitting pitfalls. This is how it looked in reality.

Why the leaderships of China and India cannot agree


A simple question arises - why?

Why do even meters of territory become the cause of human death? Why can't we come to an agreement? Why do Beijing and New Delhi speak openly, and most importantly, act in such a way as to avoid a serious war, but in fact every summer starts the same way? And every May-June brings some kind of conflict.

Both countries declare their readiness to repulse the aggressors, but at the same time they are not going to attack! The PLA constantly conducts exercises in conflict areas. Forms a fairly serious air defense system in its territories. Another interesting event last year, in this regard. During the conflict, 10 Indians were captured by the Chinese. All of them were transferred to India without any conditions.

India in the adjacent areas is intensively building infrastructure along the border, purchasing new air defense systems, there is even a project to build a tunnel for the rotation of the military in the winter, when the passes are closed.

Hypothetically, a war between China and India, even without the use of nuclear weapons, could entail huge human losses. Everyone understands this. But, probably, I will say a blasphemous thing for some, the demarcation of the border is hindered by ... democracy. Democracy as a political system. China, by virtue of its political system, may well conclude a really valid border treaty. And India?

As soon as there is at least some positive in the negotiations, the opponents of the peace negotiations start speaking under the slogan "How can we allow our soldiers to be killed with impunity?" or "We will not give our land to the Chinese." These "patriots" have already "eaten" one prime minister. The rest do not want to repeat the path of the loser.

So far, I do not see a solution to this problem. Mediation by Russia, USA or EU? Sheer stupidity. This mediation will get you nowhere. Last fall we already tried to help somehow, provided a platform for negotiations, so what? Nothing. Americans? Today they practically openly declared war on China, and this is one of the parties to the conflict. EU? And who will listen to Europe without US support?

I recently read an interview with one of the American specialists on the region of interest to us today. After many standard phrases about the importance of India to the United States, common sense emerged.

First, today India must be used in the same way that Ukraine is used. A button that will prevent China from sitting comfortably in the chair. Ukraine is a button for Russia, and India is a button for China.

Secondly, it is necessary in every possible way to compel Indian politicians to end their independent foreign policy. Democratic India must become part of the "democratic world". In principle, I agree. India is indeed pursuing a fairly independent foreign policy, which sometimes causes irritation in world capitals, including Moscow. Winning Delhi over to our side would indeed be a major victory for diplomacy.

What's next?


The Sino-Indian conflict is largely far-fetched and can be resolved quickly enough. I agree with the editor-consultant of India Strategic magazine Vinay Shukla, who in an interview with NG expressed the opinion of Russian President Vladimir Putin on this issue:

"The leaders of India and China, Narendru Modi and Xi Jinping, are responsible people who can find a solution to any difficult problem."

“Putin also indicated that no outside force should interfere in the dispute. This is an important thought. But it should be borne in mind that Delhi clearly defends an independent line in foreign policy. And he tries to resolve controversial issues with neighboring states without intermediaries, on a bilateral basis. "

The talk that the clashes at exercise therapy is politics, I think, is more a speculation of some political forces to whip up tensions than a real confrontation. Beijing and Delhi just have to give up.

Compromises in such a situation are the only right way, the only solution to the problem. The policy of mutual concessions will not weaken, but will strengthen the positions of both countries in this region.
Author:
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Blacksmith 55
    Blacksmith 55 10 June 2021 15: 54
    -2
    Very often all over the world borders are drawn without taking into account the interests of peoples.
    Great Britain probably excelled. With this, they planted a bomb for centuries in many countries, former colonies.
    The former USSR is no exception, unfortunately, but the Bolsheviks "tried" there.
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 10 June 2021 16: 48
      +1
      China will not calm down! They can be put in place only by inflicting huge losses on them, first of all, in manpower. The Chinese have too big ambitions; over time, they will begin to ruin life in many countries of the world. Sooner or later, but a new war will begin in the region, and God forbid that it does not become nuclear!
    2. andybuts
      andybuts 15 June 2021 11: 01
      0
      The former USSR is no exception, unfortunately, but the Bolsheviks "tried" there.


      And what did the Bolsheviks do wrong with the former USSR?
      1. Blacksmith 55
        Blacksmith 55 15 June 2021 11: 43
        +1
        How can I explain to you? Maybe you don’t know the history of the Russian Empire?
        The entire southeast of Ukraine is watered with Russian blood.
        The cities, Odessa, Nikolaev, Donetsk, Lugansk and many others were founded and built by the Russians.
        After the Revolution, for some reason, by the decision of the Bolsheviks, they departed to Ukraine.
        This is just one example, there are many more.
        Want to ?
        Then answer the question: Why was one people divided into 2 republics, North Ossetia (Russia), South Ossetia (Georgia)?
        1. andybuts
          andybuts 15 June 2021 13: 00
          0
          I know the history of the Russian Empire quite well, as well as the statement of our supreme manager about the atomic bombs planted under Russia. But it was not the Bolsheviks that led to the fact that RI committed suicide. It was not the Bolsheviks who did not solve the urgent problems of the empire that had been accumulating for centuries, such as, for example, the land issue. In the end, it was not the Bolsheviks who dragged Russia into WWI, unable to withstand which the country collapsed and ceased to exist.
          I don’t know the question of the division of Ossetia, but there could be reasons for this. But in any case, the fact that within the framework of one country separate territories move from one region to another does not really matter - all this is within one country. Both the North and South Ossetians lived in the same state and no one really noticed the existing borders, then there were only administrative borders, not state ones. And it was not the Bolsheviks who destroyed the USSR in 1991. Under the Bolsheviks, the state was unified, and even an external force in the person of Hitler's hordes could not shake this unity. So the miners are Gorbachev and Co., who came up with the idea to return the issue of the union treaty to the agenda, as well as the Yeltsin-Shushkevich-Kravchuk trio, who signed the Belovezhskaya papers. These gentlemen just planted a bomb for centuries on the issue of borders.
          And as for Russian blood, we have all of Eastern Europe, and a part of Central and Northern Europe is abundantly watered with Russian blood, what now to demand it for yourself?
          1. Blacksmith 55
            Blacksmith 55 15 June 2021 13: 20
            +1
            Bolsheviks or communists destroyed the USSR?
            In any case, when they were in power, internal borders were drawn. And they were held not on the basis of the population's residence, but for some political reasons.
            After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the borders remained. Another example: Crimea, "donated" to Ukraine.
            1. andybuts
              andybuts 15 June 2021 14: 25
              0
              After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the borders remained.

              I would say that after the collapse of the USSR, the borders появилисьrather than stayed.
              The same Crimea was available for citizens of the RSFSR as well as for citizens of the Ukrainian SSR. And the Black Sea Fleet was united and was there by right. Yeltsin could not sign anything and nobody would remember the Crimea "donated" to Ukraine. And as a result of the collapse of the state with the Crimea, the RSFSR would still remember that "Kiev is the mother of Russian cities" or that "Odessa is a Russian city" or something else.
              Returning to India and China, there is an assumption that no one from the population lives in those parts of the border conflict, but this does not prevent conflict instead of reaching an agreement.
  2. Basarev
    Basarev 10 June 2021 15: 54
    0
    Let's be honest. The conflict has no peaceful solution. Only two options can finally put an end to it:
    1. China will wipe out and give the same pieces of interest to the Indians. China is a dictatorship, it can crush popular discontent, which democratic India cannot afford.
    2. A full-fledged war with a clear winner, a flag in the ruins of the capital and unconditional surrender, in which the very scraps are spelled out.
    In general, I am satisfied with the current sluggish scuffle. Let the two powers spend resources and lives. There are too many Indians and Chinese, and so it is necessary to somehow regulate the number.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 11 June 2021 07: 45
      +3
      The conflict between India and China will never come to a nuclear war. Therefore, you, Thrifty, will not wait for such a large reduction in the population of India and China in their proposed war that it somehow significantly affects the world demographics. And the birth rate in the PRC is already so low. If in 2010 there were 1,7 births per Chinese woman, then in 2020 there were 1,3 births with the required level of reproduction of 2,1 births. There are now 1,6 births per woman in Russia.

      I am not satisfied with their scuffle due to the fact that their conflict with each other does not do anything good for Russia. And the alliance of China and India could be quite useful for Russia as a counterbalance to the Western countries headed by the United States.

      If the Union of Asian countries, headed by India, China, Russia, opposes Europe and the United States, then Europe will not be happy. The Russian-Indo-Chinese union could include the countries of the Arab East, Pakistan, and the countries of Southeast Asia. And then there would be complete industrial, demographic and raw materials (and later financial) dominance over Europe and North America.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. ZAV69
        ZAV69 12 June 2021 08: 40
        0
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        If the Union of Asian countries, headed by India, China, Russia, opposes Europe and the United States, then Europe will not be happy.

        That is why this union will not exist. Small-breds perfectly know how to breed conflicts out of the blue, but here's where you can spit the former British colony
    2. demo
      demo 11 June 2021 10: 25
      +4
      China is a dictatorship, it can crush popular discontent, which a democratic India cannot afford.
      In such cases, I think so, it is necessary to proceed as follows.
      The question is brought up for general discussion.
      \ votes are counted.
      If the prevailing point of view is not to give a single centimeter of land to the enemy, then publicly the heralds of these appeals are invited to immediately appear at the gathering points to create a military militia. Later with sending to the place of border collection.
      I am 99.9% sure that those who call for war will stay in their apartments.
      And then lists of "false patriots" are published.
      The political career of such figures will be certified.
      This is the easiest option.
      It is possible and more difficult to twist the plot.
  3. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 11 June 2021 07: 34
    +1
    Quote: Thrifty
    China will not calm down! They can be put in place only by inflicting huge losses on them, first of all, in manpower. The Chinese have too big ambitions; over time, they will begin to ruin life in many countries of the world. Sooner or later, but a new war will begin in the region, and God forbid that it does not become nuclear!


    Why put the Chinese in their place? This is not Mao's time. And China in the 21st century does nothing bad to anyone. And what wrong has China done to you? Or are you a racist and do not tolerate the kind of Mongoloids?

    And China's ambition is to increase its GDP per capita to the level of the most developed countries. Thus, China hopes not only to catch up with the United States in absolute GDP, but even surpass the United States by 5 times, because China has 5 times more population. But is this a bad ambition? In the West, incl. in the United States, this Chinese ambition is not justly considered bad.
  4. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 11 June 2021 07: 37
    +2
    I believe that China and India should fix their current contact lines as their official borders. Then both China and India will feel that their rear is safe. And then it will be possible to develop the economy and mutual trade more freely.

    And in the future it would be possible (necessary) to create an economic and military-political alliance between India and China. And maybe with Russia to boot.
  5. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 11 June 2021 08: 34
    -1
    The first "stick-and-stick war", in my opinion, took place in 2017 on the Dolam plateau, when the Chinese tried to pave a road at the junction of the borders of China, India and Bhutan.

    It is very similar to the beginning of the 1969 conflict over Damansky Island. There, too, at first the Chinese climbed without weapons.
    1. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 11 June 2021 18: 21
      0
      Then the key of the problem is in the economic activity and not directly in the delineation. It is easier for countries to agree on the prohibition of any economic activity in the vicinity of the disputed territories and on them for 70 years. And using this time to prepare agreements - no one bothers to draw the proposed borders on maps and discuss them with neighbors for many years.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 11 June 2021 20: 10
        0
        What kind of economic activity in Damansky is unknown to me, most likely - none. Mao Zedong needed an external enemy to solve internal problems, and he organized it. The formal reason for changing the border on the Ussuri was that traditionally the border was drawn along the fairway, and there was a border along the Chinese coast. This is about the USSR and the PRC in the late 60s. What economic activity is possible in Tibet - it is not clear, maybe a promising field has been found?
        1. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 12 June 2021 08: 32
          0
          There, the road became the cause of the conflict and not the tradition of border formation. If the Chinese DSK had not been given a building permit, there would have been no conflict.
          And you can make a digital terrain model using radar data from a satellite and discuss the border of the forbidden terrain on it without conflict.
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 12 June 2021 18: 46
            +2
            Are you talking about the territory squeezed out of the Indians, where the Karakorum highway goes directly to Pakistan? According to him, it was very robust from 1980 to 1985, the Chinese supplied Afghan spirits.
        2. gsev
          gsev 12 June 2021 20: 53
          +2
          Quote: Aviator_
          What economic activity is possible in Tibet - it is not clear, maybe a promising field has been found?

          India's relations with Nepal are deteriorating. For a long time, Nepal was connected by roads only with India. India also used this by imposing its products on this country. India recently even imposed a fuel embargo on Nepal for a while, seeking political benefits for itself. China is actively building roads in Tibet and may try to build a road to Nepal in the near future. India will lose its 40 millionth market in Nepal. Recently, Nepalese politicians even voiced territorial claims against India. If 40 years ago, India acted as a defender of the Nepalese, Tibetans, Sikkims from the horrors of Maoism in China. Now this image is fading. Ordinary Tibetans live in the PRC better than their fellow believers in neighboring countries. Therefore, there is a ground for pro-Chinese separatism in the regions of India bordering on China. India is very eager to surpass the PRC in economic development. But so far she has not won this competition. Hence her attempts to make it difficult for the PRC to do economic activities in the border regions, especially the construction of roads to Assam, Nepal and Bhutan ..
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 12 June 2021 21: 03
            +2
            Thanks for the detailed information, but now the Indians are not in conflict with Nepal, but with the Chinese. Are they starting such a complex hybrid war?
            1. gsev
              gsev 12 June 2021 21: 20
              +2
              Quote: Aviator_
              Are they starting such a complex hybrid war?

              As far as I understand, the Indians started the conflict in order to stop the construction of the road in the border area. The Indians did not voice any attempts to move the demarcation line.
  6. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 11 June 2021 10: 16
    +2
    Quote: Basarev
    Well, I don’t know, it would be closer to me to conclude an alliance with the United States and Europe - and together extinguish both India and China. There is such a concept - an unrespectable partnership - and Russia does not paint at all that it is common with those who have not outlived the caste system and live in huts made of dung. And if you look even more globally, the West considers Russia a traitor to the white race for such a love for vile Asians - hence the attitude.


    It is clear that you are a complete racist who has no place in civilized communication.
    Europe is an inveterate enemy of Russia.

    Personally, I am not a racist and have nothing against Europeans, Asians and blacks.
    However, I am exclusively for the interests of Russia and against the existence of Russia's enemies. Europe, represented by its elites, believes that Russia and Russians have no place on Earth.

    Therefore, it is only in the struggle against Europe and America that Russia is able to allocate a worthy place for itself in the world.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 12 June 2021 11: 17
      -1
      No, I’m not a racist, I’m just asserting that India and China are not friends of Russia at all, you shouldn’t have any illusions. And that the West, with its centuries-old traditions of democracy, which includes consensus decision-making and a natural inclination to compromise, is a much more negotiable party than the East, where most decisions are made at Tsarist arbitrariness. It is very difficult to foresee how the tsar's mood will change: yesterday we are friends, and tomorrow he declares war and invades armies of millions, simply because it has become boring. Besides, what does the east have to offer Russia? The West is technology, the West is investment, the West is influence and resources, including the most important media one. To be with the West means to have permission even for not very legal actions. Let us recall Khlamina, where the OSCE stubbornly ignores the shelling. Because the West allowed her to roll out the Donbass. And what about the east? He only needs a freebie from Russia, our resources, money, technology and land. Do we need such partners who do not generate income and do not fit in for us? Therefore, I am firmly in favor of the western course.
      1. gsev
        gsev 12 June 2021 20: 59
        +1
        Quote: Basarev
        I'm just saying that India and China are not friends of Russia at all,

        India has never attacked Russia. This is a very promising partner. Historical experience shows that the political partnership between China and Russia has been beneficial to both countries since 1380 - the capture of Karakorum by Chinese troops in the year of the battle on the Kulikovo field.
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 12 June 2021 21: 36
          -2
          India buys foreign weapons. India supports sanctions. India did not even recognize Crimea. And she always strives to steal our technology. Responsible partners do not allow themselves such liberties.
          1. gsev
            gsev 12 June 2021 23: 06
            +1
            Quote: Basarev
            India supports sanctions. India did not even recognize Crimea. And she always strives to steal our technology.

            I myself had to steal Chinese designs. It's a simple matter. Unfortunately, the level of the technological base that is available to me does not allow the stolen to be used. In principle, it is enough for an engineer to spy on the composition of the equipment, and after that the design loses its secrecy. India has the ability to purchase any equipment. The modern Russian cannot boast of novelty, perfection and superiority. As far as I understand, the oil industry and defense industry from the surplus of money in Russia are not trying to get away from Siemens and Schneider to Chinese counterparts from countries less sensitive to sanctions than Germany, Ukraine, Great Britain and the United States. Ukrainian companies, if they see profit faster than Russian ones, recognize Crimea, DPR and LPR and manage to act as intermediaries between Russian and Donetsk companies. In principle, the PRC is more convenient for business than India. India is very interesting for Russians as an employer for programmers.
  7. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 11 June 2021 10: 21
    0
    Quote: Aviator_
    The first "stick-and-stick war", in my opinion, took place in 2017 on the Dolam plateau, when the Chinese tried to pave a road at the junction of the borders of China, India and Bhutan.

    It is very similar to the beginning of the 1969 conflict over Damansky Island. There, too, at first the Chinese climbed without weapons.


    You gave an example that was more than half a century ago.
    Examples of Russia's brutal attitude toward the Chinese can also be cited. For example, during the Boxer Uprising, the Cossacks in Blagoveshchensk drove the Chinese population to the banks of the Amur and forced them to swim to the Chinese coast. It is clear that all the Chinese drowned. And you are not sorry for them.

    Therefore, one should not be like the brutal behavior of our troglodytes (ancestors), in living with their real interests and realistic perspectives. And realistic perspectives tell us that our Russian existence is now across the throats of Europe and the United States. Therefore, it is necessary to look for even temporary, but strong ally in the person of India and China, since we, the Russians, ourselves have temporarily weakened.
  8. Evil troll
    Evil troll 11 June 2021 20: 29
    -1
    Someday they will collide hard on this line. But not right now.
    1. domokl
      11 June 2021 20: 39
      +1
      Someday, during our lifetime, they will simply make the control line a border line. At least, such an attempt has already been made and ended only because the Indian prime minister was given a ride in the elections. Indian and Chinese jingoistic patriots are no different from ours and others. Howl and shut up
  9. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 12 June 2021 04: 30
    0
    Quote: Aviator_
    What kind of economic activity in Damansky is unknown to me, most likely - none. Mao Zedong needed an external enemy to solve internal problems, and he organized it. The formal reason for changing the border on the Ussuri was that traditionally the border was drawn along the fairway, and there was a border along the Chinese coast. This is about the USSR and the PRC in the late 60s. What economic activity is possible in Tibet - it is not clear, maybe a promising field has been found?


    Tibet is a highland. Therefore, this is a potential area for the development of deposits of inorganic minerals.
    In addition, Tibet is difficult to attack from the outside, i.e. from India. Therefore, Tibet is a kind of China's natural shield in the southwest. It is also possible to deploy missile defense and space observation objects there (like we have Oko in Tajikistan). And the tourism potential of Tibet is only growing from year to year.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 14 June 2021 08: 17
      -1
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      Tibet is difficult to attack from outside, i.e. from India. Therefore, Tibet is a kind of natural shield of China in the southwest.

      Hindus sleep and see how to attack China.
  10. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 14 June 2021 13: 00
    0
    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
    Quote: Aleksandr1971
    Tibet is difficult to attack from outside, i.e. from India. Therefore, Tibet is a kind of natural shield of China in the southwest.

    Hindus sleep and see how to attack China.


    They really want to attack China in order to: 1) reclaim the territories in Tibet lost in the 60s; 2) interrupt transport links between Tibet and Nepal; 3) as a maximum program - to achieve the separation of Tibet from China, as it was in the 1st half of the 20th century.

    However, I hope that the Indians will turn on their minds and abandon their unrealistic aggressive and suicidal intentions. And then India and China will be able to fix the current lines of demarcation as official borders, and in the future it may even conclude an economic and military-political alliance between themselves. I would like to.
  11. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 14 June 2021 13: 21
    0
    Quote: Basarev
    No, I’m not a racist, I’m just asserting that India and China are not friends of Russia at all, you shouldn’t have any illusions. And that the West, with its centuries-old traditions of democracy, which includes consensus decision-making and a natural inclination to compromise, is a much more negotiable party than the East, where most decisions are made at Tsarist arbitrariness. It is very difficult to foresee how the tsar's mood will change: yesterday we are friends, and tomorrow he declares war and invades armies of millions, simply because it has become boring. Besides, what does the east have to offer Russia? The West is technology, the West is investment, the West is influence and resources, including the most important media one. To be with the West means to have permission even for not very legal actions. Let us recall Khlamina, where the OSCE stubbornly ignores the shelling. Because the West allowed her to roll out the Donbass. And what about the east? He only needs a freebie from Russia, our resources, money, technology and land. Do we need such partners who do not generate income and do not fit in for us? Therefore, I am firmly in favor of the western course.


    Only traitors to Russia are in favor of the Western course.
    The West has united four times in its history.
    1st time under Ancient Rome. But there was no Russia then.
    2nd time under Napoleonic France (Except Britain). And this West tried to destroy Russia. The victorious Russia mercifully did not eat the French, although it could and should have done it with them.
    3rd time under Nazi Germany (Except Britain and the USA). And again Russia found itself on the path of the West. And despite the nightmare that the West brought to Russia, merciful Russia unfortunately did not send the Germans into the ovens, who, in all fairness, should have been liquidated. Although it could. An eye for an eye.

    Now the West is once again in an economic and military-political alliance led by the United States and against Russia. But Russia is now not what it used to be. Russia has weakened and lost half of its population, half of its economic potential and 90% of its military potential.

    To repel the third, and I hope, the last invasion of the West, Russia will have to rely on the help of India, China and all those who suffered genocide and plunder from the West, and to plunge the West into what Asia was in the 19th century, i.e. make the West an object of violence, plunder and brutal retribution.
    1. andybuts
      andybuts 15 June 2021 11: 32
      -1
      2nd time under Napoleonic France (Except Britain). And this West tried to destroy Russia. The victorious Russia mercifully did not eat the French, although it could and should have done it with them.


      Where, then, was the unification against Russia? It was just that then the states defeated by the French were forced to deploy their troops, the main combat units were the French, despite the motley composition in the Great Army, and a few Poles, who had their own scores with Russia. The Austrians and Prussians with much greater enthusiasm turned their bayonets against Napoleon, if only for the reason that Napoleon was an upstart without a clan and tribe, and all the monarchs were very tough to fight with him. Napoleon did not need a war with Russia, he fought with England. If Russia fulfilled the conditions of the continental blockade, then Napoleon would not need any war.
      And only the sheep's obstinacy of Alexander the first on the destruction of Napoleon led to the well-known events. If the conspirator Pavel Petrovich had not been killed, then I think that we would exist quite peacefully with Napoleonic Europe, since France and Russia did not have a clash of interests in those years (except for monarchical (feudal) rules).
      And in these situations, why did the Russian troops have to "eat up the French" - were they going to restore the monarchy? Moreover, they were not the only ones who crushed Napoleon, the British, Prussians, Austrians - they all went to Paris, in the battle of Waterloo, for example, Russian troops did not participate.

      And as you forgot the Crimean War, this time European countries were much more willing to stand up against Russia than under Napoleon.


      And despite the nightmare that the West brought to Russia, merciful Russia unfortunately did not send the Germans into the ovens, who, in all fairness, should have been liquidated.


      First, not Russia but the USSR. Secondly, the war was against Nazism and Fascism, not the Germans. Normal people cannot feel any regret because the Soviet people did not become like the Nazi barbarians and did not begin to destroy children, women, old people and prisoners of war in the ovens, as the enemies did. How would our grandfathers then be different from the same Wehrmacht and the SS?
  12. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 15 June 2021 18: 18
    0
    Quote: andybuts
    2nd time under Napoleonic France (Except Britain). And this West tried to destroy Russia. The victorious Russia mercifully did not eat the French, although it could and should have done it with them.


    Where, then, was the unification against Russia? It was just that then the states defeated by the French were forced to deploy their troops, the main combat units were the French, despite the motley composition in the Great Army, and a few Poles, who had their own scores with Russia. The Austrians and Prussians with much greater enthusiasm turned their bayonets against Napoleon, if only for the reason that Napoleon was an upstart without a clan and tribe, and all the monarchs were very tough to fight with him. Napoleon did not need a war with Russia, he fought with England. If Russia fulfilled the conditions of the continental blockade, then Napoleon would not need any war.
    And only the sheep's obstinacy of Alexander the first on the destruction of Napoleon led to the well-known events. If the conspirator Pavel Petrovich had not been killed, then I think that we would exist quite peacefully with Napoleonic Europe, since France and Russia did not have a clash of interests in those years (except for monarchical (feudal) rules).
    And in these situations, why did the Russian troops have to "eat up the French" - were they going to restore the monarchy? Moreover, they were not the only ones who crushed Napoleon, the British, Prussians, Austrians - they all went to Paris, in the battle of Waterloo, for example, Russian troops did not participate.

    And as you forgot the Crimean War, this time European countries were much more willing to stand up against Russia than under Napoleon.


    And despite the nightmare that the West brought to Russia, merciful Russia unfortunately did not send the Germans into the ovens, who, in all fairness, should have been liquidated.


    First, not Russia but the USSR. Secondly, the war was against Nazism and Fascism, not the Germans. Normal people cannot feel any regret because the Soviet people did not become like the Nazi barbarians and did not begin to destroy children, women, old people and prisoners of war in the ovens, as the enemies did. How would our grandfathers then be different from the same Wehrmacht and the SS?


    You are not right.
    1. It does not matter voluntarily or from under the kick, Europe stood under the banner of Napoleon against Russia. The main thing is that Europe followed Napoleon. And if Europe defeated Russia, then Napoleon would become good for her, and not bad, as it was in the end.
    2. It doesn't matter what our country was called from 1922 to 1991. The USSR or the Soviet Union is only one of the incarnations of our country (I will not give it an assessment here). Our country has had different names for more than a thousand years of existence. And the probable defeat and death of the Soviet people from Hitler would not have influenced our modern Russian people?
    1. andybuts
      andybuts 16 June 2021 12: 51
      -1
      And if Europe defeated Russia, then Napoleon would become good for her, and not bad, as it was in the end.

      And the probable defeat and death of the Soviet people from Hitler would not have influenced our modern Russian people?


      The attack of Napoleon and Hitler cannot be placed next to each other. It is clear that there is a consonance between the Patriotic War and the Great Patriotic War, but things for the country are completely different
      If Napoleon had defeated Russia, I do not think that for Russia the new peace treaty would have been much worse than the Treaty of Tilsit. And certainly this defeat would not have been the end of Russia and in some severe way reflected on the Russian people. Only the nobility would have had fewer teachers from the French prisoners. For a Russian man (and a Russian woman), nothing would have changed. Maybe earlier the country would have been pushed towards a capitalist economy, the Crimean War would not have been needed.

      The Wehrmacht went to destroy our people and our state. Not all, for the line Arkhangelsk - Astrakhan would not immediately climb, but the European part of the USSR would be depopulated no less than half. From hunger, disease, ignorance. And the citizens of the Reich would try to erase the memory of Russian culture among the population.
      But still, this was not a reason to destroy the Germans without exception in revenge. Otherwise, there was no difference between us and them.
      1. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 16 June 2021 13: 06
        -1
        You are not right.
        The evil that is done in response to the initial actions of the enemy is no longer evil, but retribution. The difference here is that you cannot be the initial aggressor, or the provocateur of aggression. And it is possible and necessary to respond to aggression ruthlessly.

        As for France, defeated in 1814, Tsar Alexander was so hostile to his people that he even refused the Russian part of the indemnity assigned to France, despite the fact that Russia was ruined and lost no less people than France.

        And defeated enemies must be treated in such a way that they will never again be able to take up arms against Russia. That is, to liquidate. This is what our people did to many nomadic tribes, and they did the right thing. Many still existing peoples have done this in their history, incl. USA.

        The united West has attacked Russia twice. And Germany (including in the person of Prussia) fought with Russia even more often. If Russia under Elizabeth I or under Stalin swept the German people off the historical stage, then the West would have much less human and economic resources than it does now. This you cannot deny.

        A new third attack by the West on Russia is now being prepared. And the goal is the same - to remove the Russian people from the world political scene. But first, the West tries to weaken Russia economically and isolate it, leaving it without allies. You cannot deny this either.

        Russia has weakened. And it needs strong allies in the person of India, China and, if possible, a large coalition of Asian countries. Then the West will not attack, or it will finally perish in the attack.
        1. andybuts
          andybuts 16 June 2021 15: 46
          0
          I'm all right, you are our bloodthirsty! The aggression in 1941 was ideological, not the Germans against the Russians, but above all Nazism against the lower races (which included almost all the peoples of the USSR with rare exceptions). With the destruction of Nazism, Germany ceased to be an enemy of the USSR, and the GDR was one of our most loyal allies until we surrendered it ourselves.

          And defeated enemies must be treated in such a way that they will never again be able to take up arms against Russia. That is, to liquidate. This is what our people did to many nomadic tribes, and they did the right thing. Many still existing peoples have done this in their history, incl. USA.

          no one liquidated nomads in Russia. Russia conquered and assimilated them (Russian settlers settled in the lands of nomads and nomadic peoples). Until now, there are Tatars and Bashkirs in our country, Kalmyks, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Crimean Tatars are still in good health. These are all former nomadic peoples. The Spaniards did not exterminate the Indian peoples to zero, unlike the Anglo-Saxons, because Latin Americans have the features of local pre-Columbian tribes. And north of Mexico, the Indians remained mostly on reservations.

          A new third attack by the West on Russia is now being prepared. And the goal is the same - to remove the Russian people from the world political scene. But first, the West tries to weaken Russia economically and isolate it, leaving it without allies. You cannot deny this either.


          It sounds like TV bullshit and smells like a conspiracy theory. And, of course, this can only be denied.
          Why does the West need a third attack? What have they forgotten here, for what sacrifices? As a sales market and as a source of raw materials, they already got Russia, what else do they want? We are not a competitor to them in tech industries. Living space is something to be mined again? Yes, Europe itself is dying out, and it brings in huge numbers of Africans and Asians to live and work.
          How is the source of labor? so the way to the west is open for competent specialists, there are no less qualified and cheaper Ukrainians, for unskilled labor there are Arabs and Africans.
          Why, by the way, is the third attack?
          Eliminate the Russian people from the world political scene? also nonsense. First, not the peoples on this stage, because the Russian people have nothing to share with the American, Ukrainian or French people. There is a clash between Russian oligarchs and a state corporation and Western capital and transnational corporations, as well as local oligarchs such as Ukrainian and Turkish. Secondly, the Russian authorities conduct a foreign policy that is fully focused on supporting the interests of large companies (Gazprom, Lukoil, Rosneft, etc.), and how this will affect the country's population, politicians do not care, they are not protecting the interests of the population. At the same time, they screwed up all the important directions on the world stage (and above all, Ukraine, which for Russia is where all the 50 United States are important) due to the fact that our oligarchs were able to get in there and clean up the local market.
          Economically, Russia has also driven itself out - the so-called. The "elite" themselves chose the role of a raw material appendage of the West, they themselves sharply reduced investments in science, education and health care, they themselves decided that we would buy all technologies in the West, if necessary - that we should develop our own.
          1. Aleksandr1971
            Aleksandr1971 Yesterday, 18: 26
            0
            И вновь вы не правы.
            1. ГДР была чуть богаче, но в целом для нас примерно тем же, что и другие страны ВД. Но Еще лучше было бы, если на территории Восточной Германии, включая Силезию, Померанию и Познань поселились бы русские, а местные были бы оттуда выдворены куда-нибудь еще в 40-е годы. Тогда бы временное ослабление России не привело бы к потере наших завоеваний на Западе.

            Только удаление местного населения и его замещение народом-победителем всегда дает надежную гарантию удержания территорий. Возьмите в качестве примера Северную Америку, или то, как поступили турки с греками и армянами.

            2. Россия действительно ликвидировала либо асимиллировала не все покоренные кочевые народы. В некоторых случаях покоренный народ, например татары и башкиры, оказались в окружении славянского этноса и несмотря на многовековые попытки освободиться от России, проиграли, но всё-таки выжили. Половцы, печенеги, хазары, торки, ногаи и некоторые другие были уничтожены, а их останки к виде гагаузов, карачаевцев и некоторых других влачат жалкое существование. Народы Средней Азии, будучи завоеваны Россией относительно недавно не были истреблены, и будучи многочисленными, находясь у границ страны в момент ослабления России получили независимость от нас на блюдечке безо всякой реальной борьбы.

            3. Полагаю, что вы забыли про опустошительные нашествия западных коалиций на Россию в 1812 году и в 1941 году. Плевать под каким идеологическим соусом вторжения оправдывались. Варварством ли России, необходимостью жизненного ли пространства для высшей расы. Или теперь вдруг Западу неприятна авторитарная Россия, но почему-то монархии Персидского залива не оскорбляют Запад своим существованием.

            4. Я сейчас не берусь оправдывать нынешний политический режим в России. Может Запад и не планирует отгеноцидить русский народ, но лишить Россию самостоятельности в принятии решений, низвести Россию в политическом и военном отношении до Африки Запад желает точно. Только лишь за вероятную смерть простого человека А.Навального нам обещают разрушительные последствия. При том, что десятки тысяч невинных мрут насильственной смертью в Африке и на Ближнем Востоке, но США за это разрушениями не угрожают. Также определенно Запад пытается лишить нас и без того скудной экономики, чтобы мы не могли финансировать наши СЯС.

            За это нам надо поддерживать ежеминутную угрозу существованию народов Запада.