3 ms·

Handwaving again. The US is clearly part of the alliance, and with it NATO. You can't just remove them from the story because it suits your POV. Your second po

Handwaving again. The US is clearly part of the alliance, and with it NATO. You can't just remove them from the story because it suits your POV. Your second point doesn't make sense. If India would just ratify what China wanted there would be no conflict. India is not doing that because they don't agree. India would take advantage of allying with NATO, SCS bloc, so that they can force China to agree with their definition, not China's.

dirtyid 6y ago
You propositioned a scenario where regional countries can contain China without US. >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance I am alleging they cannot without USN, with specific reference that USN is the only thing keeping China from rolling over the region. Also why would NATO try to contain China? A in NATO is Atlantic, which Ocean is China on? There is a lot of unsubstantiated wank of random global coalition forming blocs to contain China, but very little evidence such a coalition will form apart from QUAD, especially regionally as China integrates more with ASEAN year after year. The second point is India is bad actor when it comes to settling border disputes. If you evaluate Indian border settlement history with her neighbors. It's not isolated to China. India doesn't agree because it's difficult for democracies to settle borders which often requires compromise, but such compromises require ceding land. Ceding ANY land is political suicide, especially in democracy. India is simply incapable of being a good actor on border issues, as seen in her settlement history. Unlike CCP China, who has settled 12/14 inherited land disputes, majority with larger concessions, because an authoritarian government has enough control over people to cede land. Which brings back to India right now, China see's in Modi someone with sufficiently strong cult following and authoritarian power to get border ratifications done, because it's now or never.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > You propositioned a scenario where regional countries can contain China without US. No, I didn't. > >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance Yes, that is, even if China can win 1v1 vs the US, it can't beat the alliance that the US is in. Given your misunderstanding I see no reason to continue. All the best.

dirtyid 6y ago

You propositioned a scenario where regional countries can contain China without US. >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance I am alleging they cannot without USN, with specific reference that USN is the only thing keeping China from rolling over the region. Also why would NATO try to contain China? A in NATO is Atlantic, which Ocean is China on? There is a lot of unsubstantiated wank of random global coalition forming blocs to contain China, but very little evidence such a coalition will form apart from QUAD, especially regionally as China integrates more with ASEAN year after year. The second point is India is bad actor when it comes to settling border disputes. If you evaluate Indian border settlement history with her neighbors. It's not isolated to China. India doesn't agree because it's difficult for democracies to settle borders which often requires compromise, but such compromises require ceding land. Ceding ANY land is political suicide, especially in democracy. India is simply incapable of being a good actor on border issues, as seen in her settlement history. Unlike CCP China, who has settled 12/14 inherited land disputes, majority with larger concessions, because an authoritarian government has enough control over people to cede land. Which brings back to India right now, China see's in Modi someone with sufficiently strong cult following and authoritarian power to get border ratifications done, because it's now or never.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> You propositioned a scenario where regional countries can contain China without US. No, I didn't. > >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance Yes, that is, even if China can win 1v1 vs the US, it can't beat the alliance that the US is in. Given your misunderstanding I see no reason to continue. All the best.