EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

All things New Cold War

< Return to subforum
Page: 1234Most Recent
By Blackflag | Jul 7 2015 4:44 PM
Because seriously, the shoutbox doesn't offer enough space.
By admin | Jul 7 2015 4:59 PM
Blackflag: Great! I wish more discussions would land on the forums and not the shoutbox.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
By Blackflag | Jul 7 2015 5:42 PM
I am going to post my thoughts on the Kashmir conflict here, because my comments in the shoutbox are a mess.

Kashmir is a disputed territory between the nations of India, Pakistan, and China. Pakistan and India make claims over all of Kashmir, while China has a claim on a big strip of land from their Kashmiri province of Askai Chin to Nepal.

During the Indian Cessation, the British Raj was divided into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Princes independent of the British government were given the choice to join either nation or become independent. Jammu-Kashmir was one such independent principality. Jammu-Kashmir was one of the few territories that elected to become independent. This was because the nobility were Hindu while the population was Muslim, which created the possibility of violence among both groups pending the joining of either state.

Anyways, while Kashmir was technically a legal entity, the Indian government refused to recognize their sovereignty, whereas Pakistan decided to recognize their sovereignty. India funded several insurgencies in Jammu-Kashmir, which led to Pakistani troops and tribal millitias to enter the northern part of the country.

The Prince, who had long faced threats of war from India, was now faced with a Pakistani army quickly occupying his country. The Prince turned to India and asked if the military could intervene to halt a full occupation. India demanded that Kashmir be annexed into their own country before they would send in their army. The prince reluctantly signed a paper relinquishing Kashmir's sovereignty to India (or so they say, Pakistan disputes this)

China also has claims on Kashmir and some other territories in India, but I'll be blunt here, none of them have the slightest bit of merit.

Who is more in the right?

Neither side really has any legitimate claim in Kashmir in my opinion. Pakistan was somewhat more honorable in its interactions with Kashmir when it was independent, while India was more aggressive. Pakistan's legal claim is that since Kashmir is mostly Muslim, it should be apart of their nation. India's claim goes back to the papers in which the prince of Kashmir signed (as I am told)

After the annexation there were several wars, started by both Pakistan and India over Kashmir. Over the course of the occupation, to this day, the Indian government is still frequently criticized by international monitors for crimes against humanities being perpetrated by the police and military in Kashmir. Although Pakistan has been hounded a lot less by international monitors, both sides have got their hands dirty somewhere along the line, so I am not going to give any side the moral high-ground.

In Kashmir, there are three factions. Those which support being apart of Pakistan, those that support being apart of India, and those that support being independent. Despite a lack of reliable data, it can be assumed that the groups which support joining Pakistan and the groups which support being independent outnumber the groups that support being apart of India. Although it should be noted that the majority of Indians not living in Kashmir think that the citizens of Kashmir should be Indian.

In the event of a war over Kashmir, it will likely be very difficult for outside factions to justify participation, which is always detrimental to domestic approval for a war.

Where everyone stands

United States - Citizens are favorable towards India, and unfavorable towards Pakistan. Despite this, India's relationship with the United States government is actually really weak. Financial or military aid towards either side will likely be received negatively by the population. Many politicians support India though, and are currently pushing for further cooperation.

China - Allied with Pakistan, but the alliance is fragile. Pakistan distrusts China, but for the moment, both are united by their mutual disdain for India.

Russia - Trade relations with India are strong, and so are relations between the governments. In the event of a war, Chinese relations with Russia will likely deterioate, but serious retaliation by Russia is unlikely, as they value their ties with China more than their ties with India. They will likely overlook any initial actions taken on the Indian subcontinent, but dependent on how dire things get for India, they could potentially be persuaded to take some minor action.

Middle East - The Middle East will be heavily supportive towards Pakistan in the face of rising tensions. Pakistan is currently expanding their diplomatic relations with other Muslim countries, and ongoing diplomacy could seriously affect the amount of support they would receive in a time of national crisis.

Afghanistan - Relations with Pakistan were strained in the past over several territorial disputes, but strengthened again following the rise of the Taliban in both countries. Afghanistan would likely be the hosting ground for any international assistance into Pakistan, so their allegiance is important. Unlikely to come to Pakistan's aid militarily, but there is a possibility that they could make an alliance with India in order to secure their lost land.

Nepal - Odd that I would even talk about Nepal, but I feel as though they will play a major role in any major crisis. They are bordered by China to the north, and under China's new territorial claims, they would be bordered by China to the West if they were to get their way. Nepal will potentially swing two ways. They could stay neutral during the next crisis, or they could turn to India in a bid for them to station troops within their borders.

Playing the game

USA - The only reason the US comes into play is because it is in their intrests to contain Chinese expansionism. Currently, a Kashmir war would involve China and Pakistan against India. If Pakistan were to break off its alliance with China though, then a war would likely take place without Chinese involvement. The US should take every opportunity to reel in Pakistan to the West and away from China, which can be done in one of two ways. The US can either take China's role and militarily support Pakistan, or take steps to ensure that Pakistan can't trust China.

China - The goal is to expand. If China were alone, its claims would be contested by both Pakistan and India, but since they allied with Pakistan, they are only seriously contested by India. China can help ensure the victory of either faction in Kashmir, but due to a number of other territorial disputes with India, they figured Pakistan was the best way to go. Everytime Pakistan and China improve military cooperation, India gets more concerned. It is possible that China could use this to their advantage to intimidate India into recognizing their claim.

Russia - Two major allies are in conflict, which isn't good for Russia. It would pressure trade with both countries. Russia should take steps to ensure their neutrality by enacting policies which will justify continued trade and relations to both side if a war were to ever begin. It would also not be a terrible idea to support an independent Kashmir. This wouldn't please either China or India, but in this case, it is better than having to choose between China and India.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 8 2015 12:07 AM
Awesome. I hope this thread is used a lot.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 8 2015 6:44 AM
Blackflag: How do you think the current Chinese stock market crash will effect the global situation? Also, how far do you think the crash will go?
By Blackflag | Jul 8 2015 12:12 PM
Dassault Papillon: Financial loss usually attracts desperation. It is a large crash, but China largely surpassed serious economic decline during the Great Recession. Western investors have been in many such crises, which allowed us to implement many safeguards against future crashes. China lacks many of these same safeguards, and they will likely be implemented as a result of the crash.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 8 2015 12:24 PM
Blackflag: Do you think that Serbia and Greece will align themselves with Russia as part of a Serb, Greek, Belarusian, and Russian alliance.
By Blackflag | Jul 8 2015 3:29 PM
Dassault Papillon: Serbia and Belarus are already strong allies with Russia. In fact, it was in the news today that Russia vetoed a resolution implicating Serbia's role in a Bosnia War genocide.
As for Greece, I seriously doubt they will make any serious shifts, but their economic state promotes neutrality in a time of global crisis.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 10 2015 1:55 AM
It's been reported that the Russian Air Force has suffered from a large amount of accidents and crashes over the past few days/weeks/months. Perhaps this means they'll have to spend billions more on their fleet...?
By Blackflag | Jul 10 2015 5:20 AM
Dassault Papillon: I have no knowledge of these reports. Any idea what resulted in all the accidents?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 10 2015 8:52 AM
Blackflag: Well, their fleet is kind of old, and recently they've been deploying these planes on a lot of missions, which supposedly put a strain on them.
By Blackflag | Jul 10 2015 12:33 PM
Dassault Papillon: Missions? What kind of missions does the airforce undertake during peacetime?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 10 2015 12:50 PM
Blackflag: Flying over NATO airspace and violating international law...you know, stuff like that.
By Blackflag | Jul 10 2015 2:01 PM
Dassault Papillon: Yeah, I wasn't aware of any incidents where the Russian air force flew over NATO airspace without permission. Do you have anything in specific?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 10 2015 4:29 PM
Blackflag: Either that or it flew ridiculously close to NATO airspace.
By Blackflag | Jul 10 2015 6:09 PM
Dassault Papillon: Which would be a NATO violation, because they shot down planes outside their national airspace.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 11 2015 3:00 AM
Blackflag: I think NATO just intercepted the planes and escorted them away from NATO's airspace.
By Blackflag | Jul 11 2015 4:57 AM
Dassault Papillon: Which brings me back to, why are Russian aircraft launching missions next to NATO airspace during peacetime, and what kind of mission could an aircraft possibly undertake?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 11 2015 5:53 AM
Blackflag: ...Are you seriously saying that you have not heard anything about the massive increase in interceptions of Russian military aircraft flying near NATO airspace since 2014?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 11 2015 5:55 AM
Blackflag: The answer, though, is probably that as the West increases sanctions against Russia, Russia is responding by doing such missions in order to "spook" NATO in retaliation. And, of course, they may be trying to intimidate weaker NATO members or nations seeking NATO membership.
Page: 1234Most Recent