Historical Combat, War, Geopolitics History and Analysis

[Marlii]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720635376501768289

Reports are that planes have been damaged

 

[Marlii]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720655868252074300

 

[Ripley]

After they allowed so many parts of more advanced f414 to be produced in india might as well at this point

And why would they not? India deserves better now that the US making it up them after she dropped Pakistan and let’s face it, India is considered the ’final frontier’ against China, the new evil empire.

 

[Marlii]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720751094786068981

@Nilgiri looks like a big one

 

[Afif]

Wtf? Did I missed something? Suddenly something that big out of nowhere?

 

[boredaf]

’final frontier’ against China

Nah, they are more like the meat for the grinder, just as Ukrainians are against Russians. They support India until they deal with China, then India will become the next big threat.

 

[Ripley]

Nah, they are more like the meat for the grinder, just as Ukrainians are against Russians. They support India until they deal with China, then India will become the next big threat.

That pretty much sums up the US ’evil to good back to evil’ cycle and sounds correct.
Unlike, however, other toys the US played and threw away after a while, India is serious business. It’s finally emerging as the next economic giant (as we all know) and for a change, it had a rather good democratic history and political stability, despite many social upheavals.
Always known to choose her friends and foes and know where and where to stay cold, neutral.
And historically speaking, it’s not that easy to tempt India with candy and new toys As they were the builders of pacts of their own rather than jumping between sides.
So, yeah, it will certainly take more than carrot and stick to lure India.

 

[Afif]

@Nilgiri @Ryder @Gary @TR_123456
Fairly accurate presentation. I recommend you to watch it.

 

[Nilgiri]

That pretty much sums up the US ’evil to good back to evil’ cycle and sounds correct.
Unlike, however, other toys the US played and threw away after a while, India is serious business. It’s finally emerging as the next economic giant (as we all know) and for a change, it had a rather good democratic history and political stability, despite many social upheavals.
Always known to choose her friends and foes and know where and where to stay cold, neutral.
And historically speaking, it’s not that easy to tempt India with candy and new toys As they were the builders of pacts of their own rather than jumping between sides.
So, yeah, it will certainly take more than carrot and stick to lure India.

India fundamentally realises China's size (and vice versa) and the historical legacy from this.

These two cannot be pitted against each other in some zero sum existential way by relative new entrant that is small in the larger story, no matter how powerful it may be.... (though matters are catalyzed intensely past just raw power, since this is the current goings on involving current life/reality compared to the long past chapters).

India has its problems with the CCP/PRC (current manifestation and regime apex of China and choices made and decisions taken that are doubled down upon etc), likewise China has problems with current manifestation of India....and choices it has made regd others and so on.

But things are anchored in various ways past those problems that will shoulder and weather them as we both have large cheques to cash still with redemption and tomorrow's promise....to put more and more distance (and not just time) from the darkest times we faced not too long ago.

An "all in" fight of any serious magnitude will only ruin us both again. So rest of world have to work around that too.

 

[Ripley]

India fundamentally realises China's size (and vice versa) and the historical legacy from this.

These two cannot be pitted against each other in some zero sum existential way by relative new entrant that is small in the larger story, no matter how powerful it may be.... (though matters are catalyzed intensely past just raw power, since this is the current goings on involving current life/reality compared to the long past chapters).

India has its problems with the CCP/PRC (current manifestation and regime apex of China and choices made and decisions taken that are doubled down upon etc), likewise China has problems with current manifestation of India....and choices it has made regd others and so on.

But things are anchored in various ways past those problems that will shoulder and weather them as we both have large cheques to cash still with redemption and tomorrow's promise....to put more and more distance (and not just time) from the darkest times we faced not too long ago.

An "all in" fight of any serious magnitude will only ruin us both again. So rest of world have to work around that too.

My comment was quite around the same lines, I believe.
When I said the US (or any other actor for that matter) can’t play with India, I meant not to be moved around like a chess piece since it’s a steady and smart enough country not be played with and am aware of India’s “unwillingness” to participate in an unofficiAl alliance against China.

 

[Nilgiri]

My comment was quite around the same lines, I believe.
When I said the US (or any other actor for that matter) can’t play with India, I meant not to be moved around like a chess piece since it’s a steady and smart enough country not be played with and am aware of India’s “unwillingness” to participate in an unofficiAl alliance against China.

Against China, certainly the case. But there is a caveat in that China is different to the CCP (though there is now sizeable intersection in the reality, where even a 10% intersection of these two is a considerable one and its far higher than that in reality).

Against the CCP, PLA et al (and the current sizeable extension of this into the PRC in its current form and forseeable trajectory), there will be an anti-CCP and anti-PLA alliance India will be committed to (and however much this then extends into an anti-PRC alliance is up to the Chinese people to then decide and respond to with time).

These entities have done incredible harm to India by arming, emboldening and shielding the worst enemies of India and now seek to more openly fight and coerce India too this century its clear.

Thus every sizeable anti-CCP force in the world will be allied with in commensurate response going forward. This will include giving all manner of deterrents to Taiwan in eye for an eye way if these entities dont learn their place.

There are certain reasons why certain things were done to a number of PLA soldiers (at quite a large scale too in eye for eye way) by the Soviets before handing them back to Mao to have a cry in the pillow about.

This is a political entity that glorifies a person that openly admitted a gratefulness for what the Japanese did to his country (China) all that so that the ideology he espoused (CCP) would ultimately prevail. This goes well past what he himself then did.

 

[Ripley]

Against China, certainly the case. But there is a caveat in that China is different to the CCP (though there is now sizeable intersection in the reality, where even a 10% intersection of these two is a considerable one and its far higher than that in reality).

Against the CCP, PLA et al (and the current sizeable extension of this into the PRC in its current form and forseeable trajectory), there will be an anti-CCP and anti-PLA alliance India will be committed to (and however much this then extends into an anti-PRC alliance is up to the Chinese people to then decide and respond to with time).

These entities have done incredible harm to India by arming, emboldening and shielding the worst enemies of India and now seek to more openly fight and coerce India too this century its clear.

Thus every sizeable anti-CCP force in the world will be allied with in commensurate response going forward. This will include giving all manner of deterrents to Taiwan in eye for an eye way if these entities dont learn their place.

There are certain reasons why certain things were done to a number of PLA soldiers (at quite a large scale too in eye for eye way) by the Soviets before handing them back to Mao to have a cry in the pillow about.

Naturally, I was not implying that China was a pacifist nation, not when its military might going up all the time together with its economy and political premise. And yes they got beef with quite a lot of nations.

This is a political entity that glorifies a person that openly admitted a gratefulness for what the Japanese did to his country (China) all that so that the ideology he espoused (CCP) would ultimately prevail. This goes well past what he himself then did.

That gratefulness or open support to enemy of their own state was every communist movement’s starting point with many soviets in Russia and Germany, Europe started around late WW1. That was the goal of revisioned communism by skipping phases.

That said, do you think that CCP and China as whole has not moved from that ideological deification of one man or even the entire the ideological doctrine over the last decades? Or is it a target of theirs to export and spread their ideology?

 

[Ryder]

Naturally, I was not implying that China was a pacifist nation, not when its military might going up all the time together with its economy and political premise. And yes they got beef with quite a lot of nations.


That gratefulness or open support to enemy of their own state was every communist movement’s starting point with many soviets in Russia and Germany, Europe started around late WW1. That was the goal of revisioned communism by skipping phases.

That said, do you think that CCP and China as whole has not moved from that ideological deification of one man or even the entire the ideological doctrine over the last decades? Or is it a target of theirs to export and spread their ideology?

People think China never expanded or conquered which is bs.

China is big today because it conquered most of its neighbours.

A lot of those dynasties spent time fighting each other but also spent time expanding. Best examples are Tang, Ming and the Qing.

People think China spent most of its time fighting itself. Which is partly true but they also fought their fair share of expansionist wars against their neighbours.

 

[Nilgiri]

That gratefulness or open support to enemy of their own state was every communist movement’s starting point with many soviets in Russia and Germany, Europe started around late WW1. That was the goal of revisioned communism by skipping phases.

Well how can I put this mildly. They (CCP) were quite willing to work with "US allied" (SEATO et al.) countries as long as they were anti-India.

They were also quite willing to work against countries that were communist (that were pro-India or pro-Soviet etc)...even invading Vietnam in 1979 (which you can read about in some depth, an interesting story).

Its large part why China and US were allied against the Soviets largely after Nixon's outreach to Mao and CCP (and establishing official relations etc).

Communist revolution concerned only mostly "new frontiers" (far away, neutral enough, ripe for marxist indoctrination etc etc and to make sure they were your kind of Communism, not the other faction)...i.e something where contesting was more return on investment friendly compared to what had settled much more (i.e countries of some stability and power).

The "other commie faction" took on its own hues in geopolitics after the Sino-Soviet split given the Soviets destalinization which Mao despised (given his own extreme ideology more similar to Stalin's).

That said, do you think that CCP and China as whole has not moved from that ideological deification of one man or even the entire the ideological doctrine over the last decades? Or is it a target of theirs to export and spread their ideology?

They were making steady progress since Deng (who is reviled by many of the Xi faction today).

Tianenmen and Zhao Ziyang's purge were pretty huge (underrated) setbacks to this though.

Hu Jintao marked something of the zenith of this progress...i.e continuing the progress of moderatism (and CCP bureaucrat decentralisation) that Jiang Zemin had worked upon as well....along with the "absorb and put in stasis" "peaceful rise" signalled in foreign terms.

But there is now a return to the more authoritarian tendency under Xi....both internally and externally (paralleling the Mao era more, though of course the context, development and power of China is very different now).

It all changes if there was a Hun Jintao faction guy after Hu Jintao (to hold things at this level or progress more on this CCP model)...but we have what we have, and everyone in crosshairs of CCP in someway have to make adjustments to some pretty bad likelihoods coming up in the various timeframes of importance to them.....and simple impossibility to simply trust CCP to reverse again (after Xi). Proof and credibility on this is something CCP (or whatever comes after CCP whenever that is) will have to build up the long way much later.

Till then the window of the hard anti-CCP alliance in the world is the major geopolitical one of note.

 

[Afif]

Chinese Submarines for The Bangladesh Navy An Assessment

Commodore Gopal Suri, Senior Fellow, VIF
April 13 , 2016

The Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, in December 2015, announced that ‘two submarines would be added to Bangladesh Navy by the middle of the next year’, i.e., 20161. The Prime Minister was speaking at the passing out parade of midshipmen at the Bangladesh Naval Academy at Chittagong. She also added that setting up of a submarine base and associated infrastructure was underway. News of this submarine deal with China has been reported since 2013 with delivery expected by 2015. However, it now appears that the submarines are likely to join the inventory of the Bangladesh Navy this year. The Bangladesh Navy, in the recent past, has bought frigates, corvettes and patrol craft from the Chinese. However, the buy of submarines is worth pondering over since submarine operations, especially in their infancy, have to be nurtured and supported extensively by the supplier, i.e., the Chinese, till the buyer navy gains sufficient expertise to overcome the inherent dangers involved in undersea warfare. This essay will attempt to examine the rationale of the Bangladesh Navy to buy submarines, the likely involvement of the Chinese in their operation and future implications for the region.

Maritime Geopolitics.

Bangladesh has resolved long standing maritime disputes with India and Myanmar in the past few years. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) passed its final verdict in the dispute between Myanmar and Bangladesh on 14 Mar 12 wherein it awarded 111,000 square kilometres of exclusive economic zone waters in the Bay of Bengal, almost the same size of Bangladesh, as also a 12-mile territorial sea around St. Martin’s Island2. In another maritime dispute with India, the ITLOS awarded Bangladesh 19,467 sq. km of the 25,602 sq. km sea area of the Bay of Bengal on 07 Jul 143. Consequently, Bangladesh has a fairly large Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) where it can carry out commercial activity to further its economic interests. Bangladesh also enjoys cordial relations with India, its largest neighbour. It also has stable relations with Myanmar, its other neighbour, though the festering problem of Rohingya refugees does continue to persist. The country, however, does not face any threats which could lead to conflicts in the immediate future. The country has maintained a steady GDP growth of about 6 % which has helped bring about much needed economic development in the country. This growth coupled with the recent settlement of its maritime disputes has allowed Bangladesh to focus on development of its maritime capabilities, both commercial and naval.

Modernisation of the Bangladesh Navy (BN).

The BN has witnessed rapid growth in the past five years as part of the Forces Goal 2030 long term modernisation plan of the Bangladesh armed forces initiated in 2009. Military expenditure has more than doubled from $ 916 million in 2004 to about $ 2 billion in 20144. The Prime Minister has also repeatedly asserted her government’s commitment to the development of a modern navy on numerous occasions. The vision statement of the Chief of Naval Staff of the BN says that he “envision(s) Bangladesh Navy to evolve into a three dimensional navy acquiring such capacity and capability so as to be able to maintain a deterrent posture across the full spectrum of conflict”5. The growth of the BN has largely been in consonance with this vision as it continues to add not only platforms but also new capabilities to achieve its goals. The BN vision statement also specifically mentions gradual development of undersea capabilities to enhance its sea denial posture around Bangladeshi shores. Considering the absence of any real threats to Bangladesh, especially in the maritime domain, the aspiration towards acquisition of a submarine capability may not be warranted. The real requirement for submarines stems from the need to “maintain a deterrent posture”. However, who is to be deterred in the Bay of Bengal is yet to be clearly defined. It is worth bearing in mind that Bangladesh has had strained relations with India in the past, especially during the regime of begum Zia. The “deterrent posture”, therefore appears to be an insurance against any adversarial relations in the future.

Submarine Acquisition by BN.

Bangladesh had finalised a deal with China for supply of two Type 035G or Ming class export version submarines along with training at a reported cost of $ 200 million6 by end 2013. These types of submarines have been in service with the Chinese navy for nearly forty years since the early 70s though the Type 035G entered service in 19907. This class of submarine has its origin in the Soviet Romeo class design of the 50s which has been extensively modified by the Chinese. These submarines, in all likelihood, are ex-Chinese navy which were either decommissioned or placed in reserve since the Chinese navy itself is going through a modernisation phase. These diesel-electric submarines displace 2110 tons and have a surfaced endurance of 8000 nm allowing them to stay at sea for about 60 days. They are manned by a crew of 57 personnel and carry 18 torpedoes with an option for carrying 32 mines also. Considering the vintage of the design, the sensors may not be state-of-the-art though modern fire control systems may have been installed. The torpedoes are also likely to be early Chinese designs with ranges of about 20 - 25 km. The crew for these submarines is also be undergoing training in China since the BN has yet to set up training facilities. Moreover, submarine acquisitions the world over normally have training provided by the supplier built into the contract. Considering the timeline of mid-2016 indicated by the Prime Minister, the crews would have been undergoing training in China for at least the past year so that the submarines can be inducted by the BN according to this timeline. These submarines will allow the BN to gradually find its feet in the undersea domain without spending top dollar for modern European or Russian boats. The buy of two boats itself suggests that the BN wants to gradually build up its undersea capability in a phased manner without committing too much of its limited resources, both in terms of men and money. There have also been reports of the BN being interested in Russian Kilo class submarines though there has been no perceptible movement on this front with the Russians. It is pertinent to note that Russia had extended a loan of $ 1 billion in Jan 2013 for purchase of seven types of arms and equipment that include anti-tank missiles, air defense systems, armoured vehicles, automatic grenade launchers, radars and four types of armament for the air force including conversion of fighter jets and Mi-17 transport helicopters8. It is therefore quite likely that Bangladesh may seek out Russian help in procurement of future submarines considering the cost as also the available modern technology of Russian submarines.

Deployment of BN Submarines.

Induction of submarines and their subsequent integration into the operations of a navy takes quite some time depending upon the skill of the crews and the material state of the platforms. The BN is taking baby steps, and rightfully so, into the domain of undersea warfare. The initial phase of induction of these submarines will involve extensive trials for the personnel to gain confidence in their operations and put in place Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). This will involve joint operations with various types of naval platforms and exercise the Command and Control structure which is absolutely imperative for submarine deployments. Procedures for establishing escape and rescue methodology would be another step to ensure safety of these operations. Considering the limited resources of the BN, it is quite likely that these issues will require at least a 2 - 3 years before the BN is able to conduct submarine operations across the entire spectrum of undersea warfare. Future deployment of these submarines in the vicinity of sensitive establishments of India and Myanmar cannot be ruled out considering their proximity to BN bases. These bases are just about 500 nautical miles from sensitive Indian coastal establishments in the Bay of Bengal and are well within the range of these submarines. Hence, it would be prudent to expect the deployment of BN submarines in the proximity of these establishments, especially in the light of the influence that the Chinese are likely to wield with the BN with regard to this realm of naval warfare.

Implications for the Region
Long Term Program.

Acquisition of submarines is quite different from acquisition of other naval platforms since it involves setting up extensive infrastructure for support and training. Supporting operations of submarines requires a host of equipment like compressors, battery charging facilities, specialised mooring equipment, tugs, etc. and also special repair facilities. The cost of such equipment is almost equal to the cost of a submarine itself. Training of personnel is also very elaborate wherein a vast array of equipment like simulators, models and escape/rescue facilities are required. Suffice to say, investment in such facilities is economically worthwhile if it is intended for the long term and not as a one-off measure, especially for a poor country like Bangladesh. The fact that Bangladesh is setting up these facilities implies that the submarine program is a long term one and will surely expand beyond the current buy of two submarines.

Chinese Presence.

The BN would have already commenced the training of its initial crews with the Chinese navy for manning and operation of the two submarines. In all likelihood, Chinese crews, albeit in a small number, will also be borne on these submarines to guide the BN crew through the initial stages of operations. This will ensure a smooth handing over of, not only the submarines, but also that the BN crew transition into independent operations without any untoward incidents. Whether these Chinese crews would continue to sail on these submarines after they have arrived in Bangladesh is a moot point though it is quite likely, considering the infancy of undersea operations in the BN. The Chinese are also likely to be deeply involved in setting up the shore infrastructure like repair yards, training facilities and operational support establishments for smooth conduct of submarine operations. All this implies that the Chinese naval presence, in terms of personnel and possibly ships, in the Bay of Bengal is here to stay at least for a couple of years.

Intelligence Gathering.

The continued presence of the Chinese along with the learning curve of the BN in undersea warfare will present China with a golden opportunity to garner a vast amount of tactical intelligence, both of the area of operations as also about merchant and naval shipping. This can be used to supplement the data gathered by deployment of Chinese submarines into the IOR in the past and aid future planning. While the BN may not provide any direct intelligence, the presence of the Chinese personnel is sufficient for gathering critical data. This factor cannot be ignored by India as the Bay of Bengal is the home to a number of strategic and sensitive establishments.

Conclusion

While Bangladesh is entitled to operate its armed forces and acquire platforms as it deems fit, increased Chinese presence in our neighbourhood is a matter of concern, especially in a sensitive domain like undersea warfare. It is therefore in our interest to chalk out a strategy to mitigate this influence, especially when we have fairly close and cordial relations with Bangladesh. India can reduce the Chinese presence by offering facilities which the BN may not have but will need for the development of its submarine arm. For starters, basic training for personnel can be offered since India has established training facilities in this domain. India can also extend its expertise to the BN in setting up operational and shore support infrastructure. Undertaking repairs of these boats and provision of aid in this aspect of submarine operations will also go a long way in building up a long term relationship, especially when considering the possibility of the BN buying Russian submarines in the future. Setting up a mechanism for carrying out joint submarine rescue and salvage operations, on the lines of the NATO, with not just the BN but also Singapore and other likely future submarine operating nations would build up tremendous confidence amongst the nations of the neighbourhood. All these initiatives require further study but would be worth the while since they will reduce Chinese influence in the Bay of Bengal. However, we require to initiate these steps with some urgency so that the Chinese, who have already stolen a march on us with the Maritime Silk Road initiative, do not gain further ground in our own backyard.

---

Chinese Submarines for The Bangladesh Navy An Assessment

www.vifindia.org

Although a very old article, but perhaps the most balanced and well articulated one on the topic.

Note- as predicted in the article, BD has spend 1.2 billions to build a dedicated Submarime base with all the necessary infrastructures, training and logistical facilities by 2023.

 

[Ryder]

I would really love to see a WW1 of this especially regarding the Central Powers.

Central Powers. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria all despised each other.

What made alliance even worse was how Germany controlled the armies of the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians and the Bulgarians which led to local officers and troops despise taking orders from the Germans.

Ataturk in particular was critical of Enver Pasha giving too much power to German officers who were clueless about the Ottoman army alongside the terrain they fought in. Germans also had racist and racial superiority when it came to the Turks so they had to flaunt it out on the public.

German led Prussia and Austria have fighting each other since the 1700s for German unification not to mention Prussia kicked Austria out of the German confederation. German Empire and Austria were always going to enemies and rivals and only became allies due to German isolation in Europe largely thanks to Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Then you have the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria who both came out of the Balkan wars also fought each other both of them had lots of animosity to each other at the same time put aside their differences for a bit due to both losing the Balkan Wars.

For Alliances to work. Every side needs to click with one another.

 

[Ripley]

I would really love to see a WW1 of this especially regarding the Central Powers.

Central Powers. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria all despised each other.

What made alliance even worse was how Germany controlled the armies of the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians and the Bulgarians which led to local officers and troops despise taking orders from the Germans.

Ataturk in particular was critical of Enver Pasha giving too much power to German officers who were clueless about the Ottoman army alongside the terrain they fought in. Germans also had racist and racial superiority when it came to the Turks so they had to flaunt it out on the public.

German led Prussia and Austria have fighting each other since the 1700s for German unification not to mention Prussia kicked Austria out of the German confederation. German Empire and Austria were always going to enemies and rivals and only became allies due to German isolation in Europe largely thanks to Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Then you have the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria who both came out of the Balkan wars also fought each other both of them had lots of animosity to each other at the same time put aside their differences for a bit due to both losing the Balkan Wars.

For Alliances to work. Every side needs to click with one another.

Other than few points, your short assessment is great.

Entente members, Britain and France in particular, had even deeper animosity against each other, going all the way back to 11th century, whereas the other camp‘s feuds seemed superficial compared to former.
However, Entente was politically and militarily more unified, way more organized thanks to their industrial output and advanced logistics, most notably in the West. They managed to pull out a combined force against Germany. Axis members, however, had to fight their wars “by their own” (with the exception of almost direct German intervention and practically taking over on behalf of her horribly failing partner, Austria), not as a unified force.
When you add the technological disparity among Axis members themselves and thus creating the technological overall gap between two camps, well, the defeat was written all over the wall from the beginning.

Also, on a side note, (which has nothing to do with your post) the thumbnail that reads “unnatural allies“; I think pretty much every alliance, except maybe created around ethnic ties are quite “unnatural“. They’re mainly formed out of necessity and as forms of policy making. That’s how I see it anyways.

 

[Nilgiri]

I would really love to see a WW1 of this especially regarding the Central Powers.

Central Powers. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria all despised each other.

What made alliance even worse was how Germany controlled the armies of the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians and the Bulgarians which led to local officers and troops despise taking orders from the Germans.

Ataturk in particular was critical of Enver Pasha giving too much power to German officers who were clueless about the Ottoman army alongside the terrain they fought in. Germans also had racist and racial superiority when it came to the Turks so they had to flaunt it out on the public.

German led Prussia and Austria have fighting each other since the 1700s for German unification not to mention Prussia kicked Austria out of the German confederation. German Empire and Austria were always going to enemies and rivals and only became allies due to German isolation in Europe largely thanks to Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Then you have the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria who both came out of the Balkan wars also fought each other both of them had lots of animosity to each other at the same time put aside their differences for a bit due to both losing the Balkan Wars.

For Alliances to work. Every side needs to click with one another.

It was a real jumble. Honestly WW1 should never have happened at all, countries were extremely short sighted in general and didn't understand the real impact of weapons technology that had been unlocked since the napoleonic era.

I mean we can also go into the great rivalry between Prussia and Austria (Hapsburg), vying for domination over German people at large (i.e the loose HRE remnant which was more like a toothless German UN)....that should have given major pause for Germany (essentially a Prussian political project that triumphed by way of Bismarck et al.) and Austro-Hungary (the last Hapsburg stand) in forming an alliance for that century start.

Not to mention the French - Russian alliance (this is what ended up drawing in the British as well) given legacy of napoleonic wars between these two as well.

People at the top are able to hold and enjoy far more hubris than the soldiers they send to war and the common folk families that the soldiers came from. This took on a whole different angle for 20th century given the level of weapons unlocked...and tactics and strategies that had not evolved (but would evolve in time for WW2 imparting its existential degree of intensity there).

The Ottomans were especially unprepared and unable to consolidate much in the 19th century with the political and economic changes and pace required....again due to hubris of those enjoying status quo at the top. No good options at all when you factor this all in, as things always look easy on maps and paper to take back what was once yours or settle scores etc.

"The enemy crumbles in under a week if we feint with 3 divisions here and shove in 6 divisions here and keep 4 divisions in reserve."

Then you get stuck because of all the factors that dont appear in maps and GHQ echochambers.... and this stuff cascades till you are sapped of blood your population can give. All with allied populations with their political echelons with no guarantee they will not backstab you in the next war. Crazy!

 

[Afif]

@Nilgiri I didn't even know it existed.
Also, @Ryder

 

[Nilgiri]

@Nilgiri I didn't even know it existed.
Also, @Ryder

This footage I remember from mid 2000s actually.... posted somewhere (forum where 1971 discussion was taking place) before youtube era.

The POWs were returned back to Pakistan in grossly unfair way to the non-combatant victims. Even if we just take operation searchlight alone, the units involved were known. A gross miscarriage of justice, though the extenuating factors can be looked into as well:

The True Story of India's Decision to Release 93,000 Pakistani POWs After 1971 War

Indira Gandhi's biggest worry after the surrender of Pakistan in 1971 was the safety of Mujibur Rahman. The release of Pakistani POWs was the price Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (and the ISI) extracted for the safe return of the Bangladeshi leader.

thewire.in

Attached PDF file:
The Issue of Prisoners of War (POWS), 1971 and Recognition of Bangladesh