CHINA ENCASHES RUSSIA'S COMPICITY IN ITS TAIWAN INVASION PLANS: STRATEGIC IMLICATIONS

China after "No Limits" military and logistic support provided for Russia's faltering Ukraine invasion is now set to 'encash' as quid pro quo by Russia's military involvement and complicity in Chinese invasion plans of Taiwan.

Russia in normal course should have kept itself distant from any involvement in China's invasion plans for invasion of Taiwan as such a misadventure risks United States military intervention to protect Taiwan.

The ensuing US-China armed conflict in content and dimensions would ordinarily be limited and confined to China-centric dimensions. It would not impact or impinge on Russian national security interests in its Far East territories or Pacific.

Russian complicity and assisting China in its Taiwan invasion plans 'enlarges and escalates' the dimensions to the level of an armed conflict between the China-Russia Axis versus United States & Allies. Severe global and regional strategic implications ensue in its wake.

Can Russia back-out from the eventuality of involvement in China's Tiwan invasion plans? This is highly unlikely due to Russia's geopolitical and strategic compulsions and total dependence on China economically and militarily.

That this contingency is a strategic reality is borne out by recent testimonies by highly placed Pentagon and CIA officials in US Congressional hearings last week. They asserted that the United States Administration was seized with assessments of an eventuality of a 'Two Front' War' scenario with China in Western Pacific and Russia in Europe.

United States strategic concerns arise from a spate of Joint China-Russia Navy and Air Force exercises in Western Pacific simulating amphibious warfare of the type that would be employed by China for Taiwan invasion.

China's recent surge to hoard strategic Materiels from oil, gas, military hardware war wastage reserves and gold & silver to tide over global economic sanctions that would accrue in case of Taiwan invasion

Russia is unlikely to assist China with provision of active Russian Army troops for invasion of Taiwan. But Russian Navy and Russian Air Force missions in Western Pacific providing cover to China's invasion of Taiwan cannot be ruled out.

Russia could as a prelude to Chinese invasion of Taiwan could undertake diversionary provocations military operations in Europe to divide attention and focus of United States and NATO. Finland and even Poland could be targets of Russian diversionary attacks.

To limit Japan's participation in any US military intervention to defeat Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Russia could escalate by military deployments and provocations against Japan's Northernmost Island Hokkaido.

The Korean Peninsula also offers China and Rusia as a theater of diversionary attacks using North Korea as proxy.

The extensive geographical contiguity that exists between China and Russia enables them to provide 'strategic depth' to each other in a war-scenario and also to protect each other's Rear Flanks'.

Strategic sanity should rule out any Chinese misadventure of invading Taiwan and Russia being actively complicit in it. Simply, because the overall 'Balance of Power' would be heavily weighted against China and Russia.

China and Russia, singly, cannot militarily prevail over United States and its Allies. Hence, for sheer survival compulsions these two Communist autarkies are forced to band together. 

But then, with two megalomanic Communist Dictators sitting in power in Beijing and Moscow with a propensity for armed conflict to stay in power, reinforced with their unbridled military and nuclear arsenals, 'Strategic Sanity' cannot be dreamt of.

Prudence is the batter part of valor and hopefully comes into play to avert what could evolve into a horrendous World War III !!

JAPAN AND INDIA'S MASSIVE MILITARY BUILDUP GENERATES STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR CHINA

China's switch from 'Soft Power' policy approaches to 'Hard Line' strategic postures with the advent f incumbent President Xi Jinping in Beijing in 2012 took time to be registered in strategic calculations of Japan and India.

It was only in second term of Chinese President Xi Jinping after he had manifested his aggressive impulses on India in Eastern Ladakh and in South China Sea dominance, threatening Japan's survival, that Japan and India belatedly recognized that the 'China Threat' was real.

Infamously, then Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee declared from the steps of Japanese Defence Agency in Tokyo that India did not consider 'China as a Military Threat'.

Japan also at that time was vocally muted in its assertions of China Threat in line with then US policy perspectives on China.

Fast forward to 2024, the 'China Threat' now surfaces as a 'Major Threat', a perception reinforced by China's brinkmanship and propensity to use force to settle disputes, both against Japan and India.

Evident in 2024 markedly, is that both Japan and India have embarked on a robust and massive military buildup which in terms of force-structures and weapons upgradation is 'China-Centric' in content and end-aim.

Admittedly, both Japan and India, with present military build-ups cannot match China's asymmetric preponderant military power but the process of reduction of differentials is in process.

Significantly, while India is engaged in reinforcing both its nuclear and conventional deterrence against China, the core thrust in Japan is presently perforce based on sizeable conventional deterrence against China.

Japan has made significant policy deviations in terms of defence buildup. Japan has breached the erstwhile limit of 1% of GDP on defence expenditure, deployment of Japanese Forces in 'out of area' operations, conversion of its two Helicopter Carriers to full-fledged Aircraft Carriers with Vertical Take Off' Fighter Planes, and more significantly, planning acquisition of long-range missiles which can hit targets in China. 

The present geopolitical environment despite United States' spasmodic "Reset" flirtations with China now actively supports the massive defence build-ups of Japan and India.

Japan and India are both now intimately integrated in United States security architecture of Indo Pacific. This becomes a 'Force Multiplication' factor for both Japan and India.

With such momentous military processes in motion, obviously, strategic implications arise for China, and which China can ill- ignore.

Geopolitical implications that arise for China, in brief can be stated as under:

• China's over-preponderance geopolitical weight backed by massive military power in Indo Pacific gets diluted.
• China is geopolitically diminished with the rise of Japan and India as 'Contending Major Powers'.
• China thus far was not willing to share Asian strategic space with Japan and India as 'Contending Powers'. Now China will be forced to grudgingly share Asian strategic space with both Japan and India.
• With military rise of Japan and India, the countries of Indo Pacific, notably, Southeast Asia, will that much be less fearful of China. 

In military terms, the implications for China can be briefly summed as under:

• Japan and India now impose sizeable DETERRENCE on China's unrestrained aggressive impulses.
• Japan and India with their missile capabilities to hit targets in China's heartland will limit China's political and military coercion.
• Japan's and India's sizeable 'Naval Buildup' in terms of long-range operations and strike capabilities limit China's 'Naval Threats' in Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean regions.
• Japan and India concurrently with their own military buildups are also engaged in 'military capacity buildups' of countries like Philippines threatened by China.

Of serious strategic concern for China is that Japan and India are members of US-led QUAD and United States is seriously considering adding Japan to AUKUS. Both these groupings are China Threat-centric.

Concluding, it does not need much emphasis, that with Japan and India actively engaged in massive military buildups of their Armed Forces, complimented with their inter-woven security relationships with United States, the 'China Checkmate Template' is firmly in place, limiting China's propensity to use force to impose its will in Indo Pacific.

IRAN'S DIRECT MILITARY ATTACK ON ISRAEL UNLEASHES DANGERS OF WIDER MIDDLE EAST OR GLOBAL CONFLICT

Iran's unprecedented direct military attack on Israel on night 13/14 April with over 300drones and missiles is pregnant with dangers of a wider Middle East conflict which could acquire contours of global conflict also.

Till date, Iran's policy of wiping out Israel was confined to use of Iranian proxy militias operating from Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen, mainly. Israel's confined its ripostes to Iran in terms of cyberwarfare and even political assassinations within Iran of its military commanders and nuclear scientists.

Iran and Israel both scrupulously refrained from not crossing the 'Red Line' of a direct military attack on each other's territory.

Iran by breaching this 'Red Line' has ignited the explosive Middle East powder-keg and thereby setting in motion unpredictable regional and global strategic and military dynamics.

Thus, it becomes pertinent to analyze various aspects of Iran's motivations and compulsions for its direct military attack on Israel. This follows below.

Iran's Direct Attack Israel:Retribution or Svaing Face?

On the face of it, the direct attack by Iran on Israel seems more like 'Saving Face' due to domestic political compulsions and regional impact.

Iran by lack of geographical contiguity with Israel is robbed of any effective military attack on Israel.

Iran is separated from Israel by 570 km with Arab nations interspersed in between.

Iran Had Other Options Than Direct Military Attack on Israel

Iran's retaliation against Israel for bombing of Iranian Consulate in Syria and eliminating top military commanders could have been confined to similar attacks on Israeli embassies in the world.

Iran could have intensified its attacks on Israeli assets by its proxy militias.

That Iran chose the option of 'Direct Military Attack' on Israel seems a 'calculated gamble'.

Iran intended to signal both Israel and United States that it is ready to strike back against both of them.

Iran Falls Into Israel & US Trap

So far United States and Israel have refrained from any direct military attack on Iran and it could have continued that way.

But Iran by its strategic over-reach has opened the floodgates for similar actions by Israel tacitly supported by United States and NATO.

Calls by United States for Israeli restraint against retaliation is only "rhetorical".

Mark the words used by US President Biden: 'We shall not be part of any Israeli retaliatory offensive'. Yet United States has asserted that US guarantees for Israeli security are "Ironclad".

Iranian Drones & Missiles Attack Neutralized by Isreali Sophisticated Air Defence System and Air Forces of US, UK &France

Iran's attack was preponderantly by over 300 drones and included 36 cruise missiles and 10 SSMs.

No major losses accrued to Israeli military assets as 99% were neutralized by Israeli 'Iron Dome' and associated air-defence network.

A large number of drones were shot down by Air Forces of US, UK &France operating in the region, before they could even reach Israeli airspace,

Notably, even Jordan as an Arab Nation shot down some Iranian drones Some reports indicate that even Saudi Arabia shot down Iranian drones.

Reason for above is that Iranian launches were picked up on firing and time taken to traverse 570 km to Israel enabled timely destruction.

Israeli Retalaition Against Iran Direct Attack o Israel:Options

Israel never in is military history has not retaliated with force against any military provocations to its sovereignty.

Military logic dictates that Israel will not refrain from retaliatory strikes against Iran especially when Iran has dared to subject Israel to direct military strikes by Iranian military drones and missiles.

The question is not 'if' but 'when'?

Israel's marked superiority in terms of Israeli Air Force strike capabilities and Iran's not to so effective air-defence network offer many options.

Israel's cyberwarfare superiorities enable it to launch an "Electronic Pearl Harbor" attack paralyzing military network, missile launches networks, petrochemical industry and even banking and trade and commerce networks.

Cruise missiles attacks from its naval submarines against major Iranian naval and petrochemical installations along its littoral on North Arabian Sea offer Israel by Iran's default attractive options.

Lastly, Israeli Special Forces deep within Iran cannot be ruled out.

Iran's Geopolitical & Military Downsizing: Strategic Convergance Between Israel, United States,NATO and Major Arab Nations

Israel by Iranian default of launching a Direct Attack on Israel has become the beneficiary of a "Strategic Convergence" between Israel, United States, NATO and Major Arab Nations.

All of them have a strong convergence on neutralizing the 'Iranian Threat' to Middle East and global stability. These Nations may not be vocal on declaring this aim, but this is how the dynamics can be expected to work behind the scenes.

Early indicator of the above could be seen in the involvement of United States, Britain, France, Jordan and Saudi Arabia shooting down Iranian drones launched against Israel.

Russia-Iran-China Trilateral in Full Srategic Play

Some weeks back I had highlighted on this site the activation of this Trilateral in wake of Ukraine War and war i Gaza.

This is now on display with China declaring that irrespective of the regional and global geopolitics, China intends to stand by Iran. Russia also followed suit soon after with similar assertions.

While China and Russia may not openly indulge in 'acts of war; against the Western Bloc but one can expect that in event of a full-blown war between Israel and Iran, the two Major Communist Nations China and Russia will sustain Iranian war effort.

Concluding Observations

The spiral of retaliation and counterretaliations between Iran and Israel can only be put to an end by direct and robust military intervention by United States supported by NATO Nations and Major Arab Nations.

In a highly polarized world, which has emerged after ascension of Chinese President Xi Jinping into power, the evolving conflict in Middle East benefits China.

India too will be forced to make hard decisions as it would not have the luxury of balancing rope tricks.

The scepter of a global conflict overhangs now.

'QUAD' SECURITY DIALOGUE: IMPERATIVES TO MOVE FROM DIALOGUES TO EXPLICIT 'CHINA THREAT' DETERRENCE STRATEGIES

 The QUAD was originally conceptualized in 2007 by then Japanese PM Shinzo Abe as an existential 'Arc of Democracies' for political signaling against the growing China Threat in Indo Pacific.

Within a year or two QUAD as a political construct to checkmate China lost steam primarily due to United States 'China Hedging' Policies and then Indian Government's similar inclinations of being timid on China.

QUAD was effectively resurrected in 2017 with advent of US Republican President Trump in White House who initiated effective 'Hard Line' China-policy. Similarly, the advent of PM Narendra Modi in India as Prime Minister provided some more impetus to make QUAD a meaningful construct.

President Biden who succeeded President Trump had kept up prioritizing QUAD till lately with diplomatic meets at Foreign Ministers level and annual QUAD Summits.

QUAD however in its roles has continued so far without the necessary military trappings which could checkmate China. China consequently has stood emboldened to merrily continue with its 'Disruptive Strategies' impacting Indo Pacific security and stability.

In an overall analysis, what starkly emerges in 2024 is that while the China Threat to IndoPacific security has "intensified" QUAD as an existential checkmate to China's expanding aggressiveness has reduced itself to more of a "Humanitarian Disaster Relief Organization".

QUAD Summits have repeatedly called for a "Free and Open Indo Pacific". Free and Open IndoPacific cannot be achieved without being "EXPLICIT" as to which Nation is threatening IndoPacific security and stability.

Both leading Powers of QUAD, namely, the United States and India have shied away from naming China Threat impacting IndoPacific security.

Observing United States and India's diffidence in explicitly designating the China Threat and China's efforts to drive wedges in QUAD's cohesion has emboldened China in conducting more aggressive military forays on its peripheries extending from India to Western Pacific and South Pacific.

China Threat cannot be checkmated by diplomatic dialogues or meaningless assertions that QUAD is not aimed at any nation.

China can be checkmated only by first a clear and unambiguous statement of 'Intent' by QUAD that this coalition is a 'strategic organization' to checkmate China's predatory prowling in Indo Pacific.

Statement of Intent by QUAD should as a follow-up have discussions on creating integrated security mechanisms to checkmate China's maritime aggression in the South China Sea expanse.

Concurrently, QUAD Nations should plan to expand the military capacity and capability of Western Pacific Nations presently under China's political and military coercion, namely, Taiwan and the Philippines

Military inter-operability amongst QUAD Nations must be a top priority spanning full-spectrum military domains enabling an effective combined military response in any crisis generated or provoke by China.

Concluding, it needs to be highlighted, that QUAD even in its present nebulous loose state of neither being a well-knit geopolitical coalition or a 'security coalition' continues to rattle China which is concerned that QUAD is targeting China.

China when faced with a security-centric contours predominant QUAD with a clear statement of intent can be hoped t0 emerge as a 'powerful deterrent' against China's predatory aggression in IndoPacific. China would then be faced with prospects that any Chinese aggression in Indo Pacific would incur heavy costs to China by QUAD's integrated robust responses.

INDIA'S FOREIGN POLICY DOMINANT PRECEPT IN POLARIZED WORLD 2024 SHOULD BE -"ALLIED BUT NOT ALIGNED"

India's foreign policy cannot operate in a vacuum divorced from global and regional geopolitical environment. The global regional environment is heavily polarized in 2024 between United States & Allies and the two Communist States, Russia and China.

The Indo Pacific geopolitical environment of which India is a pivotal nation reflects the global polarization even more intensely due to Communist China's predatory aggressiveness against all its peripheral neighbors. chiefly, India.

Perceptionaly, India's pattern of strategic partnerships and engagement present an indisputable picture of India being a 'Natural Ally' of the United States and West.

The above is indisputable especially in the case of India's highly institutionalized security mechanisms with the United States which have evolved over two decades. While both United States and India shy away from terming it as China Threat-centric but the reality is that it is so.

In this heavily polarized geopolitical environment, more sharper after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2023 and China consequently raising its military provocations against Taiwan, the confrontations both in Europe and in India Pacific have intensified. 

India's continued 'Strategic Partnership' with Russia is a hangover relict of the heyday of India's Non-Alignment era. This relationship has multiple contradictions when viewed against contextual geopolitical global and regional environment.

Russia is in a 'Military Alliance 'with China but for the name. China figures topmost in India's threat perceptions. Russia is therefore ill-placed to act as India's 'Countervailing Power' against Chinese aggression because of Russia's heavy reliance on China linkages.

Russia also has not displayed any inclination to prevail over China to desist from hostile activities in South Asia inimical to Indian security interests.

Russia's only utility to Indian foreign policy interests is as a source of cheap oil supplies and which utility can be assessed as transactional in nature. With India's reduced reliance on Russian armaments the Russia-India relationship can be at best viewed overall as transactional.

Consequently, the crucial and pertinent question that India's foreign policy planners are posed with is what imperatives exist for India's obsession with a 'multipolar world order' or 'multilateralism' as a foreign policy precept.

Will these two Indian foreign policy precepts be adequate to serve India's national security interests in a heavily polarized geopolitical environment?

What these two foreign policy precepts generate in global geopolitical dynamics is ambiguity on India's strategic directions and postures. 'Strategic Ambiguity' has cost India heavily in the past both strategically and economically.

Should India go down again on that path of Indian foreign policy postulations? 

India in last ten years has projected to the world that it intends to play the role of a Major Power in global affairs. Such a national aspiration cannot be achieved nor sustained by multipolarity or multilateralism.

The above Indian 'National Aspiration' can only best be achieved by grappling with geopolitical challenges with exercise 0f 'Hard Power' in strategic coalitions with Major Powers with which strategic convergences exist on threats to Indian security.

Concluding, in the transient phase of India graduating to grapple with geopolitical challenges based more on 'realpolitik' than idealism, it is recommended that India follow France in terms of the dominant foreign policy precept, namely, "Allied but Not Aligned" so asserted by French President Macron. This should satisfy the present proponents of the current foreign policy postulations.