Volunteer Agreement 2014: Fill & Download for Free

What do you think about the current situation on the Sino-Indian border? Will this lead to a major shift in Indian foreign policy?The current situation is highly volatile right now, but both China and India are making concerted efforts at the political level to tamp things down.What cannot be undone is the major geopolitical shifts the deadly clash in Ladakh has brought about. Both foreign policy and military shifts are underway.(Photo Credit: WION: Breaking News, Latest News, World, South Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh News & Analysis)(Photo Credit: India Defence Consultants USS Nimitz, nuclear powered supercarrier)On the foreign policy front India and China are still maintaining ‘correct’ diplomatic relations, but it is representative of a ‘cold peace.’ India was blindsided by the attack on its soldiers with improvised ‘medieval type’ weapons (to use a term reported by some media in India) and felt that it was a betrayal of the talks the two nations were engaged in.Per open media reports and excerpts from American intelligence and satellite information released to the public India and China had finalized an agreement to pull back from contested positions in the Galwan Valley area. When Indian soldiers went to check on the withdrawal they noticed tents and other infrastructure still up in the disputed area. Indian troops reportedly burned the tents and then a short while later met up with a much larger number of Chinese soldiers, from a unit different from the ones they were negotiating with. Indian troops were unarmed inside the narrow buffer zone, by mutual agreement, but the Chinese troops were equipped with bats, or clubs studded with nails or wrapped in barbed wire. This violated the agreement, and hinted at a pre-planned escalation tactic by Chinese planners. A brutal close range fight began, and both sides called for reinforcements. Reportedly troops battled in the frozen heights for 4 hours or more, with Indian troops fighting with their bare hands or with rocks they picked up. India lost 20 soldiers dead and 70–76 injured, while Indian sources put Chinese deaths at 43–53, and American intel put the figures at 35 for China.When news broke in the public domain in India and in Western media anger grew in India. Most Indians viewed the attack as completely unwarranted and a violation and betrayal of the protocols painfully put in place over the last several decades by the two nuclear armed neighbors. China pinned the blame on India, while India stated that it was China that betrayed the talks and initiated the bloody showdown. Moreover India pointed to the PLA troops being armed as a clear indication that the encounter was planned by China and not just an accidental clash by the border forces.Western commentators, intelligence agencies, heads of governments, and satellite imagery almost universally supported India’s contentions. China itself seems to feel the move was a blunder.Reports that China did not allow the families of the dead soldiers to attend the burials, as well as a conspicuous lack of official coverage on the number of casualties China suffered pointed to a desire by the CCCP to bury the incident domestically. Secondly China once again seemed to have miscalculated India’s response. China, in spite of what seems to be a genuine desire to have good relations with India rather persistently views India as a nation that can be manipulated and coerced. This seems to come from the approach China was used to from dealing with much smaller, less powerful neighbors. India, while a major power, almost always reacted to Chinese moves, used soft bargaining and deferred to China in setting the pace, terms, and conditions of any negotiations the Chinese agreed to. The Chinese viewed these Indian non-confrontational approaches as the norm. But the BJP leadership proved far more assertive, confident, and militarily able, and China found itself surprised again and again, in major diplomatic and force confrontations in 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2020.India has always had considerable strength at its disposal, but was largely unable to harness the resources of the subcontinent to its aims in a whole of government approach until recently. But beginning in 2014 India began to take a coordinated, long term, and strategic approach to dealing with China, and China viewed this with alarm.This is where the military shift comes in. China seemed to decided that it had a short window to act in, given India’s demographics, economic growth, and escalating military potential. It went for a decisive strike against India, one short of starting a war but that would put India on the back foot, showcase China as the unchallenged power in Asia, and establish a pecking order, with India clearly at the bottom in dealings with China.But things did not work out that way. India reacted with far greater speed than anticipated. Military forces were rapidly built up and Indian soldiers, already battle tested in 6 wars, proved themselves to be formidable even when fighting barehanded. Diplomatically India garnered rapid support, and PM Modi made a surprise visit to Ladakh, giving China an unpleasant surprise. The Indian government also hit China in the pocketbook with its ban on 59 Chinese apps and denying the Indian internet base to many of China’s major players.Militarily India now seems set on inviting Australia to join the ‘Quad’ (currently the US, India, and Japan) as a permanent member. This is something Beijing was keen to avoid, having the most potent democracies in Asia joining with the US in a semi-formal alliance. India also vastly increased its arms purchases, with renewed talks for a large fleet of UCAV from the US, speeded up purchases of munitions and expedited deliveries of Rafales, SU-30’s, MiG-29’s, S-400 SAM systems, and Israeli loitering drone munitions.India and the US are also in the midst of a complex, high end naval exercise, centered on the USN Nimitz carrier battle group and major Indian warships. Indian forces are also now more sharply focused on the key Malacca Straits chokepoint, another danger area for Beijing.(Photo Credit: Read Latest News, News Today, Breaking News, India News and Current News on Politics, Bollywood and Sports. - Republic World USN ships exercising in the Indian Ocean)Beijing is now working with New Delhi and agreements have been struck to de-escalate tensions, pull back forces, recommit to border settlement talks, and hopefully rebuild trust, but the tectonic shifts caused by the recent clashes cannot be easily undone.A giant demographic state, with the 5th largest economy, largest professional all volunteer military, nuclear armed, wary and distrustful, is not the India that China wants. China almost certainly did not intend this outcome, but triggering events with a state as powerful as India, especially one that desired fair and equitable relations was not at all strategically sound. India has given no indication that wants to deny China its place in the sun, but it is very much against any other state denying India its rightful place in the comity of nations, and that place is among the great powers of the planet.So major foreign policy and military shifts are underway between the two largest demographic states in all of history—China and India.

We have a saying: “A king is “made” by his henchmen”.In case of Barack Obama, it makes me wonder how such smart and charismatic person had encircled himself with arrogant and blind-sighted fools. At least in that part of international affairs that dealt with Russia. I do have a favorite quote of him:“There are two ways to solve a problem. A quick one and the right one” - B.Obama speaking to students of University of Chicago, 2017When Mr. Obama was elected in 2008, there was an uneasy feeling in the air. In the history of US-Russia relations, whenever there was a Democrat President in the Oval Office, tensions would usually rise. The general observation from the decades of prior bilateral relations was that unlike Republicans, who seem to be more pragmatic and agree to mutually beneficial economic contracts leaving politics aside, Democrats are putting political interests above economic.The context of that year was also bitter from a 5-day war in South Ossetia, unnecessary and completely useless slaughter of Georgian and Russian military personnel as well as hundreds of Ossetian militia and civilians. Yes, every conflict involves at least two sides, and there were rumors that 58 Army was conducting unnerving maneuvers, but it was Saakashvili who blinked first while Medvedev did not. In fact, he was left with no choice than to attack back because dozens of Russian peacekeeping corps were dead and such things cannot be left without a response.Yet, Obama chose to extend a hand of peace (at least, his administration pretended to), offering a ‘Reboot’ initiative in 2009, soon after he was sworn into the office. The problem is - those people whom he entrusted to carry out this delicate task had failed even to translate it properly - they wrote PEREGRUZKA, which means ‘Overload’.Hillary Clinton later joked that “Since we’re rebooting the relations, me and Mr. Lavrov will be overloaded with work”, but… they even didn’t bother to spell it in cyrillic!Despite this double insult, Russians did cooperate with the US on such issues as strategic arms treaty and helped to work out the nuclear deal with Iran. Also, Russia ratified the Paris Climate accord.But in 2014, things have changed dramatically. Russia strongly opposed the coup d’etat in Ukraine, but still brokered the agreement with Yanukovich which included a soft transition of power in the form of new elections to be held ASAP. That agreement was thrown away by Obama Administration the very next day (I’m sure, because of strong pressure from Mrs. Clinton and her team, epitomised in the “Fuck the EU” exclamation of her right hand, Victoria Nuland) and, just like we see today in Venezuela, the US was too impatient to declare the victory of opposition. Just like they did before in Yugoslavia, Tunisia, Libya, and Syria. But that year, Putin (and a lot of Russians, you have to be aware of that) decided that enough is enough - and you know the rest. The operation in Crimea - “legit referendum” as it is called by most Russians or ‘Crimea annexation’ by the rest of the world, civil war in Donetsk and Luhansk, backed by volunteers, some of whom are active service members of the Russian Army, and material.Obama seriously misunderstood Russia. I can’t blame him - he trusted his advisers, and that’s where he made a mistake - in choosing his advisers. These guys were well-educated about Russia that ceased to exist in 1992. They failed to grasp the transformation of the country into something new. Obama’s advisers told him to say “Russian economy is in tatters” when it fell ~10% YoY in 2015. But they kept silent when it rebound next year, just like a flexible market economy should. He called Russia a ‘regional power’, as if he was pursuing a goal to insult Russia as much as possible - probably something his advisers told him as a good thing to do. At the end of his term, he shut down two of three Russian consulates, blessed the de facto stealing of the oldest estate belonging to Russian mission in San Francisco, and gave an OK to give a 48 hrs notice of leave for diplomats and their families on Christmas Eve - such kinds of things are signs of utter disrespect in diplomatic etiquette. Even Venezuela gave the US diplomats 72 hours after claiming the US involvement in energy crisis. And then they were surprised when those Russian barbarians responded in the same way - closing consulates in Saint-Petersburg and Ekaterinburg and cutting down the maximum allowed numbers of the mission to the same amount as the Russian mission in the US, but with a delay, giving more time for diplomats to leave. This kind of shows their (advisers’) scheme of thought.Yet, I enjoyed watching him speak. I actually like watching public speeches of the American pundits, as this is something we lack in Russia - public politics. Obama definitely stands out of the crowd with the depth of thought and commitment to solving problems the right way - through policy and strategy, not through pursuit of low hanging fruits and shortcuts.The full video of Barak Obama speaking with University of Chicago students, from which the quote in the beginning of the answer was taken, is here.

Ukraine signed international treaties against child soldiers, is professionalizing its forces, and nationalized the volunteer battalions that saved the country after the 2014 Russian invasion. Four seventeen-year-olds who tried to join the volunteer battalions were sent home.There’s nothing Ukraine can do about the recruitment of child soldiers in the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula and the “New Russia” republics in eastern Ukraine, except continue to work towards implementing the Minsk agreement and restore government control.For more, see my answer: Is Ukraine with or against child militarization?