Bangladesh Keen To Join Saudi-Pak-Turkey Defence Alliance, Says PM's Top Aide

[peagle]

None of them are a defense pact.

Defense pacts hold when a group of nations which share a common enemy come together and form an alliance, that whenever that common enemy will act against any one of them, they will all face the said enemy together.

Here we have Mecca defense pact where none of the nations have a common enemy.

If a war were to break out between India and Pakistan.
Tell us will Bangladesh risk getting nuked for Pakistan? Will Turkey or Saudi Arabia ?

On the other hand will Pakistan fight Israel for Turkey ? If Pakistanis didn't fight Israelis for Palestinians, why would they ever fight for Turkey.

Will Pakistan fight Iran for Saudi Arabia? We have seen this picture and know how it ends.

Will Saudi Arabia even shed a drop of Saudi blood for any of the nations in this pact, never in million years.

This defense pact is just attention seeking behavior.

Saudis are vying for US attention. Bangladeshis are vying for Indian attention.
Where as Pakistan and Turkey are in it to make money.

Turkey by selling its weapons and Pakistanis by receiving Saudi handouts.

What the heck are you talking about? Fantasies?

You have not read or understand anything about this pact, yet creating fantasy based conclusions.

 

[peagle]

There is absolutely no chance Bangladesh will be allowed to join Mecca Pact. You should however, have a functioning military to protect your country.

That makes zero sense.
Care to expand on your statement?

I suppose the United Nations asks Bangladesh for peace keepers because they're just kids playing with toys, because they have no functioning military.

 

[peagle]

Some of our Pakistani 'brothers' has complex toward BD due to various reasons. Some might be racial, some might be historical. (1971 defeat and surrender to India-BD allied forces.)

I'm sorry but that's just insane.
Don't confuse few internet warriors making statements for it's shock value with real life.

No one gives a damn about the so-called defeat in 1971.
Every race has bias towards the other, including you Bangladeshis so let's not get carried way.

The dominate factor amongst Pakistanis is the tragedy of 1971, how it happened and that's it. it's a moment of self reflection with sorrow. Although personally i think the sorrow part is overblown and we tend to take onboard far too much of the blame, but that's another discussion.

The second part is, when do we meet?
Our people have stopped meeting, when you don't meet how are you suppose to develop bonds? That blame is entirely on the side of Bangladesh.

 

[peagle]

Can see Bangladesh being useful.

Not sure about other Arab nations. Not sure what the hell Kuwait and Bahrain would contribute?

Syria is also in a bit of a mess but Turkiye can try bring it prosperous first.

Don't they have trillions of dollar in sovereign wealth funds to finance technological development.

What do we do in return?
Just provide safety against, who? Who's going to invade them anyway, and how difficult are they to defend, against the benefits of mutually beneficial financial ecosystem for technological enhancement.

 

[peagle]

Well I am of the opinion that India's Achilles heel is not actually a military one. But I digress. Let's leave it at that.

Stop it with the niceties.
Please digress.

 

[peagle]

You would be foolish to belive that Pakistan would or could deploy nuclear weapons against Israel.

Since its inception Pakistan has gone out of its way to assure the world, they are not a direct threat to Israel and they have only one enemy in world and that is India.

That is why they have been allowed to develop/ keep their nukes.

If there is even a hint of Pakistan being a nuclear threat to Israel. Pakistan nukes would be taken out.

And if Pakistan could have provided nuclear umbrella to any one against Israel, they would already done it for Palestinians.

It must be wonderful in that make believe world you lot have built for yourself. Is the sky pink?

Since the independence of Pakistan and creation of India, no one has come running to save Pakistan. Both America and the Soviets have saved India on more then one occasion.
Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

No one gave permission to Pakistan for it's nuclear program, that permission and help was given to India. Feel free to open another thread for this discussion.

You are correct regarding Israel, Pakistan has no direct issues of concern with Israel, except Palestine. But who would have thought Israel threatening Turkiye.
Countries plan for the present as well as the future.

 

[Master Chief]

Stop it with the niceties.
Please digress.

Welcome to the shitstorm dear old friend! You and I both know why a horde of Indian representatives here can't seem to stop yapping on this issue. If Bangladesh were to suddenly fall under the orbit of this arrangement as a 4th member, Indian attempts to impose their will upon Bangladesh are suddenly on notice. India is not concerned by Bangladesh's military threat - it would take years, maybe decades for that to be built up and the strategic reality of encirclement is a real problem.

Rather, there are economic levers that Bangladesh's co-signatories might easily pull if Dhaka genuinely was forced to invoke the terms of said agreement.

Notwithstanding any of that, a closer co-operation between Dhaka and all three current parties to this agreement can only bring benefit to Dhaka in peacetime. Why this peacetime development should cause undue alarm to our trans-gangetic cousins here is a question only they can answer.

 

[peagle]

sir in war how to provide logistic support thats the only point my mind is not comprehending.we lost 1971 because of logistic problem . same is the case now. in war like situation how to send aoldiers and weapons if there is no land corridor no air corridor .

This requires a longer answer, but i'll try to keep it short. Please indulge me for a bit.

1971 existed within a certain framework, there's a redundant habit even amongst the experts in describing that period.
I am writing as i go, so if my statement is not organised, i apologise.

Pakistan had around 40,000 soldiers. that figure tends to vary a little because it depends on what or how you are counting.

1. Total uniformed soldiers is one count.
2. The fighting component is a different count, not everyone, especially when stationed at base forms the part of the fighting roles. In East Pakistan they were stationed at base. so the fighting component was far lower.
3. Then you have the paramilitary force, East Pakistan rifles stationed for border duties, close to 15,000.

The small size of the force in East Pakistan was part of a strategic decision, "defence of the east lies in the west" it was a structurally sound policy.
Pakistan had no territorial dispute with India in the East, our main dispute was Jammu and Kashmir. If India took any territory in the east, we could rely on the sanctity of the Nation States framework, which generally prefers no change to international borders.

But if India took full control of Jammu and Kashmir, there was no recourse, it would be gone because it is internationally recognised as a disputed territory. They could say, we have full control so there is no more dispute, the entire nature of that issue would be changed.

The policy made sense, but it relied on cooperation and loyalty of the the citizens of East Pakistan. When that cooperation changed and the loyalty became muddled, that doctrine became weak.

(it is a wider argument and we do not need to touch upon the hows and whys)
You have majority of the population in rebellion, the East Pakistan Rifles mutinied en masse, and around 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 soldiers also rebelled. That so-called victory or loss happened under those highly unusual circumstances. Furthermore, India was fully and actively supported by the Soviet Union.

None of those above situations exist today.
They have a coherent national identity.
Their logistics framework is not based on supplies from a single source 5000km away on the other side of India.
They have an independent logistics structure, capable of enhancing itself and being supported by multiple sources.
They have nearly 200,000 personnel in the military.
Around 70,000 plus in the Border Guard Bangladesh.
And a civilian force, which i don't take seriously so let's ignore that for now.

It's an entirely different situation, it has zero resemblance to 1971.

 

[LeonBlack08]

They have nearly 200,000 personnel in the military.
Around 70,000 plus in the Border Guard Bangladesh.
And a civilian force, which i don't take seriously so let's ignore that for now.

Off topic side note -

Bangladesh has been going through modernization of the "civilian force" i.e. Ansar.

We now have something called Battalion Ansar trained by Bangladesh Army and they have been engaging counter terror ops in Chittagong Hill tracts, which in the past was conducted by BGB and the army. They are better trained and armed and is approximately 20K strong and will be mobilized in case of war.

 

[peagle]

Off topic side note -

Bangladesh has been going through modernization of the "civilian force" i.e. Ansar.

We now have something called Battalion Ansar trained by Bangladesh Army and they have been engaging counter terror ops in Chittagong Hill tracts, which in the past was conducted by BGB and the army. They are better trained and armed and is approximately 20K strong and will be mobilized in case of war.

View attachment 212652

20k huh, that's pretty good.
I actually have an idea about a professionally trained volunteer reserve force with regards to Bangladesh. I did the costing and everything, obviously an uneducated one but nevertheless lol.

I think it is the best approach for countries facing certain conditions and fits Bangladesh perfectly. I thought of writing a piece but keep forgetting, plus wasn't sure how it'll be taken from a Pakistani.

Pakistan has a policy of defensive offence.
Bangladesh needs a policy of defence with offence. That's the statement, explaining it requires details, time and effort.

 

[Anatolia]

Don't they have trillions of dollar in sovereign wealth funds to finance technological development.

What do we do in return?
Just provide safety against, who? Who's going to invade them anyway, and how difficult are they to defend, against the benefits of mutually beneficial financial ecosystem for technological enhancement.

You’re right and I agree with you. But that’s exactly the issue — what’s the point of this pact if it isn’t basically about protecting Saudi Arabia from Iran or Israel? Türkiye and Pakistan can handle their own regional threats without anyone’s help. We’ve already proven that.

So when you look at it realistically, this pact mostly benefits the Saudis. They get political cover, military reassurance, and a sense of “collective defence” they never had before. Meanwhile, Türkiye and Pakistan don’t actually gain anything strategic. We don’t need a treaty to defend ourselves, and we don’t need a treaty to help each other either — history already showed that.

 

[retaxis]

GCC funding could buy Bangladesh some really neat systems and toys and training if they wanted to. Its up to GCC led by saudi who decides how far this pact goes at the end of the day because they got trillions in sovereign funds that they can invest in Muslim countries instead of american ai bubble that china will pop soon bringing america to its knees.

 

[Feroze]

Good. Bangladesh is welcome in the Makkah Pact.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Welcome to the shitstorm dear old friend! You and I both know why a horde of Indian representatives here can't seem to stop yapping on this issue. If Bangladesh were to suddenly fall under the orbit of this arrangement as a 4th member, Indian attempts to impose their will upon Bangladesh are suddenly on notice. India is not concerned by Bangladesh's military threat - it would take years, maybe decades for that to be built up and the strategic reality of encirclement is a real problem.

Rather, there are economic levers that Bangladesh's co-signatories might easily pull if Dhaka genuinely was forced to invoke the terms of said agreement.

Notwithstanding any of that, a closer co-operation between Dhaka and all three current parties to this agreement can only bring benefit to Dhaka in peacetime. Why this peacetime development should cause undue alarm to our trans-gangetic cousins here is a question only they can answer.

Yet, they employ 3x of the BSF for every BDR unit BD posts! It's a part of their psyche. In Bangla we say it's not the tiger in the jungle that kills you, rather it's the one inside your mind.....

 

[Master Chief]

Yet, they employ 3x of the BSF for every BDR unit BD posts! It's a part of their psyche. In Bangla we say it's not the tiger in the jungle that kills you, rather it's the one inside your mind.....

I'm always happy to be corrected by the forum Bangladeshis who clearly will understand the military dynamics far better than I possibly could!

Quite an excellent turn of phrase about tigers btw.