Perhaps from his point of view, there is some truth. The border between Pakistan and India is too long. If India launches an all-out ground war, the route of Chinese troops entering Pakistan from the Xizang will be cut off by India. Can Pakistan block the long border and gain time for the all-out attack of Indian troops to win the support of Chinese troops? Pakistan's strategic depth is too small. If your government suffers any problems in a very short time, the army will not be able to organize because there is no brain in command.
I hope you won't mind, but I'm not interested in this discussion.
A discussion has a basis, when you enter a discussion midday, you miss the nuance and context which was and is involved. Midday interventions start with incorrect assumptions, distorting the entire discussion.
But, please allow me to post some corrections on the assumptions that are in play.
Such as, Pakatan is a small country. It is smaller then India, it is not small. If anyone thinks 260 million population is small then they need their head examined.
At nearly 900,000 sqkm it isn't a small territory either. Pakistan has a narrower depth then India, but no measure is it narrow. Look around the world.
This is not the first time Pakistan is facing India, it has done so before. There was no China, America or anyone else.
1947, Pakistan fought a year long war with India, with massive limitations, too many to list. there was no overall winner.
Pakistan had no government in place, 25% of the population were refugees, the head of the army, a British officer refused direct commands to fight for the initial 6 months of the war. There's more, but to say it wasn't an equal fight is an understatement of the millennium.
1965, Pakistan fought India for nearly 3 weeks. There was no China, it helped a little but it was hardly capable. America and the collective West heavily sanctioned Pakistan. India faced no sanctions, it's supplies continued from the Soviets(superpower) and the Israelis.
We are not living in some magic fantasy where India has magically become larger then Pakistan overnight. India has always been far far larger then Pakistan. In fact that disparity has reduced, not increased.
When Pakistan was far smaller and faced heavy sanctions and still able to hold its ground, baring border movements here and there. In which fantasy does a certainty of outcome apply now?
Since that previous discussion did not follow a logical evolution, largely just inbuilt assumptions, that discussion has no meaning, hence any continuation of that particular discussion is meaningless.
The only time India was able to get an upper hand was in 1971. Let's take a quick look.
Pakistan had been under heavy military, and partial economic sanctions from 1965, right up to 1981/82. Those sanctions started with the 1965 war, they continued because America wanted Pakistan to move away from China, Pakistan refused. They continued in to the 70s because of the nuclear program. But the point is they existed before , during and after the 1971 war.
1971 was a civil war,
around 200,000 gorilla fighters(ignoring negative labels) were trained by India and the Soviet Union, together.
India signed a formal defence pact with the Soviet Union.
East Pakistan was around 2000km away across Indian territory, and around 5000km via sea route.
Pakistan military had around 40,000 personal plus around 20,000 civil armed personal. Bulk of our forces were located in west Pakistan under the "defence of the east lies in the west policy" which I still think was the correct policy for the circumstances, although these days most do not.
Pakistan was facing active rebellion within the military, not just in East Pakistan but rest of the forces as well, Bengali servicemen were rebelling. I won't go in details because it would be a diversion.
You have those conditions.
Plus you have a host population of over 60 million in almost total rebellion.
Remember I am condensing this above situation.
Under those circumstances, India was able to win in the East. It did not win in the West. Of course once it had realigned it's forces, it would have been in a beneficial position, but any conclusions are just assumptions.
Pakistan still took control of and holds the chambb sector in 1971, in the West. It's not a simple narrative.
Other border conflicts between the two countries have their own story.
The world forced Pakistan to back down during the Kargil border conflict. India also lost fighter aircrafts in that war, and a pilot was taken prisoner.
When India invaded Siachen, despite agreeing in the Shimla agreement that both countries will not take unilateral actions. Pakistan was busy dealing with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and the world didn't say anything, they remained quiet, unlike when Kargil happened. So that fight still continues to this day.
Pakistan has always been operating in a difficult strategic space. But we have held our ground in far far more difficult circumstances.
Pakistan does not need China, or anyone else. Pakistan does need friends. Just like India does not operate on it's own, everything it owns is imported , then why the constant emphasis on Pakistan having friends for support, it makes no sense. India also relies on foreign support, so these one sided arguments are extremely redundant.
The only time a country went begging overseas for help is India. India sent begging letters to America and European countries in 1962 war with China. They all supplied India with nearly 1 billion dollars worth of weapons, delivered to the frontlines, against China.
Not many people know that America also warned China via it's embassy in Poland. And readied its forces in the pacific as signalling to show it is seriousness. Which is why China pulled back after having conquered a large territory inside India, including much of North East India.
It's all very well to play wargames and draw conclusions, they also sell civilisation series, people should just stick with that if they want to stick with fantasies. Realty has different outcomes and too many variables for any kind of assured outcomes to happen.
