Notes on Bhutan

With respect to land border, yes India is infact the sole loner that needs to educate itself. 12/14 other PRC land borders had no problem settling, again most with MORE PRC concessions. 1/14 Bhutan wants to settle but can't because India. That leaves only India who has this infantile notion that there is some fantasy world where borders can be settled in 100/0 Indian favour which is frankly medically retarded expectation only a child can have. Any proper history education will teach India only way to get 100/0 is loser in war and frequently not even then. So yes education away from that level of delusional magical thinking is apt.

SCS disputees also you know dispute with each other, everyone protests each other and with except of PH gets along fine with PRC. Also PRC position on SCS is legal under UNCLOS. Or rather not illegal. Or more technically correct, can't even be illegal. TLDR useful idiots believe PCA ruling is actual UNCLOS ruling when it's manifestly not (it's basically mock UN US+PH did on PCA stationary with anti PRC cosplayers). UN/ITLOS/ICJ/UNCLOS has no formal position on PCA ruling MEANING ITS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW despite the heavy propaganda. Since PRC not party to optional arbitutaion clause, i.e. again no ratify no care, besides which UNCLOS cannot determine sovereingty claims so the idea PRC breaks UNCLOS is so retarded it's not even wrong since there is literally no mechanism in UNCLOS to rule PRC claims as illegal... hence PRC is in fact in compliance with her UNCLOS accession obligations.

PS: 1. No again this is history 101, PRC has always had 9dash, which it treats as domestic delimitations, it used to be 11 dash under ROC, i.e. it has always been part of past claims, for decades since post war. CHINESE (PRC/ROC) CLAIMS HAS OFFICIALLY ALWAYS COVERED SCS, PRC formally inherited claims from ROC when UN recognition switched and ROC claims proceeded that. I said India is the only LAND BORDER disputee, i.e. bilateral disputee, 1vs1 which should on paper be much simple negotiation, hence PRC able to ratify 12/14 land border in rapid negotiations. But somehow not Indian, and by extension Bhutan. Because clearly it's the other 12-13/14 who are outliers /s. SCS is a 5 party shitshow and much harder to resolve and everyone objects to eachothers overlapping claims, even then PRC ceding Tonkin to Vietnam makes PRC one of the better actors. So if you want to do the numberes, then 12/14+5, i.e. 12/19 PRC land+maritime disputees are solved, aka plurality. The 5/5 maritime cannot be solved bilaterally and will remain shitshow. The on paper low hanging fruit 2/14 land border is held up by India.

2. PRC is not ignoring past treaties, it's simply not fucking subject to treaties it doesn't sign. The very strange position is Indians believing a treaty between India and UK over Tibet that ROC EXPLICLITLY REPUDIATED AT TIME OF NOT SIGNING, I.E. ROC -> PRC DOES NOT APPROVE OF THIS TREATY AND EXPLICITY NOTIFIED PARTIES AT THE TIME, is somehow a valid treaty. Absolute toddler logic.