those videos were all taken around finger 4. And Vk Singh was cleraly referring to arunachal, and maybe some other areas where India has a topographical advantage.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
When did I dispute PLA deaths? As far as I am concerned, GT reported 4 deaths, so that is what stands. But deaths and casualties have nothing to do with who wins a conflict.
I am glad you are admitting that anyone against the current Indian government is credible. That shows your bias. But what would you think about analysts and journalists like Nitin Gokhale and Snehesh Alex Philip? They have never served in the Indian army or worked for the Indian gov. so by your logic they should be credible.
In reply to your post on arguing over credibility of sources. I assumed the topic was about fatalities reported.
Wrong. I'm saying Indian government sources themselves have reason to say certain things that are not true. That throws into doubt everything they say. The reason I'm saying these people should be heard when they say things that are not working for the Indian side, is because they already have great incentive for pandering the Indian narratives. If for example some are saying that IA used to patrol up to F8, then that is more likely to be truth since they have no reason to work against the Indian narratives. It's a bit hard to explain in my rush but essentially it is one of those, "even you are admitting this". Not so much about picking and choosing.
Tell me exactly what Nitin Gokhale and Snehesh Alex Philip have said. I don't even know what you're trying to promote.
It's this simple. India used to access F4 to F8. They don't anymore after the disengagement agreements. The disengagement agreements resemble China's 1959 offer much more than India being victorious in receiving its claim up to F8. The reason India accepted these conditions as price for disengagement was to work with China in 1. accepting 1959 deal or some resemblance of it (since details are still sketchy) and 2. to create a buffer so no more confrontation can create unpredictable flare ups again.
Now explain what Nitin Gokhale and Snehesh Alex Philip have been saying because these names are strange to me. I haven't said they are credible or not. You have jumped to an illogical conclusion. Indian gov is not credible just like CCP isn't until either is proven correct or challenged formally. Indian media is the MOST lacking in credibility since it's knowingly lied and misled on many occasions.
those videos were all taken around finger 4. And Vk Singh was cleraly referring to arunachal, and maybe some other areas where India has a topographical advantage.
No VK Singh was referring to Ladakh because the conversation was about Ladakh dispute and the context of the discussion was Ladakh and he was making other comments about disengagement at Ladakh. This was about Ladakh not AP.
Typically, when a country is trying to get another country to move back from land it claims as its own, and said county does move back for whatever reason, that is a good result. Don't know how you can say otherwise.Basically his argument seems to be boiled down to:
1. Yes your soldiers killed a lot more than ours (dubious whether he actually believes this or not - most Indians don't believe this).
2. You invaded and occupied our territory, built forward camps and infrastructure.
3. The peace deal meant you had to make a partial withdrawal and dismantle those camps,, so India has won.
The lesson from this in future conflicts would be not to give up an inch of gains. You want peace? You'll need to publically admit to being responsible for the aggression you will have to pay compensation for every soldier you killed.
Anything other than that will be deemed a "victory" in the eyes of millions of Indians.
I am pretty sure I have already explained that. In Depsang, there has been no change in status quo despite what some media reports are saying. In hot springs adn gogra, both sides are close to each other but on opposite ends of the LAC. Teh situation there s nothing like it was at Galwan and Pangong.
As for kailash, both sides withdrew. India withdrew from Rechin la and Rezang la, and China withdrew from Helmet and Black top. Neither side had permanent deployments there before the standoff, for obvious reasons. India had occupied kailash for the sole purpose of getting China to withdraw from Pangong. Now that that purpose has been acheived, there is no reason to remain, despite what "analysts" like Shukla and Sawhney say.
Any other questions?
India withdrew from Reqin within weeks of going in. The most forward position occupied by India after that was at the foot of Black top and helmet top, with PLA occupying the peaks of those.
Typically, when a country is trying to get another country to move back from land it claims as its own, and said county does move back for whatever reason, that is a good result. Don't know how you can say otherwise.
Yes China managed to get India to move back to F3 from what India claims. And India has agreed to move back to F3. This is the most high profile one. The other areas India gov recognised was occupied by PLA and were in talks of disengagement. If PLA weren't occupying lands India claims in Gogra, HS, Depsang etc why would Indian government announce that negotiations for disengagement and PLA moving back are still being done in those areas? They said they would issue a statement by the 16th Feb but have yet to issue one as far as I'm aware.
You need to understand that China claims to Finger 3 so that it can achieve what it really understands is achievable, and that is securing F8 completely and gaining any more ground after F8. This is exactly why China's been offering settlement deals to India since the 1950s to settle the dispute with the border running between F4 and F8. China claiming to F3 is just empty formality so that it looks like it is compromising on what it wants when it really just wants F4 to F8 as border and F8 under its control. If that weren't true why on earth would China have been offering this deal non stop since the 1950s?
Realise that this place is walking distance to New Delhi (over days yes lol) and more than an entire length of India away from even Chengdu and nearly two India lengths away from Beijing. It's clear which side is more deserving of it to myself personally but China's claim is no less empty than India's. Neither, not even Tibetans, have ever settled on this stretch of land.
I don't know if you are talking about a different peak, but that famous image of the Indian Army COAS visiting forward troops has been geolocated to Rechin la. The army stated such. i believe someone here has posted an image several pages back showing that.India withdrew from Reqin within weeks of going in. The most forward position occupied by India after that was at the foot of Black top and helmet top, with PLA occupying the peaks of those.
There are obvious benefits to both India and China, but there are few is any benefits to Pakistan since this agreement just invalidates its stance on Kashmir post Article 370 revocation. Pakistan would not agree to this if it felt that India was in a position of weakness in Ladakh, which it would be if those claims of 1000 km lost were true.I don't think China is planning for a war (this isn't what you said FYI). It may be preparing for one and certainly has been for a long time but war does no good for China. If India is going to invade China, then yes a war will certainly happen but India's high echelon leaders have less delusion because it is their heads on the line both against the Chinese and against their own when they fail to deliver and have no way of dressing up a loss.
With respect to Pakistan and China, the new ceasefire and disengagement serve ALL sides very well. China seems to have gotten India to agree to a buffer which means no more Indian patrols beyond F3 and that means no more confrontation. This does indeed resemble 1959 offer to India far more than Indians seem to realise and admit. It makes sense China gains more from the negotiations since PLA demonstrated that IA is both unwilling to militarily challenge (with shooting war) and unable to use man waves to push PLA out. PLA stayed for an entire year to show them this and the reward is getting India to concede ever so slightly more in the 1959 direction.
Pakistan proved capable of holding its own against India and India didn't respond after Swift Retort. Now demonstrations and lessons are given, India has honestly decided to play nice in meetings and diplomacy but they will do what they do best in public - exhibitions of grand self delusion combined with confusing the truths and misrepresenting them with foul intent. Fooling self vs fooling enemy.
Neither China Pakistan will want to really engage India in war. Well for Pakistan there is greater potential of actual pay-off. Such a thing doesn't really exist for China. I don't think China will get directly involved between Pakistan and India. More likely to assist Pakistan with material and financing if such a thing were to happen. No gain means no incentive and India understands it is totally outmatched BUT they will surely now be working towards patching gaps - Rafale over MKI, EM spectrum warfare etc.
The only benefit Pakistan gets is it gets to focus more on its Afghan border, which it may need to do since Biden will likely move the US back into Afghanistan. But this is off topic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.