Ladakh Flash Point

[Mohsin77]

The original " China secured 19XX line " was from an Indian politician / personality itself. I'm doubtful as to what exactly are China's claims since 1962. Seems like China has shelved looking to settle on any fixed claim since

1. This means less maneuvering space in that region in the future regarding anything related to Pakistan and its node of BRI ( CPEC).
2. Attention falling to South Tibet part where India can really open a good front .

(note: few pages back I remarked that China had settled border disputes with many SE nations and included Combodia. But Combodia doesn't share a border with China. It is Laos which settled the border disputes.)

Yep, which is why I keep saying that this whole fantasy-map line of argumentation that Indians have been pushing is besides the point. It's a diversionary tactic. What matters is the military posture, strategy/goals and capabilities in theater, and yet this thread has been focused on the fantasy maps, because people keep taking the bait and falling into troll-traps.

 

[Xizor]

Yep, which is why I keep saying that this whole fantasy-map line of argumentation that Indians have been pushing is besides the point. It's a diversionary tactic. What matters is the military posture, strategy/goals and capabilities in theater, and yet this thread has been focused on the fantasy maps, because people keep taking the bait and falling into troll-traps.

While I don't disagree that these are low significance, what else ought to be discussed in "Ladakh Flash Point"?

Other forums don't look too deep into the issue. It's either an echo chamber or a deserted vault. If the small pictures are discarded, often the big picture can morph.

 

[Mohsin77]

..what else ought to be discussed in "Ladakh Flash Point"?

Things like this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[LST]

While I don't disagree that these are low significance, what else ought to be discussed in "Ladakh Flash Point"?

Other forums don't look too deep into the issue. It's either an echo chamber or a deserted vault. If the small pictures are discarded, often the big picture can morph.

Mohsin77 has a good point there.

IMHO, no one in this forum gave a better detailed account of the standoff than you did and I really admire you Xsizor. But you can see the trolls or those-that-could-not-stomach-their-shame are trying hard to steer the discussion away from what really matters so that the real elephant in the room would not be discussed or would be forgotten. What better way for them to steer away than to post the various irrelevant maps with seemingly smart labelings.

It's like your neighbor claiming that your cat (or whatever possession) is his by arguing that your cat also breath the air from his side of the house. So you cannot say the cat is entirely yours. It's as absurd as this example.

The question is - How far should one go with another who doesn't blink in calling a black color as a white color?

As I said, you have my admiration. You held on to your argument in a consistent manner and countered troll's (or those-that-could-not-stomach-their-shame"s) arguments point-by-point even when irrelevant maps were put up and even when troll present a "cat breathing the neighbor's air" absurdity. You never failed to drag him back to the core subject after patiently and effectively countering his irrelevances and absurdities.

If you at all intend to conduct a zoom masterclass on this subject, I would surely want to sign up.

And SDF - what a wonderful platform of sharing and learning, with basic respects for each other adhered to by all, even by the trolls.

 

[twineedle]

Mohsin77 has a good point there.

IMHO, no one in this forum gave a better detailed account of the standoff than you did and I really admire you Xsizor. But you can see the trolls or those-that-could-not-stomach-their-shame are trying hard to steer the discussion away from what really matters so that the real elephant in the room would not be discussed or would be forgotten. What better way for them to steer away than to post the various irrelevant maps with seemingly smart labelings.

It's like your neighbor claiming that your cat (or whatever possession) is his by arguing that your cat also breath the air from his side of the house. So you cannot say the cat is entirely yours. It's as absurd as this example.

The question is - How far should one go with another who doesn't blink in calling a black color as a white color?

As I said, you have my admiration. You held on to your argument in a consistent manner and countered troll's (or those-that-could-not-stomach-their-shame"s) arguments point-by-point even when irrelevant maps were put up and even when troll present a "cat breathing the neighbor's air" absurdity. You never failed to drag him back to the core subject after patiently and effectively countering his irrelevances and absurdities.

If you at all intend to conduct a zoom masterclass on this subject, I would surely want to sign up.

And SDF - what a wonderful platform of sharing and learning, with basic respects for each other adhered to by all, even by the trolls.

Since you have indirectly addressed me, would you be as kind as to say what you think "really matters," or even how all the clear unbiased evidence from third party sources I posted was irrelevant, when the exact topic discussed was the location of perceptions of lac/claim lines, and current Indian/Chinese positions? Nothing I have posted was incorrect.

Perhaps we have different ideas about what "really matters," or what the "core subject" is, or even what you think the elephant in the room is. which is perfectly fine. Though I guess disagreeing with the main narrative on this forum and supporting my claims with evidence makes me a troll, according to you.

 

[twineedle]

Sorry, I have not been following the recent 500 pages.

Does anyone have a credible (non-Indian) article suggesting that China secured their 1959 original claims? Thank you in advance.

The exact term "1959 claim line" was used by a few politically-motivated "analysts"/veterans, so no non-indian source mentions it. China has never specifically laid out the extent of its claims, but based on historical maps and recent statements, I would say no. If China were to reach their perception of the LAC, PLA would have occupied the area roughly behind burtse, the hot springs sector up to the Kugrang River, about up to the halfway point of the Indian side of Galwan(where currently india has its most forward camp), slightly west of the Kaiash range, and the entirety of demchok. PLA did reach its perception in Pangong, though it withdrew after disengagement.

Keep in mind these are perceptions of the LAC. China claims some areas beyond its perception, though some of these claims aren't exactly clear.

 

[Xizor]

Since you have indirectly addressed me, would you be as kind as to say what you think "really matters," or even how all the clear unbiased evidence from third party sources I posted was irrelevant, when the exact topic discussed was the location of perceptions of lac/claim lines, and current Indian/Chinese positions? Nothing I have posted was incorrect.

Perhaps we have different ideas about what "really matters," or what the "core subject" is, or even what you think the elephant in the room is. which is perfectly fine. Though I guess disagreeing with the main narrative on this forum and supporting my claims with evidence makes me a troll, according to you.

Better you leave that as is. No one erupted in celebrations and self-appreciation at that post.

A lot of what you've posted have been incorrect. We both know that. You post unrelated maps that isn't agreement with the dates of discussion, Google map that does not signify anything and has a proclivity to never address the locations, persons etc.

So much of exchange over that thing alone. The last such example where you insisted that China's LAC was in Burtze without showing any evidence for the same and disagreed when I remarked that it could also be China's Claim line.

Refer previous posts and things will be clear.

 

[Xizor]

The exact term "1959 claim line" was used by a few politically-motivated "analysts"/veterans, so no non-indian source mentions it. China has never specifically laid out the extent of its claims, but based on historical maps and recent statements, I would say no. If China were to reach their perception of the LAC, PLA would have occupied the area roughly behind burtse, the hot springs sector up to the Kugrang River, about up to the halfway point of the Indian side of Galwan(where currently india has its most forward camp), slightly west of the Kaiash range, and the entirety of demchok. PLA did reach its perception in Pangong, though it withdrew after disengagement.

Keep in mind these are perceptions of the LAC. China claims some areas beyond its perception, though some of these claims aren't exactly clear.

China hasn't laid down their perception of LAC in Depsang. That might as well be their Claim line. In Depsang, China has strengthened the buildup past the bottleneck Y junction.

In Pangong, China created a buffer zone that saw India vacate South Pangong Tso region along with the supposedly newly acquired positions in South Kailash region.

Talks pushed by India on further disengagement has stalled till now.

 

[twineedle]

Better you leave that as is. No one erupted in celebrations and self-appreciation at that post.

A lot of what you've posted have been incorrect. We both know that. You post unrelated maps that isn't agreement with the dates of discussion, Google map that does not signify anything and has a proclivity to never address the locations, persons etc.

So much of exchange over that thing alone. The last such example where you insisted that China's LAC was in Burtze without showing any evidence for the same and disagreed when I remarked that it could also be China's Claim line.

Refer previous posts and things will be clear.

Did you read the article? It clearly references China's perceived LAC, not claim line. Keep in mind this is from Snehesh Alex Phillip, one of the most reliable defence journalists in India. The Print is also a balanced source. And no, China has no positions west of the bottleneck. As for the maps, still no evidence has been presented that satellite images by detresfa and Google Earth maps are incorrect, so I continue using them. Obviously, there is a relatively limited amount of information on this subject, so it is impossible to find completely recent maps, though satellite images released throughout the course of last fall to now have held up pretty well.

At the very least I am providing evidence from neutral sources. You have literally been spamming the same Ajai Shukla maps and trying to force them to align with Detresfa's most up to date satellite imagery, despite the fact they do not match at all. For example if Shukla was correct, Gogra post would be several km east on the Chinese side of the LAC. Almost all of the sources I have provided were third-party non Indian sources, and unbiased.
Indian army officials generally have a decent idea of what China perceives its lac to be based on PLA patrolling patterns and intereactions with between local commanders, though the exact extent of China's full claims have not been shared with regards to the Eastern Sector. However, we know China does not even recognize Ladakh as India, which gives a hint as to how much they claim.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[twineedle]

China hasn't laid down their perception of LAC in Depsang. That might as well be their Claim line. In Depsang, China has strengthened the buildup past the bottleneck Y junction.

In Pangong, China created a buffer zone that saw India vacate South Pangong Tso region along with the supposedly newly acquired positions in South Kailash region.

Talks pushed by India on further disengagement has stalled till now.

Both sides vacated South Pangong, which included Black Top and Helmet Top.