Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
So China has officially said India lied about detaining PLA and lied about PLA attacking Tawang.

Indian government three days ago admitted that they did not detain PLA and PLA did not attack Tawang.

Looks like both sides officially agree with what China said the first and only time China made its official position on this matter clear. India backpeddled and scurried around with lies right before pictures were released. Once those pictures were released (just a few of the surely hundreds), the Indian handlers directed their media to stop publishing lies and Indian gov released an official statement saying China is telling the truth.

This is humiliating for India. Not only did it get exposed for lying and peddling propaganda again but it also got exposed for being weak. It is not carrying through with what it intended to.

Net change on Ladakh side is two new buffers which were not in place before standoff. Net win for China but minimally effective (for the purpose of sealing Aksai Chin off from Indian access) until total buffer is gained by China.

Since the latest negotiations were said to be unfruitful, that means India refuses to convert remaining presence they have within 20% dispute into a buffer.

Just like I predicted months and months ago, India will refuse to convert remaining into buffer until they cannot afford to but China has little leverage to use now. It got Pangong and Galwan buffer only because PLA was inside and occupying those areas. It seems China conducted patrols near Tawang in September as a way to pressure India to give in to buffer on Ladakh side.

This is the new play. Since China has used up all leverage it had on Ladakh side, India refuses to totally vacate. China needs to find new leverage and that seems to be in the form of opening up Tawang front at AP side but AP is settled and Tawang is already an Indian town. It's not an option to forcefully occupy. Patrols are the form of pressure it seems. Basically just constantly giving India headache with PLA patrols but this is no different to what India did to China at Ladakh side and clearly something China wants to stop. It is curious how China will play this or accept that India will just have. temporary camps set up within 20%. Maybe they'll just send PLA to push them out or use access denial. Not escalating may have been an agreement on both sides after December 2020 so breaking that by using microwave access denial and the like would give India reason to break buffer deal on Pangong and Galwan. Tricky situation.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, is the Chinese position that India crossed the LAC into Tibet to obstruct Chinese patrols? That is what I understood from reading Global times. India's official claim is that China temporarily came into twang district but left after a confrontation between IA and PLA.

Anyway, there is no reason for India to violate a few km of buffer zone in Galwan when it already effectively controls almost 5 km of it through newly built camps and infrastructure. So India will likely continue ro observe the buffer zone.
 
Last edited:
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
twineedle said:
Just to clarify, is the Chinese position that India crossed the LAC into Tibet to obstruct Chinese patrols? That is what I understood from reading Global times. India's official claim is that China temporarily came into twang district but left after a confrontation between IA and PLA.

Anyway, there is no reason for India to violate a few km of buffer zone in Galwan when it already effectively controls roughly 5 km of it through newly built camps and infrastructure. So India will likely continue ro observe the buffer zone.
Click to expand...

But China's aim is to totally make it into a buffer zone including places where India allegedly still has presence on. I don't doubt they do with some token useless positions since the negotiations are ongoing but these positions would have been the lowest priority for China due to the higher ones being addressed first. Indian troops can simply be repelled without PLA pushing them off. PLA can use microwave non-lethals or acoustic weapons and immediately India would vacate. The issue with doing that is it doesn't secure any agreements from India unlike the two agreements of Galwan and Pangong buffer China managed to secure. PLA doing any escalation with pushing India off or using non-lethal access denial weapons would make India break those agreements. It also wouldn't secure any new ones.

China's aim is to get India to agree and sign agreements to leave and not come back. This is what I mean by tricky. There is nothing to use except diplomatic means. Using PLA will negate previous agreements secured from India and opening up Tawang front is unlikely since that's been an Indian town for as long as anyone can remember and then some. It would be regarded as an actual invasion of India so that's a much less favourable method.

Maybe China will be satisfied with controlling 80% with India de facto controlling 5% or so. Since India doesn't recognise Aksai Chin as China, China officially keeps saying India is on Chinese land (with the presence that India has remaining within that 20% which I am describing as 5%) and also keep claiming AP despite. Like I said in the past, if China considered AP Chinese, they wouldn't offer it in exchange for AC. AP is a token claim made AFTER and simply because India claims AC. I don't see any military solutions for China on pushing India out since any military solution takes away the two buffers China secured. Unlike you, I doubt India would continue to observe the buffer they agreed to if China used non-lethal access denial weapons on India to drive them out of the 5% right? It also means when the weapons leave, the Indians come back.
 
T

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
@ougoah may choose to waste his time counting beans with you, but I'm not going to indulge your pathological spinning. When I say that you have nothing and control nothing I mean it in a much deeper sense. You are dominated along every dimension of military power: technology, logistics, training, equipment, professionalism, morale, battlefield awareness, firepower, and every other that can be named. Look at this picture, confront it:
View attachment 78065
Are these soldiers or migrant labourers? Take away the bandages and craggy environment and they look like a line of abused workers on their way to a construction site in some Gulf petro-monarchy. Actually, scratch that - those guys look much more disciplined and organized, not to mention better fed:
View attachment 78066
That's right, the abused workers in the Middle East that human rights organizations whine about look like a motivational poster beside your "army".
Click to expand...
Yet we are still in Galwan
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1421117404462059525
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
GT (CCP) says India is occupying Chinese land because India is holding about 5% of legacy dispute. It doesn't control it to be honest but does have presence. If it is accepted and no more action and negotiation going forward to unseat India, then they gain control.

China keeps saying the honest truth. India is on China's side of the LAC as per China's definition of LAC which is no doubt more west leaning than India's perception of LAC being more east leaning. Both within that 20% stretch or their boundaries. I guess the compromise LAC is between the 20% while each side considers the outer edge as their version of LAC. India being present within that 20% means it is on China's side of LAC. Just like PLA on Pangong and Galwan would have been on India's side of LAC. This is all Ladakh side.

At least China recognises that India is intruding into disputed land (20%) and China formally considers India's occupation of AP as a violation but lol we all know this is a token claim and a formal position to be expressed for politics rather than anything beyond that. The negotiations now are working on getting India off the 20% wherever they still have token positions. India refused apparently because it has no reason to agree to buffer. Just like I said. China needs to find other means of pressuring India to oblige a buffer because it cannot use PLA if it wants India to keep its agreements of buffer at Pangong and Galwan. If it does use PLA, it'll need to accept that Indians will be able to break agreement at any time since China would be first to break agreement if China used PLA.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
twineedle said:
Yet we are still in Galwan
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1421117404462059525
Click to expand...

This is the 5% I'm referring to. India still has some troops with tents inside but not at buffer zones. If that's the only camp India has inside the 20% China may just allow it since it has no more leverage to use. It prevented India from controlling the 20% and destroyed Indian military moves.

How long they remain in Galwan remains to be seen. I really don't know why you're celebrating this. India went from occupying much more of the 20% to having a few measly campsites and agreeing to two buffers. China still controls the 80% of legacy dispute.

China also clearly currently hasn't accepted that India can have the campsite so even that might change and when it does India lost everything while China secures 80% of legacy dispute. Right now, India only has a few campsites that were not part of buffer agreements while China holds 80% of legacy dispute. Let's not even talk about the tactical side.
 
T

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
This is the 5% I'm referring to. India still has some troops with tents inside but not at buffer zones. If that's the only camp India has inside the 20% China may just allow it since it has no more leverage to use. It prevented India from controlling the 20% and destroyed Indian military moves.

How long they remain in Galwan remains to be seen. I really don't know why you're celebrating this. India went from occupying much more of the 20% to having a few measly campsites and agreeing to two buffers. China still controls the 80% of legacy dispute.

China also clearly currently hasn't accepted that India can have the campsite so even that might change and when it does India lost everything while China secures 80% of legacy dispute. Right now, India only has a few campsites that were not part of buffer agreements while China holds 80% of legacy dispute. Let's not even talk about the tactical side.
Click to expand...
India has more. That is just the closest one to the buffer zone.

I think this has already been posted, but here is a map of current positions.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
One thing after new photos released has become more clear (if it weren't clear enough to start with).

India tried shifting LAC eastward and tried to take control of the 20% remaining legacy dispute in early 2020. Why do I say this? Well similar reasoning as before but with even more evidence.

PLA had upper hand when it controlled Pangong Lake F8 to F4 and Galwan Valley. It also had upper hand in fights and repelling Indians. It controlled disputed for over 8 months until India agreed to buffer.

India's narrative that China wanted to take over doesn't make sense. If China wanted to take the 20%, they already succeeded in doing so. If China's intention was to simply use the PLA and take it, then why would the Indians not defend much more vigorously? Why would India give up for 8 months and still not escalate? Why did China take it successfully and then withdraw only after securing buffer agreement out of India?

Clearly China responded and hated the fact that India opened up this front. They responded, put Indian army in its place and then occupied the parts until India agreed to the two buffer zones where they agree they cannot patrol it at all let alone set up any temporary campsites.

If China wanted to take over, they would have done that rather than take it, demand agreements out of India, absolutely dominate Indian army and wait for India to make moves and leave once agreements attained. It could have simply killed all those Indian army if its intention was to capture for good. This clearly wasn't it and India's original desire is further proved. They were not defending against PLA invasion. A PLA invasion wouldn't be PLA returning Indian soldiers the day after fights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top