Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Right you didn't say invade but with crippling India involving underhanded methods, it is effectively an invasion. Invading with an occupying force is pointless.
No, an invasion is an invasion. Neither China nor Pakistan want to "invade" and capture Indian land. Both China/Pakistan have only ever claimed a stake on land over which their own claims are justified. I didn't even read the rest of your post after this opening, because we're clearly talking past each other.

You know ougoah, every now and then, you go off on these weird tangents and I have no idea what you're talking about lolz.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
No, an invasion is an invasion. Neither China nor Pakistan want to "invade" and capture Indian land. Both China/Pakistan have only ever claimed a stake on land over which their own claims are justified. I didn't even read the rest of your post after this opening, because we're clearly talking past each other.

You know ougoah, every now and then, you go off on these weird tangents and I have no idea what you're talking about lolz.

Yeah I think we're on different pages here and talking very different understandings of the situation.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
China-India Demilitarized Zone Upsets Defense Officials in Delhi

By Sudhi Ranjan Sen
February 28, 2021, 5:00 AM GMT+8 Updated on March 1, 2021, 7:23 AM GMT+8

Indian security officials worry border pullback favors China


After the deadliest fighting in decades, India and China are setting up demilitarized areas along their Himalayan border -- a move that has rankled some members of India’s security establishment.

Soldiers from both countries for now will no longer patrol a nine-kilometer (six-mile) stretch on the north bank of Pangong Tso, a glacial lake some 14,000 feet above sea level where troops clashed last year, according to two Indian officials aware of the developments. The agreement would result in India pulling back from strategic high ground occupied in a stealth operation last August, they said.

The move followed the creation of a similar demilitarized zone last year some 150 kilometers away along the Galwan river, where 20 Indian soldiers and at least four Chinese troops were killed in brutal hand-to-hand combat. That escalation on June 15, the first time casualties were reported along the disputed frontier since 1975. China only acknowledged the deaths on Feb. 19.

While the pullback has calmed tensions for the moment, some members of India’s security establishment believe the creation of non-militarized areas work in Beijing’s favor, according to the officials, who asked not to be identified discussing private conversations. They said China raised suspicions by objecting to an Indian proposal for both countries to patrol the area around the lake on alternate days on the grounds that it would affect Beijing’s sovereignty.

Indian defense and security officials had raised their concerns about the area around Pangong Tso with the government but it opted for a speedy disengagement. On Feb. 10 the two countries began rolling back soldiers, tanks and artillery guns that were stationed around the lake in rifle range of each other for nearly 10 months.

China Gained Ground on India During Bloody Summer in Himalayas

The Indian army, Defense Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment.

China’s Foreign Ministry said the creation of non-militarized zones along the border was “made up by the media” in response to questions. On Friday in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said the situation on the ground “significantly eased” after the disengagement.

“The two sides should cherish this hard won momentum and consolidate existing outcomes, maintain momentum for consultation and further ease the situation,” he said at a regular briefing.

CHINA-INDIA-CONFLICT-DIPLOMACY
Chinese and Indian soldiers clash in the Galwan Valley, in the Karakoram Mountains in the Himalayas in June 2020.Source: CCTV/AFP/Getty Images
Distrust between the two militaries could lead to further misunderstandings, according to Sushant Singh senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research and author of “Mission Overseas: Daring Operations by Indian Military.

“The model of buffer zones is temporary and full of challenges,” he said. “More importantly, India’s options are limited in case China -- a much bigger military power -- violates the agreement.”

If the demilitarized areas end up keeping the peace, they could become a model for how India and China deal with a border nearly as long as the one between the U.S. and Mexico. Nationalism stoked by the fighting has had an economic impact, with Modi’s government banning hundreds of Chinese apps, slowing approvals for Chinese investment and strengthening security ties with the U.S., Japan and Australia.

Why Chinese and Indian Troops Clash in the Himalayas

Still, while the demilitarized zones are aimed at preventing clashes of the sort that erupted last summer, the competing claims between the two sides remain, officials said. And a previous experiment with creating a demilitarized zone on the border with China has shown that it’s not a guarantee of peace.

An 80-square-kilometer (31-square-mile) patch of pasture land along the southern edge of the Tibetan Plateau and the Indian border state of Uttarakhand was the first to be set aside as no-man’s-land in the 1950s. Yet that has failed to prevent conflict in the area, according to Jayadeva Ranade, a member of India’s National Security Council Advisory Board and head of the New Delhi-based Centre for China Analysis and Strategy.

“Uttarakhand border continues to be a hot spot,” he said. “Beijing’s track record of respecting agreements is poor.”

— With assistance by Jing Li
"Fake news. This is against the narrative of Modi and Party.
Only trusted sources are a few sources that paint a beautiful picture of China retreating and India achieving its strategic objectives."

Also, there is a dated yet /newer than some members sources / story (July 20, 2020)-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


But this source isn't to be trusted because it is Anti-Modi party.

Boohoo.
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Right you didn't say invade but with crippling India involving underhanded methods, it is effectively an invasion. Invading with an occupying force is pointless. China has nothing to gain from invading to occupy India, just more of the same problems they had in the last century. Crippling with underhanded invasions to destroy its establishment and economy would be employed for the purpose of removing a threat. India is a potential future threat, also a potential future customer. A pretty big one. Trade and time can turn enemies into non-threats into friends. While I think that future is near impossible and certainly a Looooong time away, the CCP annoyingly only does looooooong term planning and considers things in the scope of decades and beyond. This must factor into their considerations on how to conduct China India relations particularly during confrontations. While India is a measly source of income for China at the moment, this may not always be the case. While India is antagonising China especially its Jai Hind crowd, this may not always be the case and committing on crippling India's military or whatever, involves certainly turning that entire population into an enemy for the long term. Something China prefers to avoid for sure. Nothing good ever comes from having an eternal enemy on your doorstep. You need to kill it or live with it and neither are good options. India will be trying the same on China. How horrific that would be... Ladakh crisis x 100 every week.

On the topic of crippling India's military. That can't be done without a war or without destroying its economy. So basically see above.

You agree the situation is tricky and full of dilemmas. The best path forward for all three is to create a framework of understanding and dialogue. That means no tricky lies and propaganda so we'll have to wait for India to remove BJP as a first step seeing as demagoguery is all they're competent in. Then normalise relations, work on compromising on disputes, diplomacy may be harder for Kashmir due to religion and history of tension playing a great factor. The alternative to this, crippling and working on destroying each other while almost certainly going to be the path taken, is unfortunately going to be pretty futile and at best allow one to emerge less damaged.

We'll have to be patient and see how India treats this new status with China and the new ceasefire with Pakistan. I doubt China will provoke on LAC with agreements met. If India finds new strength and confidence from military strength, who knows if it chooses to flare it up again. So China must stay several steps ahead for its own security. These things are just decade long Q and As.
Has anyone here able to read or download this document which is apparently from the PLA Strategic Document issued every 13 years. In this particular strategic layout, it contains analysis on the China vs India situation. This document was last published in 2013. I want to know the insights from the people here that's been following the India vs China conflict for some time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Has anyone here able to read or download this document which is apparently from the PLA Strategic Document issued every 13 years. In this particular strategic layout, it contains analysis on the China vs India situation. This document was last published in 2013. I want to know the insights from the people here that's been following the India vs China conflict for some time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
... military strikes are only a means for achieving political goals, and that once the main body of war goals has been achieved, military activities are
better called off, or sacrifice to a certain extent can expand the military achievements, in
order to leave the adversary space for political talks, when it will be even easier to
conclude the war. Otherwise, insistence on achieving 100% of the war goals could result
in falling into the difficult plight of sustained use of armed force, and difficult in

controlling the development of the situation.

Validates many of my beliefs, to some extend. Chinese actions post 1962 in South Tibet, maintaining a non demarcated LAC with India, agreement for de-escalation signed prior to 2020 events ... It explains quite a bit (if not completely).

I believe that statement alone explains the Chinese actions post the current conflict.
@Bellum_Romanum What do you think?

Ofcourse, that is if there has been no change in the military thoughts under Xi Jingping.It would be safe to say that from 2013 to 2019,Chinese doctrine didn't change (with initial bonhomie with a new Indian leader Modi and Xi Jingping during the 2016-2017 period).

It certainly might change after the events of 2020 regarding India.
 
Last edited:

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
... military strikes are only a means for achieving political goals, and that once the main body of war goals has been achieved, military activities are
better called off, or sacrifice to a certain extent can expand the military achievements, in
order to leave the adversary space for political talks, when it will be even easier to
conclude the war. Otherwise, insistence on achieving 100% of the war goals could result
in falling into the difficult plight of sustained use of armed force, and difficult in

controlling the development of the situation.

Validates many of my beliefs, to some extend. Chinese actions post 1962 in South Tibet, maintaining a non demarcated LAC with India, agreement for de-escalation signed prior to 2020 events ... It explains quite a bit (if not completely).

I believe that statement alone explains the Chinese actions post the current conflict.
@Bellum_Romanum What do you think?

Ofcourse, that is if there has been no change in the military thoughts under Xi Jingping.It would be safe to say that from 2013 to 2019,Chinese doctrine didn't change (with initial bonhomie with a new Indian leader Modi and Xi Jingping during the 2016-2017 period).

It certainly might change after the events of 2020 regarding India.
I only learned of this document from watching the wire YouTube channel in which the Indian host mentioned this particular document and how impressed he was on how well the Chinese strategic leadership knows India and it's military ambitions. Which validated my opinion that Chinese leadership is all about the big picture or looking at things through strategic lense and are not overly concern tactically. In my impression they are doing the sagely advice of Sun Tzu down to a tee.

And as I have admonished and criticized someone on another discussion board, that India should count it's lucky stars that China is not governed "Democratically" because that episode in June would have for sure trigger a war because Chinese politicians would want to be re-elected and the opposition down their throat being accused of surrender or worst cowardice would be a death knell to anyone's political parties ambition of holding power. Just imagine the "free press" running stories on the families anguish, politicization of the whole incident will be very very difficult to put a lid on.

All these m..ns in the west should be thankful that Chinese leadership are not led by low attention seeking m..ns a.k.a. Ted Cruz, or Nancy Pelosi.
 

twineedle

Junior Member
Registered Member
So first of all Gogra, Depsang, hot springs are still points of contention it would appear. With PLA occupying positions that India claims. If it weren't, this wouldn't be a conversation at all and the Indian authorities would not have issued a statement claiming they will update the disengagement situation on those points. Maybe Demchok was mentioned instead or alongside.

This is in contrast to Pangong where PLA was occupying position India claims and have now "retreated" only after India agrees to retreat behind F3 on Pangong.

As for China never truly caring about F3, well doesn't the fact that China has been offering a settlement compromise since the 1950s here indicate that it doesn't? Either that or China truly is the fair party here and was and have been okay with compromising with India by splitting the dispute somewhere down the middle. So either China is simply more fair than India and happy to work it out peacefully or China truly never cared for that second half and any half it gained is just a bonus. Again check a map and see where this disputed area is located. India may not have a better claim on it than China but it sure "deserves" it more than China does. In fact I'd say that India needs to own this part more than China seeing as how close this allows China to get to India's major population centres. Not that China would have any desire to do harm to India since it had the opportunity back in the 60s and still have it because this is truly half a days drive away from New Delhi.

I suppose China's insistence on confronting India on these disputes is more out of political enmity/deep disagreements, and possibly also as a backup true long range buffer between Tibet and India.
Did you even read the article I posted? but in case you did not, here is a map showing China's claims.

1614635280062.png

The red line is the de facto lac of 1992-93, which mostly coincides with China's claims except for the yellow buldge. However, China doesn't have any structures or camps there.
In Depsang, both sides are in areas claimed by each other. China does have a minor tactical advantage in Depsang, but it isn't as important as as some are making it out to be. The India gov. is treating depsang as a completely different dispute, which is why they weren't discussed along with Pangong and Galwan.

So far, Galwan and Pangong are completely disengaged. Hot Springs is partial. Gogra, no change, both sides are very close.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top