Ladakh Flash Point

Yeah I don't think the Americans are lying. It's too easy to call them out on lying here. While they have the motivations to, and this potentially does flare things up between India and China again, it's merely more an opportunity to share flare up info but embellishing and making this up is almost certainly untrue. Just like the same reason the CCP saying 4 PLA soldiers were killed by IA is almost certainly true as well. It's just too easy for someone else (India or even US) to say hang on that's not true.

We've been saying that there are other confrontations unresolved between the two since Indian military and government itself recognise that. It's just some self proclaimed experts who are so insistent on using 10km^2 satellite footage of one or two spots back from mid 2020 to claim there are zero confrontations. These Jai Hinds only care about securing their dreams PR victory, no intention to contribute any value and thought.

The southern dispute zone is rarely talked about. With recognition that Ladakh crisis flared up all three dispute stretches (the separate ones - Depsang to Galwan(Gogra/river), Pangong, and Demchok), the full picture makes complete sense. These make up the entire Ladakh dispute.

Dispute! PLA and China has not invaded India proper and it has zero intention to. These stretches have been outstanding disputes for nearly a century. China capturing Aksai Chin should be enough for China but clearly it considers ceding disputed territory to India something that isn't worth any positive return in the form of good will or whatever. They understand Indians better than we do.

If India gives agreements to stand behind disputed land and never set foot on it with patrols, there is every chance PLA will disengage from forward positions currently occupied. Since this is good enough for Pangong, it is good enough for Northern and Southern dispute stretches. Don't listen to the halfwits who are claiming that PLA disengaged at Pangong because India has southern bank of lake covered as if that's some militarily relevant tactic these days.

China just wants India to promise it will not patrol any disputed territory again and put all its troops behind those disputes. This arrangement worked for Pangong stretch so it should be effective elsewhere but PLA has delayed disengagement. Could be India refusing Chinese demands or China genuinely hoping to capture and control like Aksai Chin. One of the two.

It's interesting to note that Pangong stretch received the highest profile (Indian) media coverage and Pangong disengagement was the framework used by both Modi and CCP to provide BJP with something that resembles half a "victory" narrative EVEN THOUGH India netted a loss because India claims more at Pangong stretch and patrolled more. Now it's lost patrol privilege and has to stay not just behind F4 but F3. It had to agree because it simply could not remove PLA from occupying F4 to F8. But for obvious reasons the Jai Hinds will only focus on the time after PLA occupied F4 to F8 so to them, the history of this stretch is PLA moving back while India couldn't move back because they couldn't capture it LOL.

Now ask why PLA has not disengaged from forward position occupied in Demchok and Gogra (apparently not Depsang but okay). These stretches did not receive quite as much media coverage and given the likely reasons, it's entirely possible Indian military and government still do not agree to Chinese terms of disengaging PLA. They are probably looking for a net neutral outcome instead of a net loss like on Pangong agreement. China can either relent and revert to actual previous status quo along these norther and southern dispute stretches or it can continue occupying which opens the door to violence and potentially even war. Or India can relent to Chinese demands and simply not report it when it does. It'll be difficult for us (close to impossible since google earth doesn't provide troop movement level details) to tell about future patrolling. I doubt either side will break convention and build infrastructure along dispute. China building the road between F5 and F8 onwards was unprecedented and India is justifiably annoyed by that since India has not and cannot build on disputed stretch.

Found these interesting images of Galwan, don't think they were posted before.

this one shows China's 1960 claim line (dark brown) It appears to be several hundred meters west of pp14, aka the bend. I believe someone here posted a youtube video by a Chinese analyst claiming that the google lac was wrong, that makes more sense now. I guess China expanded its claims in Galwan in 2020.



This is a map based on the LAC marked by the US Office of the Geographer, an officewithin the US Bureau of Intelligence and research. This line is based on historical indian and Chinese documents, which means that has been India's historical claim line, while China historically claimed about several hundred meters west, until 2020 when it claimed the whole valley. The line marked by the US OFFice of the Geographer mostly coincides with the lac that has always been shown on google maps, running sseeral hundred meters south of the historical pp14(river bend).

As for the US statement, the US is walking a fine line here. The US definitely doesn't want the disengagement to bring Indo-Sino relations back to where they were when Modi first took office, when Indo-Sino relations were arguably at thier height since 1993. Seized is definitely a strong word, but Adm. Davidson did not say China occupied forward posts ACROSS the Lac, meaning that at least according to the US, China is not currently occupying Indian territory. And obviously, there is still a standoff there. Just about every Indian media source says that Indian and Chinese forward deployments are "within a few meters of each other" Back in June, Indian media reported that as part of disengagment, both Indian and Chinese forward deployments would be withdrawn to permanent locations. China withdrew camps at Hot Springs from its side of the LAC, as shown by an image from July previously posted,(though not to its permanent location). in Gogra, however, China refused to go through with disengagement, and still has camps and artillery nly a few meters from the lac" according to several Indian sources. I am guessing that is because unlike Hot Springs, China does claim beyond the LAC at one point. More on that below.

This is an interesting analysis by Col. Vinayak Bhat, a retired Indian Intel officer, who appears to be considered reputable on this forum. He claims that China is interested in the area becasue there are mineral deposits on the Indian side(not saying I agree with that)
Raj's image shows China's new camp, about 15 km from gogra post and 6 km from lac, as well as a radar position closer. What he doesn't show is China's new forward deployments right next to the lac in the disputed area, which Abhijit showed. I already posted this image, but it is still a good reference. i suspect at least one of the forward points Adm. Davidson was referring to must be adjacent to the yellow bulge.

For the sake of comparison, this is the latest imagery from just after the pangong disengagment was agreed to. The new Chines camp 15 km from gogra still exists, as to forward deployments by both sides in and adjacent to the bulge, which is shown in this image by a red circle


As for Pangong, I am pretty sure Col. dinny's interview confirmed that India definitely patrolled fingers 3-8 far less than China, if those patrols occured at all. The only thing I have heard countering that is a purposefully disambiguous claim by VK Singh that could have referred to anywhere in Ladakh, or anywhere else along the LAC. India most certainly did not lose more than China, which had effectively controlled(not just patrolled) the area for decades. If anything, the opposite is true. It is pretty hard to lose something you never controlled in the first place. Then again, I guess Indian retired Veterans are only reliable when they go against the Indian narrative.

And some people are completely forgetting it isn't just China that occupied forward deployments the disputed areas. So has India. Hence why there is a standoff. In Pangong, China actually claims past finger 4 to 2/3, and in Galwan, China currently claims the entire valley and historically claimed past the bend/pp14. Gogra was already discussed. And in Demochok, China claims it entirely, but the majority is controlled by India. India's proposals in those areas are essentially for both sides to withdraw their forward deployments as of last year. in some areas, China has done that, in others(Gogra, Depsang,) it has not.

twineedle said:

Found these interesting images of Galwan, don't think they were posted before.
View attachment 69734
this one shows China's 1960 claim line (dark brown) It appears to be several hundred meters west of pp14, aka the bend. I believe someone here posted a youtube video by a Chinese analyst claiming that the google lac was wrong, that makes more sense now. I guess China expanded its claims in Galwan in 2020.

View attachment 69735

This is a map based on the LAC marked by the US Office of the Geographer, an officewithin the US Bureau of Intelligence and research. This line is based on historical indian and Chinese documents, which means that has been India's historical claim line, while China historically claimed about several hundred meters west, until 2020 when it claimed the whole valley. The line marked by the US OFFice of the Geographer mostly coincides with the lac that has always been shown on google maps, running sseeral hundred meters south of the historical pp14(river bend).

As for the US statement, the US is walking a fine line here. The US definitely doesn't want the disengagement to bring Indo-Sino relations back to where they were when Modi first took office, when Indo-Sino relations were arguably at thier height since 1993. Seized is definitely a strong word, but Adm. Davidson did not say China occupied forward posts ACROSS the Lac, meaning that at least according to the US, China is not currently occupying Indian territory. And obviously, there is still a standoff there. Just about every Indian media source says that Indian and Chinese forward deployments are "within a few meters of each other" Back in June, Indian media reported that as part of disengagment, both Indian and Chinese forward deployments would be withdrawn to permanent locations. China withdrew camps at Hot Springs from its side of the LAC, as shown by an image from July previously posted,(though not to its permanent location). in Gogra, however, China refused to go through with disengagement, and still has camps and artillery nly a few meters from the lac" according to several Indian sources. I am guessing that is because unlike Hot Springs, China does claim beyond the LAC at one point. More on that below.

Click to expand...

What's the source of these maps?

Bold 1 : Could be true. This is in 1960 (before 1962 war) and merely claim of China. China reached claim lines and took steps back in 1962.

Bold 2: China certainly does push LAC in front of a belligerent India

Bold 3: So Ajai Shukla was right. Good.

Bold 4: Yes. Again, the old LAC. Nice find! So India indeed had its LAC shift after this agreement.

Bold 5: Fine line or not, US statements are of interest to India. It was addressing the Congress members. It goes against certain members claims that no region is intruded upon by China.

Bold 6: That is a fine line to walk. China seems to have stopped patrols and unwilling to withdraw from many regions.

Bold 7: Again, status quo hasn't been achieved. China denies Indian patrols.

Except China offered India F3 to the LAC. That sort of breaks down China's claim to F3. Anyway all that's been said and mentioned so many times but left ignored by Jai Hindia.

Looks like Jai Hinds were utterly wrong and presented false info as if true when things were totally unknown.

twineedle said:

This is an interesting analysis by Col. Vinayak Bhat, a retired Indian Intel officer, who appears to be considered reputable on this forum. He claims that China is interested in the area becasue there are mineral deposits on the Indian side(not saying I agree with that)
Raj's image shows China's new camp, about 15 km from gogra post and 6 km from lac, as well as a radar position closer. What he doesn't show is China's new forward deployments right next to the lac in the disputed area, which Abhijit showed. I already posted this image, but it is still a good reference. i suspect at least one of the forward points Adm. Davidson was referring to must be adjacent to the yellow bulge.

Click to expand...

Bold 1: Who gave him the "reputable" tag here. Can you link the posts of members here who asserted Raj47 is reputable?

Bold 2: The mineral deposit train of thought has been lifted from Chinese actions at South Tibet ( Arunachal Pradesh) regarding Gold deposits.
Extending that to Ladakh is a big reach. The entirety of Tibet is mineral rich treasure trove. China has centuries of resources in Tibet before it needs to consider Ladakh.

If one reads Colonel Dinny's comments on Ladakh crisis, all the material he says is BJP narrative. Now why is he trusted source on details like whether IA patrolled past LAC more than PLA if PLA even has. He's also retired.

Colonel Dinny is much, MUCH lower ranked than General VK Singh. Colonel Dinny is much longer retired than General VK Singh has been at a different Indian government post. General VK Singh is a four star General and on record saying IA intruded past LAC (somewhere between F4 and F8) more than 5 times more often than PLA.

Both of these guys are going to be more pro India and say things that make India look better. What they do say already at the VERY LEAST hint at what actually is because they are in the Indian camp and both are politically 100% pro India and will not talk for China. Whatever VK Singh says that "helps" China's cause and narrative is because the TRUTH is WAY more in favour of China in that case.

Dinny's said so much nonsense and politically biased stuff that he's statement on IA "rarely" patrolling past F3, a politically sensitive cop out statement.

VK Singh admits IA intrude much more than PLA and it's likely PLA doesn't even really bother patrolling F4 to F8 if the 5:1 ratio is taken.

twineedle said:

As for Pangong, I am pretty sure Col. dinny's interview confirmed that India definitely patrolled fingers 3-8 far less than China, if those patrols occured at all. The only thing I have heard countering that is a purposefully disambiguous claim by VK Singh that could have referred to anywhere in Ladakh, or anywhere else along the LAC. India most certainly did not lose more than China, which had effectively controlled(not just patrolled) the area for decades. If anything, the opposite is true. It is pretty hard to lose something you never controlled in the first place. Then again, I guess Indian retired Veterans are only reliable when they go against the Indian narrative.

And some people are completely forgetting it isn't just China that occupied forward deployments the disputed areas. So has India. Hence why there is a standoff. In Pangong, China actually claims past finger 4 to 2/3, and in Galwan, China currently claims the entire valley and historically claimed past the bend/pp14. Gogra was already discussed. And in Demochok, China claims it entirely, but the majority is controlled by India. India's proposals in those areas are essentially for both sides to withdraw their forward deployments as of last year. in some areas, China has done that, in others(Gogra, Depsang,) it has not.

Click to expand...

Bold 1: I don't know how many times I've mentioned it but Frequency of patrols isn't a marker for anything. India is hindered by poor infrastructure and geography.

Bold 2: As long as a foreign country has temporary posts and patrol routes (frequent or not), it means China doesn't have full control.

Bold 3: Where?

Bold 4: China's road building actions along with Indian Patrols to old PP14 denotes that LAC of India was east of Y junction. You are bringing up "claim" while it's LAC that is the point of discussion.

I know why you bring up the "claims" instead of LAC - some notion of no-lose can be achieved for India.

Bold 5: Galwan Valley for India isn't Galwan Valley for China. China controls majority of Galwan River Valley. India has had patrols beyond Y junction(pushed back after the disengagement).

Xsizor said:

What's the source of these maps?

Bold 1 : Could be true. This is in 1960 (before 1962 war) and merely claim of China. China reached claim lines and took steps back in 1962.

Bold 2: China certainly does push LAC in front of a belligerent India

Bold 3: So Ajai Shukla was right. Good.

Bold 4: Yes. Again, the old LAC. Nice find! So India indeed had its LAC shift after this agreement.

Bold 5: Fine line or not, US statements are of interest to India. It was addressing the Congress members. It goes against certain members claims that no region is intruded upon by China.

Bold 6: That is a fine line to walk. China seems to have stopped patrols and unwilling to withdraw from many regions.

Bold 7: Again, status quo hasn't been achieved. China denies Indian patrols.

Click to expand...

Uh did you even see the image? That matches exactly with the lac shown on google maps and by satellite analysts/indian media. That is the line India has always recognized as the Lac. It is China that has a differing perception. All the sources I presented indicate that the LAC has not shifted
Yes, the lac is a few hundred meters south of pp14. Nobody is disputing that.
and China does not prevent Indian patrols in gogra/Hot Springs. Indian soldiers there are actually occupying the patrol points as a mirror deployment. The issue there is build up along the lac, not patrols. China has not even crossed the Indian lac there. I think you are confusing that with Depsang, where India claims east of the lac.