Wrong as I attached the Chinese LAC in above post Indian position is only 400m away from Chinese LAC just like Chinese epost is now 400m from Indian LAC.
The LAC marked in your map is the Google earth LAC which neither country accepts
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
The LAC marked in your map is the Google earth LAC which neither country accepts
Gogra and Hot Psrings and Demchok are eminor issues as there is no intrusion by PLA with what India claims to be it's side of LAC but heavy buildup of Chines eforce snear the LAC threatens Indian patrols which has led to counter deployment from India.
He is not lying but his statement was very short and lacked any details which allow people to interpret as per their own agenda.
How can Chinese troop amassing in what is not Indian LAC be threatening patrols? In order to threaten patrols, one has to intrude and stop it.
Just as you speculated that there are mirror deployments, I could speculate that Indian patrols has been stopped and led to all these issues at the region.
Let's wait for complete disengagement.
His statement was short but detailed enough to challenge many claims leveled here.
"China has not withdrawn from the forward positions it seized during the initial clash".
But I do not want to explore further as this statement is from US. To do so would mean giving credibility to what is the biggest adversary of China. As it stands, it is an Indian issue.
Ask Doval,he has the data
My main arguement was that India did not lose any territory. Glad that we agree.
As to my other main point, we know that currently China is superior to India in terms of logistical capabilities, giving it a tactical advantage in terms of patrolling disputed zones(Pangong, Depsang, etc.) As we know, China effectively controlled north pangong for decades. So while India WOULD like to patrol up to finger 8(even better would be retaking sirjlap, but that obviously is not going to happen). Denying China access to areas it claims and most importantly, preventing it from building strategic infrastructure threatening its permanent positions is the number one priority. . The buffer zone will effectively return to the status quo as of before 2020 and will be the most effective way for India to enforce its claim lines. The only cost are occasional patrols that may have happened a few times. And as the initiator, China clearly wanted to push the lac beyond f4, which it where it effectively was since 1962. You yourself said China wants to secure Aksai Chin, and India's permanent posts in north Pangong and improved infrastructure(most important) ould threaten that. So China had two goals
1. To permanantly occupy f4-8 and create a permanant post on f4 overlooking Dhan Singh Thapa, with supporting infrastructure on the ground
2. Force India to vacate Dhan Singh Thapa(Chinese demand prior to India occupying heights)
Similar concept in Galwan. China wanted to push the LAC, with the purpose of forcing India to vacate permanent posts and stop building infrastructure(hence China's statment about the estuary).
And yes, China withdrawing from areas it controlled that India claimed but never controlled since 1962 is humiliating, if you spin it enough.
If there are no mirror deployments, why is there a standoff?
And yes, lets hope disengagement is completed. It should happen eventually.
Did he say those areas were in Indian territory or areas it claims? I have already provided maps and recent satellite imagery showing that is not the case. no disengagement is not complete, because India wants China to move back from the lac to its permanent positions, as it did in Pangong. That obviously did not happen.
This is corroborated by both statements. The Indian statement said disengagment is not complete, there are still outstanding problems. The US statement says China has not vacated forward positions it seized. The satellite images show the forward position it "seized" (on the Chinese side of the Indian claimed lac). Which India considers a problem, as for the mod statement. I will admit Seize is a strong word, but that is probably due to the US not wanting Indo-Sino relations to go back to how they were before article 370 repeal. Neither statement mentions Indian claims.
"My main arguement was that India did not lose any territory. Glad that we agree."
It's universally agreed and clear to all that neither side has lost territory that is recognised by the other. The game being played here is over the disputed sections. That's where we see PLA responding to what China considered (or invented
) as increased Indian hostility from the geopolitical sphere and increased Indian military activity inside the disputed sections in the form of patrols and supporting military action on disputes in the form of increased build up behind. Yes China has done the exact same thing itself but it considers India's mirror developments to be enough to send PLA in to occupy quite a lot of forward positions."As to my other main point, we know that currently China is superior to India in terms of logistical capabilities, giving it a tactical advantage in terms of patrolling disputed zones(Pangong, Depsang, etc.)"
India is the one with superior logistics and supporting capabilities here. Perhaps this is one reason for China's worry about what it interpreted as Indian aggression and build up. To stop that build up with clear unprecedented action - PLA occupation. India has such an advantage here even in an escalated war, it is up to PLA to support western theatre command properly. This region is honestly within a days drive from New Delhi and a lot of Indian military is positioned in this region of India or at least well within transportable range if it had decent logistics to transport. The only Chinese advantage is in the capabilities of its military and technology. In both numbers, logistics, and proximity, China is soundly behind India when we're talking about Ladakh.
"So while India WOULD like to patrol up to finger 8(even better would be retaking sirjlap, but that obviously is not going to happen). Denying China access to areas it claims and most importantly, preventing it from building strategic infrastructure threatening its permanent positions is the number one priority."
Funny how this sounds like it applies both ways. Goalposts. Again I've tried explaining this aspect multiple times in the last 100 or so pages. I won't bother again but will summarise it as PLA was sent in to do something right? China wants stability so the same progress won't be disturbed. Why did PLA go in if not for finding one or several means of bringing about an end to increased Indian patrolling and confrontation. Why would China have offered India to settle the border for good so many times and for so long? Anyway at this point you don't care about any of those mentioned in the last 100 pages.
I suppose with what you said here, you can count it as Indian victory right? It's prevented China from building inside dispute while China's done the same to India and also forced it back. This is relevant almost only to Pangong dispute.
"You yourself said China wants to secure Aksai Chin, and India's permanent posts in north Pangong and improved infrastructure(most important) ould threaten that. So China had two goals
1. To permanantly occupy f4-8 and create a permanant post on f4 overlooking Dhan Singh Thapa, with supporting infrastructure on the ground
2. Force India to vacate Dhan Singh Thapa(Chinese demand prior to India occupying heights)"
China wants to further secure Aksai Chin because India continues to claim Aksai Chin despite it having been recognised as Chinese territory for some decades. China probably feels threatened by both India's insistence on the claim and India's increased build up and patrolling. The two goals you list are pretty terrible conjecture beyond this.
1. Why does it need that? What makes you say China's move was to permanently secure and control F4 to F8? This is totally unfounded because PLA already successfully occupied it. Why would they occupy it so easily only to move back if their purpose was to stay and control it all means necessary even if war? You have clearly not thought about this properly. PLA moved back when certain objectives were achieved and it's clear what they were. India agreed to conditions of not patrolling F4 to F8 anymore and India agreed to stay behind F3. Do you notice the differences of before and after? The solution is obvious, it's very simply algebra.
2. Can you link me to China officially asking for India to vacate Dhan Singh Thapa and show me where it is?
"And yes, China withdrawing from areas it controlled that India claimed but never controlled since 1962 is humiliating, if you spin it enough."
LOL which areas did China control prior to this crisis that India claimed but China retreated from? Dude China took two huge steps into DISPUTE and at best handed India back one step while demanding India take a step back itself which it did.
Are you telling me that China controlled F4 to F8???!!??!??! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
China was always behind F8. ALWAYS. Even after winning the 1962 war it was behind F8 but offered India a settlement to create a proper border between F4 and F8 seeing as the Chinese then cleverly "demanded" for more while they were really only interested in securing up to F8 with a slight buffer in front. THIS IS WHY IT OFFERED TO SETTLE THE BORDER AND WAS HAPPY TO SETTLE IT AROUND F4 or even negotiate with India to give India a little more. India refused and wanted to F8 but ain't getting shit over F3 now.
No spin required. It is all rather humiliating for India starting with not being able to respond to PLA's occupation of dispute which India claims. Do you need the clear summary maps again? China was at blue line, then moved to their claims at pink black dotted (not as far in other stretches) and then demanded India not step foot on the remaining disputes unless they want to have the PLA occupy again.
- Status