Ladakh Flash Point

I see twineedle moving goalposts subtly by suggesting that China "controlled" Gogra in the past and "controlled" F4 to F8 and what we have at Pangong at least is China moving back from F4 to F8. No. That's not how it was.

F4 to F8 was always no man's land and was one of the remaining disputes. There are three total in the Ladakh section.

Dispute 1 - Depsang plains to Galwan valley, Gogra, Hot Springs. (Northern)

Dispute 2 - Pangong lake and the stretch in between the dotted lines which make up F4 to F8. (Mid)

Dispute 3 - what is commonly referred to as Demchok even though that's just one spot on it. (Southern and not shown in below map it is about 20km or so further south)

China was annoyed at Indian patrols (much more frequent intrusions admitted to by Indian four star general VK Singh) at probably all of the disputes but could also be just one or two of them. In any case something pushed China to act. Something it rarely does without a lot of consideration. Why would China pick a fight (or respond) with India for no good reason if it is doing so well as things were?? Why risk the outrage, fallout, PR blow, negativity from Indians etc???

That something was what China thought was increased Indian political hostility and increased Indian patrolling of at least one of these disputes. It wanted India to stop patrolling so that they don't have to send PLA to confront and stop those patrols. They also wanted India to understand that their ways will be met with responses. Thus the PLA was sent in to occupy F4 to F8 at Dispute 2 and some other forward positions in Dispute 1 and 3.

India probably wasn't expecting these moves from China and when they happened, the Indians had no real good counter strategy or military tactic to reverse PLA occupation. They tried and were not successful since PLA was disengaged after negotiation agreements yielded results. Therefore if China's intention was to capture disputed land with force without care for achieving some other objectives, why would they be negotiating? Why would China bother? Why would China move the PLA back if their purpose was to control Dispute 2 for good and keep it? They've managed to do that for a year and left after negotiations. It doesn't take a clever person to understand that the whole point was for whatever China negotiated for. China holding more bargaining power since it had the land occupied and India was unable to reverse this militarily.

It doesn't take a Westpoint grad to understand this relatively simple crisis.

Disengagement of PLA was done willingly by China after India met certain agreements. Whether India will observe them is another matter and uninteresting now because if they don't, well a simple repeat of confrontation then. I think India may challenge and break agreements as soon as the Congress Party get elected since that party has been very vocal about Modi betraying India and surrendering etc. Therefore if the Congress Party ever gets to power in the short to medium term future, they have a lot of talk to walk.

It's unlikely they can play it off even after Indian military advisors tell them that war with China is suicide. They have trashtalked BJP a little too loudly. That's trouble for both nations in the future, much to the delight of many observers including those we call friends.

I personally have much more empathy for India here because this stretch of land is far more strategically important to India than it is to China. I can understand that China's building up of infrastructure is aggressive and India understandably mirrored it and understandably started salami slicing. That's for their interest and one cannot expect or wish for them to do otherwise.

China could cede the territory and keep Aksai Chin. Everyone's (more) happy and hopefully that means more peace. BUT the CCP understands India in a way I do not. They also understand strategic thinking in a way I cannot comprehend.

Whatever reasons China has decided was good enough to not go with the path of goodwill (there are many reasons and goodwill from Indians with Chinese concession may be impossible and futile), is their choice to make. India feeling attacked is justified but let's remind ourselves that these parts were never inhabited and settled and was always disputed no man's land. Useless barren nothing with no sacred attachment or emotional pride. It's a big fight over nothing. Nothing lost and nothing much gained but again reasons for such struggle may be plenty and all very decent.

Losing or gaining the disputed stretches really doesn't matter much to either country. The statement of challenge matters much more. This is where the new enmity is derived from. There is no goodwill and every effort to show the other that "I'm not happy with you and here's what I'm doing just to spite you"... well at least China after responding to India's understandable salami slicing. This is how the CCP does a lot of carrot and stick routine. But it hasn't overstepped anything! It isn't murdering, colonising, blackmailing, extorting etc. It is merely showing India and its leadership to not bother China even at such a relatively trivial matter. They could have just talked about those increased patrols but instead chose to act pretty decisively. Just don't bother China within what it considers its core interests (and yes unwillingly giving away sovereignty is part of China's core interest).

With India I just assumed China would have a more understanding soft spot since both have been victims of colonialism and unjust demands. I think if India were to release the tension on disputes in the form of no building up and patrolling, China would follow suit and again leave the space beyond the blue line, a buffer zone for good. This is after all how it was for many decades until the recent crisis. Ask why this is the case and ignore the snake oil salesmen talk of China finding mineral deposits on India's side and similarly stupid nonsense. This is all totally politically motivated and almost personal.

twineedle said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bold 1 : Standoff can happen well within Indian patrol points, at PP17A which exists west of PP19.

Bold 2: Yes Area it claims. Not controlled but patrolled and claims. You haven't provided any evidence against that. (Or has seen counter evidence that erodes your claims).


Bold 3: Great. Now you have shifted to beating at the LAC. Nevermind.

Bold 4: How can China seize what is within its area of LAC? China can however "seize" areas that are not definitively China's or challenged.

Strong word? Maybe Significant word. Could've used a lot of other words.

ougoah said:

I see twineedle moving goalposts subtly by suggesting that China "controlled" Gogra in the past and "controlled" F4 to F8 and what we have at Pangong at least is China moving back from F4 to F8. No. That's not how it was.

F4 to F8 was always no man's land and was one of the remaining disputes. There are three total in the Ladakh section.

Dispute 1 - Depsang plains to Galwan valley, Gogra, Hot Springs. (Northern)

Dispute 2 - Pangong lake and the stretch in between the dotted lines which make up F4 to F8. (Mid)

Dispute 3 - what is commonly referred to as Demchok even though that's just one spot on it. (Southern and not shown in below map it is about 20km or so further south)

China was annoyed at Indian patrols (much more frequent intrusions admitted to by Indian four star general VK Singh) at probably all of the disputes but could also be just one or two of them. In any case something pushed China to act. Something it rarely does without a lot of consideration. Why would China pick a fight (or respond) with India for no good reason if it is doing so well as things were?? Why risk the outrage, fallout, PR blow, negativity from Indians etc???

That something was what China thought was increased Indian political hostility and increased Indian patrolling of at least one of these disputes. It wanted India to stop patrolling so that they don't have to send PLA to confront and stop those patrols. They also wanted India to understand that their ways will be met with responses. Thus the PLA was sent in to occupy F4 to F8 at Dispute 2 and some other forward positions in Dispute 1 and 3.

India probably wasn't expecting these moves from China and when they happened, the Indians had no real good counter strategy or military tactic to reverse PLA occupation. They tried and were not successful since PLA was disengaged after negotiation agreements yielded results. Therefore if China's intention was to capture disputed land with force without care for achieving some other objectives, why would they be negotiating? Why would China bother? Why would China move the PLA back if their purpose was to control Dispute 2 for good and keep it? They've managed to do that for a year and left after negotiations. It doesn't take a clever person to understand that the whole point was for whatever China negotiated for. China holding more bargaining power since it had the land occupied and India was unable to reverse this militarily.

It doesn't take a Westpoint grad to understand this relatively simple crisis.

View attachment 69762

Click to expand...

When did I claim China controlled Gogra? I said China claimed a part of it that India controled, and still controls to this day. And if China did not control or at least dominate f4-8, how did it build a motorable road from f8-f4? However, there is nothing connecting finger 4's foxhole point to finger 3.

And there are some areas where Inida has a tactical advantage, but strategically China has the advantage in most of ladakh. THat is mainly a result of the Congress government's policy of maintaining peace at the lac by not building infrastructure and posts. Well, that sort of worked, in the sense that from 1993- 2013, there were no major standoffs, but this gave CHina a chance to build strategic infra like the f4-f8 road, its depsang road networks, and its permanent camp at the y junction(shown in a previous image). That policy for the most part changed under the Modi gov. To some extent, India has decreased China's logistical advantage through completion of strategic infrastructure of its own, but India is still very much playing catch up.

Xsizor said:

Bold 1 : Standoff can happen well within Indian patrol points, at PP17A which exists west of PP19.

Bold 2: Yes Area it claims. Not controlled but patrolled and claims. You haven't provided any evidence against that. (Or has seen counter evidence that erodes your claims).


Bold 3: Great. Now you have shifted to beating at the LAC. Nevermind.

Bold 4: How can China seize what is within its area of LAC? China can however "seize" areas that are not definitively China's or challenged.

Strong word? Maybe Significant word. Could've used a lot of other words.

Click to expand...

Simple question. When did Adm. Davidson and the Indian Mod say China is occupying or controlling Indian claimed territory? So far theri statements corroborate my arguemetns and the images I have posted, which show Chinese forward posts well behind India's claim. I have already clearly shown the single area of differing perception.

twineedle said:

Simple question. When did Adm. Davidson and the Indian Mod say China is occupying or controlling Indian claimed territory? So far theri statements corroborate my arguemetns and the images I have posted, which show Chinese forward posts well behind India's claim. I have already clearly shown the single area of differing perception.

Click to expand...

Simple Answer for Simple Question :
Your leader said China never intruded into Indian territory. So that means P2 to P8 is China's along with other friction points.

Bold :If you are specifically speaking about regions other than Pangong Tso, yes. You are right. Who argued about posts?

Sharing another POW photo from
Galwan clash.

twineedle said:

When did I claim China controlled Gogra? I said China claimed a part of it that India controled, and still controls to this day. And if China did not control or at least dominate f4-8, how did it build a motorable road from f8-f4? However, there is nothing connecting finger 4's foxhole point to finger 3.

And there are some areas where Inida has a tactical advantage, but strategically China has the advantage in most of ladakh. THat is mainly a result of the Congress government's policy of maintaining peace at the lac by not building infrastructure and posts. Well, that sort of worked, in the sense that from 1993- 2013, there were no major standoffs, but this gave CHina a chance to build strategic infra like the f4-f8 road, its depsang road networks, and its permanent camp at the y junction(shown in a previous image). That policy for the most part changed under the Modi gov. To some extent, India has decreased China's logistical advantage through completion of strategic infrastructure of its own, but India is still very much playing catch up.

Click to expand...

China never controlled F4 to F8. China controlled land east of F8. You are confusing control with patrol and roadbuilding. China committed roadbuilding on land it did not control - F5 to F8.

Building a road does not mean it controlled it. This wasn't Indian land or Indian controlled land either though. China building a road within Indian controlled parts (and parts that China claims e.g. west of blue line) would be noteworthy and indicative of changing control status. China building a road on a disputed stretch after what it considered Indian aggression and build up towards making good its claims on disputes, is less noteworthy but still of course pretty unprecedented and understandably met with opposition from India. It was a recent development which India objected to and started getting ready for mirror developments but NOT within disputed stretches as far as we know.

What strategic advantage does China have??? lol India is days closer to this region and India has far more concentration of military forces FAR closer to this region. Where is China's advantage?

siegecrossbow said:

Sharing another POW photo from
Galwan clash.

Click to expand...

Indian captive being escorted and blindfolded. Not sure why the PLA have bothered blindfolding Indian captives throughout the ordeal. There's really nothing to hide in terms of potentially sensitive equipment. Maybe just hiding positions and number of PLA forces.

ougoah said:

Indian captive being escorted and blindfolded. Not sure why the PLA have bothered blindfolding Indian captives throughout the ordeal. There's really nothing to hide in terms of potentially sensitive equipment. Maybe just hiding positions and number of PLA forces.

Click to expand...

Standard operating procedure. Chinese operate by the book.