Ladakh Flash Point

twineedle said:

Where do you see any evidence of Chinese posts in Gogra? Point 19 is in Gogra sector adn just across from the Indian post. Please show me where the images show any Chinese presence near Gogra. The only camp China has there is about 6km from the lac, as shown by Detresfa's image. The maps do show that Indian posts are EAST of PPs 15 and 16 , contradicting Shukla.

Click to expand...

By Gogra, i was talking about the posts past PP17A to PP19.

It is not shown in the maps.


Shukla wasn't wrong. Certainly things could change but his assertions seem to be right for the better part of last year.

You were discussing about the pasts past PP17A to PP19, When it was PP15 the topic.

I'm reposting some images regarding Hot springs region and Gogra.

I'd like to have the satellite imagery for Hot Springs verified (Dates of capture). If recent then the situation in that region is quite evident -

Xsizor said:

By Gogra, i was talking about the posts past PP17A to PP19.

It is not shown in the maps.

View attachment 70089
Shukla wasn't wrong. Certainly things could change but his assertions seem to be right for the better part of last year.

You were discussing about the pasts past PP17A to PP19, When it was PP15 the topic.

Click to expand...

So you are saying you do not have proof of any Chinese post near pp19. The maps previously posted do not either. The only CHiense post in the area is the one 15km from the Indian post, or 6 km from the lac
So far you have not presented evidence of any of the heavy pla presence Shukla claims is right next to the lac near Gogra

twineedle said:

So you are saying you do not have proof of any Chinese post near pp19. The maps previously posted do not either. The only CHiense post in the area is the one 15km from the Indian post, or 6 km from the lac

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1366248078580195332

Click to expand...

*sigh*.

Do you not realize that the map you are citing shows a Chinese post near PP19? Along with armour deployments further into PP19.
Good evidence that gives credence to what Shukla claims.

There is a chinese post 15 km from PP17A. That is near PP19.

That's why I attached this.


I don't know how many times should I say this but the simple way to prove Ajai Shukla wrong is this - Show that Indian activity exists in that 15km gap and optimally till PP19.

Until we have that, we can say with surety that the 15km gap has a buffer zone within.


Its astounding the number of times I've wrote this.

So why has the PLA not disengaged from forward positions when the Indian government back in February 2021 was looking forward to providing updates on mutual disengagement at Gogra HS, Demchok, and Depsang?

PLA disengaged from Pangong following productive talks/ negotiations and the agreements observed.

The theories from Indians often suggest Chinese side wants to control certain tactically advantageous points and have no intention of disengaging from forward positions. I think this is bunk. First off, there is no need for tactically advantageous points unless one expects to continue fighting with sticks and stones for a long time without that ever escalating. There's also the fact that negotiations beyond those for Pangong have been held and continue to be attended by both sides. That shows neither want the current status to continue. If China truly had no intention of disengaging, they wouldn't bother putting in so much effort in negotiating. What could China be demanding from India here is the real question.

I don't think it's likely that BJP will formally give up Indian claims in Aksai Chin and those three stretches. I don't think India would demarcate the line along those three stretches with giving up any portion of those disputes. It would look too humiliating while the Congress party is giving them zero respite and even exaggerating the depths of their failures. There would be turmoil in India and no chance of BJP coming back from it.

If both sides want to avoid a war and it's become abundantly clear that both do (otherwise India would have shot and used geographic-proximity advantage and China wouldn't have even disengaged at Pangong), then clearly both sides want to work something out while China want certain things from India in exchange for "pushing" them into capturing forward positions. Something similar to Pangong perhaps at least where India puts its troops behind the disputed stretches (IA is within and beyond the half way line at these disputes).

Xsizor said:

*sigh*.

Do you not realize that the map you are citing shows a Chinese post near PP19? Along with armour deployments further into PP19.
Good evidence that gives credence to what Shukla claims.

There is a chinese post 15 km from PP17A. That is near PP19.

That's why I attached this.
View attachment 70093

I don't know how many times should I say this but the simple way to prove Ajai Shukla wrong is this - Show that Indian activity exists in that 15km gap and optimally till PP19.

Until we have that, we can say with surety that the 15km gap has a buffer zone within.


Its astounding the number of times I've wrote this.

Click to expand...

But the post is still over 6km from the lac, far shorter than the distance applied by Shukla. You are speculating that China is regularly patrolling nearly 10 km to block Indian patrols, since there is no satellite evidence of any Chinese activity between gogra post and the lac. Of course, that is your right. But the burden of proof lies with the accuser, and Shukla has not provided clear evidence for his claims. The above satelite images provide absolutely no evidence for Chinese activity in that 15 km gap. One could easily speculate that Indian patrols are still going to those points, given the lack of Chinese activity visible in satellite images.

And the above images does prove him wrong on hot springs, since it shows an Indian camp within the 3-4 km he says was suppsoed to be off limits to Indian troops

twineedle said:

But the post is still over 6km from the lac, far shorter than the distance applied by Shukla. You are speculating that China is regularly patrolling nearly 10 km to block Indian patrols, since there is no satellite evidence of any Chinese activity between gogra post and the lac. Of course, that is your right. But the burden of proof lies with the accuser, and Shukla has not provided clear evidence for his claims. The above satelite images provide absolutely no evidence for Chinese activity in that 15 km gap. One could easily speculate that Indian patrols are still going to those points, given the lack of Chinese activity visible in satellite images.

And the above images does prove him wrong on hot springs, since it shows an Indian camp within the 3-4 km he says was suppsoed to be off limits to Indian troops

Click to expand...

Bold 1:

Yes. Indeed to some extend.

But Shukla doesn't claim China had posts. I won't again attach what he said you may go back the pages to read.

I never said that I'm not speculating. If China never stopped Indian patrols till PP19 then that means no issues at Gogra.

I also never claimed China intrudes 10 km to block India. Can you link me to a previous post of mine where I insist so? I've maintained that, China confronted India somewhere in that 15 km gap.

Indian government itself says that these are areas with issues. Also, satellite images haven't proved that Indian activities take place till PP19.


Bold 2: Good that you learned something from the Galwan discussion. You were trying to prove that India patrolled from the posts 500m away from Y junction (new LAC) sometime till winter.

Same deal here. I'm just speculating that there is a buffer zone in that 15 km. It means that the buffer zone has been created in what is within Indian LAC.

No objections to that @twineedle, I guess?

Bold 3: I don't think I've read anywhere Shukla insisted that such and such areas were off limits.

But if you are referring to creation of bufferzone in the Hot Springs region PP15, then both armies must have had a space in between them just like what's past Gogra PP17A.

I was surprised and doubted the dates of the satellite images hence.

Maybe disengagement wasn't completed in PP15? Maybe there was a review?

But ultimately, it all means the maps supplied could be outdated. It was posted in IDF, I don't think the folks there care about details like these.

If the satellite images are upto date then

1. Hot Springs (PP15)

Chinese camps are 1.5 to 2 km within LAC of India. Exact nature of buffer zone and patrolling unknown.

2. Gogra ( PP17A to PP19)

A buffer zone has been likely created somewhere between the PP17A to PP19, within what is India's LAC. No satellite images that shows activity in that gap.

If the satellite images are upto date then finally we can drop Ajai Shukla's claims (which he made back in November 2020? I guess).

Somewhere I feel like I have been advocating for him to much while the focus here must be China vs India.

Xsizor said:

If the satellite images are upto date then

1. Hot Springs (PP15)

Chinese camps are 1.5 to 2 km within LAC of India. Exact nature of buffer zone and patrolling unknown.

2. Gogra ( PP17A to PP19)

A buffer zone has been likely created somewhere between the PP17A to PP19, within what is India's LAC. No satellite images that shows activity in that gap.

If the satellite images are upto date then finally we can drop Ajai Shukla's claims (which he made back in November 2020? I guess).

Somewhere I feel like I have been advocating for him to much while the focus here must be China vs India.

Click to expand...

Xsizor said:

Bold 1:

Yes. Indeed to some extend.

But Shukla doesn't claim China had posts. I won't again attach what he said you may go back the pages to read.

I never said that I'm not speculating. If China never stopped Indian patrols till PP19 then that means no issues at Gogra.

I also never claimed China intrudes 10 km to block India. Can you link me to a previous post of mine where I insist so? I've maintained that, China confronted India somewhere in that 15 km gap.

Indian government itself says that these are areas with issues. Also, satellite images haven't proved that Indian activities take place till PP19.


Bold 2: Good that you learned something from the Galwan discussion. You were trying to prove that India patrolled from the posts 500m away from Y junction (new LAC) sometime till winter.

Same deal here. I'm just speculating that there is a buffer zone in that 15 km. It means that the buffer zone has been created in what is within Indian LAC.

No objections to that @twineedle, I guess?

Bold 3: I don't think I've read anywhere Shukla insisted that such and such areas were off limits.

But if you are referring to creation of bufferzone in the Hot Springs region PP15, then both armies must have had a space in between them just like what's past Gogra PP17A.

I was surprised and doubted the dates of the satellite images hence.

Maybe disengagement wasn't completed in PP15? Maybe there was a review?

But ultimately, it all means the maps supplied could be outdated. It was posted in IDF, I don't think the folks there care about details like these.

Click to expand...

How can there be a buffer zone when disengagement is not complete? But fair enough, you have the right to draw your own conclusions. And in Hot Springs, the area where the camps are facing off is disputed, China claims about 1-2km past that to the confluence of the two rivers, which according to shukla's diagram, is roughly where pp 15 is. I know I have posted this image before, but I think it makes more sense now.

Found this image on DFI of India's new permanent camp in the Galwan valley, about 1 km from the 1962 lac, which runs just behind the river bend(historical pp14).