Ladakh Flash Point

Xsizor said:

Ooo
I don't think most members here are interested in what one retired person says except when he goes against the popular narrative.

The many evidences he submits (partial or completely true) is utilized to see a picture that is different from what Indian government and media insists.

Lets keep things in perspective.


India did have setbacks against China in three distinct regions.

1. India had its LAC shifted back in Galwan and buffer zone created in what is essentially its own areas of patrol.

2.Had buffer zone created in what was within its traditional patrol points in Gogra. (somewhere between PP17A to PP19)

2.And probably has Chinese posts deep in traditional Indian territory in Hot Springs.
(subject to satellite images being upto date).

@twineedle

Do you think otherwise?

Your positions against them are

1. (Galwan) Indian LAC has never been shifted from the present one. Both PP14 and LAC has been the same since 1962. Google is right. CIA is right.

2. (Gogra) Nah. Uh. India does not have a buffer zone in what is within its own LAC (between PP17A and PP19).

3. (Hot Springs). Disengagement hasn't been complete. After disengagement Chinese posts will be removed.
(if the satellite imagery is upto date).


The above are your positions, right?

I don't think those staunchly pro-China need to be aggravated considering the above situation (because it's either an India lose or stalemate condition).

Click to expand...

Once again, what evidence is there for a buffer zone in gogra? The Indian mod specifically said disengagement there is not complete. If anything, those satellite images showed there is no Chinese prescence outisde of its base over 6km from the lac, while there is a road from India's gogra post leading to all the patrol points(shown on google earth) There is more evidence that India is still patrolling those areas than a creation of a buffer zone, which both China and India have denied. As for hot Springs, the image does show a small chinese camp into territory India claims, but there is also an Indian camp well east of pp15-17, and that is also in territory China has claimed since before 1962.

Shoudln't it be clear now? The Indian government has clearly said disengagement is not complete in Hot Springs. If/when it is complete, both the Indian and Chinese camp will be clear, and India will return back west of pp15, where it was before 2020. There was already partial disengagement there, which is every PLA camp except for that one was removed. in gogra, no evidence India isn't patrolling as normal, just shukla claims. Satellite imagery shows no Chinese activity near pps 17-19, so i don't know where you are drawing your conclusion of a buffer zone.


And even if there was a buffer zone, it would fall into traditional Chinese territory in those sectors(probably why China has rejected disengagement so far, the areas immediately east of the 1962 lac/indian claim line are pretty strategically important for China) That already happened in Galwan and Pangong.

You still ahven't disproven any of the satellite images, or other evidence, such as Col. S. Dinny's testimony(he was a patrol leader at pangong). But when the lac keeps shifting to fit the narrative of Chinese victory, I guess there is no need to.

twineedle said:

Once again, what evidence is there for a buffer zone in gogra? The Indian mod specifically said disengagement there is not complete. If anything, those satellite images showed there is no Chinese prescence outisde of its base over 6km from the lac, while there is a road from India's gogra post leading to all the patrol points(shown on google earth) There is more evidence that India is still patrolling those areas than a creation of a buffer zone, which both China and India have denied. As for hot Springs, the image does show a small chinese camp into territory India claims, but there is also an Indian camp well east of pp15-17, and that is also in territory China has claimed since before 1962.

Shoudln't it be clear now? The Indian government has clearly said disengagement is not complete in Hot Springs. If/when it is complete, both the Indian and Chinese camp will be clear, and India will return back west of pp15, where it was before 2020. There was already partial disengagement there, which is every PLA camp except for that one was removed. in gogra, no evidence India isn't patrolling as normal, just shukla claims. Satellite imagery shows no Chinese activity near pps 17-19, so i don't know where you are drawing your conclusion of a buffer zone.

Click to expand...

Great!
Thing's are much clearer.
So ultimately you are of the position that disengagement is incomplete.

No objections to that. However, disengagement has been initiated at these regions (to allow cool off of the initial clash).

Until the current situation remains, we can say that India has had buffer zones created in what is within its LAC.

twineedle said:

Once again, what evidence is there for a buffer zone in gogra? The Indian mod specifically said disengagement there is not complete.

Click to expand...

There is a buffer zone created between the two armies after the initial confrontation in Gogra.
To ensure that tensions subside.

This doesn't contradict the position that disengagement is incomplete

twineedle said:

And even if there was a buffer zone, it would fall into traditional Chinese territory in those sectors(probably why China has rejected disengagement so far, the areas immediately east of the 1962 lac/indian claim line are pretty strategically important for China) That already happened in Galwan and Pangong.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280054738659115008

Click to expand...

Wait. Can't allow you to sneak that in.

We have been going round and round regarding Galwan. One more round -

Unless Indian government publishes the historical LAC of Galwan (between 1970s to 2000s) you can't adopt the position that the current LAC is the traditional one.

Not when we have statements from someone with on-ground experience in the past Patrols
(RJS) insisting of a different LAC.

twineedle said:

You still ahven't disproven any of the satellite images, or other evidence, such as Col. S. Dinny's testimony(he was a patrol leader at pangong). But when the lac keeps shifting to fit the narrative of Chinese victory, I guess there is no need to.

Click to expand...

Every single one of your "evidences" have been disproved.

Shall I link the most recent post of yours insisting Indian post laid 1 km from (New) LAC?
It was proved that it laid 2.25 km from the (new) LAC.

Other recent cases -

1. You asserted China didn't have posts near PP19. Disproved.

2. You asserted there was no buffer zone between PP17A and PP19. Disproved (to some extend)

(because proving a buffer zone exists using satellite images is difficult. Only activity in that region proving it doesn't would be a good evidence. Till now no satellite images to show activity within that gap).

3. You insisted that Hot Springs were not an issue. Seems like it is because there is a Chinese camp 1.5 km within Indian LAC.

Xsizor said:

There is a buffer zone created between the two armies after the initial confrontation in Gogra.
To ensure that tensions subside.

This doesn't contradict the position that disengagement is incomplete

Click to expand...

Xsizor said:

Wait. Can't allow you to sneak that in.

We have been going round and round regarding Galwan. One more round -

Unless Indian government publishes the historical LAC of Galwan (between 1970s to 2000s) you can't adopt the position that the current LAC is the traditional one.

Not when we have statements from someone with on-ground experience in the past Patrols
(RJS) insisting of a different LAC.

Click to expand...

Once again, do you have any hard evidence there is a buffer zone in gogra? Buffer zones are created after disengagement is complete. Your "evidence" for a buffer zone in gogra is that there are no Indian posts east of Gogra(point 17a), even though there is an Indian road looping through points 18 and 19. By that logic, there are no Chinese posts west of the post 15 km from Gogra(roughly 6 km from lac, so does that mean there is a buffer zone extending km into China? Becasue there is no evidence disproving that, following your logic. Please refer to the satellite images previously posted.

Glad that you have finally read the simple Indian MOD statement posted and discussed a long time ago.

twineedle said:

Once again, do you have any hard evidence there is a buffer zone in gogra? Buffer zones are created after disengagement is complete. Your "evidence" for a buffer zone in gogra is that there are no Indian posts east of Gogra(point 17a), even though there is an Indian road looping through points 18 and 19. By that logic, there are no Chinese posts west of the post 15 km from Gogra(roughly 6 km from lac, so does that mean there is a buffer zone extending km into China? Becasue there is no evidence disproving that, following your logic. Please refer to the satellite images previously posted.

Glad that you have finally read the simple Indian MOD statement posted and discussed a long time ago.

Click to expand...

Simple question -
1. Where exactly did the initial conflict or standoff take place in Gogra?

2. What were the terms of initial disengagement?

The rest depends upon your intelligence but I don't think even that would help here.

You insist that final disengagement hasn't been achieved. I can't see anyone Gere denying that. Especially when disengagement talks are happening.

Xsizor said:

Every single one of your "evidences" have been disproved.

Shall I link the most recent post of yours insisting Indian post laid 1 km from (New) LAC?
It was proved that it laid 2.25 km from the (new) LAC.

Other recent cases -

1. You asserted China didn't have posts near PP19. Disproved.

2. You asserted there was no buffer zone between PP17A and PP19. Disproved (to some extend)

(because proving a buffer zone exists using satellite images is difficult. Only activity in that region proving it doesn't would be a good evidence. Till now no satellite images to show activity within that gap).

3. You insisted that Hot Springs were not an issue. Seems like it is because there is a Chinese camp 1.5 km within Indian LAC.

Click to expand...

There is no Chinese activity in the 6km of area between China's post and the 1962 lac(Indian claim line). Looks like a buffer zone extending 6km into China falling your logic. If you disagree, please present satellite evidence showing otherwise.

As for hot springs, at the time I was under the impression that the red circle was cleared, based on detresfa's images. however, if correct the latest image shows something different. Even so, the Indian camp is east of pp15, India's historic patrolling limit in that valley, and nearly 1.5 km into areas China claims. So yes, still an issue, as stated by the mod,though the image seems to indicate a successful mirror deployment by india into the disputed area.

Xsizor said:

Simple question -
1. Where exactly did the initial conflict or standoff take place in Gogra?

2. What were the terms of initial disengagement?

The rest depends upon your intelligence but I don't think even that would help here.

You insist that final disengagement hasn't been achieved. I can't see anyone Gere denying that. Especially when disengagement talks are happening.

Click to expand...

See for yourself, it is clearly marked in the image you yourself posted.

twineedle said:

Your "evidence" for a buffer zone in gogra is that there are no Indian posts east of Gogra(point 17a), even though there is an Indian road looping through points 18 and 19. By that logic, there are no Chinese posts west of the post 15 km from Gogra(roughly 6 km from lac, so does that mean there is a buffer zone extending km into China? Becasue there is no evidence disproving that, following your logic. Please refer to the satellite images previously posted.

Glad that you have finally read the simple Indian MOD statement posted and discussed a long time ago.

Click to expand...

*Sigh*

Let's discuss at length.

At the two ends of the 15 km gap (between PP17A and PP19)

1. There is an Indian post at PP17A. No Indian post beyond.

2. There is a Chinese post, armored divisions at/near PP19.

I think enough has been said.