Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
The lac is where China reached in 1962. At some places, India claims beyond the lac. Gogra is not one of them.
The lac(Indian) is exactly where it was before 2020, even though China tried but failed to shift the dotted line.
Oh, I just realized the above image also disproves Ajai Shukla's claims on Galwan. Galwan is another area where there were no disputes until China claimed the entire valley(Chinese embassy statement) and tried to unsuccessfully shift the lac, only to withdraw even further from its claim line. Just like in Gogra/Hot Springs, the lac in Galwan is the exact same as it was before 2020
Last edited:
India's LAC is where China reached in 1962?
Laugh material.
China shifted back after the 1962 war and even had patrols and posts removed in multiple regions due to the tough conditions and bad supply lines during various points past fifty years.
Indian LAC is purely set by India. China's actions in 1962 and beyond merely set a ballpark area within which India arbitrarily set its LAC.
There's a reason why there is no mutually recognized LAC. If India abided by China's positions in 1962 we wouldn't be having this merry go round play.
Like I said, there are areas where India's lac is beyond the 1962(Pangong, Depsang, Demchok.) Gogra is not one of them.
China did keep many posts and built many more as well as infrastructure over the past few decades. Right next to the point Shukla claims as PP19, china has had a small border outpost for decades, though that was expanded pretty heavilly last year.
Like I said, if you disagree with anything I say, you are welcome to provide clear, neutral evidence.
Indeed, and that camp is the only one at that region. This camp is 15 km away from Gogra Post.
Then the question arises (Assuming the Mitra map you insist is right depicts the truth)
The Indian narrative is always the following, often contradictory material:
"unilateral Chinese aggression" - despite there being nothing to gain for China and every reason to react to India's continued antagonism and increased military patrols.
"not an inch of Indian territory is taken" - sneaky manipulative wording because this conflict is over disputed territory which means no actual Indian or Chinese territory is "at stake".
"PLA retreated because we are too strong" then "we will make updates on disengagement within 48 hours" then no word for nearly two months and US government then confirm no disengagement has occurred in every other confrontation apart from Pangong.
Again, if India is willing to convert the remaining areas still under stand-off, into a Pangong like mutual move back and buffer, I'm willing to bet this is what China wants to achieve and is negotiating for. The reason for PLA continuing to block Indian patrols and Indian aggression/advancements in the northern sector of the disputed region that remains is to either stop them but continue wasting effort, or to secure a buffer agreement which means the total dispute is much more settled than it's ever been in history.
If the entire remaining dispute can be converted to a buffer, China would have solved the problem of increased India patrols into what was previously no man's land (blue to pink dotted line) and will not have to physically confront Indian troops when they patrol past the LAC which India's own four star general admitted that India did "at least 5 times as often" as Chinese troops did. You can see why China eventually acted. Indians presenting themselves as victims and victors simultaneously when in reality, they are the original instigator of this recent standoff crisis.
"unilateral Chinese aggression" - despite there being nothing to gain for China and every reason to react to India's continued antagonism and increased military patrols.
"not an inch of Indian territory is taken" - sneaky manipulative wording because this conflict is over disputed territory which means no actual Indian or Chinese territory is "at stake".
"PLA retreated because we are too strong" then "we will make updates on disengagement within 48 hours" then no word for nearly two months and US government then confirm no disengagement has occurred in every other confrontation apart from Pangong.
Again, if India is willing to convert the remaining areas still under stand-off, into a Pangong like mutual move back and buffer, I'm willing to bet this is what China wants to achieve and is negotiating for. The reason for PLA continuing to block Indian patrols and Indian aggression/advancements in the northern sector of the disputed region that remains is to either stop them but continue wasting effort, or to secure a buffer agreement which means the total dispute is much more settled than it's ever been in history.
If the entire remaining dispute can be converted to a buffer, China would have solved the problem of increased India patrols into what was previously no man's land (blue to pink dotted line) and will not have to physically confront Indian troops when they patrol past the LAC which India's own four star general admitted that India did "at least 5 times as often" as Chinese troops did. You can see why China eventually acted. Indians presenting themselves as victims and victors simultaneously when in reality, they are the original instigator of this recent standoff crisis.
I say this because it's clear that China is content with the blue line being the border since the blue line (where China actually control up to) is well in advance of China's 1950s claim, nearly in agreement with China's 1959 offer, and while it is behind China's 1960 claim in parts (difference being that remaining 20%), the security of Aksai Chin means actually enforcing and mutually agreed buffer zone out of what was previously a frequently violated no man's land after the 1962 war, would be effective in securing Aksai Chin even if india continues claiming it. If the troops can't meet, no violence can happen. If they step in to buffer, it is an act of war and so becomes the binary situation that guarantees no Indian salami slicing. Either they go to war for their claims or they stay on India proper.
The alternative is China capturing up to 1960 claim or LAC (pink dotted) but Indian troops are within this stretch and surely cannot be removed without war. India has several times as many troops and can bring much more much faster. Only an escalation in the technology used can guarantee any potential PLA victory. This is a step China seems unwilling to take due to risks and commitment required... also consider it has that remaining 20% to win at most. This is simply not worth it.
Therefore Chinese negotiators must be demanding Indian withdrawal from 20% in exchange for PLA withdrawal. Indians probably understand that Chinese bargaining power at this level is wearing thin and the Indian have not budged. In fact they calculated that PLA will withdraw without Indian withdraw in remaining stand off parts i.e. 20% minus Pangong. Which is why they said updates to be provided within 48 hours back in mid Feb this year.
China seems keen to insist on either all of the 20% is enforced buffer - therefore no threat to Aksai Chin unless war, or India demarcates borderline with China - therefore no threat to Aksai Chin unless India goes back on its word and on the border they agreed to set.
The alternative is China capturing up to 1960 claim or LAC (pink dotted) but Indian troops are within this stretch and surely cannot be removed without war. India has several times as many troops and can bring much more much faster. Only an escalation in the technology used can guarantee any potential PLA victory. This is a step China seems unwilling to take due to risks and commitment required... also consider it has that remaining 20% to win at most. This is simply not worth it.
Therefore Chinese negotiators must be demanding Indian withdrawal from 20% in exchange for PLA withdrawal. Indians probably understand that Chinese bargaining power at this level is wearing thin and the Indian have not budged. In fact they calculated that PLA will withdraw without Indian withdraw in remaining stand off parts i.e. 20% minus Pangong. Which is why they said updates to be provided within 48 hours back in mid Feb this year.
China seems keen to insist on either all of the 20% is enforced buffer - therefore no threat to Aksai Chin unless war, or India demarcates borderline with China - therefore no threat to Aksai Chin unless India goes back on its word and on the border they agreed to set.
Last edited:
UK Tabloid garbage still at it trying to gaslight more.
China is not attacking or invading India FFS. The constant need to portray this dispute as something this simplistic. Doesn't explore the context, the history, the movements, the politics, and the strategic thinking that underpin all of them.
Even the most basic of facts are wrong. If China can be called crossing the LAC to occupy Indian land. Does that also mean India has long been crossing the LAC to occupy and patrol Chinese land? The semantics here is getting too manipulative. This so called Indian land is on China's side of LAC, within a chunk of remaining disputed land.
They want to be victims and victors at the same time
As for S-400. India would be wise actually to abandon it for an American alternative if it is to pick a political side. It can remain neutral though and buy neither American/French weapons and S-400. Pick one or give up on both. The Americans may only permit S-400 purchase if they get a very close look at it. This won't be allowed by Russia for good reason. Plus China now knows the S-400 pretty thoroughly so that further limits its usefulness at least against China. China could even supply Pakistan with intel on S-400. It's better than not knowing anything about it.
Depends on what the LAC is. All these issues can't be even talked about when the LAC is like one of those Schrodinger's Cat situation. LAC can shift if and when China makes advantages.
UK Tabloid garbage still at it trying to gaslight more.
China is not attacking or invading India FFS. The constant need to portray this dispute as something this simplistic. Doesn't explore the context, the history, the movements, the politics, and the strategic thinking that underpin all of them.
Even the most basic of facts are wrong. If China can be called crossing the LAC to occupy Indian land. Does that also mean India has long been crossing the LAC to occupy and patrol Chinese land? The semantics here is getting too manipulative. This so called Indian land is on China's side of LAC, within a chunk of remaining disputed land.
They want to be victims and victors at the same time
And if China indeed does make advantage, LAC shifts to nullify that advantage. Net result - China has made no advantage.
India will never get Aksai Chin. Period. And China controls more of what it claims than India controls what it claims.
No fundamental change to this even after the 2020 conflict.
- Status