Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
There is no such obstacle anywhere in the world.

Again, stop changing goal posts (you said there is "no natural barrier", when there clearly are multiple barriers in that terrain). Also, the claim that terrain played no part in the Crusades, that's another absurd statement. This is what happens when all your research is conducted via Wikipedia...

India has chosen to " lose" territory for a bigger strategic game.

versus:

It has no military capabilities to do so.

First, you say India "chose" to lose territory, as if it had other options, and then you admit India does not have any military option to retaliate against China. This is just absurdism...

India is looking towards Pakistan that is of course if Western pressures or a regime change can denuclearize Pakistan like Ukraine or Kazakhstan. Meanwhile the bonus is an overwhelming conventional military capabilities build up,
India would happily forego the cold windy rocks of Ladakh for the boulevards and parks of Lahore. A far more achievable objective.
.

Okay thanks, Kissinger. I don't know what Indians you think are running things in Dehli, but the most competent of their analysts like Sawhney are constantly crying about how India is far less competent and capable than you think it is.
 

jfy1155

Junior Member
Registered Member
India loses 300 square km to China after bloody summer in Himalayas, officials say


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



As troops in the Himalayas hunker down ahead of the brutal winter, the outcome of the worst clashes in decades is becoming clear: China has pushed further into territory once patrolled exclusively by India.

A summer of fighting saw India lose control over about 300 square kilometers (115 square miles) of land along the disputed mountainous terrain, according to Indian officials familiar with the situation. Chinese soldiers now prevent Indian patrols in the area, which is about five times the size of Manhattan.

The last six months have effectively drawn new battle lines across a freezing high-altitude desert, raising tensions to their highest point since India and China fought a war in the area six decades ago. Both armies are now preparing to stand their ground in mostly uninhabited terrain during winter months in which temperatures can drop to 40 degrees below zero.

“We have not seen an expanded winter deployment since the 1962 war,” said Lieutenant General D. S. Hooda, a former Northern Army commander responsible for an area that stretches across the Himalayas to the highest pass between India and China at 18,176 feet (5,540 meters).

“Both countries are digging in,” he said. “It tells us that attitudes are hardening … we could see an extended period of tensions that could have unintended consequences.”

The current “Line of Actual Control” separating the two countries partially adheres to boundaries drawn by the British in 1914 between Tibet and India.

Skirmishes were reported after India granted the Dalai Lama asylum following an uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet in 1959, leading to the war shortly afterward. Five treaties since then have failed to stem periodic clashes.

At stake for both sides is control over strategic outposts like the Karakoram Pass, which runs from India into China’s Xinjiang region. A hold on the ancient Silk Road route could potentially give China easier road access to Pakistan, a long-time ally, opening up trade corridors into Central Asian countries that are key to the success of President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative.

While India conducted little activity in the border area for years after the war, over the past decade it began building new infrastructure. India recently opened the first of seven tunnels in key parts of the Himalayas to facilitate troop movements, and also completed a 255-kilometer road connecting a major regional city to the Karakoram Pass.

World War II-era landing strips and airfields across the full length of the India-China border were also refurbished.

China’s Foreign Ministry has called India’s infrastructure drive the “root cause of tensions.” China has tightly controlled any information about troop deployments and casualties, and its state-run media have been restrained in criticizing Indian leaders — allowing space to potentially negotiate a resolution.

India “has been on a building spree under Modi’s watch, which is a red flag for China as it changes the status quo,” said Chen Jinying, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Shanghai International Studies University. “Both sides appear to be very determined and neither side is willing to show any signs of weakness or gesture to back down.”

The current conflict escalated more than a year ago, just weeks after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-dominant government scrapped the constitutional guarantees of autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir — India’s only Muslim-majority state.

In September 2019, Chinese and Indian soldiers clashed on the banks of the Pangong Tso, a glacial lake at about 14,000 feet.

By the time the harsh Himalayan winter abated in May of this year, India was surprised to find China’s army had built forward bases, occupied mountaintops and sent thousands of soldiers to prevent Indian patrols.

India realized it had lost control of about 250 square kilometers of land in the Depsang Plains, which holds key roads leading up to the Karakoram Pass, as well as 50 square kilometers of land in the Pangong Tso, Indian officials said.

Modi’s office deferred comment to the Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry, neither of which responded to questions. India’s military didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. China’s Foreign Ministry said it couldn’t comment on information that “has no clear source and cannot be substantiated.”

In the second week of June both sides clashed, leaving 20 Indian and an unknown number of Chinese soldiers dead. As both sides rushed soldiers and reinforcements to the area, border agreements carefully worked out by previous governments fell by the wayside.

On the night of Aug. 29, India surprised China by moving thousands of soldiers onto strategic high ground along a stretch of more than 40 square kilometers on the south bank of Pangong Tso. This allowed them to get a better view of China’s troop movements, and escalated tensions further.

Then on Sept. 7 the two sides fired shots at each other for the first time in four decades, breaking another taboo. Since then, multiple rounds of high-level military and diplomatic talks have failed to defuse the border standoff.

While usually both sides draw down troops during the winter months, this year soldiers holding critical heights are in make-shift shelters — making them vulnerable to the cold. Sourcing water and keeping them warm will be an equally big challenge.

With rivers freezing, by mid-November travel within Ladakh will be easy but snow will block roads to the region. Air-lifts are the only means of transporting troops and supplies in and out. Although China has an infrastructure advantage along the border, the Indian Army hopes Beijing will thin out troops from the area, allowing it to do the same.

A few hundred kilometers southwest of the Karakoram Pass lies the Siachen Glacier — often described as the world’s highest battlefield — where Indian and Pakistani soldiers remain within rifle range of each other. A coordinated move by allies China and Pakistan would make India’s hold of this region tenuous.

Addressing the Bloomberg India Economic Forum 2020, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar described the the border standoff as serious and said talks were “a work in progress.”

“If the foundations of the relationship are disturbed,” he said, “you can’t be impervious to the fact that it will have consequences.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The original Bloomberg article has this picture.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Untitled.jpg
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Drone shootdowns don't normally make the news, and yet the loss of a $100 million drone would be news-worthy???
Yes, because normal drones don't cost $100 million. Losing more expensive equipment = more news coverage, is that an unreasonable proposition?
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes, because normal drones don't cost $100 million. Losing more expensive equipment = more news coverage, is that an unreasonable proposition?
And the cost of equipment is less than the cost of losing a life, or the cost of putting out the PR fire should a pilot be killed/captured by the PLA?
 

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
In continuation;
The Western strategy goes much beyond China, and Ladakh.
The Sino-Indian border is a mere skirmish in the larger picture.
The move is to make India into a "super-Israel " such that it will serve as a proxy from the "Indo-Pacific " to Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia.
The two impediments to this game are obviously China and Pakistan.
The Ladakh skirmish is a good way to divert China's attention while the dissolution of Pakistan can be planned. Baluchistan is one region being actively encouraged for independence along with the "Siberian Territory Federation " in Russia.
The Baluchistan plan is complicated by China's interest in Gawadar port.

Geographically, India is hemmed in. to the North, there is China and the Himalayas. To the east, they are stopped by Burma who is closely tied to China. Ocean to the south. The only hope to break out is if they gain a border with Afghanistan, which require that they take Kashmir. There are at least three problems with this.
1. The U.S. regularly use Pakistan as a way to get to Afghanistan and would not take kindly to them losing this region.
2. Pakistan would lose its connection with China and be isolated. This would among to a death sentence for the country. They would fight to the last man to defend this region.
3. This impacts the belts and roads initiative from China and China will never allow it.

While the U.S. wanted a fight between India and China, we don't want to lose access to Afghanistan, so we will never allow India to take Kashmir.

China has provided arm to Pakistan. Now their military is working very tightly with Pakistan to form a united front. Whatever military India gets from the West, there is just no way for India to take Kashmir with China there. A war in Kashmir means a two front war along the entire border of India with China. If they lose, New Deli is right there next to the border. Any sane military or politician will not initiate this against China and the U.S., but I don't know how much sanity there is in a country like India.
 

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
Again, stop changing goal posts (you said there is "no natural barrier", when there clearly are multiple barriers in that terrain). Also, the claim that terrain played no part in the Crusades, that's another absurd statement.

Israel not the topic here. This is not the era of the Crusaders. There never were any natural barriers, either for the Mongols, Crusaders, or the Arabs.
There was a shortage of water and forage for horses which limited military action. The Crusades were won and lost more through intrigue, shifting alliances, and disunity among the combatants which affected direct military action. For a 21st century modern technology force, equipped with all terrain armor, and transport there are no natural barriers in the Israeli Palestine region.
For your information I get my knowledge through researched books not Wikipedia. In this particular case will refer you to The Crusaders by Lamb Would highly recommend you read that book. If you know Urdu I could refer you to some translations from the original Arabic historical records.
I don't know what Indians you think are running things in Dehli, but the most competent of their analysts like Sawhney are constantly crying about how India is far less competent and capable than you think it is.
Correct.
One logical military analyst does not determine the military and foreign policy of a nation.
So Praveen Sawhney's views no more affect India's policy than Naom Chomsky's policy affects the policies of the Pentagon.
My last two cents:
I hope the spirit of Raja Aziz Bhatti; the heroic defense of Dograi, in 1965 is still prevalent in Pakistan. I say this because the suburbs of Lahore are still only 20 km from Wagah. For Indian military war-gamers this takes up more of their attention than the a bleak outpost near Chushul or the icy Helmet Top peak. As discussed before it is not logic that is driving Indian military policy. There is only one mitigating factor in the Indo-Pak scenario, and that is the now unwillingness of India taking casualties and dying in a bid to conquer. With the nuclear scenario looming the techie in Delhi with his I-Phone earbuds screwed into his ears piping streamed music would like to continue his Whatsapp chats without being vaporized. That is the only thing keeping the sub-continent from disaster.
Mercifully China is out of that picture.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Israel not the topic here.

I wasn't the one who brought it up.

There never were any natural barriers, either for the Mongols, Crusaders, or the Arabs.
There was a shortage of water and forage for horses which limited military action.

The shortage of water in a desert is by definition a natural barrier:

"Natural barriers can include lakes and bodies of water, mountains, deserts, and other difficult-to-traverse terrain. "
>> Clifton L. Smith, David J. Brooks, in Security Science, 2013

For a 21st century modern technology force, equipped with all terrain armor, and transport there are no natural barriers in the Israeli Palestine region.

You are now stuck in a loop. The Golan, The Mediterranean, and the Sinai DMZ are all natural barriers. Your unwillingness to accept this is not my problem.

In this particular case will refer you to The Crusaders by Lamb Would highly recommend you read that book.

Try something a little more relevant to the subject matter you're lecturing on, like this: Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades by Pryor.

So Praveen Sawhney's views no more affect India's policy than Naom Chomsky's policy affects the policies of the Pentagon.

I don't think you're paying attention to what Sawhney is saying, that's the problem. And your claim that India "chose" to lose territory, is absurd, period, end of story.
 
Last edited:

Bright Sword

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think you're paying attention to what Sawhney is saying, that's the problem.
Request:
Let's stay on the topic, and I don't claim a monopoly on absurdity in this discourse.
Am still awaiting a comment from others if whether India's post-Galwan military acquisitions are China specific, These acquisitions obviously don't affect the situation along the "border", a term chosen by both India and China in preference to the previous LAC in the 5 point September 11, Moscow agreement.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top