Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Via Weasel1962 All the Chinese airport facing India
A few China airport projects will provide greater air support in the region.

"3+1" at burang, lhunze and tingri in Tibet.
Tashkurgan airport and Yutian airports are directly facing Aksai Chin.
Not counting airport expansions like adding 2 runways to Urumqi.

Map representation below.
Red dots represent airports already built.
Green dots are planned airports or under construction.
1592802868693.png
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No restrictions on using firearms’: India gives soldiers freedom along LAC in extraordinary times
The commanders will no longer be bound by restrictions on the use of firearms and will have full authority to respond to “extraordinary situations” using all resources at their disposal, said one of the officers cited above.
A significant change in Rules of Engagement (ROE) by the Indian Army following the Galwan Valley skirmish that left 20 Indian soldiers dead gives “complete freedom of action” to commanders deployed along the contested Line of Actual Control (LAC) to “handle situations at the tactical level,” two senior officers said on Saturday on condition of anonymity.

The commanders will no longer be bound by restrictions on the use of firearms and will have full authority to respond to “extraordinary situations” using all resources at their disposal, said one of the officers cited above.

The amendment in ROE comes after Indian and Chinese soldiers engaged in their first deadly conflict in 45 years in Galwan Valley on June 15, resulting in death of 20 Indian army troops and several Chinese casualties.

In his remarks during an all-party meeting on Friday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the army had been given the freedom to take necessary steps along the border and India had conveyed its position (to China) through diplomatic means.

“With the changes in the ROE, there’s nothing that limits the ability of Indian commanders to take whatever action they deem necessary on the LAC. ROE have been amended to address the brutal tactics being employed by Chinese troops,” said the second officer cited above.

The seven-hour Galwan Valley clash marked the first time India suffered combat fatalities in an incident involving Chinese troops since 1975. Changes in ROE were imminent after a series of violent clashes along the border, with the army finally deciding not to restrict the scope of response of its soldiers after the June 15 clash, the second officer said.

“Two violent clashes took place in Pangong Tso (May 5-6) and Galwan Valley (around mid-May) before the June 15 skirmish in eastern Ladakh. On all occasions, they came in huge numbers and assaulted our troops with iron roads and nail-studded clubs. Our troops fought back fearlessly but the ROE had to be revisited,” he said.

Forward troops keep their guns slung on their backs with the magazines in pouches and not clipped on.

“Since soldiers are allowed to carry weapons while patrolling the LAC, it is inherent that they can use the firearms in unprecedented situations like the attack in Galwan Valley,” said former Northern Army commander Lieutenant General BS Jaswal (retd).

The government said on Thursday that soldiers involved in the June 15 clash with Chinese troops were carrying weapons and ammunition but did not open fire as they were following border agreements between the two countries -- a remark that came in response to a question from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on whether the Indian soldiers were sent in “unarmed”.

“Let us get the facts straight. All troops on border duty always carry arms, especially when leaving post. Those at Galwan on 15 June did so. Long-standing practice (as per 1996 & 2005 agreements) not to use firearms during faceoffs,” external affairs minister S Jaishankar tweeted, responding to a post by Gandhi earlier this week.

Border agreements from 1996 and 2005 between India and China disallow the use of firearms during face-offs. Article 6 of the agreement on confidence-building measures in the military field along the LAC, signed by India and China in November 1996, states that both sides will not open fire or “conduct blast operations or hunt with guns or explosives within two kilometers from the Line of Actual Control”.

Top retired commanders and China watchers, however, said that Galwan clash and last month’s Pangong Tso brawl were not classical face-offs between rival troops but were extremely violent attacks on Indian soldiers.

meme.jpg

This is how you turn a cold war into a hot war, fast.
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No restrictions on using firearms’: India gives soldiers freedom along LAC in extraordinary times
The commanders will no longer be bound by restrictions on the use of firearms and will have full authority to respond to “extraordinary situations” using all resources at their disposal, said one of the officers cited above.


View attachment 61279

This is how you turn a cold war into a hot war, fast.

Sometime KEEPING YOUR MOUTH is the best deterrent , letting your opponent know your plan is treacherous and somewhat STUPID.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Just as it is a mistake to underestimate your opponent, it can be just as dangerous to overestimate them.

India has zero plans to ‘free’ Tibet, never mind all the other nonsense fantasising they are doing with maps. If anything, the amount of energy they are devoting to such obviously pointless activity speaks volumes about their actual capabilities and options.

Indian intransigence on the boarder issue are born largely out of two main factors. One is that they indeed acutely feel the threat from China and would love to have an independent Tibet as buffer; and the other is that Indian politicians and media love to blame everything on China as a cheap and convenient way of shirking responsibility and uniting their unwashed masses against a common external boogeyman least they start to see the inequalities and injustices at home right in front of their eyes.

On the strategic boarder issue, well India has zero concrete viable options to split Tibet away from China, so their strategy is very much a wait and hope one. They have minimal capabilities to ferment unrest or organising and supporting any effective insurgency efforts inside Tibet (which those who are far more capable have tried and failed for decades); nor do they have the raw power to dissuade China from all out war if they were so idiotic and when that scheme gets uncovered (which it will be, and soon).

On the boogeyman front, well that’s pretty obvious, and one needs to look no further than that earlier this year with Indian stories about China ‘training’ the locust plague devastating India.

The problem for India is that they have made short term band-aid stalling tactics into institutionalised policy on the ‘blame China for everything’ front, which is bleeding into its long term back burner ‘Free Tibet’ secret hope.

You can only tell your peasants to ‘blame China’ for all their problems for so long before the peasants start demanding you do something about this terrible boogeyman ruining all their lives all the time. Hence the pressure and need for India to make meaningless salami tactic encroachment on China whenever the internal pressure for action grows too much, and/or they sense a moment of weakness or distraction on the part of China that might take advantages of, so the Indian government and press and sell any tiny gain as some great almighty victory to ease the pressure on them to ‘act tough‘ on China.

I bet that if anyone was bored and heroic enough to endue the filth, they can find growing Indian domestic pressure to ‘respond’ to China on some stupid made up slight preceding every previous Indian incursion and clash.

Add to that Indian soldiers who grew up being told China is the source of all evil and cause of all their ills gets hot headed and emotional when they see actual Chinese soldiers, especially Chinese soldiers who are better equipped and provisioned than them, and all that misdirected rage just boils up uncontrollably leading to meaningless clashes when they were supposed to just test the waters to see if there are any opportunities to exploit without the Chinese noticing as India was hoping for China to be too distracted and weakened by COVID19 and American attempts to start a new Cold War to notice or care about some meaningless crap they pull on the boarder.

Problem for them is that China has already pretty much fully recovered from COVID19, and is pretty sensitive about any possibility of just the kind of probing that India attempted.

The Indian government quickly realised there was no weakness to exploit, so were busy de-escalating, when their hothead Colonel decided to try to force the government’s hand by going against orders and starting a war himself. He (rightly) reasoned that once the war has started, the Indian press would hail him a national hero and the Indian government would have no choice but to throw their full support behind him and cover up the fact that he went against orders. So what if his military career is finished after this? With the National fame and adulation he is sure to get, that would have been the perfect springboard to a new life in politics where riches and luxury awaits. Too bad for him his fighting abilities were nowhere near his ego. He deserved what he got, it’s his men who died needlessly got his ego and ambition that I feel sorry for. But rather than blaming the man responsible, they blame China. A pretty accuracy microcosm of India’s National game.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I do see that the thread is starting to drift somewhat off topic.
I will however give my view on the overall situation.
I would say that Pakistan is still India's number 1 concern, not China and that when you see the larger regional map, it is Xinjiang that catches my eye, rather than Tibet.

To that end, I would see India far more interested in being able to expand its influence/occupied territory north towards Xinjiang in order to isolate Pakistan and to disrupt the CPEC. I could see the US also being interested in such a strategy.
The potential danger would be in a situation where a lot of regional unrest is created and so the US inserts itself in a "Peace Keeping" role.
I say potential danger, as every time I try and make a realistic scenario out of the theory, it falls apart really fast.

You can look at previous US insertion operations such as Afghanistan or Syria, but these are small nations and this would not be possible against Chinese territory.
The closest (but far from comparable) situation is that of the Ukraine and here we see no US military placement anywhere near where they risk contact with Russian forces.

In short despite the great power dreams of lesser powers and the desires of greater ones, the situation in Ladakh is one of Tactical positional competition. A competition which China is very much winning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top