Are you denying that the 1992 lac agreement runs through finger 4, as clearly demarcated by google maps? Are you even aware India and China signed an agreement in 1992? Then again, you sure are good at denying, considering you are denying the fact that China retreated 60km and dismantled all of its infrastructure,and instead are pushing debunked claims of India losing territory that it had never even controlled. Guess it's hard to accept the fact that India acheived status quo ante at almost all standoff points, which was exactly what it wanted.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
This is pretty true. Chinese are not about the smaller moves. They are dormant while a situation develops and they formulate some strategy to counter or develop the situation in a more favourable way. Then when moves are eventually made, they are rather dramatic ones.
SCS islands in response to Vietnam building islands. The Chinese islands reach out further and are much larger in scale and in numbers than the first Vietnamese ones. Same with Ladakh. In response to what China would have interpreted as increased Indian approach and build up, they ordered the PLA to simply capture most of the Chinese claims.
What you observed as the pattern seems to be true again with disengagement. Maybe China is okay with a firm buffer zone and that's satisfactory enough. It should be said in all honesty that this stretch of land only threatens China's interests with regards to Pakistan. It isn't all that important to China. Not anywhere as much as it is to New Delhi. Dense Indian northern population is within one tank driving range (ignoring terrain) of Ladakh. This region is half a Europe away from the nearest dense Chinese population centre.
If you want a serious answer, I think China agreed because it saw that India was continuing to build infrastructure in disputed territory, and it refused to accept China's new 1959 line, and instead continued to enforce the 1992 agreement. As a result, China failed to secure the additional territory it had aimed to capture. in addition, China probably did not expect India to successfully sustain winter deployment along the LAC, without suffering a single casualty due to weather. India also gained a strategic advantage over some Chinese positions by occupying Rechin la and Rezang la. If you are willing to speculate, perhaps Biden showed he would'nt be significantly softer on China on Trump, so considering the above, China thought that it should give up on Ladakh and focus on the US.
That is what I think, based on the available evidence.
Yes, I'm sure Xi Jinping lurks this forum and will be enlightened once he reads through your wall of text
The CCP would have been under pressure from the Chinese population itself. If anything the CCP did itself and India some favours for waiting on the release of information. Chinese chauvinists would not have been okay with losing 5 men to an IA ambush where the PLA were not expecting actual lethal violence. The Indians probably lost their 20+ men from running when greater numbers of PLA reinforcements were approaching with makeshift weapons. Their guilty mindset. Just like the group of IA chimps crying JAi while attacking a single PLA comms officer who got out of his vehicle to conduct talks. They attacked PLA with near lethal or lethal violence on several occasions with numerical superiority and they assumed the same would come for them when PLA engaged with numerical superiority. Thus the running and disorganised command.
How on earth do you have your commander killed along with the lieutenant. Have most of your officers captured along with over 40 jawans. At least 20 dead from unknown causes, without there having been utter command chaos and breakdown?
These people are utter cowards and shameless liars. All the evidence prove this beyond doubt.
Did IA get their commander killed? yes
Did IA get their lieutenant killed? yes
Did IA get their asses captured? yes
Did 20+ IA die from unknown (China says exposure to cold/elements)? yes
Did PLA get a single man captured during this? NO
How does this happen without total IA command breakdown? It cannot.
How did IA command breakdown so hilariously? hmmm methinks they saw hundreds more PLA approaching with their weapons and remembered how they killed 4 PLA in cold blood when they outnumbered the PLA. Methinks some decided right there to run. So much for brave ones (really only capable Kashmiri torturers and rapists). Some ran, some feel to the back in cowardice, and some fought bravely but were killed/injured. Rest who were wondering within reach and sight were captured. PLA probably left the ones carried off by currents in deeper parts of the river.
Why does India say 20+? Clearly some were not recovered or found.
Well because it DOESN'T happen at the same time.. my god i thought i was meming but really you gotta make an exception for the logical capacity of the indian people.
The new (lmao) 1959 line narrative is from your side, weasel. I said that already. A lot has changed since 1959, you losing the war is one example, forget about it already?
China considered the current LAC at galwan is at the bend of the river, confirmed by its press release around the time of 15 June clash, and with the video evidence from 2 days ago with the clear marking of 中国 carved in stone on the bend area.You clearly doesn't even bother to check the link or source that you yourself posted. India already built a wall on the other side of the river, meaning that you can't patrol through there. Are you not tired of being continuously wrong and self-owning yourself again and again?
You only wanted 'status quo' after your attempted violation that triggered it in the first place FAILED. If you want status quo then tell your leader to NOT intrude into chinese territory in the first place, instead of going the roundabout way by getting kicked in the teeth, getting a 5:1 death ratio, getting pushed back, having china taken control of vast swaths of lands for months, and then finally setting up buffer zone which is not really status quo?? lmao is this what you wanted? No wonder your country is a complete mess, full of idiots apparently
Are you seriously this thick? Are you not able to debunk your own lies here?? Vishnu have mercy on you simpleton.
Let's begin and all Jai Hindis reading along please pay full attention, much needed class is in session.
If 1992 agreement ACTUALLY put a LAC at finger 4 AND also was observed by both sides (more importantly India why will become obvious). Therefore fingers 4 to 8 must lie on China's side as recognised by India itself correct? Why then would PLA's taking of fingers 4 to 8 become such a matter of contention between these nations??????????!!!!!! *shock Jai Hind realisation*
Furthermore if what you are saying is true, why did IA confront China WITHIN what they recognise as China??????!!!!!! LOL
You all admit PLA went up to Finger 4 and PP13/14 without going further and since that's been part of China's side of LAC since 1993, then why the crisis?
Even more hilariously, why would China even bother disengaging from within what India itself admits is Chinese territory or at least part of China's side of LAC? China had no infrasturcture there except a road leading to it and may odd tents once in a while.
If the crisis went this far and had this much political and economic implications from both, why then are the PLA dismantling actual camps and infrastructure within its side of LAC. I understand the LAC is NOT the border but clearly there is more nuance to the matter than simply saying 1992 agreement puts Finger 4 and east to China. LOL That's not the issue here. And yet another facesaving attempt by Jai Hindia. This shit is hilariously pathetic and bad lol.
Yes LAC runs along finger 4. But clearly if anything this only goes towards showing India did enough to warrant a reaction from China to build up and mobilise right up to agreed LAC which is most of China's claims anyway. If not, there was aboslutely no reason for PLA to do such things when the situation was relatively stable like between 1993 and 2013 to 2019.
@twineedle @Kakyan @longmarch
Why would India's opposition and parts of its sane population lament the loss of India's claims up to finger 8 and India's prior access to finger 8. Something twinneedle himself admitted to despite funnily enough arguing against it. Recall that "rarely patrolled up to" is not the same as "never patrolled up to".
Finger 8 is where India claims up to and patrolled up to. It no longer patrols up to it after PLA took action and it will not either after disengagement. Again these are simply facts.
LAC agreement from 1992 has so little bearing on this current issue, it was first employed by Modi as the face saver to convince that nothing is happening as he would often say and then be humiliated by.
LAC agreement is worthless if IA patrol beyond finger 4 and claim up to finger 8. Meanwhile China iirc claims up to finger 3 but finger 4 is worth settling if India agrees. Recall that China was willing to go down the middle since Mao's era. India in the past always wanted the entire stretch.
This is the source of the disagreement and looks like India will soon if not already agreed to China's 1950s deal offer of going roughly down the middle i.e. splitting dispute into two parts as opposed to India's insistence it gets the entire stretch.
fucking idiots still confused and lying on purpose about small but important details. Check out that Jai Hind distraction tactic. Just namedropping shit like LAC 1992/3 agreement without grasping any of the nuance or intentionally avoiding.
Why would India's opposition and parts of its sane population lament the loss of India's claims up to finger 8 and India's prior access to finger 8. Something twinneedle himself admitted to despite funnily enough arguing against it. Recall that "rarely patrolled up to" is not the same as "never patrolled up to".
Finger 8 is where India claims up to and patrolled up to. It no longer patrols up to it after PLA took action and it will not either after disengagement. Again these are simply facts.
LAC agreement from 1992 has so little bearing on this current issue, it was first employed by Modi as the face saver to convince that nothing is happening as he would often say and then be humiliated by.
LAC agreement is worthless if IA patrol beyond finger 4 and claim up to finger 8. Meanwhile China iirc claims up to finger 3 but finger 4 is worth settling if India agrees. Recall that China was willing to go down the middle since Mao's era. India in the past always wanted the entire stretch.
This is the source of the disagreement and looks like India will soon if not already agreed to China's 1950s deal offer of going roughly down the middle i.e. splitting dispute into two parts as opposed to India's insistence it gets the entire stretch.
fucking idiots
still confused and lying on purpose about small but important details. Check out that Jai Hind distraction tactic. Just namedropping shit like LAC 1992/3 agreement without grasping any of the nuance or intentionally avoiding.Because China clearly attempted to change the status quo by building permanent constructions in Pangong and other sectors. Following 1962, fingers 4-8 was mostly a buffer zone, although China built a road between fingers 4-8 around 2000. China respected the buffer zone in Pangong and other areas until early last year, triggering the crisis. As per the disengagement deal, China pulled back, restoring status quo ante as of 2019, exactly what India wanted. The more you post, you show the less you know about the LAC.
BTW, if Indian troops did regularly patrol up to finger 8 as you mentioned, surely there must be some video or photographic evidence? After all the skirmishes around foxhole point on finger 4 of 2017 and 2020 were recorded by both sides.. Why would China even allow Indian troops to get that far? Please think before you post.
- Status