Fair enough. We can speculate, but I personally think it was due to a combination of several recent events. I would also argue that over the past 20 years, India and China have been postponing lac discussions while trying to maintain economic and cultural ties, so something like this was bound to happen as both countires tried expanding their influence. I actually think the buffer zone works out well for India, since India faces many topographical challenges to patrolling between fingers 4-5, which makes it difficult to enforce its claims via dominance. Colonel Dinny also pushed for a formal buffer zone for this exact reason.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If India already crippled financially I like to see it maintained like this for the next 10 years while China work its way to surpass US economically.But honestly India hasn't reached a level where it can collapse. I'd argue that India is already worse than post Soviet or breaking phase. They have nothing more to lose from arms race or being financially crippled because they're already financially crippled.
China engaging India in this way has already been Chinese and Pakistani strategic policy for a while I would imagine. China supports Pakistan since war with Nehru arguably for this very purpose. Just like India has supported anti-China policies from any nation since the 60s.
I don't think China should give India any breathing moment. Because once its recovered it will do this again.
Fair enough. We can speculate, but I personally think it was due to a combination of several recent events. I would also argue that over the past 20 years, India and China have been postponing lac discussions while trying to maintain economic and cultural ties, so something like this was bound to happen as both countires tried expanding their influence. I actually think the buffer zone works out well for India, since India faces many topographical challenges to patrolling between fingers 4-5, which makes it difficult to enforce its claims via dominance. Colonel Dinny also pushed for a formal buffer zone for this exact reason.
Fair enough. We can speculate, but I personally think it was due to a combination of several recent events. I would also argue that over the past 20 years, India and China have been postponing lac discussions while trying to maintain economic and cultural ties, so something like this was bound to happen as both countires tried expanding their influence. I actually think the buffer zone works out well for India, since India faces many topographical challenges to patrolling between fingers 4-5, which makes it difficult to enforce its claims via dominance. Colonel Dinny also pushed for a formal buffer zone for this exact reason.
The list of events that could have precipitated this confrontation is pretty limited. For both sides. China and India have indeed been delaying the resolution of not only this dispute but all three. The difference is China has been offering a compromise from the beginning. India in Nehru's "wisdom" decided they were markedly superior to China back in the 1960s and up to end of 2020, India continued to ignore settling this dispute with the compromise deal. This may have finally changed with the recent agreement. It remains to be seen how both sides will behave following this but I would imagine it would depend on their respective situations. I would not be at all surprised that India sees their keeping of their claim as a formality as a means to re-engage if and when they find the economic and military power to do so, relative to China's of course.
For example I wouldn't be surprised if India re-engaged if China is bogged down in a Taiwan conflict. But the PLA probably understands this as well and have preparations in case.
If India already crippled financially I like to see it maintained like this for the next 10 years while China work its way to surpass US economically.
I don't think China should give India any breathing moment. Because once its recovered it will do this again.
No doubt India will inflame and re-engage if they have the means to or if they think they've found China in a weak position. And honestly on that topic we cannot blame them as they see this stretch as much a part of their land as Chinese do, if not even more. Honestly this stretch is so far from China proper and not that significant for Chinese interests, while it could strategically be important for India. It's within artillery range of New Delhi.
The decision to disengage and then releasing the video points to a strategic shift in thinking. Not everyone was on board with going forward solving the boarder problems with India. Public support was always take care of Taiwan first. Now with this video, everyone is on board, and disengagement is only to reduce the casualties on the Chinese side. I expect next time the Indians showed up at the wrong places would be met with artilleries.
I do think you have to consider though, that while patrolling is still debatable, India has never been able to build any infrastructure or encampments east of Dhan Singh Thapa. China built roads around 2000 but never built at the scale they did until last year.Not bad eh? Okay you can't be convinced. Even if PLA made Delhi into a pile of rubble, it isn't bad for India because India is only three weeks from taking Tibet, 3 gorges dam is about to burst, and PLA isn't inside New Delhi at least right?
The economic outcome is hilariously bad for India. Chinese investments into India ... help India as much as it helps China. Such is the nature of trade. But this might be a little above you.
As for superpowers rolling over enemy nations? Really? When did the US roll over North Korea? Or Iran? Or Russia? This is another Jai Hind caliber thought capability I see.
So China not rolling over India proves logically that China cannot. I see.
China not rolling over (in fact they did for an entire year in galwan to pangong but you lot will shift the goal posts whenever) into New Delhi is total victory for Hindia and loss for China. I see.
Ignore the fact that since 1950s China wanted to demarcate this stretch somewhere along fingers 4 to 8 while claiming up to 3 with India wanting everything up to finger 8. Now this is effectively achieved with the only condition being PLA cannot be on finger 3 to 8. Well fine. You don't see where the Indian loss is? The level of head burying here is exactly why India is in the position it is.
Another reason why I would still argue the disengagement deal is favorable to India, China simply had a much stronger hold over it even if even if there was a de facto buffer zone. So I would argue a formal buffer zone would limit Chinese patrolling ops more than India's. Though I think it is possible China is fine with that, especially since patrolling is a simple tactical operation.
The decision to disengage and then releasing the video points to a strategic shift in thinking. Not everyone was on board with going forward solving the boarder problems with India. Public support was always take care of Taiwan first. Now with this video, everyone is on board, and disengagement is only to reduce the casualties on the Chinese side. I expect next time the Indians showed up at the wrong places would be met with artilleries.
I think the disengagement shows China's willingness to not confront India properly and focus on the same old. China's progressing. India not so much. Whatever the same old is has been working well. Therefore if India is to re-engage with the same level of commitment and not greatly increased commitment, then China will only respond with the same method. Capture land with one step forward and again force negotiations to its favour. But if it were to happen again, I doubt the PLA will be satisfied with India behind finger 3. They'd probably negotiate for greater leeway since India broke the deal.
If it comes to artillery or limited conventional war, India would need to really break the deal so dramatically or inflict heavy damage to PLA for China to commit to war.
@Oldschool Hi bro good day, don't need to, India problem is structural in nature, until they solves their religious, social and economic problem they will always stay poor. China is lucky we had Mao to kick start our development, India had Gandhi and her family to maintain their status, see the difference in attitude and preference. We had dirty our hands to make our country strong while India talks her opponent to death....LOL.If India already crippled financially I like to see it maintained like this for the next 10 years while China work its way to surpass US economically.
I don't think China should give India any breathing moment. Because once its recovered it will do this again.
Fair enough. We can speculate, but I personally think it was due to a combination of several recent events. I would also argue that over the past 20 years, India and China have been postponing lac discussions while trying to maintain economic and cultural ties, so something like this was bound to happen as both countires tried expanding their influence. I actually think the buffer zone works out well for India, since India faces many topographical challenges to patrolling between fingers 4-5, which makes it difficult to enforce its claims via dominance. Colonel Dinny also pushed for a formal buffer zone for this exact reason. India simply doesn't lose much@twineedle
Something pushed China into acting decisively in Feb 2020 with PLA settling up to LAC. I speculate this was a combination of India's growing nationalism and anti-Chinese interests in the region re CPEC Kashmir etc and China's desire to militarily express concern for India's building. To move back willingly they must get something in return and that something is India agreeing to stay behind finger 3. In return China will agree with the buffer. One doesn't throw away such an upper hand for free unless you think the CCP is that charitable.
Whatever disengagement conditions were given, they would be in China's favour in some way. India agreeing to stop patrolling up to finger 8 and staying behind finger 3 is apparently at least good enough for China to pull the PLA back from occupying those forward positions. This hints at the status building up before the clash. Which is China wanting India to stop patrols and building up.
China's 1959 claim is actcually beyond finger 4. That's why in one of the earlier talks, China requested India vacate Dhan SIngh Thapa as a condition for disengagement.I actually meant finger 3-4, because of course that implies that they can’t patrol up to finger 8 anymore! Both sides cannot patrol between finger 4-8, but Indians cannot patrol fingers 3-4 in addition to that common no patrol zone.
So Indians can now only patrol up to the finger 2-3, and China’s claim line is finger 4. It means that Indians can’t even patrol within their own territory.
I do think you have to consider though, that while patrolling is still debatable, India has never been able to build any infrastructure or encampments east of Dhan Singh Thapa. China built roads around 2000 but never built at the scale they did until last year.
Another reason why I would still argue the disengagement deal is favorable to India, China simply had a much stronger hold over it even if even if there was a de facto buffer zone. So I would argue a formal buffer zone would limit Chinese patrolling ops more than India's. Though I think it is possible China is fine with that, especially since patrolling is a simple tactical operation.
Not if we consider that India has far greater forces nearby and better means of mobilising them. Chinese road expanded only last year during this conflict. And was also done in part as response to undeniable Indian build up from 2018 to 2020. A conventional war would be determined by air superiority and each party's ability to reach adversary bases with ordinance.
From considering the 1959 deal, it would seem India has given up its claims with this buffer establishment if it also means PLA removes presence on paper. It makes sense for China to demand India concede to some variant of the 1959/1993 agreements since it freaking captured the land anyway and proven it can take it by force but with the cost of constant harassment from IA and intrusions.
The disengagement resembled the 1959/1992/3 deal far more than it resembles the Indian offer of everything up to F8.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.