Ladakh Flash Point

twineedle said:

When did I say there is no disengagement? Disengagement means both sides pulling back which is what happened. However, the imagery I posted of CHINESE satellites seems to imply that China pulled back more.

And I have said it is possible China could have resumed patrolls like India did. It is just that there seems to be no visible evidence of that, such as the presence of encampments.

And you have hourself admitted the only reason you keep spamming that same blog is because Shukla confirms your preconceived notions. You have discredited sourcess by another former soldier S. Dinny and Indian analysts like Abhijit Iyer and Harsh Pant.

Keep reading Ajai Shukla if it makes you feel better. I prefer to look at actual facts.

And the fact is he has been proven wrong on his claim that the lac shifted multiple times.

Click to expand...

I didn't purposely quote him. He was quoted by Indian media houses. I've no interest in following particular soldiers or sources that you point out. Maybe you use them to massage your confirmation bias.

You insist China pulled back more. But disengagement was for 1.5 km each side (3 km buffer zone). Are you saying that this information is wrong and the share of buffer zones are wrong?

An equal share is extremely likely. For an unequal share, there must be unequal power balance. And it would be celebrated by Indian media (considering their proclivity for the same since this is China they are dealing with).

Rather, Indian media isn't reporting that.

Xsizor said:

I've realized that there are two big sides in Twitter

• One is @detesfa_ Twitter handle which does OSINT satellite analysis.

• Another is Ajai Shukla (a retired soldier).

Jai Hind / bhakts support @detesfa_ because his minimal analysis and images are a good template to assert China was pushed back somehow (using what threats? War? Threat of more a Indian dead bodies?)

Ajai Shukla is portrayed as Anti Modi party.

However, I think Ajai Skukla is fiercely pro-India. He sees everything as black and white. Even if China stops Indian patrols, he assumes the worst and asserts that India lost land. He also views things along traditional Indian claim lines rather than Pre-Modi claim line or Post-Modi claim line.
So that explains his often irritating claims of 3-4 km lost and thousands of Chinese soldiers etc.

Its weird reading the Twitter threads. Many people disrespect this retired person. I think a case similar to Raj47 (although his case isn't that extreme).

Click to expand...

Several retired soldiers like Col. S Dinny, Maj. Manik Jolly, Lt. Gen Syed Hasnain, have also supported the Indian narrative. Should they be taken seriously? Oh wait, I forgot, only anti Modi veterans/analysts are cited here.

and could it be that the reason why that handle is cited so many times is because it has always been right throughout this whole standoff?

I'd like to see satellite images to presented in dated (proven dated not the inserted stuff) format and corresponding to points on the map. Furthermore, proven to be photos of those points on the map. Then we can begin to look at movements. All those satellite images show movement but movement at either mid points or well within what India claims and well within disputed sections.

The Indian fan favourite satellite photos show movement at the very edge LAC. Somehow that proves if a object disappears, it must've disappeared 10km to 20km away instead of 100m or whatever. Indian MoD recognises that Depsang, Gogra, Hot Springs are still points of contention with PLA occupying Indian claims. No buffer as far as we know yet and the more accountable side of India are asking questions and raising awareness. This isn't something China or Modi wants.

Both China and Modi want this to be played out very quietly. If it gets too noisy, there is a chance PLA will be forced to at least make a loud show of moving back from forward positions just like on Pangong with the Indian side doing the same and creating a buffer (NO PATROL) out of the disputed stretch.

As VK Singh (previous four star general) indicated*, this sort of works for China because that's part of the main reason why PLA was ordered to respond. You know to respond to India's growing patrolling, increased confrontation, and building up of infrastructure and forces (which to me is understandable and justified... it is a dispute after all but CCP doesn't like that it seems).

*

"“Let me assure you, if China has transgressed 10 times, we must have done it at least 50 times,” he added."

"“Today, China is under pressure, since we are sitting at places (along the border), where it does not like,” he said. China has realised that it was not easy any more to hit back at India. "

China just wants India to stand well back but this place is around 400km from outskirts of New Delhi.

twineedle said:

I don't know why you are so obsessed with those three, when it is clear that with regards to the former, there has been no changes since 2013, and in the latter two, China is not even occupying Indian claims. The LAC at Hot Springs an gogra is not disputed by India, though a small portion is by China. Disengagement talks there are for a mutual withdrawal of troops and new positions from both sides of the LAC>

Click to expand...

Fair enough if that is the case like you said earlier to my raising of point 8.

twineedle said:

SEveral retired soldiers like Col. S Dinny, Maj. Manik Jolly, Lt. Gen Syed Hasnain, have also supported the Indian narrative. Should they be taken seriously? Oh wait, I forgot, only anti Modi veterans/analysts are cited here.

Click to expand...

Do they claim India never patrolled past F3?? Show me where they say this.

Do they say India doesn't and has never claimed up to F8? Of course not, that would be a stupid thing to deny.

Has India lost access (for now) to F4 to F8 stretch? Yes.

Has China claimed to F3? Yes. Has China offered since 1959 to settle this dispute between F4 and F8? Yes. Does this not show China never really wanted up to F3? Well yes, otherwise why the fuck would it offer to settle between F4 and F8 lol.

Does India's own four star general say India patrolled past LAC much more than China did? Yes he said for every 1 PLA patrolled past, there would be AT LEAST 5 IA patrols past LAC.

Was China annoyed and wanted to stop India's patrolling past LAC? Yes. Has China stopped them from doing this? Yes with these agreements for PLA to move back from forward occupied positioned, IA has to remain not only behind F4 but behind F3.

twineedle said:

SEveral retired soldiers like Col. S Dinny, Maj. Manik Jolly, Lt. Gen Syed Hasnain, have also supported the Indian narrative. Should they be taken seriously? Oh wait, I forgot, only anti Modi veterans/analysts are cited here.

Click to expand...

Because, you cité them first to claim
India won against China.

Then that forces others to offer you counter evidence citing Indian media houses itself which may cité Ajai Skukla.

You gotta jail this person or maybe you ought to wonder why he is conferred space by Indian media houses to explain the matters regarding Ladakh.

A person peddling lies won't be accommodated by media houses, no matter political leanings.

We gotta ask why China felt so uncomfortable with India's build up of forces and infrastructure towards Ladakh flashpoints before 2020. Well for one thing there were increasing Indian patrols past the LAC into "China's side" of the disputed zone. This may be enough to justify the PLA occupation. And this is verified by India's own four star general who was still a part of the Indian military back when those IA patrols were frequent and increasing.

What's more behind this is really China's desire to put a stop not only to IA patrols between F4 and F8 (which has been achieved) but also to stop India's building up of forces and infrastructure kilometers behind. To do this, the Chinese side did choose to escalate this confrontation to a new level with the forward occupation by PLA. In return for moving back at Pangong lake, they demanded the Indians to cease patrol (done), move back and not enter disputed/claimed zone (done), and stop building up (tacitly recognised) and China stops on its side as well.

Check the net delta on this situation and it becomes abundantly obvious that China was the one that achieved the objectives with India achieving the objective of getting PLA off its claims at Pangong. BUT PLA ONLY WENT ON TO OCCUPY INDIA'S CLAIMS TO ACHIEVE THOSE CHINESE OBJECTIVES! This is truly a null victory for India if there ever was one but how this simple fact skips some people is already now a little bit straining. Whatever though. Ground realities matter more than personal self-delusions and misunderstandings.

ougoah said:

We gotta ask why China felt so uncomfortable with India's build up of forces and infrastructure towards Ladakh flashpoints before 2020. Well for one thing there were increasing Indian patrols past the LAC into "China's side" of the disputed zone. This may be enough to justify the PLA occupation. And this is verified by India's own four star general who was still a part of the Indian military back when those IA patrols were frequent and increasing.

What's more behind this is really China's desire to put a stop not only to IA patrols between F4 and F8 (which has been achieved) but also to stop India's building up of forces and infrastructure kilometers behind. To do this, the Chinese side did choose to escalate this confrontation to a new level with the forward occupation by PLA. In return for moving back at Pangong lake, they demanded the Indians to cease patrol (done), move back and not enter disputed/claimed zone (done), and stop building up (tacitly recognised) and China stops on its side as well.

Check the net delta on this situation and it becomes abundantly obvious that China was the one that achieved the objectives with India achieving the objective of getting PLA off its claims at Pangong. BUT PLA ONLY WENT ON TO OCCUPY INDIA'S CLAIMS TO ACHIEVE THOSE CHINESE OBJECTIVES! This is truly a null victory for India if there ever was one but how this simple fact skips some people is already now a little bit straining. Whatever though. Ground realities matter more than personal self-delusions and misunderstandings.

Click to expand...

India has a permanent base less than a km from finger 4. How is that a tacit agreement by India to stop building up?(BTW, before India occupied Kailash, China's condition for disengagement was Indian vacation of Dhan Singh Thapa) India also continued building bridges in the Galwan valley and over the Shyok. Not to mention, it secured DSDBO. Even if China did prevent India from patrolling past finger 4(which it never did) patrolling is just a tactical operation, while you are talking strategy.

ougoah said:

We gotta ask why China felt so uncomfortable with India's build up of forces and infrastructure towards Ladakh flashpoints before 2020. Well for one thing there were increasing Indian patrols past the LAC into "China's side" of the disputed zone. This may be enough to justify the PLA occupation. And this is verified by India's own four star general who was still a part of the Indian military back when those IA patrols were frequent and increasing.

Click to expand...

I know you are referring to the VK Singh here.
But I'm uninterested in delving too deep into the dynamics and political leanings of Generals and Leaders of India.

Just like you've read in the posts above, there are some generals or leaders speaking tales that Jai Hind/Bhakts would love to hear. Then there are some who don't. By trying to dissect each one, the entire thread will go to trash.

Most often they cherry pick and present things to suit their narrative. Some like Ajai Skukla see it in a particularly pro-India perspective that triggers even nationalists.

Others present certain half - truths to assert some sort of Indian advantage.
For example, I can assert India made China pull back more from North Pangong Tso. Though true, I would be hiding other truths like how China can claim F8 faster due to the road and how China made India play its card of Kailash and South Pangong Tso.

Yes, India played a card it obtained for the sole purpose of securing northern pangong Tso, in order to get China to retreat from northern Pangong Tso. Terrible deal for India.