Ladakh Flash Point

ougoah said:

I'm with twineedle on the topic of Depsang. It's too unlikely and pointless for PLA to occupy any further than the already settled borderline between Depsang and Aksai Chin. India already lost Aksai Chin and while it claims all of Aksai Chin still as part of its claims in Ladakh, which include the Pangong dispute towards the south eastern side, there is simply no reason for PLA to intrude further into what both recognises as India. It is therefore very perplexing why so many Indian figures and political groups are still making the claim that China controls some important aspects of Depsang. I doubt there is any significant PLA intrusion into Depsang but perhaps there is a lot of force build up in Aksai Chin and PLARF or artillery units threatening strategic points of Depsang.

As India left Reqin in late 2020 and has now withdrawn from LAC on Kailash ranges, there is no purpose for PLA to push for negotiation power whether it is Depsang or any other section. India and China both reached agreements on the main dispute - Pangong, even if there were intrusions by both sides at other points, they would have disengaged by now. The only indication there may still be more drama is the Indian MoD statement that mentioned problems and the fact that some Indian figures and media are claiming these "problems" are in fact significant land concessions Modi has apparently given China. These things remain iffy since China is quiet on it. But they would be if they are gaining something even if it really isn't as significant as huge swathes of land as RG and others are claiming. Maybe it's just more forward posts and bigger build up closer to LAC on that northern side where India was not allowed to perform mirror build ups etc.

Click to expand...

You think China are being quiet? I think China are being pretty loud on their objectives.

They're saying India you need to make peace with us (and Pakistan). And not a fake one where you talk about peace but then promote American propaganda about CCP viruses, Ughars, etc. Get on board with the BRI. If you don't you'll lose a lot more than a few isolated fingers in Ladakh.

The other day a China "Asian study" posted a picture of what a divided India would look like. 10 years ago thats the stuff Kashmiri/Khalastani online warriors would post.

Basically they're saying to India don't become an anti-Chinese American puppet or you will pay the price.

ougoah said:

Slightly off topic but how bad is this and how is it getting so highly rated?

Click to expand...

AlphaDefense is just Kakyan but on max steroids. In fact the majority of those likes might just be from his alt accounts and I'm not even joking. I guarantee at least 1 of them is from the alt he made specifically to attack RedEffect (a special type of pathetic IMO)

ougoah said:

I'm with twineedle on the topic of Depsang. It's too unlikely and pointless for PLA to occupy any further than the already settled borderline between Depsang and Aksai Chin. India already lost Aksai Chin and while it claims all of Aksai Chin still as part of its claims in Ladakh, which include the Pangong dispute towards the south eastern side, there is simply no reason for PLA to intrude further into what both recognises as India. It is therefore very perplexing why so many Indian figures and political groups are still making the claim that China controls some important aspects of Depsang. I doubt there is any significant PLA intrusion into Depsang but perhaps there is a lot of force build up in Aksai Chin and PLARF or artillery units threatening strategic points of Depsang.

... the fact that some Indian figures and media are claiming these "problems" are in fact significant land concessions Modi has apparently given China. These things remain iffy since China is quiet on it. But they would be if they are gaining something even if it really isn't as significant as huge swathes of land as RG and others are claiming. Maybe it's just more forward posts and bigger build up closer to LAC on that northern side where India was not allowed to perform mirror build ups etc.

Click to expand...

Reading the fine print of their claims, you'll understand that they merely don't claim stalemates on these regions but seek to craft it into one that of evolving military superiority of one side versus the others (based on infrastructure construction and whatnot). But the other side have not stopped construction either.

Regarding Depsang, they claim the whole region (in fact, they claim Aksai Chin). It's not about whether China pushes India further in Depsang (pushing further here simply means to take over the DBO road) which China didn't. It's about consolidation of already obtained gains.

India not being allowed to mirror buildup is the real iffy thing. Is that even possible? Who'd agree to such a point in the disengagement print? That's unlikely. I'm of the opinion that India is hamstrung by geographical, resource factors.

Abominable said:

The other day a China "Asian study" posted a picture of what a divided India would look like. 10 years ago thats the stuff Kashmiri/Khalastani online warriors would post.
Basically they're saying to India don't become an anti-Chinese American puppet or you will pay the price.

Click to expand...

Let's be realistic. China has nothing to gain from such a proposition. What more, China doesn't have the tools to achieve that. China doesn't even have enough impetus regarding whatever happens beyond the lofty and desolate ranges of Himalayas.

Many Indians believe in a divided China. Is that a realistic idea? No. They don't have the tools for that.

Xsizor said:

Reading the fine print of their claims, you'll understand that they merely don't claim stalemates on these regions but seek to craft it into one that of evolving military superiority of one side versus the others (based on infrastructure construction and whatnot). But the other side have not stopped construction either.

Regarding Depsang, they claim the whole region (in fact, they claim Aksai Chin). It's not about whether China pushes India further in Depsang (pushing further here simply means to take over the DBO road) which China didn't. It's about consolidation of already obtained gains.

India not being allowed to mirror buildup is the real iffy thing. Is that even possible? Who'd agree to such a point in the disengagement print? That's unlikely. I'm of the opinion that India is hamstrung by geographical, resource factors.


Let's be realistic. China has nothing to gain from such a proposition. What more, China doesn't have the tools to achieve that. China doesn't even have enough impetus regarding whatever happens beyond the lofty and desolate ranges of Himalayas.

Many Indians believe in a divided China. Is that a realistic idea? No. They don't have the tools for that.

Click to expand...

Hopefully Indians will come to their senses and realise that they need to work with China and not against them.

Xsizor said:

Reading the fine print of their claims, you'll understand that they merely don't claim stalemates on these regions but seek to craft it into one that of evolving military superiority of one side versus the others (based on infrastructure construction and whatnot). But the other side have not stopped construction either.

Regarding Depsang, they claim the whole region (in fact, they claim Aksai Chin). It's not about whether China pushes India further in Depsang (pushing further here simply means to take over the DBO road) which China didn't. It's about consolidation of already obtained gains.

India not being allowed to mirror buildup is the real iffy thing. Is that even possible? Who'd agree to such a point in the disengagement print? That's unlikely. I'm of the opinion that India is hamstrung by geographical, resource factors.


Let's be realistic. China has nothing to gain from such a proposition. What more, China doesn't have the tools to achieve that. China doesn't even have enough impetus regarding whatever happens beyond the lofty and desolate ranges of Himalayas.

Many Indians believe in a divided China. Is that a realistic idea? No. They don't have the tools for that.

Click to expand...

China's aim is to consolidate control of Aksai Chin but China is particularly wary of India's continued claim of Aksai Chin and Pangong up to F8. Shown in map below think source is CIA.



Considering Aksai Chin is not the topic of dispute in this recent Ladakh crisis, and the Chinese move to occupy Pangong Lake dispute section came at a total surprise to India, it raises the question of what made China perform such unprecedented action. It didn't come out of nowhere. There is no purpose to upset previous status quo if all was well.

India's own four star general lends credence to China's concerns of increased Indian build up and more aggressive Indian patrols past F4 (with LAC between F4 and F8 but very much a broad dynamic grey zone). VK Singh's statement actually justified China's action of PLA occupying the entire Pangong dispute - the only true outstanding dispute.

It was only because of the confrontation that resulted from bilateral build ups, did Depsang (India! not China) and Kailash ranges (China not India) become fair game intrusion for both armies. Now the central dispute (Pangong) has reached agreements, it makes sense that those points have become disengaged. The outstanding concerns may simply be an issue of force build up behind respective borderlines.

However India continues to claim to F8 at Pangong dispute and continues to claim Aksai Chin just like China continues to claim Arunachal Pradesh.

I don't think the agreement to stop build ups of infrastructure and forces will be observed for long by India. They simply have no reason to and no reason to assume China will not apply strategic pressure along these points if the times call for it. They'd be right and China would be right to assume India's continued challenging despite whatever agreements they've conceded to receive PLA disengagement on F4 to F8 stretch.

Abominable said:

Hopefully Indians will come to their senses and realise that they need to work with China and not against them.

Click to expand...

This is too far gone until new generations of people take over the leadership roles in both nations. Trust have been eroded again with this crisis. It wasn't that substantial to begin with. This is something the US looks upon with much glee.

India is not a military problem for China at all and China has no desire or gain in militarily engaging India. On that front, the risks are relatively minimal until a potential conflict in the Pacific actually happens. In that case, India may certainly mobilise to capture Aksai Chin if not further. The only solution to that problem, if China is bogged down in a war, is to scrap no first use policy if it wishes to maintain control of Aksai Chin. Basically a declaration of either I get to keep all current territories or everyone dies together. I doubt China can conventionally handle a two front war if the western pacific goes off with the US involved.

India is mostly a political problem and the psychological warfare element that is contributed to by India ranges from mildly annoying to genuinely threatening. They do not pay any price for that and the CCP must ensure they do otherwise it is ongoing. There are plenty of ways to place cost mechanisms within that framework and India is actually quite politically delicate as the farmer, Muslim, student protests over the last few years have shown. Even with a Hindu Nazi agenda taking the reigns of national politics.

ougoah said:

India is mostly a political problem and the psychological warfare element that is contributed to by India ranges from mildly annoying to genuinely threatening. They do not pay any price for that and the CCP must ensure they do otherwise it is ongoing. There are plenty of ways to place cost mechanisms within that framework and India is actually quite politically delicate as the farmer, Muslim, student protests over the last few years have shown. Even with a Hindu Nazi agenda taking the reigns of national politics.

Click to expand...

A bit off topic -

India's psychological Warfare isn't subscribed to by Global Audience. I've yet to see an impact on the Global narrative from Indian Information warfare. Even AL Jazeera, the Qatari agency has a more penetrative impact.

The target of Indian Psychological Warfare is Indians themselves for the benefit of internal politics of the country. They have elections, partisanship etc and building a comfortable narrative is important.

Ultimately, it's a question of the value the International community places on how Indians think. We all, whether we like it or not, value what American citizens think. It is reflected in the attention the global media devotes to US elections and domestic affairs.

Similarly, even though not to the same extend as in USA case, the international Community values how Chinese people think. It is reflected in the increasing Global news targeting Chinese people, their living conditions, how they view technocratic systems, how they interact with the government systems etc. It's a symptom of the miraculous development of China past 1980 as well as the traditional influence it holds.

Japan used to command that attention for a brief time (1980-2000). Britain used to. India never held it. It might in the future but not for the time being.

The bridge shown in themost recent image is simply the biggest and most significant bridge, since it is capable of taking heavy vehicular traffic and connects india's road network in Galwa with DBSDO. However, India has constructed tactical infrastructure such as foot bridges to aid patrolling within 3 km of the lac. Makes sense, considering India has had a camps within 500 m of the lac until winter, these bridges would have made those patrolling ops easier.


And the presence of man-made tracks traversing through various heights overlooking the valley connecting to Indian roads and foot paths do indicate continued patrolling of heights in the area. Not surprising, considering Indian Army's experience with high altitude ops. keep in mind disengagement applied only to ground positions, and many of the tallest and most strategic peaks would have been outside the buffer zone anyway.

And it is true that Pravin Sawhney and Ajai Shukla are claiming a Chinese victory. But they are in the minority. Most prominent veterans such as Lt. Gen. Gurmit Singh, Gen. Bikram Singh(who served as COAS dduring the precious Congress Gov), Col. s > Dinny(who actually served on Pangong), Maj. Manik jolly, Maj. Gaurav Arya, and Lt. Gen. Syed Hasnain are supporting the Indian narrataive a=on their respective twitter platforms. Shouldn't they be taken seriously?

twineedle said:

The bridge shown in themost recent image is simply the biggest and most significant bridge, since it is capable of taking heavy vehicular traffic and connects india's road network in Galwa with DBSDO. However, India has constructed tactical infrastructure such as foot bridges to aid patrolling within 3 km of the lac. Makes sense, considering India has had a camps within 500 m of the lac until winter, these bridges would have made those patrolling ops easier.

And the presence of man-made tracks traversing through various heights overlooking the valley connecting to Indian roads and foot paths do indicate continued patrolling of heights in the area. Not surprising, considering Indian Army's experience with high altitude ops.

Click to expand...

Bold 1 : No evidence to substantiate those claims other than that Satellite image from June. June isn't Winter. Discussed in many posts


Bold 2: Man made tracks are there from Chinese side. Should we go with your logic, we can say China continues to patrol even after disengagement.

Bold 3 : Pure Delusion. Only Indian fan boys would believe that Indian Army has a monopoly in performance in High Altitude. The entirety of Tibetan province of China is High altitude. China Builds railroads, bridges, airports, helipads etc in Tibet since long.

Moreover China defeated India by fighting in these same altitude in 1962.
Shall the Chinese chest thump and claim thay are masters of high altitude Warfare?


Refer previous posts.

So the only arguement to counter the satellite image from late july(not June) well after the disengagement, is that it COULD have been removed before winter? Sounds pretty desperate lol. So far, no evidence has been presented that India did not have a camp 500 meters from pp14. This is supported even more by the network of foot bridges over the river recently constructed by India in the disputed area, facilitating patrols.