Ladakh Flash Point

twineedle said:

How has India been defeated when China retreated from occupied areas and restored status quo ante, just like India wanted.

Click to expand...

Because there is no status quo. China beats India out of some territories, then gives a little back and makes a buffer out of some more. Just because China returned some back so India could back out doesn't mean India fought China to a tie as Indians like to imagine. China could stay there, keep everything, and then take more and the only thing that India can do is keep nagging and wasting China's time.

twineedle said:

I never said India scored a COMPLETE victory.

Click to expand...

India doesn't do victories. Quick look at its current state and that is apparent. It can only muddle things to look like a victory to some Indians but the end result is still a weaker India.

twineedle said:

Just that I believe India got a COMPARTIVELY better deal, and provided facts and evidence to support my assertions that have been met with nothing but personal insults.

Click to expand...

Plenty of people have rebuffed you and you can only repeat yourself. The only way India got a comparatively better deal is that it didn't end up getting destroyed while that was never a possibility for China.

twineedle said:

Unless of course, you are denying thppat China destroyed all recent infrastructure it belt, retreated from those territories(f4-2, pp14, etc.) and agreed to stop patrolling up to its claim line. That is exactly what India had been asking for in the talks.
Why are you so keen on presenting this as a Chinese victory?

Click to expand...

India basically makes up what its goals were as things unfold so it can't lose but people know, you don't start ambushes to keep the status quo. India wanted to pull a fast one and steal Chinese territory. Instead, it got its rear end beaten red and suffered a net loss in territory. China kindly gave a lil' back so this can be over, and Indians are so proud of it.

twineedle said:

As for the answer to your question- yes. If it means protecting Indian territory, securing strategic infrastructure, and preventing China from capturing Indian territory and enforcing new claim lines(all of which India succesfully did) than I guess that is what will have to be done. Obviously, it is much better if such standoffs are averted and no casualties are suffered on either side, but I there will unfortunately be more disputes.

Click to expand...

The only thing India can successfully do is screw itself, its soldiers, and its farmers as it always does. It makes mistakes against foreign countries, then spins them into victories. With China it is outclassed everywhere and before it escalates into another 1962, has to tell China that if it lets India off the hook, India will be good for a while. Since China's busy with the US, it works. Then Indians go back and beat their chest in a self-created parallel reality saying they "achieved" things and "enforced" claims, fighting mighty China to a standstill when all they actually do is fail all day everywhere.

LST said:

What's the relevance whether the Mughals were not even the only Muslim kingdoms in South Asia? Abominable did not say the Mughals were. And Abominable also did not say anything about Muslim states (multiple or otherwise) that the Mughals fought with.

Mughals were Indians? Did Abominable say anything about whether Mughals were/weren't Indians?

Btw, they are assimilated now but the Mughals were not Indians. Why you said they were Indians? With this, what does it say about your south asian history? Better than Abominable? Comparable to your ladakh standoff knoweldge? It's you who got personal by writing irrelevance as your response to Abominable. I noticed the same style you deployed with other forumners as well.

My take is that you do have some good knowledge about the recent standoff. But with the defeat too difficult for you to stomach, you look for ways to project the defeat into something more dignified . The thing is that the more you talked, the more indignified the defeat seemed.

You can have the last say, at least from me. But please ask yourself "Are you willing to settle for the same thing again?", if there were another standoff with the same counterparty? This will uncloud the path as to whether you really got a better deal.

Click to expand...

You still have not clarified how this is a defeat for India. Yes, the casualties are horrible, but at the end of the day, what did China get? nothing substantial India got mostl of(not everything, but still the majority of) what it wanted. Your own government described this as win-win, and so did India.


And facts on the ground speak for themselves. Satellite imagery has consistently shown India hasn't lost an inch of territory it had previously controlled, and that it actually enforced its own claims via buffer zones. Modi himself said so,. Literally nobody here has provided evidence that India lost territory, just shoddy indian media sources that have already been

During the standoff, China initially attempted to secure up to figner 4 and the entire Galwan Valley. Instead, it retreated to finger 8 and agreed to a buffer zone in Galwan that included part of its territory. India completed all infrastructure projects in disputed areas that China tried to stop, whereas all Infrastructure China built between fingers 4 and 8 were demolished. Yes definitely a big Chinese victory

twineedle said:

You still have not clarified how this is a defeat for India. Yes, the casualties are horrible, but at the end of the day, what did China get? nothing substantial India got mostl of(not everything, but still the majority of) what it wanted. Your own government described this as win-win, and so did India.


And facts on the ground speak for themselves. Satellite imagery has consistently shown India hasn't lost an inch of territory it had previously controlled, and that it actually enforced its own claims via buffer zones. Modi himself said so,. Literally nobody here has provided evidence that India lost territory, just shoddy indian media sources that have already been

During the standoff, China initially attempted to secure up to figner 4 and the entire Galwan Valley. Instead, it retreated to finger 8 and agreed to a buffer zone in Galwan that included part of its territory. India completed all infrastructure projects in disputed areas that China tried to stop, whereas all Infrastructure China built between fingers 4 and 8 were demolished. Yes definitely a big Chinese victory

Click to expand...

It was clarified for you many times by other posters who have refuted your wishful thinking point-to-point. Ignoring those points and repeating your own imaginary ones as "facts on the ground" is the only way that Indians can create an image for themselves that they have accomplished anything. In every parameter, Indians either muddle, or fail. Indians just don't do anything right, which is why they are where they are today from a country that was once more powerful than a China recovering from WWII.

Facts on the ground

Galwan


Pangong





Just to clarifyl, it is impossible to capture territory when you retreat from your OWN side of the LAC
Gogra-hot springs

Analysis by Foreign policy(since some people here are posting certain indian media sources)


These images were mostly from the chinese side of the LAC, so if some are arguing India withdrew from its own territory, than by that logic, China is withdrawing more.

twineedle said:

Facts on the ground

Galwan

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1281829922168659969

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280487994097426432

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367491450812977157

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1276061645731594240

Pangong

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just to clarifyl, it is impossible to capture territory when you retreat from your OWN side of the LAC
Gogra-hot springs

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1282727207819808773

Analysis by Foreign policy(since some people here are posting certain indian media sources)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

These images were mostly from the chinese side of the LAC, so if some are arguing India withdrew from its own territory, than by that logic, China is withdrawing more.

Click to expand...

You really should clarify that this is all India's side of the border. The border than India disputes NOT China. How much more misleading can you be? All of this was well within India's side and India claims Aksai Chin. This is as bad as saying look PLA occupied New Delhi for a few months and then went back 3km. This means India wins because PLA has vacated New Delhi. I don't know if you understand how silly this is.

Circled in red is the river and it is so far on India's side why is this being used as measuring stick of "victory"?? lol

Might I remind you that India claims Aksai Chin? The reason for PLA occupation of Indian position was to stop Indian patrols and build up. This has been achieved. PLA goes back to China's side of the border as soon as India agreed to conditions. How has India won anything? It's barely even won back the right to access and patrol its own land. Aksai Chin out of the question for India.




This bridge in second section is 5km away from the LAC. What's all the fuss about? PLA has a road on India's claim. India has no infrastructure on disputed zone. Again China has infrastructure on India's claims between F5 and F8 and it hasn't been removed. India has built nothing on China's claims which is Aksai Chin and Pangong F4 to F8. In all honesty, China's claim on Pangong is probably fine with anything beyond F8 since that's been China's offer to India since the 1950s. If India sits behind F3, China's more than happy. In fact that was the entire point of PLA occupying F4 to F8 - prevent Indian patrols on Indian claims that overlap with China's and to get Indians to stay back. Both achieved.

Other parts are again you celebrating India doing things well within it's own established and China recognised borders. These are about as genuine victories for India as China building a bunker in Tibet. Well done I suppose?

China has taken so much here from India, it isn't even a question about who won (it's too obvious to anyone who isn't Jai Hind), it's a case of has China gone too far to burden, humiliate (to those in the know), and make demands of India, all in a region that is so much more strategically important for India.

Personally (ignoring intellectually draining Jai Hind autism), I think China is being a little too hawkish and cruel here. This is the path to conflict and breaking down of the potential for decent future relations. BUT this is the path chosen by those in charge in China. They are privy to a great amount of better intelligence and foresight and history proves they don't choose confrontation without A LOT of careful consideration. In short, they know better than anyone here and while it seems to me like China's not only taken Aksai Chin in the past, but cemented its hold on Aksai Chin, forced Indian military to stop build ups of forces in disputed zones, and forced Indian army behind F3, a whole 5 fingers away from where India claims.

Some Indians get it and are already calling China as too aggressive in this Ladakh confrontation.




Some further good contextualisation of the bigger picture. On top of all of those already shared and noted in the past just in this thread alone.

I think while some Indians (of the Jai Hind variety) are now totally focused on the tree and missing the forest, even that tree shows China has thoroughly won in this engagement (if we assume this confrontation has now ended with Pangong disengagement).

Depsang, Galwan valleys/ river, Black top Helmet top foot and others were ALL part of India, as recognised by China. It isn't a victory when you build and patrol your own land, land that isn't even disputed. PLA has built a road on disputed land (F5 to F8). PLA vacating the occupied land because India conceded to Chinese offers, IS NOT some Indian victory. China never held those lands and patrolled them even less frequently than India did as proven by India's own four star general's on record public statement. There is no greater evidence that China ever held or patrolled those points more than India's except random bhakts making empty claims like Taiwan shooting down a Su-35. Repeat a lie frequently enough and you only manage to fool dimwits. Now granted, dimwits make up the majority of earth's population (and CERTAINLY majority of India's), that doesn't make a lie any more substantial or any more consequential on the ground in reality.

So while Depsang and Galwan etc were areas of contention during the height of the confrontation, these were always India's land and considered by China to be India's. No idea why India's MoD mention some of these points as still unresolved "problems". Perhaps these are very trivial in nature but these are minor footnotes because these were never part of the dispute except for India who claims Aksai Chin to the east.

Pangong lake is centrepiece of the confrontation and the started with India patrolling (at least 5 times more than PLA) the dispute. Whether that means running up to F8 or simply crossing the LAC (somewhere between F4 and F8) is less noteworthy than understanding that India claims everything to F8. China denied India this by sending PLA to occupy the entirety of F4 to F8 stretch (look at map and legend). India couldn't defeat PLA with available human wave tactics and would not shoot to fight PLA. India lost that engagement. When talking about the geopolitical outcome, India lost that too when it ceded to Chinese offers of basically the 1959 deal except in exchange for PLA vacating almost the entirety of the dispute, India not only has to move behind F3, it also cannot patrol the disputed stretch any more. This is a give and take of 1959 deal where instead of settling the border between F4 and F8 (Chinese offer for 70 years), India doesn't get F4 or F5 or F6 or F7, they have to stay behind F3 and in return, a buffer set up means no more confrontation. Can anyone not see how that serves China's initial purpose of sending PLA in to occupy that stretch?! It was in response to what China considered as growing Indian moves towards capturing.

India does small moves, China does big ones.

BTW those power grid attacks weren't done because they were using Chinese equipment. They weren't at least that isn't actually reported as the case. It was done through a domain of warfare Indian leaders are too busy performing pathetic demagoguery to even become aware of. The same capabilities the US and Israel used against Iranian nuclear facilities.

ougoah said:

You really should clarify that this is all India's side of the border. The border than India disputes NOT China. How much more misleading can you be? All of this was well within India's side and India claims Aksai Chin. This is as bad as saying look PLA occupied New Delhi for a few months and then went back 3km. This means India wins because PLA has vacated New Delhi. I don't know if you understand how silly this is.

Circled in red is the river and it is so far on India's side why is this being used as measuring stick of "victory"?? lol

Might I remind you that India claims Aksai Chin? The reason for PLA occupation of Indian position was to stop Indian patrols and build up. This has been achieved. PLA goes back to China's side of the border as soon as India agreed to conditions. How has India won anything? It's barely even won back the right to access and patrol its own land. Aksai Chin out of the question for India.

View attachment 69530


This bridge in second section is 5km away from the LAC. What's all the fuss about? PLA has a road on India's claim. India has no infrastructure on disputed zone. Again China has infrastructure on India's claims between F5 and F8 and it hasn't been removed. India has built nothing on China's claims which is Aksai Chin and Pangong F4 to F8. In all honesty, China's claim on Pangong is probably fine with anything beyond F8 since that's been China's offer to India since the 1950s. If India sits behind F3, China's more than happy. In fact that was the entire point of PLA occupying F4 to F8 - prevent Indian patrols on Indian claims that overlap with China's and to get Indians to stay back. Both achieved.

Other parts are again you celebrating India doing things well within it's own established and China recognised borders. These are about as genuine victories for India as China building a bunker in Tibet. Well done I suppose?

Click to expand...

I was referring to Chinese claims, not Indian. By now you should no China's claims are well beyond the dotted line in many sectors. Has CHina reached those areas?

Simple question. Has india lost control of areas it previously controlled? By controlled, I mean had permanent bases and/or infrastructure? And by your logic, China is even further away from its claim line F(2) than India is from finger 8. The question is what exactly did China win? India still has camps and infrastructure in areas of galwan, Gogra Depsang that it claims, and the buffer zone in Pangong arguably benefits India since China had a much stronger control over the area since 1962. What exactly did India lose?

ougoah said:

I think while some Indians (of the Jai Hind variety) are now totally focused on the tree and missing the forest, even that tree shows China has thoroughly won in this engagement (if we assume this confrontation has now ended with Pangong disengagement).

Depsang, Galwan valleys/ river, Black top Helmet top foot and others were ALL part of China recognised India. It isn't a victory when you build and patrol your own land, land that isn't even disputed. PLA has built a road on disputed land (F5 to F8). PLA vacating the occupied land because India conceded to Chinese offers, IS NOT some Indian victory. China never held those lands and patrolled them even less frequently than India did as proven by India's own four star general's on record public statement. There is no greater evidence that China ever held or patrolled those points more than India's except random bhakts making empty claims like Taiwan shooting down a Su-35. Repeat a lie frequently enough and you only manage to fool dimwits. Now granted, dimwits make up the majority of earth's population (and CERTAINLY majority of India's), that doesn't make a lie any more substantial or any more consequential on the ground in reality.

So while Depsang and Galwan etc were areas of contention during the height of the confrontation, these were always India's land and considered by China to be India's. No idea why India's MoD mention some of these points as still unresolved "problems". Perhaps these are very trivial in nature but these are minor footnotes because these were never part of the dispute except for India who claims Aksai Chin to the east.

Pangong lake is centrepiece of the confrontation and the started with India patrolling (at least 5 times more than PLA) the dispute. Whether that means running up to F8 or simply crossing the LAC (somewhere between F4 and F8) is less noteworthy than understanding that India claims everything to F8. China denied India this by sending PLA to occupy the entirety of F4 to F8 stretch (look at map and legend). India couldn't defeat PLA with available human wave tactics and would not shoot to fight PLA. India lost that engagement. When talking about the geopolitical outcome, India lost that too when it ceded to Chinese offers of basically the 1959 deal except in exchange for PLA vacating almost the entirety of the dispute, India not only has to move behind F3, it also cannot patrol the disputed stretch any more. This is a give and take of 1959 deal where instead of settling the border between F4 and F8 (Chinese offer for 70 years), India doesn't get F4 or F5 or F6 or F7, they have to stay behind F3 and in return, a buffer set up means no more confrontation. Can anyone not see how that serves China's initial purpose of sending PLA in to occupy that stretch?! It was in response to what China considered as growing Indian moves towards capturing.

India does small moves, China does big ones.

Click to expand...

The previous deal you mention would have allowed China to set up a permanent base on finger 4 or 5 that could potentially threaten Dhan Singh Thapa. So preventing China from building infrastructure was the number one priority. And why are you mentioning Galwan? That was resolved last July. And what makes you think VK singh's statment referred to Pangong? That was specifically ambiguous and could have meant anywhere in the LAC(I would assume parts of Sikkim APwhere India has a border) The fact that you are using intentially disambiguous words from VK SIngh and the Indian mod to try and override actual physical evidence discredits your narrative of Chinese victory.