Ladakh Flash Point

twineedle said:

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?

Click to expand...

twineedle said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

twineedle said:

Why don't you ask China what the fuss is about? China used objection to indian bridge contruction in the Galwan valley(the bridge in question is at the galwan mouth, where the galwan meets the Shyok) to justify its violation of status quo in the first talks. And India has built several bridges deeper in the valley as well.

BTW, when I say India's side, I am talking about the pre May 2020 status quo. So the dotted line in your image. Both sides claim various amounts past it(India more than China in ladakh) but the lac is essentially a status quo, or a compromise between competing claims. And China 's strategic goal was to shift the LAC, which it failed to do.

Click to expand...

ougoah said:

Lol this is low. So basically to "win" you have to claim that China now claims up points xyz and because China isn't currently holding those points, China's lost and by default India's won? Okay celebrate that please and sit down.



Second para... no it hasn't lost land it previously controlled. India only lost access to land it claims and previously patrolled. It also has lost abilities to pivot further into controlling land it claims. Contrast before engagement: India had claims for basically Chinese held parts, Aksai Chin and wanted to capture F4 to F8. Now Aksai Chin is further secured by China with tacit acknowledgment this is definitely where a more serious line is drawn for China AND India cannot access even F4. The LAC of the past somewhere between F4 and F8.

So yeah you're right in India not losing previously CONTROLLED land. That's a given though and hardly attention worthy. I mean China hasn't lost control of previously controlled land either. But China certainly did NOT enjoy an empty F3 to F8 stretch in the past. You can deny that India has ever patrolled beyond F3/4 but whatever man. I guess we can leave each other to our own in this regard.

Click to expand...

ougoah said:

What deal would have allowed China to set up a permanent base on F4? Please show me. I'm only aware of China offering India settlement deals for 70 years that would allow the border to basically run between F4 and F8 seeing as that's basically the main dispute. China barely even officially claimed to F3 and that was just to make their offer more palatable. Neutral sources all suggest dispute is between F4 and F8 with China hoping to compromise and keep things peaceful and STABLE with a firmly drawn border. This way no confrontations or violence but India said no just like India's insistence on bitchy back and forth stupid pointless confrontations like it does with Pakistan.

China could have relented and simply given India up to F8 but it chose not to for reasons that may be beyond our understanding of the long term big geopol picture.

Click to expand...

ougoah said:

On this issue, I'm on your side. I don't see why China should object to Indians building a small bridge 5km within what both nations recognise as India. BUT we don't know the extent of what the CCP does. I mean these guys knew that Google, Facebook etc were NSA spy tools a decade before revealed publicly. They know things.

They objected to it for a variety of reasons both decent and unfair/cruel. But it is what it is.

No the dispute is pretty official. Show me official statements from either side that officially declares their claims as being beyond those outlined in the map + legend.

Click to expand...

twineedle said:

As I said, we will have to agree to disagree about the extent of Indian patrolls beyond finger 4. But has India built infrastructure beyond finger 4? We all know it hasn't. And the destruction of Chinese permanent infrastructure and bases in the region will also mean no threats to Dhan Singh Thapa base. SO that works both way.

The deal you mentioned where finger 4 would be a de facto border. Did that have any limits on types of infrastructure? Patrolling is simply a tactical op that isn't always strategially viable. Infrastructure is the immportant thing here, and India's goal was always to prevent China from building between finger 4 through eight.

But thank you for agreeing that neither side lost territory they previously controlled, and both lost access to areas they claim. That definitely runs counter some claims made here. I also think that makes it hard to claim a big Chinese victory, but we will ahve to agree to disagree on that.

Click to expand...

twineedle said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Estuary can have different meanings, but here it likely means mouth - the same place where that bridge was built and recently updated.

Click to expand...

ougoah said:

What has the PLA destroyed and removed that wasn't within India's land or beyond where China controlled and claimed before the engagement? Just like you haven't and can't prove that both nations claim more (officially please not random Jai Hind bullshit) than the map shows. You also cannot prove that China destroyed and removed stuff that isn't in land that is either on India's side or disputed. I should remind you that China's road between F5 and F8 (on India's claim) is not removed.

I don't think China will include F4 to F8 as part of its sovereignty. Why? Because it's been happy to give India some part of F4 to F8.

No one actually claimed that India lost access to areas they previously controlled? I'm not aware of that and haven't seen it. That still doesn't mean India won anything though. That's like saying India won because it got its name right on the exam but scored 0%.

You have failed to notice the beef or the forest from the tree. In fact you've even failed to notice the tree but please please read through what I've been trying to patiently say. (actually a good exercise for my patience... I need more of this sort of practice). Same issue I have when teaching students. Drumming the same simple concepts over and over.

Let me make the situation a bit clearer and we can perhaps have a new clean slate approach without flimsy strawman references to "other posters" claims to build even flimsier positions out of.

Click to expand...

ougoah said:

This is China officially talking about the section between the dotted line and the blue line as shaded and outlined in red here.

It is claimed by China but China only controlled (before clash) up to the blue line.

View attachment 69533

Click to expand...