India-China Border conflict

[Rex72920]

Which is propaganda post ?

Haven't read previous posts , do point it out

You blackpilling is the propaganda.

 

[Rex72920]

Your Chinese masters don't have any access to PP14, PP15, PP17A, F-4 & Y-Junction. They had to tuck their tail btw their legs & retreat.

This maybe the cause of your rudaali.

 

[mokoman]

Your Chinese masters don't have any access to PP14, PP15, PP17A, F-4 & Y-Junction. They had to tuck their tail btw their legs & retreat.

This maybe the cause of your rudaali.

ur a clueless person , yjunc is occupied by chinese .

if u want to be properly blackpilled , just check this post

India-China Border conflict

talking about improved villages already existing . yes they are building 'villas' for them . ur pics are new ones from doklam , no one lives here because there werent any villages here in first place . There are lots of such ghost villages made throughout the LAC with no to some insignificant...

defenceforumindia.com

gov is sleeping as usual , and thanks to the shitty drawn border any land ceded can be covered up.

 

[Rex72920]

The partial mobilization of Chinese troops to PP15 & PP17A doesn't give the Chinese access to India's depth regions. (I believe you already know that). They still have to bypass the Gogra permanent base to access DBO road.

The main threat to DBO road emanated from PP14 which has already been dealt with.

And in the Kugrang valley, India has forward posts with helipads (close to PP17A) to thwart any Chinese misadventure of trying to cut off our access to PP16 & PP15.

Pp14 and most likely pp15 buffer is mostly on indian side.

It's also a fact we lost grazing land to chinese in demchok .

That's a perception based on location of forward camps closest to the patrol posts. The fact is they don't have access to PP14 & PP15 anymore.

We can easily insert our troops as fast as them in these regions throught helipads & roads with out risking our soldiers lives.

And in case of losing grazing land. You care to understand about buffer zone which are temporary measure to prevent escalation. Or your fucking dumb.

Hope you have read this @mokoman

Making a Khichri of entire ladakh region wouldn't prove your point.

 

[flanker99]

Your Chinese masters don't have any access to PP14, PP15, PP17A, F-4 & Y-Junction. They had to tuck their tail btw their legs & retreat.

This maybe the cause of your rudaali.

Nibba instead of calling names prove ur point with detailed images ,sources,articles etc mokoman has done it many times in the past
What ever ur commenting r8 now is nothing more than trust me vro level

 

[Rex72920]

Nibba instead of calling names prove ur point with detailed images ,sources,articles etc mokoman has done it many times in the past
What ever ur commenting r8 now is nothing more than trust me vro level

If you are not a fucking moron you would know how to use a Satellite website. Google it & do your own research.

Enough spoon feeding your winny little asses.

 

[mist_consecutive]

@mokoman @Rex72920

 

[mokoman]

@mokoman @Rex72920

well atleast he is not claiming modiji will take aksai chin and POK next year .

so there is improvement

 

[mist_consecutive]

well atleast he is not claiming modiji will take aksai chin and POK next year .

so there is improvement

It's always interesting to see enthusiastic individuals with a passion for exploring more about defense. That's how I started my journey. He has a bright future in DFI.

 

[Jimih]

He has a bright future in DFI.

Members like him are required in DFI, particularly in this thread.

 

[Automatic Kalashnikov]

well atleast he is not claiming modiji will take aksai chin and POK next year .

so there is improvement

Don't give ideas. Pata chala next date 30/06/2023 set hogi

 

[Rex72920]

I am sorry for the inconvenience. A balaced perspective is all I ask for.

 

[hit&run]

I am sorry for the inconvenience. A balaced perspective is all I ask for.

No need to be sorry. Keep your arguments sharp and be polite.

The devil is in details. Always respect people who invest their time in details. At the same time one must also keep looking at the larger picture.

In medicine we are told while drilling into bones, drill, stop, check, drill.

Keep participating and see what attracts you more, details and tactics or larger strategic landscape.

 

[flanker99]

If you are not a fucking moron you would know how to use a Satellite website. Google it & do your own research.

Enough spoon feeding your winny little asses.

Language thik karle nibba warna 2 din tihar jail jake dance karega

 

[AlphaLegis]

Could you please point out factual inaccuracies in his piece before you fall on name-calling. I am no expert, based on memory I am framing some questions which may lead to a decent rebuttal of his pieces(not sure if it has already been countered and lost in sea of posts)

1. Do we agree that China has reached 1959 claim line in 62 war and fell back "n" number of Km's post it.
2. Do we have a ready reference of 1959 claim line in relation to Chinese position post 2020 transgressions?
3. Is there substance to the assertion that Chinese are trying to secure 1959 claim line and in that endeavour they reached and at few places have crossed(Gogra + Host Springs) that line.
4. The thrust of his agenda in my opinion is aimed at prodding government to provide answers to questions which may seem uncomfortable, is that good/bad is based on how one sees this situation.
5. Indian army standing tall had an impact on disengagement at Pangong Tso, primarily for the reason that buffer zone is sandwiched between China's claim line and India's perception of LAC(open to correction). Did China cross it's 1959 claim line at Gogra Hot Springs and what is their disengagement position in relation to that.

Please bear with me if it's already answered, just point me to the relevant post.

Here are my findings after reading views of so many authors:
1. In Ladakh region, there are places where there is no difference in perception of LAC(let's call it LAC for sake of brevity) and there is difference of perception of LAC at other places (call it LAC-I and LAC-C for India and China).
2.There is a Chinese claim line of 1960 which defines their position and is in public domain.

The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture

thewire.in

In the 1962 war, the PLA advanced all along eastern Ladakh and took control of the areas China had been claiming since 1960, barring a small area near Demchok........
.....After the war, the Chinese claimed that they withdrew 20 kms behind even their claimed line, a posture they said they maintained till 1987. The Indian side had no choice but to live with the situation and accepted this Chinese claim line as the LAC.

In the west, according to the Chinese officials, from Karakoram Pass, the boundary runs eastward to a point east of 78°05’E , the line turned southwest to a point 78°1’E and 35° 21’N where it crossed the Chip Chap river. After this, it turned southeast along the mountain ridge and passed through two peaks 6845 metres (78°12 ‘ E and 34° 57’N) and Peak 6598 metres (78° 13’E 34° 54’N. Thereafter it crossed the Galwan River at 78°13’E 34° 46N. Thereafter it passes through peak 6,556 (approximately 78° 26′ E, 34° 32′ N), and runs along the watershed between the Kugrang Tsangpo River and its tributary the Changlung River to approximately 78° 53′ E, 34° 22′ N. where it crosses the Changlung River and reaches the Kongka Pass. It reached the Pangong Lake at 78° 49’E, 33° 44’N and crossed the southern bank of the Lake at 78° 43’E, 33° 40’N.

LAC as per Gen Panag's article, here he bases it upon 1959 claim line, I believe 1959 and 1960 claim line referred above are one and the same(open to correction).

No war no peace in PP15 but China wants more in Depsang Plains, Charding-Ninglung Nala

Sumdorong Chu confrontation that happened under Rajiv Gandhi took 9 yrs for status quo restoration; movement on PP15 13 months.

theprint.in

The 1959 Claim Line is central to China’s strategy in Eastern Ladakh. It had secured the same in 1962 before unilaterally withdrawing 20 km behind. Over the years, India gradually began patrolling up to the 1959 Claim Line and in some areas east of this line. As per India, the LAC runs along the areas that were physically held or patrolled at the time of signing the 1993 Border Agreement. As per China, it runs along the 1959 Claim Line. It is the development of border infrastructure in the areas east of the 1959 Claim Line that triggered PLA’s pre-emptive manoeuvres from April to May 2020. The Indus Valley is a special case. While the 1959 Claim Line runs 30 km to the west of Demchok, LAC has been accepted by China due to the number of well-settled villages in this area. Its intrusion is restricted to a small zone—Charding-Ninglung Nala to the south of Demchok to deny the opportunity for offensive operations to India.

So, we have Chinese claim line which is there in public domain, but curiously enough India's position of LAC is not there in public domain as yet. So there are commentators who assume LAC shown in google as Indian perception of LAC-G.

3. Could it then be said that 1960 line is maximalist Chinese position in relation to LAC and intrusion/transgression should be looked at taking this as reference? I am assuming this as LAC-C for discussion.

4. Then we could see disengagement from two perspectives, in relation to LAC-C or in relation to LAC-I or in relation to LAC-G. Now based on same set of facts, different authors have chosen different comparative points to arrive at different sets of pros and cons, what one chooses to look at is not my prerogative but IMHO all disengagement play-outs should be looked at LAC-C line for the reason that it's publicly available, but would limit the validity of conclusions only to Chinese perspective.

 

[mokoman]

I am sorry for the inconvenience. A balaced perspective is all I ask for.

Balanced perspective is they backstabbed and fucked us in galwan. We humilated them in pangong tso.

Rest all disengagement are minor points .

If u read my last post on pp15 , we had forward tent posts , those were removed , u can see it marked on @mist_consecutive map image , issue is wheather we made another post ahead or not.

If we did , then it's a victory of sorts , chinese folded , all the buiscit feeding sessions yielded results .

If we didn't , we are massive chutiyas .

 

[Rex72920]

Balanced perspective is they backstabbed and fucked us in galwan. We humilated them in pangong tso.

Rest all disengagement are minor points .

If u read my last post on pp15 , we had forward tent posts , those were removed , u can see it marked on @mist_consecutive map image , issue is wheather we made another post ahead or not.

If we did , then it's a victory of sorts , chinese folded , all the buiscit feeding sessions yielded results .

If we didn't , we are massive chutiyas .

The forward camp at PP16 if displaced a few km backward, to honour disengagement. Doesn't differ the strategic control that India has over the valley.

The PP16 & PP17A forward camps are all equipped with helipads & are in the direct firing range of one another being located along the same valley.

The Chinese will get absolutely fried up if they try to occupy these areas, If India decides to deploy missile/artillery regiment in case of further escalation.

While setting up a forward camp we need to take into account the tactical advantage/disadvantage our force would have in that area. Where as the strategic control over the valley is determined by the presence of permanent base/border village.

 

[Rex72920]

You cannot just send a small platoon in a forward location where you cannot defend them in case of a Chinese offensive. Because of various reasons like topography or logistics.

But you can absolutely fry them up when they try incursion through the same route. Because it makes them equally vulnerable.

Area denial in many cases is as effective as physical occupation of an area without risking the lives of our soldiers.

The Chinese have retreated & there is a buffer zone. I highly doubt they will try to re escalate the situation considering Indian Army is so alert & prepared now in Eastern Ladakh region. Fast deployment of troops wouldn't be an issue this time round.

 

[mist_consecutive]

@Rex72920 I was thinking of not interrupting, but I decided you must be aware of the ground truth. Unfortunately here, @mokoman is largely correct.

See this post of mine - https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/india-china-2021-border-conflict.83053/post-2339061

Without going too deep, which has been discussed to death on this exact thread (recommend you to go back and read the last 50 pages at least, if not more), we have weak control over the whole Gogra-Hotspring peninsula. Helipads, army bases, etc currently present. are inadequate. China has bigger bases, more troops, and a better logistics line set up in front of our very posts.

However, this is the very nature of warfare. In some places, we are strong, in some places, China is stronger. We try to gain where we have an advantage and consolidate where we are weak.

 

[Rex72920]

@Rex72920 I was thinking of not interrupting, but I decided you must be aware of the ground truth. Unfortunately here, @mokoman is largely correct.

See this post of mine - https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/india-china-2021-border-conflict.83053/post-2339061

Without going too deep, which has been discussed to death on this exact thread (recommend you to go back and read the last 50 pages at least, if not more), we have weak control over the whole Gogra-Hotspring peninsula. Helipads, army bases, etc currently present. are inadequate. China has bigger bases, more troops, and a better logistics line set up in front of our very posts.

However, this is the very nature of warfare. In some places, we are strong, in some places, China is stronger. We try to gain where we have an advantage and consolidate where we are weak.

I have read your post. I have been following this thread for quite a while.I know our troops deployment along Gogra & Hotspring area is inadequate. And that the government should have done more to better secure that area.

But it was the Governments infra push along the eastern Ladakh border that was party responsible for the Chinese mobilisization of troops to occupy these Patrol Points.

It's aptly clear when one sees Chinese troops deployment along PP15 & PP17A that don't provide direct access to Indias depth regions or DBO road. They had better access route through PP19-PP21 region. Where Chinese troops deployment was relatively lower (atleast it seems so from satellite maps)

The message is very clear. They wanted to prevent our infra development along Kugrang valley & maintain status quo/power differential. And are successful in doing so, through establishment of buffer zone.

How we navigate this is totally up to GoI.But one thing I am aptly sure is that the Chinese wouldn't be able to overrun these areas easily in case of war. Our Missile & Artillery regiments can smoke them up pretty easily along the valley.