Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates

India, China: Some progress in military talks on border spat
AIJAZ HUSSAIN
Associated PressSeptember 22, 2020, 9:59 PM
FILE- This Sept. 14, 2018 file photo shows Pangong Lake in Ladakh region, India. Senior Indian and Chinese military commanders are holding talks Monday to find ways to resolve a monthslong tense standoff between the rival soldiers along their disputed mountain border in mountainous Ladakh region. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup, File)

FILE- This Sept. 14, 2018 file photo shows Pangong Lake in Ladakh region, India. Senior Indian and Chinese military commanders are holding talks Monday to find ways to resolve a monthslong tense standoff between the rival soldiers along their disputed mountain border in mountainous Ladakh region. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup, File)More
SRINAGAR, India (AP) — Senior military commanders from India and China have agreed to not add more troops along their fast-militarizing disputed border in the mountainous Ladakh region where the two Asian giants are locked in a bitter months-long standoff, the sides said late Tuesday.
The joint statement released after talks said the two sides also agreed to “strengthen communication on the ground” and “avoid misunderstandings and misjudgments” along the lengthy contested border known as the Line of Actual Control. However, it did not mention any breakthrough during the talks about their forces disengaging from the standoff as they had earlier committed.
The standoff in the cold desert of Ladakh began in May and escalated in June to the deadliest violence between the two sides in decades — a clash on a high ridge in which soldiers used clubs, stones and their fists. Twenty Indian soldiers were killed and dozens of others were injured. China is believed to have also suffered casualties but did not provide any details.
The rival countries have amassed tens of thousands of soldiers, backed by artilleries, tanks and fighter jets in the Ladakh area following the deadly standoff.

After that clash, the two countries partially disengaged from the site in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley and at least two other places, but the crisis has continued in at least three other areas, including the glacial Pangong Lake.
In recent weeks, the world’s two most populous nations have accused each other of sending soldiers into each other’s territory in the Pangong area and firing warning shots for the first time in 45 years, raising the specter of a full-scale military conflict.
Despite several rounds of talks by military, diplomatic and political officials, including negotiations between the two countries’ foreign and defense ministers in Moscow this month, the border tensions have persisted.
The commanders held discussions on Monday for about 14 hours.
The statement issued by the defense ministries of the two sides Tuesday said they have agreed to “stop sending more troops to the frontline.” It said the two countries will hold a seventh round of military commander-level talks “as soon as possible” and “jointly safeguard peace and tranquility in the border area.”
The statement said the commanders agreed to “earnestly implement the important consensus reached by the leaders of the two countries.”
Monday’s military-level talks came less than two weeks after the two nations’ foreign ministers met on Sept. 10 and agreed that their troops should disengage from the tense border standoff, maintain proper distance and ease tensions.
The foreign ministers did not set a timeline for disengagement, nor did Tuesday’s statement mention one.
Military experts have repeatedly warned that any mistake or miscalculation from either side could have disastrous consequences.
Neither India and China have provided much information, but media in the two countries, India especially, have extensively covered the escalating tension, which has dramatically changed their bilateral relations. Long wary of economic domination by China, India has in recent weeks banned Chinese cell phone apps including TikTok and taken other steps to rein in Chinese influence.
Relations between the two countries have often been strained, partly due to their undemarcated border. They fought a border war in 1962 that spilled into Ladakh and ended in an uneasy truce. Since then, troops have guarded the undefined border while occasionally brawling. The two countries have agreed not to attack each other with firearms.
The fiercely contested control line separates Chinese- and Indian-held territories from Ladakh in the west to India’s eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims in its entirety. It is broken in parts where the Himalayan nations of Nepal and Bhutan border China.
According to India, the de facto border is 3,488 kilometers (2,167 miles) long, while China says it is considerably shorter. As its name suggests, it divides the areas of physical control rather than territorial claims.

BS! That's what this is!
China is again playing the "Good Samaritan", like they did before Galwan. It will be foolish to play the game by their rules, again!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jetray
AFAIK, we are going to go forward a bit more and much more very soon in Galwan/Gogra/Hot springs area. We have to cut them out in south. In Depsang we are very nicely placed now and PLA does not even know where all we are. Their deployment in Chumar is defensive in nature as they have no air defence there. They are now coming to realise the stupidity they did.
Finally, PLAAF does not have S-400. only some elements minus missiles. The information as posted in the tweet is wrong.
 
AFAIK, we are going to go forward a bit more and much more very soon in Galwan/Gogra/Hot springs area. We have to cut them out in south. In Depsang we are very nicely placed now and PLA does not even know where all we are. Their deployment in Chumar is defensive in nature as they have no air defence there. They are now coming to realise the stupidity they did.
Finally, PLAAF does not have S-400. only some elements minus missiles. The information as posted in the tweet is wrong.
Sir, I have a question. What are we publishing joint statements and all with the Chinese and all? The MEA engagements seem a little too...weird, doesn't it? And the recent joint statements, how do you read the clause about not sending more men? We aren't adhering right? Why did the Chinese put such a thing?
 

So 1 regiment likely protects the air base at Ngari and the other protects Hotan and Keriya.

The good news is the Russians are currently not supporting the Chinese S-400s and have not delivered the 40N6 missile. So they only have the 250Km 48N6 and the smaller missiles.

400.png


So now there's a pretty significant limit to what we can do inside those circles. Our AWACS can operate as usual, since the SAM rings are too small to affect them. But our other ISR aircraft, particularly those involved in collecting intel on troop movement from the air, will be significantly curtailed, in the depth areas. The one in Ngari can attack deep inside the Chumar sector, the missile should be quite effective within a 175 Km radius.

There's gonna be a ton of other SAMs also operating closer to FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) as well.

Otoh, we cannot do anything to PLA ISR assets since we lack long range systems. So they can easily operate up to 100Km to FEBA and collect all the intelligence they need, while operating outside our SAM rings.

Bring those 50 J-20s into the picture, even 12-16 at each base are enough, this will put the IAF on the defensive all the way from Depsang to the Lipulekh Pass near Nepal.

But we should be able to support our troops at the very least.
 
China might not be looking for the Winters to widen the logistics gap.

Instead it is looking to buy time to improve its ability to sustain conflict for extended periods. Airfield upgrades, supply depots, upgrades to garrisons that sort of stuff.
 
China might not be looking for the Winters to widen the logistics gap.

Instead it is looking to buy time to improve its ability to sustain conflict for extended periods. Airfield upgrades, supply depots, upgrades to garrisons that sort of stuff.
I doubt they'd need to buy time to sort that out. They're already ahead of the game much before they initiated what they did this summer.Similarly the joint statement released a few days ago about cessation of introduction of new troops into the LAC is purely an eyewash if there isn't any framework to verify it which there isn't.

I think our leadership especially in the GoI but also the top brass of our security management including the IA ought to be very clear in their thought process that if they're going to win this in a battlefield , be it in a localised skirmish lasting a few days or weeks or a war across the breadth of the LAC lasting a month or more , it would be through & only through a battle of attrition which would mean greater number of casualties on our side & prepare our men & the nation for the same.

One can draw as many scenarios as one can based on ORBATs of both the sides & supplementary information one comes across thru disclosures in the public domain from time to time but unless we've worked out our objectives & the price we're willing to pay to meet them, we can keep discussing scenarios till the cows come home.
 

So 1 regiment likely protects the air base at Ngari and the other protects Hotan and Keriya.

The good news is the Russians are currently not supporting the Chinese S-400s and have not delivered the 40N6 missile. So they only have the 250Km 48N6 and the smaller missiles.

View attachment 17886

So now there's a pretty significant limit to what we can do inside those circles. Our AWACS can operate as usual, since the SAM rings are too small to affect them. But our other ISR aircraft, particularly those involved in collecting intel on troop movement from the air, will be significantly curtailed, in the depth areas. The one in Ngari can attack deep inside the Chumar sector, the missile should be quite effective within a 175 Km radius.

There's gonna be a ton of other SAMs also operating closer to FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) as well.

Otoh, we cannot do anything to PLA ISR assets since we lack long range systems. So they can easily operate up to 100Km to FEBA and collect all the intelligence they need, while operating outside our SAM rings.

Bring those 50 J-20s into the picture, even 12-16 at each base are enough, this will put the IAF on the defensive all the way from Depsang to the Lipulekh Pass near Nepal.

But we should be able to support our troops at the very least.
We can take out a significant portion of the regiment of S-400 in a saturation strike...
 
  • Like
Reactions: HariPrasad
We can take out a significant portion of the regiment of S-400 in a saturation strike...

Many people here argue that main advantage of China is its technological superiority. But one must also include the 'made in China' quality control of their systems in order to make a realistic acessment. Personally I doubt their s400 system is anywhere close to Russian system.