Indo-China Border & LAC

[mist_consecutive]

Neither did I.

My point was very simple. India had established 65 patrolling points to ensure presence along OUR understanding of LAC (in red, which is quite a bit beyond the LAC you're used to seeing on international maps) access to 26 of which was blocked in 2020... A very simple question. How many of them we've regains access to? No more than 6 by my present understanding. You're welcome to prove me wrong. But until then it means that we've made no solid gains & the "buffer" areas mostly lie on our understanding of LAC even if it's only the Chinese are the ones pulling back, because they were originally on the west side of the red line enforcing the black-dotted LAC line! Which it isn't, because both are moving back. That's worse.

What have we conceded?.. we've let them in areas previously in our sole control to try to do another Galwan after 10 years.

I predicted exactly this even before these recent news were out. SO HOW WAS I WRONG?
View attachment 13757

We should be refusing to disengage until they moved back to 1959 pre-war seperation line (in blue) rejecting to recognise any line established by violence against us.

Depsand had only PP-10 to PP-13... That's 4 out of 26, ifffff we're getting access to them.
View attachment 13762
Hot-Spring areas have PP-15 to PP-23. There the engagements were at out PPs. Meaning any disengagement will cause us to lose access to our patrolling points along our LAC.
View attachment 13761

How many of them we've regains access to? No more than 6 by my present understanding. You're welcome to prove me wrong

According to the current news and agreement, we have gotten access to all patrol points. Patrolling on all buffer zones has resumed and areas where we were blocked (Depsang & Demchok), we have resumed patrolling as well.

Sweets were exchanged (I hate it) on Karakoram Pass, DBO, Konkang La (PP15), Gogra (PP17), and Chusul, signifying that physical presence & patrolling has started.

This is my current information, you can point out any patrol point where we have no gained access I can shed more light on that.

But until then it means that we've made no solid gains & the "buffer" areas mostly lie on our understanding of LAC even if it's only the Chinese are the ones pulling back, because they were originally on the west side of the red line enforcing the black-dotted LAC line! Which it isn't, because both are moving back. That's worse.

And now that buffer areas are gone, we are back to patrolling our lands, this is invalidated.

What have we conceded?.. we've let them in areas previously in our sole control to try to do another Galwan after 10 years.

I predicted exactly this even before these recent news were out. SO HOW WAS I WRONG?

We have conceded practically nothing apart from some of our hazy understanding of where our control lies. You are still wrong because now we are back to our pre-April 2020 positions.

We should be refusing to disengage until they moved back to 1959 pre-war seperation line (in blue) rejecting to recognise any line established by violence against us.

Respectfully, this is laughable claim. Why would they move back?

They have developed several billion $ of infrastructure worth inside that blue line which they captured from us in 1962 war. Not even giving up entire Arunachal Pradesh will make them fall back to the blue line. We need to be realisitic.

Hot-Spring areas have PP-15 to PP-23. There the engagements were at out PPs. Meaning any disengagement will cause us to lose access to our patrolling points along our LAC.

As pointed out by @Ultraman already, this map by Ajay Shukla is incorrect. Even though, we do have control over the areas starting from PP17 (Gogra) to below. No clashes/ingressions happened in those area.

 

[VictorDelta4]

View: https://x.com/firefurycorps/status/1853473555545022603

 

[mcpo117]

View attachment 14163

View: https://x.com/firefurycorps/status/1853473555545022603

this is all well and good but Golgappa khilane ke liye always ready rehna abse.

 

[rockdog]

According to the current news and agreement, we have gotten access to all patrol points. Patrolling on all buffer zones has resumed and areas where we were blocked (Depsang & Demchok), we have resumed patrolling as well.

Sweets were exchanged (I hate it) on Karakoram Pass, DBO, Konkang La (PP15), Gogra (PP17), and Chusul, signifying that physical presence & patrolling has started.

This is my current information, you can point out any patrol point where we have no gained access I can shed more light on that.



And now that buffer areas are gone, we are back to patrolling our lands, this is invalidated.



We have conceded practically nothing apart from some of our hazy understanding of where our control lies. You are still wrong because now we are back to our pre-April 2020 positions.



Respectfully, this is laughable claim. Why would they move back?

They have developed several billion $ of infrastructure worth inside that blue line which they captured from us in 1962 war. Not even giving up entire Arunachal Pradesh will make them fall back to the blue line. We need to be realisitic.



As pointed out by @Ultraman already, this map by Ajay Shukla is incorrect. Even though, we do have control over the areas starting from PP17 (Gogra) to below. No clashes/ingressions happened in those area.

1002 on Weibo post a conclusion article about 2020-2024 border conflict from China's POV, including maps, you would try translation tool.

【溯源：中印为何会在西段大规模对峙】

实控线也许会成为将来的国界线，而中印不同的实控线“主张”各自都必须去坚持，这种主张实控线的差异和对实控线主权的坚持，是两国纷争的根源，也是不可退让的底线。

mp.weixin.qq.com

(might be not accessible, things the article is on wechat, and GOI banned it?)

 

[mist_consecutive]

1002 on Weibo post a conclusion article about 2020-2024 border conflict from China's POV, including maps, you would try translation tool.

【溯源：中印为何会在西段大规模对峙】

实控线也许会成为将来的国界线，而中印不同的实控线“主张”各自都必须去坚持，这种主张实控线的差异和对实控线主权的坚持，是两国纷争的根源，也是不可退让的底线。

mp.weixin.qq.com

(might be not accessible, things the article is on wechat, and GOI banned it?)

Can you post screenshots ? I cannot open it.

 

[rockdog]

Can you post screenshots ? I cannot open it.

I posted full article here. 1002 checked lots of history maps, and tried to figured out borders, LAC changes within last 60 yrs. Last picture was about the time table negociation rounds between PLA and IA.



Title: Why did China and India engage in a large-scale standoff in the western region

【溯源：中印为何会在西段大规模对峙】

实控线也许会成为将来的国界线，而中印不同的实控线“主张”各自都必须去坚持，这种主张实控线的差异和对实控线主权的坚持，是两国纷争的根源，也是不可退让的底线。

mp.weixin.qq.com

中印边界西段是两国的历史遗留问题，但是在2020年爆发导致死亡的冲突以及全线的对峙却是破天荒的，造成的后果也非常严重。两国边境大规模对峙了四年、解决遥遥无期、关系非正常化和印国内普遍“反华”。

插一句，所谓莫迪讲话“软化”了态度，是路透社为推动美印加强合流的反向解读。只要莫迪想印度成“大国”，就必须仰赖承接美西方的投资和制造业从中国转移，就必须依靠美国国防军事的全面支持（武器、技术、QingBao、基地……），也就必须站队“抗”华。保持可控的中印边境“热和平”是一个可取的长久策略。



实控线的意义

在2020年之前，西段并不是悄无声息的，反而摩擦、冲突不断。根本原因不是前不前进政策，而是两国对实控线的不同理解。

不管两国对领土主权的纷争举出多少理由和证据，到最后，最有决定性的始终是“实际控制情况”。因此，“实控线”的意义非常巨大。我边防战士在采访中就多次表示过，我的脚步在哪里，国界就在哪里；所以巡逻必须到点到位。

印度同样如此。它认为的实控线，自然是它必须要去巡逻的，保持存在的。而这条线又越过了我方主张线，于是，便永无宁日。

只要边界不划定、不勘定，“前进”“抵边”就是两国边防军人的使命。如果不能控制“主张的实控线”，那么将来的边界谈判就将吃亏。




“主张”的实控线

提到“实际控制线”，大家脑子里可能就立马冒出这是一条“实际的”“真实的”控制线，你越过了就是侵略，我后撤了就是“又让了”“割让领土”。这也是2022年国内一些人炒作“我国割让班公湖”的依据。

而事实是，“实际控制线”是“主张的”，不是“真实的”。导致的原因，一是两国在那些年的纷争，弄出了很多条“实控线”；二是地理条件的限制，两军都无法把整条主张线完全驻守控制，更不可能竖立铁丝网等（会被毁，并与两国共识相悖），于是出现了大片两军都会前往巡逻的交叉活动区。所以，根本不存在“一条”像印巴停火线那样明确的实控线，更没有“已定国界”。



两国的“主张实控线”

对于印度来说，主张的是整个阿克赛钦、西班公湖等的主权，但是我军在上世纪五十年代前期已经进入了这片区域设点、修219国道。

于是，印度认为，在1959年11月前，两国的实控线是我国抢修的新藏线与两国第一场冲突——空喀山口的连线；也有一种说法是继承了“马继业-窦纳乐线”“英国外交部线”加约翰逊线的内外流分水岭线。而战后印度主张的，是无中生有的“1962年9月8日线”。这是印度在1959年我国正式取消噶厦政府统治权，转而组建自治区政府，导致印度的“西藏缓冲国”梦碎之后，大肆推行“吃多一点是一点”的蚕食政策越境造成的。






而我国一直，是提出后一直，坚持的是总理提出的“1959年11月7日的实控线”，几十年来，几乎从未越过（除了……）。这条线印度从未承认，它是我国单方面主张的线，我国在2020年之前也从未能彻底阻隔印军越线巡逻，只有无尽的印军越线-对峙-冲突-击退印军。

另外，1959年实控线与国界线在西段的区别只有巴里加斯印占区。

当年人民日报语，印度越过我国主张线蚕食了“4000平方公里”，可以认为，这就是中印两条线之间巨大的差异，是印度最大的胃口。当然，后来印军并未能真的再巡逻这全部“4000平方公里”。就像印军一再澄清的，它在天南河谷有一条巡逻区域线（包围972平方公里），但并不表示放弃了更大的主张实控区域线。所以真正的交叉活动区是更小的（细节见以前文章，有空再重整）。'



难以厘清的实控线

两国在维护实控线的共识上达成四个边境协定，构成了“边境和平与安宁”的基石，这就需要两国厘清什么是“实控线”。

但是这项至为重要的工作，由于印度坚持“1962年9月8日线”，导致双方出现巨大分歧，而实控线可能成为将来国界线的重要意义，以及厘清难度，都导致此项工作无以为继，影响了当时边境整体和解大局。于是我方在2005年喊停。

反而是印度一再呼吁重启；当然，就像莫迪呼吁“加快两国边境谈判，尽早解决纷争”一样，是有前提的，也就是印度的条件必须尊重，只能是中国让步。

这就是死局，那谁是根源呢？



由平静到摩擦

1962年，我们的战果是“把印军逐出1959年实控线（红色线）”。并一直对该线保持巡逻。



此后近六十年，两国边境除了1987年几乎爆发第二次战争之外，一直处于“热和平”状态。1967年亚东炮战、1975年土伦拉印军越界被击毙之后，再未发生死人的事件。

但是随着时代的发展，变数出现了。那就是基建。我们知道，所有的决心都是建立在所拥有的条件上的，而这些条件中重要的一条是基建的发展。

当基建能让军队更为便捷进入交叉活动区，原本维护主张线、宣示主权的源动机将更加坚定和坚决。于是两军频繁“相撞”。



加勒万冲突就是非常典型的案例，印度的分析家有深入剖析，当印军修通DS-DBO战略公路，支线道路能轻松进入加勒万大河口内侧的时候，印军也就更堂而皇之进入了交叉区并试图永久化。于是，不得不反击了。



可以认为，2020年之后，两军在西线再无交叉活动区，而只有重叠主张区。印军再也无法越过天南河谷大平口、加勒万小河口、加南达坂南、温泉昌隆河口、班公湖北F4、头盔顶、热钦山口等，所谓的“26个巡逻点无法再巡逻”。印军在西段一共设置了65个巡逻点。





当然，我军也无法再去天南河谷河口、黑山头这些位于1959实控线我方一侧的领土了。