India sticking to her guns. Interesting bit about the commitment not to bring more troops to the front. Is it possible that the Chinese got spooked by how quickly the IA brought in multiple divisions of infantry, and are looking for a face-saving exit?
Of course, "stop sending more troops" is just the kind of commitment that is easy to make but very difficult for the other side to verify. Note that at this point, no one really knows how many soldiers India has deployed in the theatre.😈
So what did China gain from this "adventure". Let's try to make a list shall we?
- It gained ground on the northern bank of Pangong. Which is terrible terrain to mount any sort of offensive that penetrates into Indian territory in depth.
- It lost the tactical advantage on the Southern bank, which *is* useful terrain for mechanised formations to operate in.
- At Galwan, if accounts from the ground are to be believed, the PLA got badly mauled, and had to pull back many kilometres into its own territory.
- Hot springs: stalemate.
- Depsang: Some tactical gains that were blunted by the Indian deployment of mechanised forces.
- At a strategic level, it brought upon itself what @somnath1978 rightly calls the "LoC-ization" of the LAC. For a military that is looking to make deep cuts in manpower and allocate an increasing share of its resources to oceanic warfare, this is a terrible outcome.
India has no territorial ambitions in Ladakh. It can afford to wait out the PLA. The PLA, meanwhile, has to focus on breaking past the first island chain in the Pacific. Which requires dozens of bases in the SCS, hundreds (thousands?) of aircraft, and scores of warships.
Japan, SoKo, Taiwan, Australia, and the US are already building up their own forces in response to the Chinese buildup. The former two are now building aircraft carriers capable of supporting F-35s, the US is reinforcing its own island bases while pouring $20 billion into PACOM.
At such a juncture, what does the Chinese leadership decide to do? Get itself into a quagmire 5,000 km away from its demographic centre of gravity, via tenuous supply lines.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Patio furniture procured from Home Depot demonstrates how dependent the two countries are on the US for critical needs despite their professed independence.
Putin has his hands clasped tightly, while Modi's has cupped his palms together, demonstrating Russia's unwillingness/inability to provide what India wants despite Indian requests.
In short, the Russians treat indirect fires as the primary element, with maneuver forces only helping artillery get into position and seizing an objective after it has been devastated.
So the artillery footprint is very large, and the firepower is incredible, although imprecise.
Practically every great power has developed their own unique doctrines for war, and their equipment designs have flowed from that. Strange that a son-of-the-soil type gets it, but our intelligent, highly educated scholars don’t.
Assault Breaker is a prime example, but history is littered with several examples.
Maybe that right there is the bane of India. It has been run by too many Srinath Raghavans for too long 😶
The authors state that in confronting China, "The last option would, obviously, be to maintain the status quo — with 50,000-60,000 troops deployed at high altitudes..."
I want to argue that forcing a standoff along the land border should be India's *first* option, as this is where India's strengths lie.
1. Airlines have very stringent safety rules. Attendants can move people elsewhere from the exit row if they deem them unfit to carry out emergency duties in case of a crash. Individual passengers' convenience does not trump that.
2. Walking off the plane "all sprightly" is no sign of fitness to open the exit door in case of a crash landing.
3. Making up false stories because you think you were slighted, using your former rank and blue tick as a bully pulpit, getting your buddies in the media to publish a hit piece in record time—these are all signs of the same "VIP culture" that you claim to condemn.
Why is HAL—a company with 50+ years in the aero industry—being denied the opportunity to take over and rebuild Air India? Why is the crown jewel of Indian hospitality being sold to a private company whose name literally translates to “bye-bye”?
Reached for comment, strategic expert Patanajali Varadarajan said, “This is a disturbing breakdown in India’s values-based governance system. It speaks to the moral fiber of the United States that it has not nationalized a single government-owned airline.”
Renowned professor Gaurav Sabnis tweeted, “This changes nothing. The Indian air travel system was always a Brahminical setup. A high-quality, imported system called “Air Force” for the ruling elites; and a poorly funded and managed “Air India” for everyone else.”