I’ll throw a thought out there: ISPR didn’t “run circles around the Indian machinery”. It’s “info war” was incompetently run even by its own poor standards.
The narratives themselves were a mess of contradictions. “India missed. Only a tree and crow were felled, but we’re condoning off the site for 45 days anyway.” “We have three pilots in custody. No wait, two pilots, and one is undergoing treatment at CMH.” And so on...
Theirs was a level of incompetence not seen even during the Kargil War. And the Indian PR strategy was not too different from the one in 1999—with official to-the-point press briefings and steady releases of photos/footage. And at that time, it was lauded as quite effective.
So what differed in 2019? At the cost of pissing a bunch of people off, I’ll suggest that India was unable to produce an *unambiguous* victory on the ground. Which meant that Pak, the weaker power, was seen to have “won” simply by not losing.
No amount of slick or shitty PR from either side was going to change that.
Imagine if: (1) India had produced footage of the SPICE-2000s hitting the camp, (2) Either Abhinandan and simply returned to base or the wreckage of the F-16 which India claimed had been found, and (3) Indian air defenses had not shot down a friendly Mi-17.
Or, imagine that India retaliated with more strikes back and inflicted further damage, this time on Pak mil assets. Whether by destroying a base/outpost or by shooting down some Pak fighters.
It would have been seen as a clear Indian win on the ground, and no amount of theatrics would have helped Pakistan.
This “PR victory” stuff is bollocks. You don’t just win a PR war. You. Have. To. Win. The. Actual. War.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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?
Very good thread. To me, the coddling of the Pakistani establishment and the abrupt pivot towards Iraq were the most baffling parts of the American response to 9/11.
Also, while everyone around me was gobsmacked by the loss of thousands of civilian lives, there was a noticeable undercurrent of "so-they-finally-realize-what-it-feels-like" to the effusive (and genuine) sympathy.
Because India had been bearing the brunt of terrorist/jihadist attacks for more than two decades before 9/11 happened. Thousands of innocent civilian lives were lost to these attacks. And every time, the reaction of 'the West' was, for want of a better expression, muted.
Krivak: Solid, reliable platform.
Tunguska: Mediocre. Only a handful bought.
T-90S: Underwhelming. And the Russians went back on important ToT commitments.
Tu-22M3: Expensive, single-purpose platform. There’s a good reason it wasn’t bought. P-8I > Tu-22M3.
Modi and his government did a bunch of things that don’t look sexy on paper, but are worth far more than some gee-whiz weaponry. Border infra development, shoring up of war wastage reserves, improving aircraft uptimes by procuring soared and streamlining further purchases...
Oh, @AltNews, you dumbfucks. You complete and utter dumbfucks.
🤣🤣🤣
No, @AltNews, I don’t write for “Livefest”, whatever that is. And I️ didn’t “clarify” that the post was sarcastic. You got called out for falling for what obviously was satire 🤦🏻♂️
Also, your “visual analysis” is as bad as my #OSINT. The American helicopters aren’t black, they’re dark green. Of course, y’all would have known this if you had actually studied the subject matter instead of pretending to be analysts.
The excuse now is that banning apps doesn't immediately change things on the ground in Ladakh. And that the response isn't "massive" and "unbearable" for China. As if the Chinese incursion is "massive" and "unbearable" for India. 🤷🏻♂️
Restricting Chinese digital companies from operating in one of their largest markets is not “effective”. But removing embassy security barriers is. Shows how much we’ve come to value symbolism over substance.
In my Expert™ opinion, these are weak responses to the Ladakh incursions:
- Take economic measures against China.
- Shore up defences along border.
- Buy time to build strength and reinforce forward areas.
- Refuse to get into a pointless war of words.