Mongolia should hold vote on rejoining China
- Thread starter Martian2
- Start date
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Report the troll. Mods in the past have taken care of him. They will do again, l am sure.
Because my country is no hellhole.
We don´t murder thousands ech year and sell their organs on the market:
We don´t invade other nations like Tibet and treat them like subhumans.
Mass deportations, violation of basic human rights, destruction of societes, cultures and gargantuan oppression.
Sorry but i´m not impressed at all. Mongolia is far from perfect but people there must not suffer under this laughable regime that rules china.
Sirs, off topic, off value and misleading/flame baiting posts and heavy trolling. Kindly please take care of the racist person.
@Hu Songshan , @Horus , @WebMaster
empirefighter
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
To my countryman:
1.Stop this stupid thread! Mongolia is an independent country,considered the anti-china situation exists widely in Mongolia,it is impossible for china to team with her .Besides,I do not think Mongolia can help us anything except the coals which we have much much.
2.personly,I wish the eastern nations（China,Japan,Korea,Mongolia）can form an ally,not to face the west but face the future.The human have to stop wars on Earth,it is very meaningless for us to kill each other ,we should unite together to develop the Universe.But it is just a wish nowadays.Maybe after WW3 or the aliens invade the Earth,or else,it never happen.
3.I do not think we will be destined to fight a war with USA ,not to mention NATO .If the Russia never surrender to the USA,the USA cannot defeat us.Maybe the USA will win some battles in the ocean,but if it do not occupy the whole china which is out of its capability ,and the war will never end and the whole world will be involved .So the KEY is: you know how the war starts,but you do not know how the war ends. This situation scares the leaders of China, USA and Russia and keeps the world peaceful.
4.China is the no.1 industry country,the industrial output is about 30 % higher than the USA .However,compared to the REAL developed countries(USA,Japan,Germany,France ,UK),We are still far far behind ,it is shame to declare us the fist world living standard. Undoubtly,we will catch up with the REAL developed countries SOMEDAY as Japan did and Korea is doing, but NOW,stop talking and go back to work!
1.Stop this stupid thread! Mongolia is an independent country,considered the anti-china situation exists widely in Mongolia,it is impossible for china to team with her .Besides,I do not think Mongolia can help us anything except the coals which we have much much.
2.personly,I wish the eastern nations（China,Japan,Korea,Mongolia）can form an ally,not to face the west but face the future.The human have to stop wars on Earth,it is very meaningless for us to kill each other ,we should unite together to develop the Universe.But it is just a wish nowadays.Maybe after WW3 or the aliens invade the Earth,or else,it never happen.
3.I do not think we will be destined to fight a war with USA ,not to mention NATO .If the Russia never surrender to the USA,the USA cannot defeat us.Maybe the USA will win some battles in the ocean,but if it do not occupy the whole china which is out of its capability ,and the war will never end and the whole world will be involved .So the KEY is: you know how the war starts,but you do not know how the war ends. This situation scares the leaders of China, USA and Russia and keeps the world peaceful.
4.China is the no.1 industry country,the industrial output is about 30 % higher than the USA .However,compared to the REAL developed countries(USA,Japan,Germany,France ,UK),We are still far far behind ,it is shame to declare us the fist world living standard. Undoubtly,we will catch up with the REAL developed countries SOMEDAY as Japan did and Korea is doing, but NOW,stop talking and go back to work!
Last edited:
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
LOL, you are right, indeed.
In fact, the thread seems to have started exclusively as a mind exercise. Anybody is free to bring up pros and cons; merits and shortcomings. In fact, you have just done that and that reflects your grasp of the essence of civil debate.
Many lndians and that particular European member, however, have apprently taken the issue by heart. Then you have the thread degrading intellectually. I deplored the mods to clean the thread from the trash but so far it has not worked.
On topic, l am particularly not thrilled about the idea of union-making, which would put China under heavier economic and political bureen. I am more in favor of an alliance between the Northeast Asian nations, CN JP Aand SK.
The first step for this is a comprehensive economic alliance, something that the three nations have been discussion under the FTA framework.
empirefighter
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I agree with you.The most possible way for the Northeast Asia countries is economic alliance,if the USA stays in this area,the military alliance like NATO never happen.Right now,for me, EU style is enough,I do not envy NATO style alliance.
Firstly,a military alliance is not a good choice for China today which may sacrifice our own national interest for the ally national interest，That is why our leader refuse to ally with northern korea.
Secondly,USA indeed has many military alliances,but if there was a real war between USA and China or Russia,I DEEPLY doubt that its alliances really dared to risk their nation got nuked and fight for the USA. Therefore,the alliances are not so reliable.
Thirdly, the USA who has only 4-5% world population has to spend so much money to rule the world ,it is not easy. Moreover,it is responsible for other countries security,it is really a burden for the USA .In my view,this situation cannot last a long time and will shorten the life of USA hegemony.
So I really do not think it is good for the USA to keep so many millitary alliances.
Last edited:
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
The proposal is very pragmatic.
To follow in Germany's and France's footsteps, can China build an Asian Union (modeled on the European Union) in Asia?
To find out, we need an organization to conduct a poll of the Chinese people, Mongolians, and Kazakhs. If you read the news, half of the male Central Asian population is jobless. There are no construction jobs available in Russia anymore (due to the fall in the oil price and Western sanctions). If we offer them a $20,000 guaranteed standard-of-living in writing, China will never have to worry about its western border ever again. NATO would have to fight through one thousand miles before reaching Xinjiang's westernmost border.
If Uzbekistan and Tajikistan join the Asian Union, the European Union/NATO will not have the opportunity to control China's gas supply. The Uzbeks and Tajiks also have a 50% unemployment rate.
All I'm asking is let's float the proposal to their populations. A re-poll should be taken every ten years, because China's living standards are increasing at $10,000 per decade. Puerto Rico refuses to leave as a US commonwealth. Many of the British territories all over the world also refuse to leave the British commonwealth.
I want to create a Chinese commonwealth or a United States of China. I prefer the soft-power approach to neutralize the expanding European Union/NATO. I think the EU/NATO will reach Kazakhstan in about 30 years. I think Putin can hold the EU at bay for 15 years (two terms as president and one more as prime minister before he becomes too old and retires) and it will take another 15 years for the EU/NATO to work its way through Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and finally the Stans.
If my soft-power approach is not taken seriously, the only option is the hard-power approach. That would be regrettable, because we will never know if the soft-power approach would have worked.
----------
The naysayers claimed the European Union project would never work. They were wrong.
The naysayers claimed the cost of reunifying East Germany with West Germany was too prohibitive and unrealistic. They were wrong.
The naysayers in this thread claim an Asian Union project would never work. I think you are wrong. You will never know unless you try it. If you pinch every penny, you will never be able to solve looming strategic problems. The Europeans and the West Germans did not pinch their pennies. That is worth emulating.
The subsidy is about $50 billion per territory each year. Currently, China's trade surplus is $55 billion per month. China can afford the cost. Also, China's economy is growing. The burden (in percentage terms) will decrease over time. Keeping $4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves accomplishes nothing. Money in the bank cannot assure China's security. An Asian Union or United States of China will keep NATO a thousand miles away for perpetuity. What is the value to safeguard China's heartland worth to you?
To follow in Germany's and France's footsteps, can China build an Asian Union (modeled on the European Union) in Asia?
To find out, we need an organization to conduct a poll of the Chinese people, Mongolians, and Kazakhs. If you read the news, half of the male Central Asian population is jobless. There are no construction jobs available in Russia anymore (due to the fall in the oil price and Western sanctions). If we offer them a $20,000 guaranteed standard-of-living in writing, China will never have to worry about its western border ever again. NATO would have to fight through one thousand miles before reaching Xinjiang's westernmost border.
If Uzbekistan and Tajikistan join the Asian Union, the European Union/NATO will not have the opportunity to control China's gas supply. The Uzbeks and Tajiks also have a 50% unemployment rate.
All I'm asking is let's float the proposal to their populations. A re-poll should be taken every ten years, because China's living standards are increasing at $10,000 per decade. Puerto Rico refuses to leave as a US commonwealth. Many of the British territories all over the world also refuse to leave the British commonwealth.
I want to create a Chinese commonwealth or a United States of China. I prefer the soft-power approach to neutralize the expanding European Union/NATO. I think the EU/NATO will reach Kazakhstan in about 30 years. I think Putin can hold the EU at bay for 15 years (two terms as president and one more as prime minister before he becomes too old and retires) and it will take another 15 years for the EU/NATO to work its way through Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and finally the Stans.
If my soft-power approach is not taken seriously, the only option is the hard-power approach. That would be regrettable, because we will never know if the soft-power approach would have worked.
----------
The naysayers claimed the European Union project would never work. They were wrong.
The naysayers claimed the cost of reunifying East Germany with West Germany was too prohibitive and unrealistic. They were wrong.
The naysayers in this thread claim an Asian Union project would never work. I think you are wrong. You will never know unless you try it. If you pinch every penny, you will never be able to solve looming strategic problems. The Europeans and the West Germans did not pinch their pennies. That is worth emulating.
The subsidy is about $50 billion per territory each year. Currently, China's trade surplus is $55 billion per month. China can afford the cost. Also, China's economy is growing. The burden (in percentage terms) will decrease over time. Keeping $4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves accomplishes nothing. Money in the bank cannot assure China's security. An Asian Union or United States of China will keep NATO a thousand miles away for perpetuity. What is the value to safeguard China's heartland worth to you?
Last edited:
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
Isolationists vs. Globalists
In this thread, we have seen the classic standoff between Isolationists and Globalists.
The Isolationists say things are fine. Why burden China with a new project? The Isolationists would be right only if the world was static (ie. not changing). However, the European Union/NATO keeps adding new members. The battle for Ukraine shows the European Union's and NATO's determination. This means the world is dynamic (ie. changing) and not static.
In a dynamic world, an Isolationist stance will lead to disaster. Since the world is changing and the EU/NATO refuses to stop expanding, China must work hard at a counter-strategy. Passivity in the face of enemy advancement will likely lead to defeat.
Let's take a look at Russian passivity. In 1989 to 1991, the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact broke up. Why didn't the Russians demand a written treaty guarantee of no NATO expansion into Warsaw Pact countries? The Russians were passive and decided to trust the West. It is beyond me why you would want to trust your Cold War opponent. This is not logical and a Russian error.
After 1991, the Russians have refused to agree to the building of Amur River bridges across the Sino-Russian border. The Russians were probably thinking it is a strategic goal of Russia to keep China weak. However, the Russians are pretty brain dead. They never considered that massive Sino-Russian trade across the Amur River would have greatly strengthened the Russian economy. The lack of Amur River bridges resulted in keeping Russia weak.
The third error of Russian passivity is the failure to intervene when Ukraine's Yanukovych was on the ropes. Russia should have sent in thousands of troops in armored columns to disperse the street protests. The absence of Russian resolve invited Western advancement.
The lesson for China is do not show passivity. It only invites attack, whether economic or otherwise.
Looking at the geopolitical chessboard, Kazakhstan is in the middle of the board. It is roughly equidistant between Europe and China. The European Union is steadily advancing towards Kazakhstan. The European Union wants to control the middle of the chessboard. This is dangerous for China. The eastern Kazakh border is only 300 miles from China's Urumqi.
Urumqi is western China's Beijing. It is the economic nerve-center of western China. Since Russia would not allow NATO to move its military equipment and thermonuclear weapons within 300 miles of Moscow at the Ukraine-Russian border, China faces the same military threat at the Kazakh border.
To defuse this problem, there are four choices.
1. China tries to entice Kazakhstan into an Asian Union or American-style Federal-State structure. China trades technology and a First World living standard for Kazakh cooperation.
2. China makes it clear that NATO presence within 300 miles of Urumqi is unacceptable. Kazakhstan (and the other Stans) must be Neutral Territory. Without the establishment of a Neutral Zone, China will unfortunately have to take action.
3. The publication of China's intentions in white papers may deter the European Union/NATO from their attempt to expand into Central Asia. In the Ukraine mess, the Americans have pointed fingers at Russia for not complaining about NATO expansion. The Americans say that Russia did not complain when the Baltic States were incorporated into NATO. The Americans also say that Putin did not raise the issue during meetings in the years prior to the Ukraine fiasco.
The Russians retort that the United States did not really object when Russia annexed Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Instead, the Russians were given a reset. Also, the U.S. didn't really object to the annexation of Crimea. Why is the American response completely different with regard to eastern Ukraine?
To avoid the misunderstandings between the United States and Russia, it is imperative for China to inform the West of its intentions regarding Kazakhstan. Dire Chinese warnings of the consequences for EU/NATO expansion into Kazakhstan may stop EU/NATO expansion.
4. If China has to resort to hard power, it must be understandable to the rest of the world. The Africans, Middle Easterners, and Latin Americans are watching. China's actions must be reasonable and comprehensible. By diligently pursuing the other three options, China can honestly say: "I tried everything else, but they gave me no choice."
Holding a military exercise with 500,000 Chinese troops, armor, attack helicopters, and fighter aircraft near the Kazakh border should convince NATO of China's seriousness.
In conclusion, the Ukraine crisis was foreseeable. However, both the Americans and the Russians mishandled the situation. The problems were mis-communication of intent and Russian passivity. China must not repeat these errors.
In this thread, we have seen the classic standoff between Isolationists and Globalists.
The Isolationists say things are fine. Why burden China with a new project? The Isolationists would be right only if the world was static (ie. not changing). However, the European Union/NATO keeps adding new members. The battle for Ukraine shows the European Union's and NATO's determination. This means the world is dynamic (ie. changing) and not static.
In a dynamic world, an Isolationist stance will lead to disaster. Since the world is changing and the EU/NATO refuses to stop expanding, China must work hard at a counter-strategy. Passivity in the face of enemy advancement will likely lead to defeat.
Let's take a look at Russian passivity. In 1989 to 1991, the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact broke up. Why didn't the Russians demand a written treaty guarantee of no NATO expansion into Warsaw Pact countries? The Russians were passive and decided to trust the West. It is beyond me why you would want to trust your Cold War opponent. This is not logical and a Russian error.
After 1991, the Russians have refused to agree to the building of Amur River bridges across the Sino-Russian border. The Russians were probably thinking it is a strategic goal of Russia to keep China weak. However, the Russians are pretty brain dead. They never considered that massive Sino-Russian trade across the Amur River would have greatly strengthened the Russian economy. The lack of Amur River bridges resulted in keeping Russia weak.
The third error of Russian passivity is the failure to intervene when Ukraine's Yanukovych was on the ropes. Russia should have sent in thousands of troops in armored columns to disperse the street protests. The absence of Russian resolve invited Western advancement.
The lesson for China is do not show passivity. It only invites attack, whether economic or otherwise.
Looking at the geopolitical chessboard, Kazakhstan is in the middle of the board. It is roughly equidistant between Europe and China. The European Union is steadily advancing towards Kazakhstan. The European Union wants to control the middle of the chessboard. This is dangerous for China. The eastern Kazakh border is only 300 miles from China's Urumqi.
Urumqi is western China's Beijing. It is the economic nerve-center of western China. Since Russia would not allow NATO to move its military equipment and thermonuclear weapons within 300 miles of Moscow at the Ukraine-Russian border, China faces the same military threat at the Kazakh border.
To defuse this problem, there are four choices.
1. China tries to entice Kazakhstan into an Asian Union or American-style Federal-State structure. China trades technology and a First World living standard for Kazakh cooperation.
2. China makes it clear that NATO presence within 300 miles of Urumqi is unacceptable. Kazakhstan (and the other Stans) must be Neutral Territory. Without the establishment of a Neutral Zone, China will unfortunately have to take action.
3. The publication of China's intentions in white papers may deter the European Union/NATO from their attempt to expand into Central Asia. In the Ukraine mess, the Americans have pointed fingers at Russia for not complaining about NATO expansion. The Americans say that Russia did not complain when the Baltic States were incorporated into NATO. The Americans also say that Putin did not raise the issue during meetings in the years prior to the Ukraine fiasco.
The Russians retort that the United States did not really object when Russia annexed Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Instead, the Russians were given a reset. Also, the U.S. didn't really object to the annexation of Crimea. Why is the American response completely different with regard to eastern Ukraine?
To avoid the misunderstandings between the United States and Russia, it is imperative for China to inform the West of its intentions regarding Kazakhstan. Dire Chinese warnings of the consequences for EU/NATO expansion into Kazakhstan may stop EU/NATO expansion.
4. If China has to resort to hard power, it must be understandable to the rest of the world. The Africans, Middle Easterners, and Latin Americans are watching. China's actions must be reasonable and comprehensible. By diligently pursuing the other three options, China can honestly say: "I tried everything else, but they gave me no choice."
Holding a military exercise with 500,000 Chinese troops, armor, attack helicopters, and fighter aircraft near the Kazakh border should convince NATO of China's seriousness.
In conclusion, the Ukraine crisis was foreseeable. However, both the Americans and the Russians mishandled the situation. The problems were mis-communication of intent and Russian passivity. China must not repeat these errors.
Last edited:
Zero_wing
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,296
- Reaction score
- -2
Finally chinese with some common sense and a brain i totally support you for that comrade.
j20blackdragon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
How about we convert SCO into a military alliance and free trade area? Goods and services will flow freely between member countries. China and Russia can establish military bases anywhere within the alliance with permission from member countries. Countries will maintain their sovereignty.
It is crucial that we recruit Iran into this alliance to get a secure position on the Persian Gulf. We need to control the Strait of Hormuz.
India may not join this alliance.
My other strategy is an all out invasion of Central Asia and the Middle East along this red line, WW3 style. China shall seize the world's oil supplies by force.
It is crucial that we recruit Iran into this alliance to get a secure position on the Persian Gulf. We need to control the Strait of Hormuz.
India may not join this alliance.
My other strategy is an all out invasion of Central Asia and the Middle East along this red line, WW3 style. China shall seize the world's oil supplies by force.
Screambowl
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 8,167
- Reaction score
- -39
- Country
- Location
There should a referendum in Mongolia to ask them whether to Join China or Remain Independent. Go for it.
This will create armed struggle in the region, supported by Russia, and or may be US would have their stay too.
This will create armed struggle in the region, supported by Russia, and or may be US would have their stay too.
Keel
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,532
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Last edited:
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
NATO's Grand Plan
I only have a few more posts that I want to write.
1. NATO's Grand Plan
2. "Pivot to Asia" is a classic military diversionary tactic
3. Concentric Layers of Defense
4. Why is the US/NATO resorting to military instead of economic power?
5. Why does the West want Kazakhstan so badly? Full-benefits analysis.
To appreciate China's security, it is necessary to understand NATO's Grand Plan. Let's look at the map.
In 2008, the EU/NATO attempted to bring Georgia into the EU/NATO club. Unfortunately, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was too aggressive and killed 10 Russian peacekeepers. This precipitated the Russo-Georgian War and derailed Georgia's membership in the EU/NATO.
If Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had not been a loose cannon, the NATO plan would have continued in the following manner. The EU and NATO would have expanded into the following countries.
1. Azerbaijan (the land bridge across the Caucasus would have been complete)
2. Kazakhstan (EU gains control of Kazakh oil and gas supplies to China. EU also gains control of pipelines to China.)
3. Uzbekistan (EU gains control of transit pipelines for Turkmenistan gas to China)
4. Turkmenistan (EU gains control of China's 30 billion cubic meters per year gas supply. Turkmenistan gas has been contractually increased to 60 billion cubic meters per year for 2018.)
5. Mongolia (Western-most Mongolia almost touches Eastern-most Kazakhstan and is the EU's/NATO's final target.)
With the Stans and Mongolia under Western control and inside the NATO alliance, NATO has China's western and northern flank surrounded. Also, NATO would have all of southern Russia surrounded as well.
If the West had been able to execute NATO's Grand Plan, both Russia and China would have been surrounded by NATO forces.
I only have a few more posts that I want to write.
1. NATO's Grand Plan
2. "Pivot to Asia" is a classic military diversionary tactic
3. Concentric Layers of Defense
4. Why is the US/NATO resorting to military instead of economic power?
5. Why does the West want Kazakhstan so badly? Full-benefits analysis.
To appreciate China's security, it is necessary to understand NATO's Grand Plan. Let's look at the map.
In 2008, the EU/NATO attempted to bring Georgia into the EU/NATO club. Unfortunately, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was too aggressive and killed 10 Russian peacekeepers. This precipitated the Russo-Georgian War and derailed Georgia's membership in the EU/NATO.
If Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had not been a loose cannon, the NATO plan would have continued in the following manner. The EU and NATO would have expanded into the following countries.
1. Azerbaijan (the land bridge across the Caucasus would have been complete)
2. Kazakhstan (EU gains control of Kazakh oil and gas supplies to China. EU also gains control of pipelines to China.)
3. Uzbekistan (EU gains control of transit pipelines for Turkmenistan gas to China)
4. Turkmenistan (EU gains control of China's 30 billion cubic meters per year gas supply. Turkmenistan gas has been contractually increased to 60 billion cubic meters per year for 2018.)
5. Mongolia (Western-most Mongolia almost touches Eastern-most Kazakhstan and is the EU's/NATO's final target.)
With the Stans and Mongolia under Western control and inside the NATO alliance, NATO has China's western and northern flank surrounded. Also, NATO would have all of southern Russia surrounded as well.
If the West had been able to execute NATO's Grand Plan, both Russia and China would have been surrounded by NATO forces.
Last edited:
Lux de Veritas
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,180
- Reaction score
- -45
- Country
- Location
NATO's Grand Plan
I only have a few more posts that I want to write.
1. NATO's Grand Plan
2. "Pivot to Asia" is a classic military diversionary tactic
3. Concentric Layers of Defense
4. Why is the US/NATO resorting to military instead of economic power?
5. Why does the West want Kazakhstan so badly? Full-benefits analysis.
To appreciate China's security, it is necessary to understand NATO's Grand Plan. Let's look at the map.
In 2008, the EU/NATO attempted to bring Georgia into the EU/NATO club. Unfortunately, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was too aggressive and killed 10 Russian peacekeepers. This precipitated the Russo-Georgian War and derailed Georgia's membership in the EU/NATO.
If Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had not been a loose cannon, the NATO plan would have continued in the following manner. The EU and NATO would have expanded into the following countries.
1. Azerbaijan (the land bridge across the Caucasus would have been complete)
2. Kazakhstan (EU gains control of Kazakh oil and gas supplies to China. EU also gains control of pipelines to China.)
3. Uzbekistan (EU gains control of transit pipelines for Turkmenistan gas to China)
4. Turkmenistan (EU gains control of China's 30 billion cubic meters per year gas supply. Turkmenistan gas has been contractually increased to 60 billion cubic meters per year for 2018.)
5. Mongolia (Western-most Mongolia almost touches Eastern-most Kazakhstan and is the EU's/NATO's final target.)
With the Stans and Mongolia under Western control and inside the NATO alliance, NATO has China's western and northern flank surrounded. Also, NATO would have all of southern Russia surrounded as well.
If the West had been able to execute NATO's Grand Plan, both Russia and China would have been surrounded by NATO forces.
Many cannot see that for big state need to bribe in order to get periphery and ally. But eventually the gain of big states will be far greater than the price paid to their ally.
It seems stupid for USA to subsidize Europe with Marshall plan and aid all over the world. But in the end, the USA gain most, when everyone else stick to petrol dollar and in many other ways.
I can't see any benefit for us to accept Mongolia to rejoin china.Before 1911, we are same state,but after, we separate.Now, we can see many benefit after separate.Now China has few border between Russia, a real threaten to China. If we reunion, more military fee is required, now, China should not afford it. And the Mongolia entironment is totally destroyed, If accept them, we will pay too much money to repair it.China should dedicated to make Chinese happy and rich, accept Mongolia is take more burden, it will significant slow down our welfare and democracy process. BTW, unlike many people think,the cheapest method to get resources is buy, not make it to join China.
empirefighter
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Messages
- 431
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I don't agree with that.Russia is not a threat to us,the era is over,in the long run,Russia should be the worried one .But I support your point not rejoin Mongolia,they were traitors and slaughtered the officials who were mostly mongolia nobles when they rebeled,that behavior not only hurt the country,but also hurt the heart of inner mongolia people.I don't like the traitors,let them feed their sheepes and forget them FORVER.
Similar threads
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
