PDA

View Full Version : Mongolia: Trojan Horse Wedges China And Russia



bryanleu2002
04-01-2010, 12:04 AM
Mongolia: Pentagon Trojan Horse Wedged Between China And Russia

Long read but good! I remember reading Robert D. kaplan, in his book Imp. grunts, about Mongolia, Hmmm...

Because of its history, its location and the nations which surround it, Mongolia would seem the last country in the world to host annual Pentagon-led military exercises and to be the third Asian nation to offer NATO troops for the war in Afghanistan.

From the early 1920s until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 Mongolia was the latter nation's longest-standing and in many ways closest political and military ally, its armed forces fighting alongside those of the USSR against the Japanese in World War II. It was not a member of the Warsaw Pact as that alliance was formed in Europe six years after and in response to the creation of NATO in 1949, but Mongolia was a military buffer between the Soviet Union and the Japanese army in China in the Second World War and between it and China during the decades of the Sino-Soviet conflict.

Mongolia is also buried deep within the Asian continent and is the world's second-largest landlocked nation next to Kazakhstan, which is only 21 miles from its western border. Those two countries along with North Korea, impenetrable in most every sense of the word, are the only three that border both China and Russia.

Russia abuts Mongolia along its entire northern frontier and China along its eastern, southern and western borders. There is no way to enter the country except by passing through or over Russia and China.

As such Mongolia would have appeared to be a refuge of non-alignment in a world of rapidly expanding U.S. and NATO penetration of increasingly vast tracts of the earth's surface.

But in the post-Cold War period no country is beyond the Pentagon's reach, either inside or on its borders.

In the last decade alone the U.S. has acquired bases and other military installations and stationed its armed forces throughout parts of the world that it had never penetrated during the Cold War era, including:

Africa: Approximately 2,000 troops and the Pentagon's Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa.

Black Sea: Seven new air and training bases in Bulgaria and Romania and the de facto control of air, navy, infantry and surveillance bases in Georgia.

Baltic Sea: The activation in April of a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 theater interceptor missile battery in Eastern Poland with an initial contingent of 100 troops to run it.

Middle East: Air bases, forward operating bases, base camps, weapons storage facilities and troops transit centers in Iraq, Jordan and Kuwait and a long-range (2,900-mile) interceptor missile radar facility in Israel staffed by 120 U.S. military personnel.

Central Asia: An air base in Kyrgyzstan through which 35,000 U.S. and NATO troops transit each month for the war in Afghanistan and plans for a new special forces "anti-terrorist" training center in the nation.

South Asia: A proliferation of infantry and air bases in Afghanistan, including the mammoth Bagram Air Field with 25,000 military personnel and contractors. The Bagram military complex has been more than tripled in size since the 2001 invasion and is currently undergoing yet further large-scale expansion.

East Asia: The return of the U.S. military to the Philippines after being ordered to leave by the country's Senate in 1991 with at least 600 troops and two permanent structures in Camp Navarro in Mindanao where the U.S. Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P) is based.

South America: Seven new military, including air and naval, bases in Colombia agreed upon last summer.

Central America: In addition to the U.S. retaining the use of the Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras for its 550-troop Joint Task Force-Bravo after the military coup d'etat of last June 28, a report surfaced in September of 2009 that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had reached an agreement with new Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli for the opening of two new American naval bases, one each on the Caribbean and Pacific coasts.

Indian Ocean: U.S. Africa Command deployed lethal Reaper "hunter-killer" drones, spy planes and over a hundred service members to Seychelles late last year.

South Pacific: A secretive military satellite base in Western Australia was approved in 2007. The massive expansion of the Andersen Air Force Base and construction of barracks for 8,000 Marines on Guam is underway.

New bases on every inhabited continent outside the Pentagon's own.

Mongolia, however remote it is and previously inaccessible it may have been, is no exception to the wave of worldwide U.S. military expansion.

On March 29 NATO announced that the nation had become the 45th country to contribute troops for the North Atlantic military bloc's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The 44th nation to be formally dragooned into NATO's first ground and first Asian war was Montenegro, the world's newest (universally recognized) state.

There are in fact more than 45 countries with troops subordinated to NATO in the Afghan war zone in addition to those from all but six European nations, two South Pacific ones (Australia and New Zealand), a Persian Gulf state (the United Arab Emirates), all three South Caucasus nations (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia), Asia's Singapore and South Korea and the U.S. and Canada.

Last November the Financial Times confirmed that Colombia was deploying infantry forces to Afghanistan under NATO command, in December the ISAF website divulged that Egyptian military personnel are operating in the east of the country [1], and this January the U.S. armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes revealed that troops from Bahrain and Jordan were already in the war zone.

The inclusion of Colombia and Egypt is particularly significant as now troops from all six populated continents are among those of fifty-some-odd nations serving under NATO - soon to number 150,000, with almost all U.S. forces placed under NATO command - in not only a single war theater but in one country. The world has never before witnessed such a widespread military network concentrated on and in one small land.

Mongolia's Defense Minister Luvsanvandan Bold was at NATO headquarters in Brussels on March 29 to formalize his nation's deployment of an estimated 250 more troops for the Afghan war. He was accompanied by his country's chief of the general staff and secretary of the National Security Council.

The delegation met with NATO’s Deputy Secretary General Claudio Bisogniero and the "meeting marked the formal recognition of the Mongolian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)."

NATO's number two civilian leader said on the occasion that "These are important agreements, not just from a legal perspective, but chiefly to mark Mongolia's full recognition as a member of ISAF and a key contributor to the international mission." [2]

The military bloc announced that as Mongolia is now an official Troop Contributing Nation, it will be invited to the 56-nation NATO foreign ministers meeting to begin on April 23 in Estonia.

The Mongolian entourage also visited Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, NATO's main military command, outside Mons, Belgium, where it was accorded an honor guard reception and met with the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Sir John McColl.

NATO now has a military partner squeezed between Russia and China.

A report from last year placed matters in historical perspective. Deployment to Afghanistan will assist "The Mongolian army, which has not seen major combat since assisting the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945," to "acquire vital, on-the-ground experience." The mission "will mark its largest military presence in Afghanistan since the age of Genghis Khan." [3]

However, the U.S. first secured Mongolian troops for the war in Afghanistan much earlier, in 2003, and Genghis Khan was invoked for the occasion, which should cast in doubt the references to peacekeeping used in subsequent citations. The latest development signals the transition from a bilateral U.S.-Mongolian military partnership to the broadening of NATO's role in Asia and the further consolidation of an Asian NATO.

"The landlocked nation has previously operated artillery training teams in
Afghanistan and sent troops to serve with the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq," and in the course of doing so "Mongolia's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has helped cement its alliance with the United States and secure grants and aid." [4]

U.S. Marines were deployed to the capital of Mongolia, Ulan Bator (Ulaanbaatar), "for the first time in the history of the Marine Corps, Aug. 18, 2003 in support of Khaan Quest '03." [5]

The live-fire military exercise, which has been held every year since, is named after Genghis Khan. The announced purpose of the training exercises, run by the Pentagon's Pacific Command, has been to upgrade Mongolian soldiers to United Nations peacekeeping standards. Having little else in the way of exports, the nation's troops are paid comparatively handsomely for missions abroad.

As to the nature of the peacekeeping missions the Pentagon has been training Mongolia's armed forces to conduct, after the first Khaan Quest exercises - in which they were instructed by U.S. Marines in "peacekeeping operations such as check point, patrolling, immediate action drills, riot control and more" [6] - in August of 2003, the U.S. deployed troops they had instructed to Iraq in September and to Afghanistan in October.

The second rotation of Mongolian troops to Iraq occurred in early 2004 and the second Khaan Quest U.S.-led military exercises were staged in Mongolia the same year.

Mongolia was invited to participate in the Cobra Gold exercises in Thailand, Asia's largest war games, in 2004 for the first time. The roster also included the U.S., Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore.

The following year U.S. Marines returned to the nation for Khaan Quest 2005 and almost two weeks of joint training with the Mongolian Armed Forces.

The Marines and 130 local troops engaged in what was described as a mock battle 65 miles west of the capital, a repeat of similar engagements in 2003 and 2004. [7]

Five months after the April exercises Mongolia's President Nambariin Enkhbayar visited Hawaii on his way home from the United Nations to meet with the top commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, whose "vast area of responsibility [consists of] half the surface of the globe that includes half its population spread across 36 countries," [8], Admiral William Fallon.

After the meeting the Mongolian head of state was quoted as saying "We have been discussing how to cooperate to expand and develop the capacity of the Mongolian armed forces and peacekeeping operations," and that he and Fallon “found complete understanding” about collaboration between the Pentagon's Pacific Command and the Mongolian armed forces. [9]

The following month Donald Rumsfeld became the first U.S. secretary of defense to visit Mongolia and addressed soldiers from the nation who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until the last moment he also was to have visited China's and Russia's other joint neighbor, Kazakhstan, to "discuss increasing U.S. help in their [Kazakhstan's and Mongolia's] military modernization programs" on his way to a NATO meeting in Lithuania to meet "with Ukraine's defense minister about that country's effort to join the organization." [10]

Speaking of Mongolian officials' military cooperation with the U.S., he said "Located between Russia and China, they decided that their democracy, stability and future was mostly tied to the relationships they could create." [11]

It was confirmed at the time that six U.S. Marine and one Army officer were assigned to the nation's military and that "With US funding and training, the Mongolian government built a peacekeeping force of 5,000 troops from its current force of 11,000 troops." [12] Almost half its men under arms are available for deployments abroad.

On November 21st of 2005 President George W. Bush followed in Rumsfeld's footsteps, arriving for a one-day visit to Ulan Bator with his secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. As Rumsfeld was the first Pentagon chief, so Bush was the first standing U.S. head of state to visit Mongolia. Both were on recruitment missions, and not just for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A report on the U.S. defense chief's trip included the observation that "In Mongolia, Rumsfeld tried to nurture a relationship that may be a hedge against a shift in China's current path." [13]

Bush's comments while there didn't spare his hosts an ex post facto swipe at the nation's political past (until last May the ruling party's name was still that of the communist period) and an evocation of the Genghis Khan mythos (and ethos): "Free people did not falter in the Cold War, and free people will not falter in the war on terror. The Mongolian armed forces are serving the cause of freedom, and U.S. forces are proud to serve beside such fearless warriors." [14]

Months afterward it was revealed that Rumsfeld had promised impoverished Mongolia (with a population roughly equal to that of Chicago) $11 million worth of U.S. military equipment. [15]

In January of 2006 Mongolia announced that, despite a transition in the nation's cabinet underway at the time, it would keep its U.S.-trained troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the middle of the year the U.S. State Department disclosed that "Rumsfeld said the United States plans to join Mongolia in an upcoming multinational exercise that is intended to strengthen regional cooperation in peacekeeping.

"The exercise, called 'Conquest,' is scheduled for late summer." [16] Once again the alleged peacekeeping nature of America's military role in Mongolia was belied by the name of the operation.

During the summer the Pentagon conducted the Khaan Quest 2006 exercises in which "300 American military personnel [trained] 600 Mongolian troops, as
well as 200 others from Bangladesh, Fiji, South Korea, Thailand and Tonga," at what by that time was a permanent training base at Tavan Tolgoi (Five Hills).

It was announced before the August war games that "The training is part of the millions of dollars that President Bush promised during his visit to Mongolia last year." [17]

During Khaan Quest 2006 "Admiral William J. Fallon, head of the U.S.
Pacific Command, greeted media and soldiers, praising the peacekeeping exercises and stressing the importance of Tavan Tolgoi as an international
training site." [18] The next year Fallon took over Central Command whose area of responsibility includes both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The two-week military exercises were held "on the windswept steppe of Mongolia, a key American ally strategically placed between Russia and China."

To demonstrate its appreciation of the role that Mongolia plays in U.S. geostrategic plans for Eurasia, three months earlier "The U.S. Congress passed a resolution...commending Mongolia on marking 800 years since Genghis Khan forged a nation out of the vast territory inhabited by disparate tribes, and praising its 'commitment to democracy, freedom and economic reform.'"[19]

In late July and early August Mongolian air force officials were invited to Operation Cooperative Cope Thunder in Alaska, "the largest multilateral air combat exercise in the northern Pacific, with about 1,300 personnel participating" from the United States, NATO, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Sweden. [20]

In October the seventh rotation of Mongolian troops "left for Iraq on board a special flight" to "join U.S. soldiers on patrol missions and maintaining order in the Iraqi capital [of] Baghdad." [21]

By 2007 the Pentagon's military integration of Mongolia had progressed beyond the point of the latter merely sending observers to U.S. war games and in July Mongolian airmen joined colleagues from the U.S., Spain, Thailand and Turkey for the two-week Red Flag-Alaska exercises in which "80 aircraft and 1,500 service members from the six countries [flew] together in this multinational exercise that provides realistic combat training...." [22]

The same month, at a time when almost 1,000 of its troops had served in the Iraq war zone, The Times of London in a feature called "War earns Mongolia rich peace dividend" summed up the results of four years of direct U.S.-Mongolian military cooperation:

"[Mongolian] soldiers are fed, given new uniforms, battle armour and night-vision equipment when they arrive in Iraq and President Bush has promised
Mongolia $14.5 million to renovate its Armed Forces.

"The country’s readiness to fight in Iraq was also key to winning it a highly sought-after first-round place in Washington’s $5 billion Millennium Challenge Account." [23]

Khaan Quest 2007 expanded to include over 1,000 troops from the U.S., Mongolia and seven other Asian and Asia-Pacific nations - Bangladesh, Tonga, South Korea, Brunei, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Cambodia - to "improve their interoperability" and the "multinational speed of response, mission effectiveness...and unity of effort. [24]

The 2008 Khaan Quest exercises added troops from France, India, Nepal and Thailand to the U.S. Pacific Command-run operation.

The BBC reported at the time:

"As exercises go, these ones are relatively small - but they are symbolic.

"They represent part of Mongolia's ongoing efforts to build ties that extend beyond its two super-power neighbours." [25]

In July of 2008 Mongolia was invited to participate in the 20-nation Pacific Rim Airpower Symposium held in the capital of Malaysia. Mongolia doesn't border the Pacific or even have a navy. It is separated from that ocean by hundreds of miles of Chinese and Russian territory.

The four-day event was hosted by the Royal Malaysian Air Force and U.S. Pacific Air Forces' 13th Air Force, and included participants from the U.S., Malaysia, Mongolia, Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Nepal, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. The commander of the 13th Air Force, Lieutenant General Loyd Utterback, remarked at the time: "Through this symposium, we have a great opportunity to share and understand what each nation brings to the battlefield." [26]

Mongolian forces were also part of a U.S.-led military exercise on the order of Khaan Quest in Bangladesh in April of 2008 along with troops from the U.S. and the host nation, Brunei, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Tonga.

Following by three years what appeared like an attempt at a "color revolution" scenario in Mongolia in March and April of 2005 ahead of a presidential election (on the heels of successful equivalents in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan), riots broke out in Ulan Bator after parliamentary elections in the summer of 2008. The standard "color revolution" technique. Molotov cocktails were hurled into the offices of the ruling Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party and at least five people were killed and 300 injured, leading to a four-day state of emergency being declared. (The protests were led by supporters of the Democratic Party of Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, about whom more later.)

Five months afterward, in early November, Mongolia and Russia held a joint
peacekeeping training exercise in the first country, the only joint maneuvers of any sort since the breakup of the Soviet Union seventeen years earlier. In the interim the Pentagon had led six comparable exercises in Mongolia from 2003-2008.

Mongolia was granted observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (whose members are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) in 2004, but in the succeeding six years has made no effort to gain full membership.

In July of 2009 the nation's military announced that it would expand upon previous deployments to Afghanistan, limited to artillery training units, by sending a full contingent of troops as part of "cooperation that stems from its 'third neighbor' policy to reach out to allies other than China and Russia," meaning the U.S. and NATO. [27]

On August 15 the twelve-day Khaan Quest 2009 exercises were launched under U.S. leadership. In addition to American and Mongolian forces, troops from Cambodia, India, Japan and South Korea participated.

"The exercise is the most visible form of US-Mongolian military cooperation," which "grew out of Mongolia’s participation in the US-led war in Iraq, the first combat action that Mongolian troops had seen since World War II."

"In addition to the Khaan Quest exercise, US military cooperation with Mongolia includes the Marine Leadership Development Exchange Program, an initiative unique to Mongolia in which a small group of US Marines 'embeds' with Mongolian forces full time to help train them in western military methods." [28]

Developing out of the annual Khaan Quest exercises, a Mongolian Expeditionary Force consisting of "elite soldiers selected by Mongolian Armed Forces Maj. Javkhlanbayar Dondogdorj specifically" for Afghanistan are to be deployed to the war front in that country. [29]

The exercises in Mongolia were preceded by a United Nations Staff Officers Course run under the U.S. State Department's Global Peace Operations Initiative with officers from the U.S., Mongolia, Germany, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

Khaan Quest 2009 closed with a ceremony which featured "a parade by the graduating platoons and speeches by the chief of staff of US Pacific Command (which sponsored the exercise), as well as Mongolia’s defense minister and chief of armed forces." [30]

This year's Khaan Quest 2010 "is scheduled to begin August 2010 and event officials are expecting a larger participating force" than in 2009. [31]

Earlier in the year, on May 24, the candidate of the Democratic Party, Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, won the nation's presidential election, becoming the first president never to have been a member of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party and the first to have been educated in the West. In fact he received a diploma from the University of Colorado at Boulder's Economic Institute in 2001 and a Master of Public Administration degree from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government the following year.

The nation's military ties with Washington and with NATO can be expected to grow even firmer and more extensive under the Elbegdorj administration.

With its vast expanse (over 600,000 square miles) and its sparse population (less than 3 million people with almost 40 percent living in the capital), Mongolia is the optimal location for U.S. military surveillance (ground, air and satellite) to monitor China and Russia simultaneously. The nation's new U.S.-educated head of state is not likely to deny Washington's requests in that regard.


1) International Security Assistance Force
American Forces Press Service
December 16, 2009
2) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, March 29, 2010
3) *******, July 22, 2009
4) Ibid
5) Marine Corps News, August 28, 2003
6) Ibid
7) Xinhua News Agency, April 17, 2005
8) U.S. Department of Defense, May 18, 2009
9) Associated Press, September 20, 2005
10) Voice of America News, October 16, 2005
11) United News of India, October 22, 2005
12) Ibid
13) Associated Press, October 25, 2005
14) USA Today, November 21, 2010
15) Regnum (Russia), March 13, 2006
16) U.S. Department of State, June 5, 2006
17) Mongolia Web, July 30, 2006
18) Mongolia Web, August 21, 2006
19) *******, August 11, 2006
20) United Press International, July 28, 2006
21) Xinhua News Agency, October 4, 2006
22) Air Force Link, July 26, 2007
23) The Times, July 16, 2007
24) Ulan Bator Post, August 2, 2007
25) BBC News, September 10, 2008
26) Air Force Link, July 23, 2008
27) *******, July 22, 2009
28) EurasiaNet, August 25, 2010
29) Khaan Quest 2009, August 21, 2009
30) EurasiaNet, August 25, 2010
31) Khaan Quest 2009, August 25, 2009

source-http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1894:mongolia-pentagon-trojan-horse-wedged-between-china-and-russia&catid=95:rick-rozoff&Itemid=127

Ordie
04-01-2010, 12:09 AM
Good posts

Thanks

Robert Kaplan has a chapter dedicated on Mongolia in "Imperial Grunts".

bryanleu2002
04-01-2010, 12:14 AM
Good posts

Thanks

Robert Kaplan has a chapter dedicated on Mongolia in "Imperial Grunts".

Yes, I have read imperial grunts and blue water grunts by Kaplan. Great books.

Shurik SST
04-01-2010, 12:51 AM
"With its vast expanse (over 600,000 square miles) and its sparse population (less than 3 million people with almost 40 percent living in the capital), Mongolia is the optimal location for U.S. military surveillance (ground, air and satellite) to monitor China and Russia simultaneously."

I thought it was all about democracy....

cn_habs
04-01-2010, 01:00 AM
"With its vast expanse (over 600,000 square miles) and its sparse population (less than 3 million people with almost 40 percent living in the capital), Mongolia is the optimal location for U.S. military surveillance (ground, air and satellite) to monitor China and Russia simultaneously."

I thought it was all about democracy....

LOL...You really thought so? In today's world?

Ordie
04-01-2010, 01:05 AM
"With its vast expanse (over 600,000 square miles) and its sparse population (less than 3 million people with almost 40 percent living in the capital), Mongolia is the optimal location for U.S. military surveillance (ground, air and satellite) to monitor China and Russia simultaneously."

I thought it was all about democracy....

The Mongolians are between a rock and a hard place. They are looking for a third neighbor, but they know they can't rely on anyone for their defense but themselves.

There is a notable Mongolian community in Oakland, California. There's no love lost between them and the Chinese.

bryanleu2002
04-01-2010, 01:11 AM
The Mongolians are between a rock and a hard place. They are looking for a third neighbor, but they know they can't rely on anyone for their defense but themselves.

There is a notable Mongolian community in Oakland, California. There's no love lost between them and the Chinese.

as much as i don't like to say it, Ordie you are right! I would never thought you would have ever read Imperial grunts.

So...
04-01-2010, 01:56 AM
So U.S. is going to borrow more $ from the Chinese so they can build more bases to spy on the Chinese, ah........lol

To be honest, not concerned at all, dying Empire just digging itself even a deeper grave. Maybe this base will even be a positive thing for China and Russia or though i very much doubt China will allow that base to happen.

Ordie
04-01-2010, 02:07 AM
So U.S. is going to borrow more $ from the Chinese so they can build more bases to spy on the Chinese, ah........lol

To be honest, not concerned at all, dying Empire just digging itself even a deeper grave. Maybe this base will even be a positive thing for China and Russia or though i very much doubt China will allow that base to happen.

I don't think the Mongolians are seeking a base. But some form of US military presence that will deter others from military aggression towards Mongolia.

It's akin to Singapore allowing US Naval ships to dock and get serviced in their ports. The Singaporeans know any threat towards Singapore is a threat towards the United States Navy 7th Fleet. Thus increases the country's insurance coverage.

kalerab
04-01-2010, 02:15 AM
The Mongolians are between a rock and a hard place. They are looking for a third neighbor, but they know they can't rely on anyone for their defense but themselves.

There is a notable Mongolian community in Oakland, California. There's no love lost between them and the Chinese.

AFAIK there is a lot of Mongols who works in Beijing and other Chinese cities, so wether they love them or not is not important - they are economically tied with China (and Russia) one way or another.

Ordie
04-01-2010, 03:16 AM
AFAIK there is a lot of Mongols who works in Beijing and other Chinese cities, so wether they love them or not is not important - they are economically tied with China (and Russia) one way or another.

Mongolia exports more to China than what they import.

Arbody
04-01-2010, 03:51 AM
Lot of wishful thinking I see there

hulaku
04-01-2010, 04:20 AM
Here is some news I came across from last year.


New Delhi, Sep 18 (IANS) An Indian proposal to have an airbase in Mongolia to increase its strategic outreach in the Central Asian region appears to have been shelved, an official said, amid concerns that it could exacerbate tensions with China.

Mooted in 2004 during the visit of then Mongolian prime minister N. Enkhbayar in January 2004, the idea elicited a positive response in Mongolia, a country with which India has been rapidly developing ties in the space and defence fields.

“We wanted to have a base in Mongolia but it has not fructified. Currently, we have a base in Tajikistan, and that’s it,” a senior Indian Air Force (IAF) official told IANS requesting anonymity because he is not authorised to speak to the media.

Although India used the Tajikistan airbase at the turn of the century, it is really not operational in the military sense and there are no Indian aircraft stationed there, knowledgeable sources say.
Besides providing enhanced reach to the IAF, the Mongolian base was seen as giving India strategic leverage vis-a-vis China. Resource-rich Central Asia is also important for India to secure its energy supplies.

But the proposed airbase did not figure during the recently concluded four-day visit of Mongolian President Tsakhia Elbegdorj to India. Elbegdorj signed a civil nuclear pact with India. Four other pacts were inked, including one to enhance defence cooperation.

These ties have steadily proliferated since the late 1990s as part of New Delhi’s ‘Look East’ policy and strategy to build strategic ties with China’s neighbours. And with China-Mongolian relations de-emphasising Mongolian nationalism and focusing more on regional security cooperation, the Central Asian country is keen to strengthen its ties with other countries as well.
In 2001, India and Mongolia signed an agreement on Defence Cooperation, which included joint exercises and reciprocal visits by military officers, followed by the constitution of Joint Defence Working Group.

In January 2004, a cooperation protocol was signed between its Department of Space and the Mongolian Ministry of Infrastructure. It also covers studies related to satellite communication, satellite-related remote sensing and satellite meteorology. Also included in the protocol are satellite ground stations and satellite mission management, training facilities and exchange of scientists.

A defence ministry official said the idea of the base emerged from long-term “strategic thinking” and a proposal did reach the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

“We wanted a base in Mongolia to give us greater reach in the region. But with an air-to-air refueller and better aircraft (with us), the need is not imminent,” said the official on condition of anonymity.
Defence experts agree that the airbase would have given India a bigger strategic footprint.

“Having a military presence in the region will give India a much greater strategic profile. However, it (the plan for a base in Mongolia) seems to have been shelved as the move may be seen as provocative by China,” National Maritime Foundation director Commodore Uday C. Bhaskar, a well known strategic analyst, told IANS.

India and Mongolia share good relations, which have been deepened by the Buddhist link. India was the first non-Communist country to recognise Mongolia, which opened its embassy here in 1956. India’s diplomatic mission there opened 15 years later in 1971.

While New Delhi has reportedly dropped plans to have an airbase in Mongolia, experts say that China continues with its strategy to encircle New Delhi with a series of ports in countries neighbouring India.
The Gwadar port developed in Pakistan with China’s help has neared completion. Opening at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, it has provided China a strategic foothold in Asia and a crucial gateway to trade. The deep-water harbour in Gwadar could be used by China’s expanding fleet of nuclear submarines.
China is also engaged in developing ports and building infrastructure in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Said Bhaskar: “The Indian government is not clear how to deal with China. India should think of investing in a civil air base in Mongolia. It will be akin to the commercial port in Sri Lanka that China is investing in.”http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/india-shelves-proposal-to-set-up-airbase-in-mongolia_100249219.html

I assume this would have been a good idea except that our friendly Chinese would not have been pleased.:)

cordel
04-01-2010, 05:20 AM
One thing I don't understand is how do they plan to deliver equipment there? I doubt Russia or China would allow military transit for an American base or a spy center. Unless they intend to smuggle their stuff in diplomatic baggage.

Flamming_Python
04-01-2010, 07:58 AM
Yeah my ass - like the Mongolians will risk ruining relations with their only 2 neighbours in exchange for helping the US spy on its enemies. This whole article is so full of make-believe that I feel sorry for the author and his delusions.


I don't think the Mongolians are seeking a base. But some form of US military presence that will deter others from military aggression towards Mongolia.

It's akin to Singapore allowing US Naval ships to dock and get serviced in their ports. The Singaporeans know any threat towards Singapore is a threat towards the United States Navy 7th Fleet. Thus increases the country's insurance coverage.

The whole idea of detering others from military aggression towards Mongolia is ridiculous as in a real situation the USA wouldn't be able to do anything to help. The only ones who could deter Chinese aggression on Mongolia are the Russians, and the only ones who are able to deter Russian aggression - are the Chinese. So far though - neither has shown the slightest interest in doing so.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 10:07 AM
mongolia is just hedging opposing sides... no way is it going to help the US or others (not russia or china) with spy or military bases, it would be suicide.. it has nothing to gain by pissing off the two neighbours that could make it cess to exists as a buffer state if it turned into a proxy US base

cn_habs
04-01-2010, 11:01 AM
If both Russia and China impose an embargo on Mongolia, Mogolians are dead meat period. Absurd article.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 11:09 AM
Let them have their fun, the US are very very good at wasting their money.

Ordie
04-01-2010, 12:26 PM
If both Russia and China impose an embargo on Mongolia, Mogolians are dead meat period. Absurd article.

It begs the question: Why does China's neighbor fear China?

Russianlynxy
04-01-2010, 01:03 PM
It begs the question: Why does China's neighbor fear China?

They don't They're wary of China, aware of it's capabilities, yes.

But these geopolitical "if/then X-Y-Z" arguments are quite pointless. Both Russia and China are interested in the Uranium resources Mongolia has to offer, so an economic partnership with both is essential to Mongolia.

The argument that "the US will come and make everything better" doesn't really apply here. I'm sure the US is interested in Mongolia as a geopolitical asset, but it's simply too far out of reach economically, geopolitically, and physically for the US in comparison to the amount of influence it's neighboring Russia and China exert. I'd say Russia even more so... relations with China are still kind of sour.

Also, the Colored/Democratic/Velvet/whateveryouwannacallit attempt at political revolution there failed miserably a few years ago, which shines a lot of light on Mongolia's priorities.

Ordie
04-01-2010, 01:09 PM
I'm sure the US is interested in Mongolia as a geopolitical asset, but it's simply too far out of reach economically, geopolitically, and physically for the US in comparison to the amount of influence it's neighboring Russia and China exert.

I think the Mongols are taking note from their Kyghiz cousins in seeking US support to get a greater leverage and bargaining power with its neighbors.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 01:14 PM
I think the Mongols are taking note from their Kyghiz cousins in seeking US support to get a greater leverage and bargaining power with its neighbors.


Ohh, cold war language. Care to explain whats the purpose of this "bargaining power" ??

Ordie
04-01-2010, 01:17 PM
Ohh, cold war language. Care to explain whats the purpose of this "bargaining power" ??

Why should I.

You CHICOMS should know what it is.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 01:20 PM
Why should I.

You CHICOMS should know what it is.

And the whole purpose of the thread IS! :grin:

Eventine
04-01-2010, 01:29 PM
It begs the question: Why does China's neighbor fear China?

Fear is a safeguard against potential threats. Rising great powers are always feared, because you can never be certain of the trajectory they're going to follow, and therefore the threat they might pose.

To mitigate against such fear, a country can provide reassurances through security treaties, ideological hedges, and appeals to history. In examining this issue, I like to juxtapose India and China. India, though still feared by most of its neighbors, is able to partly assuage those fears through its diplomacy, democracy, and tradition of pacifism. By contrast, China's diplomacy is clumsy, its government authoritarian, and its history full of bloodshed and imperial expansion. It has, therefore, limited options for containing the fear of its neighbors.

Unfortunately, fear is contagious, and if left to fester, leads to the sort of paranoia that results in misunderstandings and conflict.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 01:35 PM
"Fear is a safeguard against potential threats"

Like iraq and now iran.

"Rising great powers are always feared"

And is trying to spy and turn neighbors against eachother on another a legit response??

"because you can never be certain of the trajectory they're going to follow"

Mongolia has been a democratic country for 20 years, what are you trying to prove?

"To mitigate against such fear, a country can provide reassurances through security treaties, ideological hedges, and appeals to history."

Genghis Khan??? are you F***ing serious??

"diplomacy, democracy, and tradition of pacifism."

Invasion of bangladesh, cough cough.

"clumsy, its government authoritarian, and its history full of bloodshed and imperial expansion."

The last chinese expansion was 1000 years ago, i'd like for you to complain how the US expanded from one sea to another in less then 100 years.

"Unfortunately, fear is contagious, and if left to fester, leads to the sort of paranoia that results in misunderstandings and conflict."

You have two opposite opinions on how people should react to fear.

SBL
04-01-2010, 01:36 PM
China looks at Mongolia and sees miles of grassland ripe for agricultural development, and untapped deposits of oil, coal, copper, uranium. Traditionally, it was not unusual for Chinese farmers to extend their farmlands northward by a few feet each year- slowly and peacefully encroaching on Mongolian territory.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 01:37 PM
grassland.

bwahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, I guess nobody took Geography 101.

Ordie
04-01-2010, 01:42 PM
China looks at Mongolia and sees miles of grassland ripe for agricultural development, and untapped deposits of oil, coal, copper, uranium.

Therefore Mongolia must plan for what China is capable of doing, not based on its intentions.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 01:43 PM
Therefore Mongolia must plan for what China is capable of doing, not based on its intentions.

Therefore America must plan for what Iran is capable of doing, not based on its intentions.

SBL
04-01-2010, 01:45 PM
bwahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, I guess nobody took Geography 101.
80% extensive grazing, according to the FAO. With irrigation and modern farming techniques, it's not difficult to make the leap from pasture to farmland.

Ordie
04-01-2010, 01:47 PM
Therefore America must plan for what Iran is capable of doing, not based on its intentions.

Yes.

You prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 01:48 PM
80% extensive grazing, according to the FAO. With irrigation and modern farming techniques, it's not hard to make the leap from pasture to farmland.

And china would want to waste their own money to help other countries .:lol:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1648/34344334433443.jpg
Ohhh pasture.


"You prepare for the worst, and hope for the best."

Then to you theres no limit on how many iraqs can be made.

SBL
04-01-2010, 01:53 PM
And china would want to waste their own money to help other countries .:lol:
I think you're missing a very significant point and the thrust of my argument, which is China is looking rather covetously at all that potential farmland and mineral resources, as it deals with its own tremendous population.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 01:55 PM
I think you're missing a very significant point and the thrust of my argument, which is China is looking rather covetously at all that potential farmland and mineral resources, as it deals with its own tremendous population.

You know where else this exists?? Xinjiang and Tibet. Ignoring the fact that for 30 years china has had a hands off policy towards other countries, and don't even think of the f***ing billions china would waste just to help another country.

SBL
04-01-2010, 01:57 PM
You know where else this exists?? Xinjiang and Tibet. Your belief that china is trying to expand is based on the same jingoism that the US is trying to put on china because the lack of a enemy after the soviets.
Exactly .

Synthe
04-01-2010, 01:59 PM
Exactly .

Tibet has been under control of china for a thousand years, bring up any claims that china is trying to start genocide over tibetans (Ignoring that... one of tibets greatest kings married a chinese royalty, ancient tibet used to be a nomadic empire that raided chinese lands, You can always twist language to suit your needs, Most opposition towards chinese rule is by the same ones who want china to collapse, so it wouldn't "threaten US interests.) , yet i'd never hear the same if we were talking about native americans.

SBL
04-01-2010, 02:04 PM
Tibet has been under control of china for a thousand years, bring up any claims that china is trying to start genocide over tibetans, yet i'd never hear the same if we were talking about native americans.
Well for our intents and purposes, it's only been since 1950 or so. Point being, Mongolians are somewhat justified in their suspicion given China's historical track-record and an increase in Chinese migrant workers in recent decades.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:07 PM
1950 .

It's not to hard to google up the Yuan dynasty.

Ordie
04-01-2010, 02:08 PM
It's not to hard to google up the Yuan dynasty.

Are you promoting Google?

Talk about Hypocracy

SBL
04-01-2010, 02:08 PM
It's not to hard to google up the Yuan dynasty.
The PRC did not exist during the Yuan Dynasty. Even I know that.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:10 PM
Are you promoting Google?

Talk about Hypocracy

Google?? My previous post on anything about google was that if google pulled out of china it would help domestic competitors regain that 20% market share that google had.

"The PRC did not exist during the Yuan Dynasty. Even I know that."

Did i say anything about the PRC, i said about China as a whole.

SBL
04-01-2010, 02:16 PM
Did i say anything about the PRC, i said about China as a whole.
If I were to continue with this off-topic line of argumentation, I'd suggest it's a specious claim, as it's like saying Italy has the right to claim former Roman territory. But, whatever perceived justification China may have for the 1950 annexation of Tibet, it happens to be immaterial to the current discussion. (Outside of how it pertains to Mongolian attitudes/Chinese intent)

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:19 PM
If I were to continue with this off-topic line of argumentation, I'd suggest it's a specious claim, as it's like saying Italy has the right to claim former Roman territory. But, whatever perceived justification China may have for the 1950 annexation of Tibet, it happens to be immaterial to the current discussion.

I'd suggest it's a specious claim, as it's like saying the former 13 colonies has the right to claim The North american continent.

SBL
04-01-2010, 02:20 PM
I'd suggest it's a specious claim, as it's like saying the former 13 colonies has the right to claim The North american continent.
Not exactly comparable, and also immaterial.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:22 PM
Not exactly comparable, and also immaterial.

Oh come on, americans always get pissed off when others challenge their legitimacy.

SBL
04-01-2010, 02:24 PM
Oh come on, americans always get pissed off when others challenge their legitimacy.
Your bait-and-switch isn't working. Let me know when you're ready to get back on topic.

Until then, adios.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:26 PM
Your bait-and-switch isn't working. Let me know when you're ready to get back on topic.

Until then, Adios.

I'm on topic and i'm very familiar with the phrases and words others use when they can't debate anymore.

SoftLion
04-01-2010, 02:28 PM
Oh come on, americans always get pissed off when others challenge their legitimacy.

What is this "legitimacy" you speak of?

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:30 PM
What is this "legitimacy" you speak of?

Of another country, How dare these whites settle and claim this as their land. :)

SBL
04-01-2010, 02:30 PM
i'm very familiar with the phrases and words others use when they can't debate anymore.
And you've demonstrated their use in textbook fashion.

Ta ta.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:31 PM
And you've demonstrated them in textbook fashion.

Ta ta.

And you said i was off topic :roll:

SoftLion
04-01-2010, 02:39 PM
Of another country, How dare these whites settle and claim this as their land. :)

I would wager that the ownership of around 100% of the available land surface has, at one point or another, been disputed. I certainly do not condone the manner that Natives were handled in the past. Do you condone the treatment of the Tibetans, as a distinct culture, currenlty?

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:41 PM
I would wager that the ownership of around 100% of the available land surface has, at one point or another, been disputed. I certainly do not condone the manner that Natives were handled in the past. Do you condone the treatment of the Tibetans, as a distinct culture, currenlty?

"Distinct culture"

Yes, and if you had checked my posts before i've never said that they weren't.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 02:42 PM
And you said i was off topic :roll:


in other wards they can use the arguement against you, but you can't do the same to them... before the PRC, tibet was a part of the ROC (still part of country but generally the country was factionalized with warlordism not really a central government with full control) , before that it was the qing, ming, yuan .. before that they were rival factions of warring groups, before that the nomadic tibetan empire which formed a semi union with tang by royal links, before that more rival tribes.

SoftLion
04-01-2010, 02:43 PM
"Distinct culture"

Yes, and if you had checked my posts before i've never said that they weren't.

So what is your point?

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:44 PM
So what is your point?

My point??? I answered your question.

SoftLion
04-01-2010, 02:48 PM
I must have mistook you. I thought you were legitimizing the attempts at annexing Tibet by taking the position that Americans cannot decry such actions because of the way our country was formed in the 1700's.

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:50 PM
I must have mistook you. I thought you were legitimizing the attempts at annexing Tibet by taking the position that Americans cannot decry such actions because of the way our country was formed in the 1700's.

Tibet was annexed nearly a thousand years ago, compared to the 50 states which were inhabited by Native americans and which few americans would agree if i were to say that any non-natives should go back to the countries they have more blood/emotional relation to.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 02:52 PM
I would wager that the ownership of around 100% of the available land surface has, at one point or another, been disputed. I certainly do not condone the manner that Natives were handled in the past. Do you condone the treatment of the Tibetans, as a distinct culture, currenlty?


it's hard to put judgement towards the PRC as they see it a hypocritical considering the natives culture were forcibly removed in the past and thus is close to being a dead culture today (general lack of knowledge of customs and language in favor of english) , sure tibetans suffered cultural repression in the past (mao's era), but this isn't a han vs. tibetan conversion as it was a idiologic communism cultural conversion that effected the han just as much if not more than the tibetans, currently it is religious problems they face, but this is also wrapped up in political opposition to the dalai lama and thus linked to religion, other then that all other aspect of tibetan culture and language are intact and promoted by both the central government in beijing and the local tibetan communist government in lhasa (this part is important, it isn't the same as one culture over another, if it was then they would have just forcibly removed their culture the same way others have with minority groups)

SoftLion
04-01-2010, 02:54 PM
Tibet was annexed nearly a thousand years ago, compared to the 50 states which were inhabited by Native americans and which few americans would agree if i were to say that any non-natives should go back to the countries they have more blood/emotional relation to.

Tibet is roughly the same size, geographically, as the 50 states, or am I way off?

Henry's Fork
04-01-2010, 02:55 PM
Tibet was annexed nearly a thousand years ago, compared to the 50 states which were inhabited by Native americans and which few americans would agree if i were to say that any non-natives should go back to the countries they have more blood/emotional relation to.

Didnt know the PRC existed thousand years ago. Thanks for the info.

Eventine
04-01-2010, 02:56 PM
I would wager that the ownership of around 100% of the available land surface has, at one point or another, been disputed. I certainly do not condone the manner that Natives were handled in the past. Do you condone the treatment of the Tibetans, as a distinct culture, currenlty?

A few words of apology do not true regret demonstrate. I like to go with the War Nerd on everything related to European colonization:

"I don't live this double life, benefiting from the fact that my house is built on some other tribe's land and then pretending to regret that. I'll always remember having to study Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and everyone sobbing for the poor Indians, but nobody's gonna give them the land back. I mean, one way or the f*#king other: either you give them the land back, or you admit you're a predator and you eat meat."

IMO, there's something profound about how the ideology of de-colonization, founded upon Western liberal guilt, has led its politics on a worldwide crusade against colonization wherever it occurs. Yet, there's something deeply problematic in this: you cannot atone for the European colonization of the New World by stopping the Chinese colonization of Tibet.

If anything, holding onto the fruits of colonization while denying others of the same makes it look all the worse. As deplorable as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were, they understood the hypocrisy of Anglo-American politics - and to a lesser degree Russian politics - when, after devouring half the world through colonization, they would deny the same opportunity to all others.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 02:58 PM
Tibet was annexed nearly a thousand years ago, compared to the 50 states which were inhabited by Native americans and which few americans would agree if i were to say that any non-natives should go back to the countries they have more blood/emotional relation to.


tibet slowly came into union with china over a long drawn out process over a thousand years, on and off levels of closeness or separateness.. the 1950 issue is more a communist PRC establishment consolidation of all previous ROC territory and not a "annex, invasion" , the communists in light a the reality on the ground of tibet lama class running a separate government (post qing warlordism lacking a central government, thus power vaccum) they wanted to bring them into the rest of the new communist system (that's why the young dalai lama was part of the communism legislative assemble, like how the pachen lama and tibetan communist officials hold that position today)

Synthe
04-01-2010, 02:58 PM
PRC.

Jesus you guys are dumb, there was a whole page on how i had to clarify to those who didn't understand when i said China i meant China as a whole along with its 4000 year old history.

SBL
04-01-2010, 02:58 PM
in other wards they can use the arguement against you, but you can't do the same to them... before the PRC, tibet was a part of the ROC (still part of country but generally the country was factionalized with warlordism not really a central government with full control) , before that it was the qing, ming, yuan .. before that they were rival factions of warring groups, before that the nomadic tibetan empire which formed a semi union with tang by royal links, before that more rival tribes.
Nice try, but this thread is (or was, rather) about Mongolia. The issue of Tibet was raised only in relation to how it colors the perceptions of those living in Mongolia. Justifying their suspicion, you might say.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 03:04 PM
Didnt know the PRC existed thousand years ago. Thanks for the info.


can't use that arguement, if thats the case then russia after USSR should go back to kiev rus territory, or white americans should go back to UK, blacks should go back to africa, natives get everything....china the entity existed a thousand years ago and the PRC sees itself as the modern successor state, also the lamas didn't exist a thousand years ago, it was the tubo empire but they see themselves as the successors

Eventine
04-01-2010, 03:04 PM
Nice try, but this thread is (or was, rather) about Mongolia. The issue of Tibet was raised only in relation to how it colors the perceptions of those living in Mongolia. Justifying their suspicion, you might say.

I would think that the people living in Mongolia would be colored much more by the PRC's ownership of Inner Mongolia than about its ownership of Tibet, though of course the latter matters, too.

SBL
04-01-2010, 03:05 PM
I would think that the people living in Mongolia would be colored much more by the PRC's ownership of Inner Mongolia than about its ownership of Tibet, though of course the latter matters, too.
I'm sure that it does.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 03:09 PM
Nice try, but this thread is (or was, rather) about Mongolia. The issue of Tibet was raised only in relation to how it colors the perceptions of those living in Mongolia. Justifying their suspicion, you might say.


this tread was about mongolia, but it was going way off topic so i guess i could at least address it since were heading in that direction anyways.

why would it justify their suspicions ??.. mongolia is a sovereign independent state, tibet is not ... mongolian don't like chinese because of past history where they were a part of qing dynasty china and attempts to regain before formal recognition as a soviet satelite independent state, thus the feeling that the chinese are out to get them rather than the soviets/russian are trying to proxy them

Ordie
04-01-2010, 03:14 PM
in other wards they can use the arguement against you, but you can't do the same to them... before the PRC, tibet was a part of the ROC (still part of country but generally the country was factionalized with warlordism not really a central government with full control) , before that it was the qing, ming, yuan .. before that they were rival factions of warring groups, before that the nomadic tibetan empire which formed a semi union with tang by royal links, before that more rival tribes.


http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/roc_administrative_and_claims.jpg

This map would justify the Mongol's fears.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 03:16 PM
I'm sure that it does.


the part of outer mongolia becoming an independent state in linked with inner mongolia staying a part of china, the result of WW2 where mongolia established itself as a working government allied with the soviets against the japanese in the aftermath was the reality on the ground, the ROC had to deal with that fact thus the decision to the mongolian regarding territory, the ones that wanted be part of the soviet mongolian state and the others that wanted to stay being a part of china thus non soviet (some fear of cultural purge by soviet mongol leaders a la stalin, which was made true by later president cholbalsan)

Arbody
04-01-2010, 03:16 PM
Old map btw. Ordie , every dispute PRC with Russia were solved more than year ago

SBL
04-01-2010, 03:19 PM
why would it justify their suspicions ??.. mongolia is a sovereign independent state, tibet is not ... mongolian don't like chinese because of past history where they were a part of qing dynasty china and attempts to regain before formal recognition as a soviet satelite independent state, thus the feeling that the chinese are out to get them rather than the soviets/russian are trying to proxy them

Because Tibet serves as a potential worst-case-scenario in dealing with a powerful, overcrowded, and resource-hungry China. It's not much of a stretch to imagine a Chinese takeover similar to Texas a la 1830-something, grounded in some rather specious claims of Mongolia having once been part of the Yuan Empire.;-)

Confuse
04-01-2010, 03:22 PM
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/roc_administrative_and_claims.jpg

This map would justify the Mongol's fears.


your using a ROC map against the PRC...why not using a pre 1850 qing dynasty map instead, that way russia can fear the retaking of outer manchuria and sahkalin island too

most of these territorial claims have been put to rest by both the PRC and the ROC (ROC pretty much acknowledge that fact it no longer controls the previous territory and the PRC does, but still the question of WHO is the legitamate government of china remains, at least in the KMT eyes).. , other than the india, japan all others are address with the reality of the world today

Henry's Fork
04-01-2010, 03:27 PM
can't use that arguement, if thats the case then russia after USSR should go back to kiev rus territory, or white americans should go back to UK, blacks should go back to africa, natives get everything....china the entity existed a thousand years ago and the PRC sees itself as the modern successor state, also the lamas didn't exist a thousand years ago, it was the tubo empire but they see themselves as the successors

Im not the one saying that Tibet always belonged to China and there fore the PRC.

As we all know, Tibet was invaded and conquered by the PRC.

Im done feeding this derailment.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 03:29 PM
Because Tibet serves as a potential worst-case-scenario in dealing with a powerful and resource-hungry China. It's not much of a stretch to imagine a Chinese takeover similar to Texas a la 1830-something, based off some rather specious claims of Mongolia having once been part of the Yuan Empire.;-)


sure preparing for the worst case scenario is great i'm all for it, it's everyone right...but going off like china is trying to conquer the world is false, the US has much more going for it in the arguement of "trying to conquer the world" then anyone else, it just does it in the name of "human rights and democracy" mantra which in practice is really "human rights and democracy" as long as it serves US interests, which history proves the US is more than likely in insert a genocidal dictator to hell with human rights and democracy as long as that "b*stard" is the US's b*stard, that historical precedent is why some people don't trust the US moral idiology and see it as hidden agenda BS justified or not..

Confuse
04-01-2010, 03:37 PM
Im not the one saying that Tibet always belonged to China and there fore the PRC.

As we all know, Tibet was invaded and conquered by the PRC.

Im done feeding this derailment.


there are people saying tibet belongs to china as there are people that tibet doesn't belong to china.

"as we all know tibet was invaded and conquered by the PRC" , you might feel that way, but everyone has their own opinion....a story ALWAYS has more than one side. To the ROC tibet was part of china, the qing in was part of china etc. , tibet as a entity was a separate independent state during the tubo empire but as time progress things change.

SBL
04-01-2010, 04:16 PM
sure preparing for the worst case scenario is great i'm all for it, it's everyone right...but going off like china is trying to conquer the world is false, the US has much more going for it in the arguement of "trying to conquer the world" then anyone else, it just does it in the name of "human rights and democracy" mantra which in practice is really "human rights and democracy" as long as it serves US interests, which history proves the US is more than likely in insert a genocidal dictator to hell with human rights and democracy as long as that "b*stard" is the US's b*stard, that historical precedent is why some people don't trust the US moral idiology and see it as hidden agenda BS justified or not..
Then I'd say you have a pretty firm grasp of Mongolia's predicament, especially in light of China's own willingness to prop up assorted bastards when it suits them.

Confuse
04-01-2010, 04:44 PM
Then I'd say you have a pretty firm grasp of Mongolia's predicament, especially in light of China's own willingness to prop up assorted bastards when it suits them.


mongolia sits in between russia and china and thus is subject to some level of influence by one of these two states, having the US come in and use it the the detriment of either of these two states is going to led to some type of political change in mongolia as a result... you are trying to prove that china is going to take over mongolia as a greater plot to world conquest which just isn't the case.. sure china props up some b*stards, but most are on it's borders and thus in turn provides buffer security, they don't do it world wide and use an ideology as a front to naked pursuit self interest, they just say they are there to pursuit naked self interests and that it doesn't have to be zero-sum and both can win.. so do you want to play ?? instead of ideology

SoftLion
04-01-2010, 05:07 PM
A few words of apology do not true regret demonstrate. I like to go with the War Nerd on everything related to European colonization:

"I don't live this double life, benefiting from the fact that my house is built on some other tribe's land and then pretending to regret that. I'll always remember having to study Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and everyone sobbing for the poor Indians, but nobody's gonna give them the land back. I mean, one way or the f*#king other: either you give them the land back, or you admit you're a predator and you eat meat."

IMO, there's something profound about how the ideology of de-colonization, founded upon Western liberal guilt, has led its politics on a worldwide crusade against colonization wherever it occurs. Yet, there's something deeply problematic in this: you cannot atone for the European colonization of the New World by stopping the Chinese colonization of Tibet.

If anything, holding onto the fruits of colonization while denying others of the same makes it look all the worse. As deplorable as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were, they understood the hypocrisy of Anglo-American politics - and to a lesser degree Russian politics - when, after devouring half the world through colonization, they would deny the same opportunity to all others.

Let me make this clear: I don't apologize for what was done, nor do I feel any guilt. Reason being, I am not responsible for those actions. Nor do I adhere to some snot-nose liberal idea that we should "de-colonize", for the simple fact that it is a great philosophy, an ideal to hold close to your heart, but entirely unrealistic. You know that.

It sounds like you live in a world of ideals, which are great, just unatainable. But you did take the time to admire and compliment Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Those instances are telling little jewels of credibility.

Most contradictory, however, is using colonization in a negative light from a Western perspective, then making it OK as long as you feel, in your own mind, that no one should have the moral high ground to condemn further colonization.

You truly are the Kathy Lou Retton of contradictory mental gymnastics.

Eventine
04-01-2010, 06:25 PM
Let me make this clear: I don't apologize for what was done, nor do I feel any guilt. Reason being, I am not responsible for those actions. Nor do I adhere to some snot-nose liberal idea that we should "de-colonize", for the simple fact that it is a great philosophy, an ideal to hold close to your heart, but entirely unrealistic. You know that.

It sounds like you live in a world of ideals, which are great, just unatainable. But you did take the time to admire and compliment Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Those instances are telling little jewels of credibility.

Most contradictory, however, is using colonization in a negative light from a Western perspective, then making it OK as long as you feel, in your own mind, that no one should have the moral high ground to condemn further colonization.

You truly are the Kathy Lou Retton of contradictory mental gymnastics.

I don't know who Kathy Lou Retton is, but you have not demonstrated anything particularly contradictory in my post. Let's run through your points:

1. "You live in a world of unattainable ideals." Really, and here I thought you were the one being idealistic. "Be realistic" is the sort of argument that works in any situation. Take Tibet, for example. Isn't Chinese rule simply "realistic?" Let's be "realistic" about history - it is a procession of tribes conquering one another. In which case, what's one more? Be realistic.

2. "You compliment Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan." Incorrect. I called them detestable, but even morally detestable regimes can sometimes observe the truth. One of the Nazi's strongest platforms was the German nation's need for Lebensraum, a rhetoric they laid entirely at the feet of existing continent-spanning ex-colonial nations like the US and Russia. Their logic, if immoral, is still self-evident: "those nations got away with colonialism and now enjoy the independence, power, and self-sufficiency only a large territory can provide. Why should we be prevented from doing the same? The German people is no less worthy of owning half the world than the American or the Russian people - if anything, we are more worthy." Try to see things from beyond the of moral atrocities committed, for once, and you might learn something.

3. "Most contradictory, however, is using colonization in a negative light from a Western perspective, then making it OK as long as you feel, in your own mind, that no one should have the moral high ground to condemn further colonization." Isn't that your point? You came into this with the statement that 100% of the land in the world has been contested at some point in time, and so implies that Western colonization is really nothing special. You then immediately offer that you don't "condone" what was done to the Natives, and that this alone makes it all OK. So are you riding the moral high horse or not?

From my perspective, my "mental gymnastics," as you call it, is simply pushing the logic to its proper conclusion. If you, as you profess, have no regret because you were not an accomplice (by virtue of not being alive), then surely you will realize that my quote is a direct challenge to your innocence. You cannot sit here, reaping the benefits of colonialism, while pretending to be innocent of its crimes. Either give the land back, or admit that you have benefited and continues to benefit from colonial practices. Should you do so, you might then come to a better understanding of what the Chinese are banking on.

Morality is contextual, and the Chinese prefer to see the West in the context of thousands of years of history, as opposed to the flash of five decades (during which de-colonization and liberal humanism became in vogue.) The modern world is not, after all, the result of fifty years of ideology, but the consequence of millions of years of adaptation.

CPL Trevoga
04-01-2010, 08:49 PM
Old map btw. Ordie , every dispute PRC with Russia were solved more than year ago

No, it's not the claims of China, but Taiwan. :)

Confuse
04-01-2010, 09:06 PM
No, it's not the claims of China, but Taiwan. :)


the ROC and PRC both claim china that's why there was a civil war where the ROC lost control of the mainland to the communist that established the PRC.. on the other hand there are political parties on taiwan that want the ROC to cess to exist and the ROT (republic of taiwan) to take it's place thus always the independent issue being rather messy as it is independence from whom ?? PRC ? ROC ? china the entity ? , some even don't see it as independent but rather US territory or empire of japan remnant, even some groups of "real" native taiwanese aboriginals seek PRC help in support in their rights on taiwan playing them against both the KMT and DPP on taiwan (jeez this is messy)

TheMiddlePath
04-01-2010, 09:21 PM
Mongolia hit again by snow storms and relies on aid from China. Makes all this talk about military alliances and military bases meaningless.

China aid arrives in Mongolia....again. How lucky to have a prosperous neighbor who cares.
http://i44.tinypic.com/v43vvc.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/k1qd6o.jpg

SBL
04-01-2010, 09:27 PM
mongolia sits in between russia and china and thus is subject to some level of influence by one of these two states, having the US come in and use it the the detriment of either of these two states is going to led to some type of political change in mongolia as a result... you are trying to prove that china is going to take over mongolia as a greater plot to world conquest which just isn't the case.. sure china props up some b*stards, but most are on it's borders and thus in turn provides buffer security, they don't do it world wide and use an ideology as a front to naked pursuit self interest, they just say they are there to pursuit naked self interests and that it doesn't have to be zero-sum and both can win.. so do you want to play ?? instead of ideology
Aww, you're breakin' my heart.:lol:


Politics is always zero-sum, and I'd be mighty wary of anyone who says otherwise.

Ordie
04-01-2010, 11:18 PM
Mongolia hit again by snow storms and relies on aid from China. Makes all this talk about military alliances and military bases meaningless.

China aid arrives in Mongolia....again. How lucky to have a prosperous neighbor who cares.
http://i44.tinypic.com/v43vvc.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/k1qd6o.jpg

Dump free goods into Mongolia to depress the local markets.

CG51
04-01-2010, 11:24 PM
I hope there is enough toilet paper.

Solvent
04-02-2010, 01:20 AM
Dump free goods into Mongolia to depress the local markets.

As a person who tries very hard to set an example to us for so-called love and democracy, at least, you should show a little appreciation for the humanitarian effort.

Ordie
04-02-2010, 01:27 AM
As a person who tries very hard to set an example to us for so-called love and democracy, at least, you should show a little appreciation for the humanitarian effort.

I've seen how Americans send free food and clothing to Central America only to destroy local textile industries, growers and jobs associated with them.

The best relief to provide is help those who can help themselves. China should've sent cash and purchase from local Mongolian businesses and suppliers. This way they can contribute towards supporting local jobs thus ensuring an immediate recovery.

Solvent
04-02-2010, 01:32 AM
I've seen how Americans send free food and clothing to Central America only to destroy local textile industries, growers and jobs associated with them.

The best relief to provide is help those who can help themselves. China should've sent cash and purchase from local Mongolian businesses and suppliers. This way they can contribute towards supporting local jobs thus ensuring an immediate recovery.

I think you do understand the state of emergency. Saving lives and providing food is the first thing you need to do when disaster strikes.

Ordie
04-02-2010, 01:45 AM
I think you do understand the state of emergency. Saving lives and providing food is the first thing you need to do when disaster strikes.

You first need to look into the water before you jump. You don't want to clog the supply chain with useless items based on assumptions.

It's best to bring in money, pump in dollars. The money could be used to buy the food locally and then redistribute it.

Karaahmetoglu
04-02-2010, 01:54 AM
Ordie, right now Mongolia needs all the help they can get, this influx of stuff from the the outside world is well appreciated, you say it is going to bankrupt local business men, the business men have nothing to do business with. Herders have lost much of their livestock, every night the animals are freezing to death, and their numbers are getting drastically lower. Some young livestock are being kept in the tents so that they can survive and their wouldn't be a complete and total loss. Some herders are contemplating suicide.

So no this emergency aid coming into Mongolia is not suppressing the local markets. Their is nothing in the local market.

Solvent
04-02-2010, 01:54 AM
You first need to look into the water before you jump. You don't want to clog the supply chain with useless items based on assumptions.

It's best to bring in money, pump in dollars. The money could be used to buy the food locally and then redistribute it.

For emergency purpose, bringing food and supplies from less damaged places makes good sense. After the situation is stable, the local gov can step in.

Confuse
04-02-2010, 02:06 AM
I've seen how Americans send free food and clothing to Central America only to destroy local textile industries, growers and jobs associated with them.

The best relief to provide is help those who can help themselves. China should've sent cash and purchase from local Mongolian businesses and suppliers. This way they can contribute towards supporting local jobs thus ensuring an immediate recovery.


WOW.. spin everything. this is a disaster relief aid, not a long tern donor aid, immediate materials first, after the emergency need is met then comes some recovery money

cn_habs
04-02-2010, 03:50 AM
You first need to look into the water before you jump. You don't want to clog the supply chain with useless items based on assumptions.

It's best to bring in money, pump in dollars. The money could be used to buy the food locally and then redistribute it.

Every second you waste going through your "efficient process" can kill some disaster victim. Disaster relief is all about speed while rebuilding is more of a long term planning.

BTW, no one can get into the country without China or Russia's authorization. Dead fish in the water.

Ordie
04-02-2010, 04:20 AM
Disaster relief is all about speed while rebuilding is more of a long term planning.

Not if you have a chinese fire drill and muck up the supply chain with useless goods tied up at the airport.
People can hold up for 72 hours, that's when you send your assessment team to triage the situation and call in the right resources for the right job.

Confuse
04-02-2010, 06:52 AM
Not if you have a chinese fire drill and muck up the supply chain with useless goods tied up at the airport.
People can hold up for 72 hours, that's when you send your assessment team to triage the situation and call in the right resources for the right job.


in this case it isn't like an earthquake or typhoon with widespread system damage ( in this case not much systems at all since it is mainly herd grassing areas not much in terms of damage to cities) ..it is a heavy winter storm with very cold temperatures that was known to hit days in advance, it's a much more localized type of aid needed thus no so much "useless" stuff

jetsetter
04-06-2010, 05:53 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/5vsz85.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/qovlvo.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/2s65735.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/29cwfw8.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/1zdno0x.jpg

Kabul, Afghanistan--Mongolian commandos demonstrate hand-to-hand combat and precision small arms handling skills before coaltion forces at Camp Eggers-home to NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan. The commandos were part of a series of demonstrations celebrating Mongolian Army Day. The day celebrates the Mongolian Army's first major victory in a modern battle in 1921.
Posted by bd popeye @ http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?177223-Today-s-PIX!!-Tuesday-April-6th-2010

Synthe
04-06-2010, 05:56 PM
WRONG THREAD, this is not the "Strictly Photos & Video" section.

jetsetter
04-06-2010, 06:01 PM
WRONG THREAD, this is not the "Strictly Photos & Video" section.

The photos are not out of place. In fact the article actually mentions the Mongolian contingent in Afghanistan.

Synthe
04-06-2010, 06:02 PM
The photos are not out of place. In fact the article actually mentions the Mongolian contingent in Afghanistan.

I'd like so see you from now on post military photos on every thread in the "Political Discussions and Rants" section.

Ordie
04-06-2010, 07:02 PM
Nice photos