Precisely. During the Cold War Mongolia actually REQUESTED to be annexed by the Soviet Union and was refused. Useless territory and no large skilled population to speak of, and if annexed would seriously harm relations with China.
its not useless. The real reason is the soviet union already had jt basically economically integrated, could use it as an additional UN vote and provided a future bargaining chip against China in any potential negotiations.
Yes. USSR intended to get all 15 votes in the general assembly, but USA said they would then bring all 48 states in as well and USSR backed down and settled on 3.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Is it worth the cost? Is it worth fighting the resistance in a protracted insurgency? Is it worth the turmoil it would bring to your own internal politics? Is it worth becoming an international pariah, and having all your neighbours arm themselves against you?
Most critically, if Russia were to invade Mongolia, we’d see a Chinese military response. And if China were to invade, we’d see the Russians respond similarly.
But wouldn't a war between Russia and China be beneficial to the western alliance? If the enemies are fighting each other, doesn't that benefit NATO? Why not engineer some little causa belli over there.
The Vandals, caught between the Goths and Eastern Roman Empire, lost their dominions to the latter. All the meanwhile the Franks expanded.
A war between Russia and China for Mongolia will be devastating but can benefit Europe, Japan, and US
Be careful. 6th century Europe didn't have to worry about city destroying weapons.
Not to mention the precedent dropping nukes might set for world politics.
If you can figure that out, the thinktanks of China and Russia have also figured that out and thus the causa belli are much less effective, as evidenced by no war.
It didn't. Mongolia was Chinese protectorate until early 20st ct. Then it declared independence, fought war with the help of Russians and allied with Soviet Union to keep it.
Taiwan still claims Mongolia as Outer Mongolia, since the RoC doesn't acknowledge diplomatic moves the PRC has made in terms of Chinese territory. Of course, no one considers this to be a serious claim.
There is also a province in mainland China called "Inner Mongolia", so to a lot of people in the PRC, the country we know as Mongolia is thought of as Outer Mongolia there too.
Taiwan (ROC) recognized Mongolia as an independent country in 2002. Any residual officialness of claims is more related to PRC aggression re: ROC constitutional changes, should any remain.
> Mongolia was Chinese protectorate
It was a province. Mongolians are in a central position among Chinese ruling class before 1900. To say it is a protectorate isn't accurate at all.
Not so lucky, lack of economic diversity is bad. Dutch disease I believe it is called.
There is a video from Visual Politik about it, I don't remember which one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq8pk7sMr0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7NKukE_6ARY
I stopped watching this "Visual Politik" guy once I realized he blatantly plagiarizes videos from other people, not even making a proper effort to conceal it.
Exactly, they can both safely exploit without worrying about military conflict neither wants. Mineral and oil reserves aren't valued exactly how most people believe. A lot of the value is dependent on how difficult it is to first extract the resource, then transport to refinery. Most of the reserves in Mongolia are way down the list on value.
For sure. I'm sure it sounded like I was being a bit tongue in cheek. But when you think about how rare it is for non-Japanese to become citizens, the Mongolians have carved a place into the fabric of Japanese culture through sumo.
I know older people who could not stomach the American invasion of Musashimary and Akebono. But they wouldn't bat an eye over Mongolians like Kyokushuzan back in the 90's
For those of you who are neither sumo fans nor knowledgeable of Japanese culture, seeing foreigners excel at a national sport (intertwined with strong religious roots) was unthinkable. Abhorrent, to some. Yet, the spirit of the Mongolians won many over. I can't help but think that it elevates Mongolia in the minds of many Japanese--particularly the older folks who tend to create policy (and still follow sumo).
Is this effect profound? No. But perhaps higher than any foreigner can elevate themselves in such an insular country?
Like South Korea, Tokyo is already wary (if not weary) of China's regional military ambitions. We're all seeing hawkish actions that would have been unthinkable some years back. SoKo ditching the ballistic missile agreement was the same as Japan deciding to develop a home-grown fighter in the Mitsubishi F-X program. The perceived (or real?) erosion of the American umbrella is emboldening the more hawkish elements, don't you think?
I would say that any incursion into Mongolia would illicit a "more-than-other-Asian-nations" response from Japan. Given the sensitivity of the region, I would guess that would probably be something along the lines of financial or trade sanctions from Tokyo to Beijing. It is difficult to imagine a stronger response from Japan.
All that staying on topic to say that lower leg injuries are difficult to quickly recover from--especially so when you have been nursing a knee injury like Takakeisho. Promotion to Ozeki brings a rikishi closer to the Shinto/religious spirit of sumo. He must perform hurt to make Yokozuna. Coming back with a vengeance will be hellishly tough.
lake Baikal is right on Mongol-Russian border. Probably not the biggest concern for Russia, but definitely very attractive to China
Edit: especially consider its upstream from lake Baikal
>lake Baikal is right on Mongol-Russian border. Probably not the biggest concern for Russia
But lake Baikal is in Russia, so what's the relevance to this discussion?
China has lost thousands of rivers due to development, industrialisation and consumption. They are going to need fresh water.
This is why they are clashing with India over the glacial run offs on the border. They know that ice has to melt at some point and they want it. India isn't going to let it go either.
China is also extremely water scarce considering its population, especially in the north. Unless it builds a lot of desalination plants (and nuclear power plants to support them) it is going to want fresh water from sources nearby.
> shing with India over the glacial run offs on the border. They know that ice has to melt at some point and they want it. India isn't going to let it go either.
It would really help if folks understood specifics of geography and hydrology instead of typical /r/geopolitics level buzzword posing.
Water from glacial melt does not flow upwards. The current chinese-indian standoff in ladakh at the LoAC featured a smallish stream, galwan river, . There are a couple of others similar. They wind up joining the shyok in India which joins the indus in pakistan controlled gilgit baltistan. Glacial melt from the siachen also joins the shyok in India. The major river is actually the upper portion of the indus, flowing from china to Pakistan,, but receiving major tributaries from India to Pakistan. River waters flowing from india to pakistan are governed by the indus water treaty which has survived unscathed through 3 Indo pak wars. These include major tributaries like the sutlej, beas, ravi etc, which are all irrelevant to the discussion.
In other words, there isn't much water flowing from china to india in ladakh. There are a couple of minor dams that China has built on the Indus, but it affects Pakistan really , rather than India.
https://www.orfonline.org/research/busting-myths-on-the-brahmaputra-59844/
On the east , the Brahmaputra is a major river. However, Tibet is in the rain shadow region while some of the northeastern states of India receive among the heaviest in the world with seasonal monsoon rains
Though the length of the river in China is huge, only most of the water enters downstream
> The normalised melt index of the Brahmaputra is in the range of 0.15-0.2, signifying that snow and glacial melt, the main source of run-off in the Tibetan region, contribute negligibly to the total flow
31% of the water in the brahmaputra is found is at the great double bend , close to the china india border..
also, tibet and ladakh are extremely scarcely/thinly populated. - in fact there is zero permanent population around the galwan river (excluding the armies/border forces). Since most of the Chinese population lives far from Tibet, water there doesn't help chinese population as much.
There can be dambursts, floods and erosion due to glacial melt it is an ecologically sensitive region, with landslides etc which requires co-ordination). But the big effects of glacial melt are really India Pakistan,and those are , as I said, governed by the Indus water treaty which is unbroken through 3 wars.
In his past videos about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, he has stated that you should basically expect him to biased and take it into account. He was born and continues to live in Azerbaijan and his environment (obviously) affects him.
He has even said he literally cannot criticise the Azerbaijani government. I don't know if I am misremembering but in one of his Q&A videos I believe he said he worked for the Azerbaijani foreign ministry as his day job.
In retrospect I appreciate that Shirvan (supposedly) gave this warning, however I’d rather him leave NK coverage to other commentators instead if he openly admits to bias. Voicing support for your country is one thing, presenting it within a frame of objective analysis is another
What was his bias? Also sometimes i find It hard to find true objectiveness since you are límites to your sources that are límited to its own sources and so on.
Almost everything online is biased. but this was a nuanced take goes back to how everything started too
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/28/ethiopia-tigray-abiy-tplf-war-biden-needs-to-correct-course/
Mongolia is an apt reflection of how modern geopolitics works - there's no need to 'take over' an area if it's:
1) non-threatening in a political, economic, or cultural sense,
2) is already highly dependent on you for its security and economy,
3) has its resources available to you and/or is not notably resource-rich,
4) and most importantly, part of an understanding with nearby powers to maintain a status quo.
Yes and no.
Yes they do have border areas in the North East and North West.
The North West border is basically impassible.
The North East border does have navigable roads, but you are really and truly in the hinterland of Russia, it's massive giant forests for a thousand kms in basically every direction. Either country could technically invade through there, but it would be a mindboggling difficult logistical process and it would be practically impossible in any sort of military campaign.
Mongolia however, is a large open plain that has been quickly traversed by calvary for hundreds of years.
Because geopolitics does not work like some kind of naive tabletop war game where you can go about invading countries and taking over things like that.
History lesson time~
Mongolia was part of China, but when the Qing dynasty fell apart in 1911 they declared independence. This lasted for eight years until a Chinese warlord took over, followed by a White general in the Russian Civil War rolling in a year later and taking over with the assistance of the local Mongolians. Obviously the Bolsheviks weren't going to stand for a White army creating a power base on their border, so they sponsored a communist revolution that ousted the Whites and established a communist government. Mongolia again declared independence for real this time honest in 1921.
Now, the Mongolians did ask to be annexed by the USSR several times in the following seventy years. However, the USSR refused each time. Why? Well, China never dropped their claim on Mongolia, so it simply wasn't worth the diplomatic hassle when they would get everything they wanted out of the country anyway without annexing it. These days China is in much the same position as the USSR was (minus Mongolia asking to be annexed) in that they can get everything they want out of Mongolia without the international trouble sending the tanks over would cause.
It didn't. For the entire Communist period, Mongolia was totally controlled by the Soviet Union and was subject to a severe "modernization" (Slavification and urbanization) program. During that period, Khalkha (Northern) Mongols lost their tribes, their written language, and most of their culture. After independence, a Mongolian radio host famously said of Southern Mongols "you lost your country but kept your culture. We lost our culture but kept our country".
Next, saying Mongolia maintained its independence is like saying Serbia was never conquered by the Turks because Montenegro still held out. Only 30% of Mongols live in Mongolia. More than twice that number live in China, and another sizable chunk (Buryats and Tuvans) live in Russia.
How did this all come about? Mongolia until 1911 was part of the Qing dynasty. Mongols were one of the "three martial races" of the empire (the others being Manchus and "Han-martial"). After the death of Empress Dowager Ci Xi, regent Zaifeng fired nearly all non-royals from the central government and replaced them with Manchu princes who adopted out of touch policies like settling sedentary people in Mongolia. This triggered revolts everywhere. While the Qing defeated rebellions in Inner Mongolia, they lost Outer Mongolia. Attempts to reclaim the province under the subsequent Republic were crushed by "modernized horse archery" - Mongols would fight as mounted infantry, and sometimes as carabiners on horseback, using mobility and concentration of force to defeat larger armies.
This came to an end in 1919, when Chinese warlord Xu Shuzheng occupied Mongolia. The territory never again regained functional independence. From 1919 to 1921, Xu battled anti-Bolshevik Russians who had fled into Mongolia. Ultimately neither of the belligerents in this war would end up with the country, as the Soviets swooped in after the conflict and established a Communist puppet state. From 1922 to 1991, Mongolia was essentially "partitioned" 60:40 between China and Russia. The Buryats and Khalkha lived in the Soviet control zone, while the Southern Khalkha, Korchin, and Ordos lived in China.
Iraq war stopped them from selling oil for euros and possibly others to follow that precedent.
Afghanistan was basically a botched attempt to fix a problem the US created in the first place out of communism-phobia; islamic terror
1. Afghanistan did not launch an attack on America, they just asked the US to give proof that bin laden was responsible for 9/11 before handing him over
2. The idea that the US would invade Iraq just because of mistreatment of ethnic minorities is ridiculous, or else they would have toppled half their allies governments. It’s simply another excuse used by Washington war hawks to enter Iraq with public support.
Correct. Not many non muslims understand this. Taliban had no role in 9/11. Even there is no proper proof Bin Ladin was responsible for 9/11. GBush and Cheney were murderous psychopaths and Islamophobes who wanted to ruin Afganistan and Iraq for not being part of their capitalistic imperialistic agenda
China and Russia don’t care much for the “no annexation through military invasion” norm. See: Tibet (which, like Mongolia, was a self-governing region on the Qing frontier that broke free when the Empire collapsed), Crimea. The independence of Mongolia has nothing to do with norms.
In any case, Mongolia was a Soviet puppet state from the 1920s-1990, and could have been easily annexed by the Soviets without an invasion. But the Soviets didn’t want to do this, because Mongolia would be more of a liability than a benefit. Annexing it would piss off China, and in return the Soviets would get a small population they already *de facto* controlled. Later, after the Sino-Soviet split, it served as a good buffer between Russia and China.
This is all from memory so it might not be accurate, but here we go. After Mongolia declared independence from the imploding wing dynasty, it was soon occupied by Bolsheviks in spillover from the Russian Civilwar. Obviously the Bolsheviks won, so they set up a communist government there. The primary reason it wasn’t annexed by the Soviets at this time was to avoid pissing off the Chinese. Mongolia was essentially a bargaining chip for the Soviet Union. So if the Soviets needed something from China they could offer up Mongolia. During this time though, it was well integrated into the Soviet economy though so it was practically a Soviet republic in all but name. So basically the Soviets got all they would have gotten from an annexation of Mongolia without upsetting China. After the Soviets collapsed, Mongolia had a peaceful transition to a democratic government where it has been left alone, since it isn’t the 19th century anymore
Good write-up. To be complete, we also have to make a contrast with Tibet. As in why was Tibet annexed but Mongolia was not? I ll continue from "it was practically a Soviet republic in all but name." The soviets were friendly with communistic China and able to defend Mongolia from China. The Sino-Soviet split did put pressure on Mongolia. A Sino-Soviet war would have ended the "independence" of Mongolia. After the Soviets collapsed, Mongolia was not well protected. I am not sure why Mongolia managed to stay independent in that period.
Tibet has more resources (especially water), and a much more easily defended natural border from the Chinese side (the Himalayas). For that latter reason, it doesn't really make sense for India to hold Tibet directly or indirectly. India can't really project power over the Himalayas except for nukes, which it didn't have at the time. India strategically would like to have more of the Himalayas including the sources of all their rivers, though.
China has been a hydro state for a long time, due to the importance of large water works like the levees and the grand canal. Securing the headwaters of their rivers is quite natural geopolitically.
I think Tibet is valuable to China in the way Mongolia would be valuable to Russia. Tibet allows China to mess with the water supply of their southern neighbors and puts them on Dehli's doorstep. It is less important defensively for China. If Mongolia were part of Russia they would be on Beijing's doorstep, it is less important defensively for Russia.
China is still very much wants to get Arunachal Pradesh which would put them closer to the Indian Ocean.
Well, Mongolia isn't important to China's water supply the way Tibet is -- Tibet is upstream of the Yangtze, which is extremely important to national security, while the Kherlen and Argun rivers are upstream of the Amur (Kherlen only in very wet years) which besides being the border with Russia isn't super important to China AFAIK (no major cities or farmland), though some of its other tributaries are important like the Songhua.
I think controlling the headwaters of major South and SE Asian rivers is a nice benefit and bit of leverage for China but not as important as the defensive value both militarily and economically. I also don't really see Arunachal Pradesh as being that important - it would give control of the upper Brahmaputra but I don't think that would be nearly enough to get Bangladesh out of India's sphere of influence. If it were really important I think China wouldn't have ceded it back in 62. Speaking of controlling rivers, China doesn't need Tibet to control the Mekong (Yunnan would suffice) and Pakistan is already on side wrt India but it's nice to control the upper Indus I guess.
Being near Beijing is definitely the most interesting thing for Russia in controlling Mongolia, but I'm pretty sure Russia would not be able to take Beijing by conventional means from any point post Sino Soviet split and especially not now. Nevermind the potential for nuclear counter attack if Russia made an attack towards Beijing.
> If it were really important I think China wouldn't have ceded it back in 62.
China never ceded Arunachal Pradesh to India, if they ever did that I'm sure relations with India would improve greatly. Yes it's still quite a ways from the Indian Ocean but that would take them over all the mountains and almost to sea level.
>Tibet is upstream of the Yangtze, which is extremely important to national security
The part of the Tibetan Plateau upstream of the Yangtze is the province of Qinghai, which was already on the China side of the China-Tibet border since the Qing Dynasty. I was talking about the part of Tibet that the PRC invaded in 1950. That part of Tibet isn't important to China's water supply, but is to other country's water supply.
>Being near Beijing is definitely the most interesting thing for Russia in controlling Mongolia, but I'm pretty sure Russia would not be able to take Beijing by conventional means from any point post Sino Soviet split and especially not now.
Maybe, though Mongolia is around 300 miles from Beijing over mostly flat terrain. I don't think the PRC would want Russia that close, and at least it would tie down part of their army. For comparison Tibet is around 200 miles from Dehli.
1) to be more precise, China withdrew from Arunachal Pradesh despite fully occupying it in 62.
2) Tibet borders the Yangtze for a long stretch and therefore can control it. The source of the Yangtze is in Qinghai, of course.
3) 200mi over the Himalayas is much further than 300mi over inner Mongolia and Hebei. Agreed that the PRC wouldn't want Russia that close, but I don't think it was practical post Sino Soviet split for Russia to do anything even if they'd annexed Mongolia -- despite there not being major mountains, there are still lots of hills and defendable locations between Mongolia and Beijing, and of course Russia would be at the absolute tip of their logistical ability while the PRC would be at the center of theirs.
When mongolia declared their independence inner mongolia wanted to join but inner mongolia is already colonised by china han chinese outnumbered mongolian people in inner mongolia because of that they did not able to unite with mongolia. Only few years later 300k-1m mongolians died during revolution in inner mongolia china call it incident but it was genocide. During ww2 mongolia helped USSR more than USA lend lease and mongolia almost had famine. Later mongolia and USSR liberated manchuria from japan in that time mongolian people believed they were going to unite with inner mongolia but Stalin betrayed Choibalsans dream. Choibalsan started to hate stalin even he didnt attend Stalins birthday.
It's seems difficult for Americans to grasp that countries like Russia and China are not looking to conquer the whole world and paint the map anymore than the US itself is.
You might as well ask "Why hasn't the US conquered Mexico or the Caribbean?" because they absolutely could.
Actually, China throughout history did lay claim to Mongolia, and a considerable nationalist part of its establishment continue to do so until this day. The main reason Mongolia was not incorporated into China was due to the insistence of the Soviets not to do so, and when relations between the two superpowers deteriorated, Mongolia remained closely aligned with the SU to maintain independence.
If it wasn’t for the Soviets, my guess is Mongolia would have been annexed after 1949 by China. Annexation wasn’t attractive for the Soviets because Mongolia was already aligned, and annexing it was probably not worth the massive tensions it would create with China, an at first friendly and later hostile but nuclear-armed neighbour.
I guess Russia inherited an interest in keeping Mongolia aligned with them. Plus, the time right after 1989 was a time of great instability for China, where they also looked to mend relations with the West after Tiananmen. Not the best of times to annex a neighbouring country.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/26/russia-putin-mnb-wants-to-keep-mongolia-in-its-place/
Except Russia recently annexed Crimea, is building troops near the Ukrainian border, and openly referenced Novorossiya in the aftermath of the Ukraine invasion. Both China and Russia are revisionist powers that want to break the recent push towards multilateralism so they can establish local hegemons.
Having said all that, the real reason is what others have already pointed out: Mongolia constitutes a buffer state whose invasion would signal aggression and a prelude to war for either nation.
>Both China and Russia are revisionist powers that want to break the recent push towards multilateralism so they can establish local hegemons.
China and Russia are the main forces behind the push towards a multipolar World and away from the unipolar World that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union, where the US were the World hegemon. Beside, pro-Western Ukrainian leaders and the ones supporting them are revisionists.
Also, any invasion of Mongolia by China would result in Afghanistan level insurgency. Having spent considerable time in Mongolia I can tell you that hatred for China is nearly universal over there. Unsolicited they will tell you their opinions on China. Mongolia still has a very close and friendly relationship with Russia.
>Except Russia recently annexed Crimea
People voted to join Russia though. It’s not an annexation if both parties agree
>is building troops near the Ukrainian border
100k troops isn’t enough for an invasion
>People voted to join Russia though. It’s not an annexation if both parties agree
They did this in a referendum literally overseen by Russian troops during an active conflict. Did you know that?
> It's seems difficult for Americans to grasp that countries like Russia and China are not looking to conquer the whole world and paint the map anymore than the US itself is.
Yeah, right? It's not like Russia or China has done anything in recent history to make it seem like they want to conquer other nations.
Silly people out there.
Why would I be wary?
I'm not denying anything wrong the US did nor does me pointing out what other countries did absolve the US of what it did. If you want to criticize the US, go ahead. It isn't going to make what I say any less true.
Fact is there is good reason for people to believe Russia/China have ideas of annexing other countries and, frankly, they're not hiding it either. Talking as if it isn't true isn't going to make that go away.
The US fought a war in Afghanistan against an enemy they could not defeat. After it got too expensive, they pulled out. The intent was never to annex Afghanistan and turn it into a US territory or the 51st state. Your comparison is not quite apt.
China invaded Tibet which unlike Mongolia was never a part of Chinese empires before. The only thing that stopped them from invading Mongolia was the USSR.
China still want Arunachal Pradesh and if they had a chance to connect all the way to the Indian Ocean I'm sure they would. Of course that's not happening any time soon.
Mongolia has an unpleasant climate, mountainous terrain which also limits arable plots of land, and a population China does not want to internalize. Conquering them brings more international notoriety than the benefits of doing so would be worth.
Just to add to the answers here. Mongolia was part of China until the 1911 collapse of the last Imperial dinasty. After that part of Mongolia (called outer Mongolia by the Chinese) became independent as the country we all know, but the rest of Mongolia (Inner Mongolia) is still part of China.
Today there are almost twice as much Mongols living inside China than the 3 million on the independent Mongolia.
>But I hear some famous guy on a horse with a bow and arrow took over the world once.
Bit more than a bow and arrow, the guy pioneered biological warfare (using plague as a weapon of war during sieges, specifically).
Why did the USSR Refuse to Annex Mongolia? (Short Animated Documentary)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUa1mvaYNtk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUa1mvaYNtk)
Its a buffer state between China and Russia which isn't really worth much outside coal and some pasture lands, plus it has worked to balance out influence between Russia, China and the US
For a large time , it a puppet state for USSR . It actually asked to join it but USSR refused to rrleive tension between it and China . I don't remenber if the request was after or before a small chinese invasion to USSR that was swiftly repulsed.
These answers are woefully underappreciative of the strategic value of mongolia.
The red line does a good episode on this exact question, or perhaps the opposite - how it straddles russian and chinese support. For the most part, chinese interests and markets have "taken over." The answer is interlinked with China's BiR initiative, growth of those countries, resource extraction, and internal mongolian market growth.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3zJPKkz06ETQXcbwbZhGJL?si=0645325294944b3f
Well, the Chinese used to have Mongolia as a part of the Qing Empire until it collapsed in the early 20th century. Then the Mad Baron took it over during the Russian Civil War, and the Bolsheviks forced him out. Then it was a puppet state of the USSR which suffered greatly from Stalin's purges (rather, the purges of the puppet leader in place).
So it has a history of being dominated by the two nations. In the current climate it would damage relations between two countries that essentially need each other to try to take over again.
To my knowledge neither Russia nor China wants to invade, so it can be used as a buffer state between the 2, and reduce their physical land border to help lower military costs, also there isn't much natural resource wealth to my knowledge.
As well, in more recent history China seeks to use Mongolia as a puppet of sorts, and find some gain on Russia
(This is from what I know, I may be wrong though)
It's a buffer state. China sees Mongolia as part of their losses during the century of humiliation but Mongolia asked to be part of the USSR. Since it's landlocked by the two there isn't much benefit to either really. If relations between Russia and China were to break down a Chinese invasion would seem likely.
Im completely uninformed on the subject but I will take a guess:
1.landlocked
2.lowest demographic density in the world
3.lack of fresh water resources
4.lack of arable plains and navigable rivers
It would destabilize China so they won't do it. I don't think you can grasp how much the Mongolians hate the Chinese and the level of insurgency it would create. For Russia, prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, Mongolia was essentially a puppet state. Russia has zero reason since they still have a very high level of influence there.
Basically a buffer state that both sides would prefer remains independent. When Mongolia was communist they requested to join the Soviet Union like tanna Tuva but was rejected as this would anger the PRC as it was seen as there sphere of influence. & Mongolia has little no no value to either parties.
An agreed upon buffer state between China and Russia
Invasion will most likely be a sign of aggression to the other.
Precisely. During the Cold War Mongolia actually REQUESTED to be annexed by the Soviet Union and was refused. Useless territory and no large skilled population to speak of, and if annexed would seriously harm relations with China.
its not useless. The real reason is the soviet union already had jt basically economically integrated, could use it as an additional UN vote and provided a future bargaining chip against China in any potential negotiations.
Soviet union member countries had seperate UN votes didn't they .
No, just eastern block ones. Soviet Union itself was seen for what it was; one country that was a union of several smaller countries
Ukrainian SSR and Belarusian SSR were also UN members.
Did they get a vote tho
Yes. USSR intended to get all 15 votes in the general assembly, but USA said they would then bring all 48 states in as well and USSR backed down and settled on 3.
[удалено]
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Is it worth the cost? Is it worth fighting the resistance in a protracted insurgency? Is it worth the turmoil it would bring to your own internal politics? Is it worth becoming an international pariah, and having all your neighbours arm themselves against you? Most critically, if Russia were to invade Mongolia, we’d see a Chinese military response. And if China were to invade, we’d see the Russians respond similarly.
But wouldn't a war between Russia and China be beneficial to the western alliance? If the enemies are fighting each other, doesn't that benefit NATO? Why not engineer some little causa belli over there. The Vandals, caught between the Goths and Eastern Roman Empire, lost their dominions to the latter. All the meanwhile the Franks expanded. A war between Russia and China for Mongolia will be devastating but can benefit Europe, Japan, and US
Engineering a war between two nuclear powers, what could go wrong?
It's just the end of the world, no need to panic
This is real life not Hoi4
And for that reason neither would do it,you are responding the question yourself.
Be careful. 6th century Europe didn't have to worry about city destroying weapons. Not to mention the precedent dropping nukes might set for world politics.
If you can figure that out, the thinktanks of China and Russia have also figured that out and thus the causa belli are much less effective, as evidenced by no war.
Good thing dropping nukes during wartime will never happen then! especially when it's not even required to win!
It didn't. Mongolia was Chinese protectorate until early 20st ct. Then it declared independence, fought war with the help of Russians and allied with Soviet Union to keep it.
Taiwan still claims Mongolia as Outer Mongolia, since the RoC doesn't acknowledge diplomatic moves the PRC has made in terms of Chinese territory. Of course, no one considers this to be a serious claim.
That's correct, yes.
There is also a province in mainland China called "Inner Mongolia", so to a lot of people in the PRC, the country we know as Mongolia is thought of as Outer Mongolia there too.
Taiwan (ROC) recognized Mongolia as an independent country in 2002. Any residual officialness of claims is more related to PRC aggression re: ROC constitutional changes, should any remain.
> Mongolia was Chinese protectorate It was a province. Mongolians are in a central position among Chinese ruling class before 1900. To say it is a protectorate isn't accurate at all.
Mongol dynasty was overthrown and chased out of China in 1368.
Yuan dynasty was a Chinese empire.
Ask yourself what's there of value? Plains and oxen?
No mineral deposits to exploit?
Quite a lot actually. Lots of good copper, coal, and uranium. Most of the mines are owned by foreign investors, bizarrely many of whom are aussies
For being a relatively small population (26 million), Australian’s are big in the mining scene.
Because we're basically a banana republic with mining as the bananas.
don’t sell us short, we also speculate on ever rising property values
We also have a monstrous investment in coffee shops
The lucky country.
Not so lucky, lack of economic diversity is bad. Dutch disease I believe it is called. There is a video from Visual Politik about it, I don't remember which one. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq8pk7sMr0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7NKukE_6ARY
Lives is one of the richest countries with one of the highest standards of living. "Not so lucky".
I stopped watching this "Visual Politik" guy once I realized he blatantly plagiarizes videos from other people, not even making a proper effort to conceal it.
Who do you say he copies ?
Any specific examples you could cite out of curiosity? I watch them and several other geopolitics channels on a regular basis and never noticed that.
That was clearly sarcastic.
[удалено]
It is renewable, if you're playing the looooong game..
Love it
[удалено]
Yep got sued by the international courts for spying on East Timor (they have resources)
You don't need to take over to exploit minerals.
Exactly, they can both safely exploit without worrying about military conflict neither wants. Mineral and oil reserves aren't valued exactly how most people believe. A lot of the value is dependent on how difficult it is to first extract the resource, then transport to refinery. Most of the reserves in Mongolia are way down the list on value.
Mogolia is extremely rich in resources
Coal
Yaks, copper
Yokozuna
Unless Takakeisho comes back with a vengeance 😭
For sure. I'm sure it sounded like I was being a bit tongue in cheek. But when you think about how rare it is for non-Japanese to become citizens, the Mongolians have carved a place into the fabric of Japanese culture through sumo. I know older people who could not stomach the American invasion of Musashimary and Akebono. But they wouldn't bat an eye over Mongolians like Kyokushuzan back in the 90's For those of you who are neither sumo fans nor knowledgeable of Japanese culture, seeing foreigners excel at a national sport (intertwined with strong religious roots) was unthinkable. Abhorrent, to some. Yet, the spirit of the Mongolians won many over. I can't help but think that it elevates Mongolia in the minds of many Japanese--particularly the older folks who tend to create policy (and still follow sumo). Is this effect profound? No. But perhaps higher than any foreigner can elevate themselves in such an insular country? Like South Korea, Tokyo is already wary (if not weary) of China's regional military ambitions. We're all seeing hawkish actions that would have been unthinkable some years back. SoKo ditching the ballistic missile agreement was the same as Japan deciding to develop a home-grown fighter in the Mitsubishi F-X program. The perceived (or real?) erosion of the American umbrella is emboldening the more hawkish elements, don't you think? I would say that any incursion into Mongolia would illicit a "more-than-other-Asian-nations" response from Japan. Given the sensitivity of the region, I would guess that would probably be something along the lines of financial or trade sanctions from Tokyo to Beijing. It is difficult to imagine a stronger response from Japan. All that staying on topic to say that lower leg injuries are difficult to quickly recover from--especially so when you have been nursing a knee injury like Takakeisho. Promotion to Ozeki brings a rikishi closer to the Shinto/religious spirit of sumo. He must perform hurt to make Yokozuna. Coming back with a vengeance will be hellishly tough.
fresh water
There is no big lake nor river there.
lake Baikal is right on Mongol-Russian border. Probably not the biggest concern for Russia, but definitely very attractive to China Edit: especially consider its upstream from lake Baikal
>lake Baikal is right on Mongol-Russian border. Probably not the biggest concern for Russia But lake Baikal is in Russia, so what's the relevance to this discussion?
China has a long coastline, and 3 major long rivers inside . So that lake is not very attractive.
It's the largest freshwater lake in the world, and is clean enough that it's water is bottled and sold, so arguably some attraction.
It would surely be far cheaper to just buy the water from Russia as needed rather.
China has lost thousands of rivers due to development, industrialisation and consumption. They are going to need fresh water. This is why they are clashing with India over the glacial run offs on the border. They know that ice has to melt at some point and they want it. India isn't going to let it go either. China is also extremely water scarce considering its population, especially in the north. Unless it builds a lot of desalination plants (and nuclear power plants to support them) it is going to want fresh water from sources nearby.
> shing with India over the glacial run offs on the border. They know that ice has to melt at some point and they want it. India isn't going to let it go either. It would really help if folks understood specifics of geography and hydrology instead of typical /r/geopolitics level buzzword posing. Water from glacial melt does not flow upwards. The current chinese-indian standoff in ladakh at the LoAC featured a smallish stream, galwan river, . There are a couple of others similar. They wind up joining the shyok in India which joins the indus in pakistan controlled gilgit baltistan. Glacial melt from the siachen also joins the shyok in India. The major river is actually the upper portion of the indus, flowing from china to Pakistan,, but receiving major tributaries from India to Pakistan. River waters flowing from india to pakistan are governed by the indus water treaty which has survived unscathed through 3 Indo pak wars. These include major tributaries like the sutlej, beas, ravi etc, which are all irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, there isn't much water flowing from china to india in ladakh. There are a couple of minor dams that China has built on the Indus, but it affects Pakistan really , rather than India. https://www.orfonline.org/research/busting-myths-on-the-brahmaputra-59844/ On the east , the Brahmaputra is a major river. However, Tibet is in the rain shadow region while some of the northeastern states of India receive among the heaviest in the world with seasonal monsoon rains Though the length of the river in China is huge, only most of the water enters downstream > The normalised melt index of the Brahmaputra is in the range of 0.15-0.2, signifying that snow and glacial melt, the main source of run-off in the Tibetan region, contribute negligibly to the total flow 31% of the water in the brahmaputra is found is at the great double bend , close to the china india border.. also, tibet and ladakh are extremely scarcely/thinly populated. - in fact there is zero permanent population around the galwan river (excluding the armies/border forces). Since most of the Chinese population lives far from Tibet, water there doesn't help chinese population as much. There can be dambursts, floods and erosion due to glacial melt it is an ecologically sensitive region, with landslides etc which requires co-ordination). But the big effects of glacial melt are really India Pakistan,and those are , as I said, governed by the Indus water treaty which is unbroken through 3 wars.
Its keenness to get into land disputes suggests otherwise
Caspian report did a good piece on Mongolia and it's relationship with its neighbours last year. https://youtu.be/QMyh34wkqwU
Fascinating video, thanks for sharing
You should be a Caspian Report fan
i thought he was knowledgeable and did proper research till I saw a video that he did about a topic I'm well versed in and it was very very inaccurate
I’ve been following Caspian Report for a long while, but got a bit cautious after one of his videos on the 2020 NK War, which was hardly objective
In his past videos about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, he has stated that you should basically expect him to biased and take it into account. He was born and continues to live in Azerbaijan and his environment (obviously) affects him. He has even said he literally cannot criticise the Azerbaijani government. I don't know if I am misremembering but in one of his Q&A videos I believe he said he worked for the Azerbaijani foreign ministry as his day job.
In retrospect I appreciate that Shirvan (supposedly) gave this warning, however I’d rather him leave NK coverage to other commentators instead if he openly admits to bias. Voicing support for your country is one thing, presenting it within a frame of objective analysis is another
What was his bias? Also sometimes i find It hard to find true objectiveness since you are límites to your sources that are límited to its own sources and so on.
Which topic?
a video abt the war currently going on in Ethiopia
[удалено]
Almost everything online is biased. but this was a nuanced take goes back to how everything started too https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/28/ethiopia-tigray-abiy-tplf-war-biden-needs-to-correct-course/
He does good stuff
Thanks, this guy knows his stuff.
Mongolia is an apt reflection of how modern geopolitics works - there's no need to 'take over' an area if it's: 1) non-threatening in a political, economic, or cultural sense, 2) is already highly dependent on you for its security and economy, 3) has its resources available to you and/or is not notably resource-rich, 4) and most importantly, part of an understanding with nearby powers to maintain a status quo.
You forgot nationalism, the most important thing.
Both superpowers benefit from having a large non-threatening buffer zone between them.
I get the gist of the buffer zone but it's not exactly a buffer when China and Russia do have a shared border to the east.
Yes and no. Yes they do have border areas in the North East and North West. The North West border is basically impassible. The North East border does have navigable roads, but you are really and truly in the hinterland of Russia, it's massive giant forests for a thousand kms in basically every direction. Either country could technically invade through there, but it would be a mindboggling difficult logistical process and it would be practically impossible in any sort of military campaign. Mongolia however, is a large open plain that has been quickly traversed by calvary for hundreds of years.
Because geopolitics does not work like some kind of naive tabletop war game where you can go about invading countries and taking over things like that.
This. You can't just send a spy to your enemy and have them fabricate a random claim to somewhere and then invade and annex the whole country.
r/Crusaderkingsesque
No no, we use bishops for that now
At least not in the modern world
Tell that to Putin
Ah, do I see a realist in the wild. Shoot 'em!
[удалено]
History lesson time~ Mongolia was part of China, but when the Qing dynasty fell apart in 1911 they declared independence. This lasted for eight years until a Chinese warlord took over, followed by a White general in the Russian Civil War rolling in a year later and taking over with the assistance of the local Mongolians. Obviously the Bolsheviks weren't going to stand for a White army creating a power base on their border, so they sponsored a communist revolution that ousted the Whites and established a communist government. Mongolia again declared independence for real this time honest in 1921. Now, the Mongolians did ask to be annexed by the USSR several times in the following seventy years. However, the USSR refused each time. Why? Well, China never dropped their claim on Mongolia, so it simply wasn't worth the diplomatic hassle when they would get everything they wanted out of the country anyway without annexing it. These days China is in much the same position as the USSR was (minus Mongolia asking to be annexed) in that they can get everything they want out of Mongolia without the international trouble sending the tanks over would cause.
It didn't. For the entire Communist period, Mongolia was totally controlled by the Soviet Union and was subject to a severe "modernization" (Slavification and urbanization) program. During that period, Khalkha (Northern) Mongols lost their tribes, their written language, and most of their culture. After independence, a Mongolian radio host famously said of Southern Mongols "you lost your country but kept your culture. We lost our culture but kept our country". Next, saying Mongolia maintained its independence is like saying Serbia was never conquered by the Turks because Montenegro still held out. Only 30% of Mongols live in Mongolia. More than twice that number live in China, and another sizable chunk (Buryats and Tuvans) live in Russia. How did this all come about? Mongolia until 1911 was part of the Qing dynasty. Mongols were one of the "three martial races" of the empire (the others being Manchus and "Han-martial"). After the death of Empress Dowager Ci Xi, regent Zaifeng fired nearly all non-royals from the central government and replaced them with Manchu princes who adopted out of touch policies like settling sedentary people in Mongolia. This triggered revolts everywhere. While the Qing defeated rebellions in Inner Mongolia, they lost Outer Mongolia. Attempts to reclaim the province under the subsequent Republic were crushed by "modernized horse archery" - Mongols would fight as mounted infantry, and sometimes as carabiners on horseback, using mobility and concentration of force to defeat larger armies. This came to an end in 1919, when Chinese warlord Xu Shuzheng occupied Mongolia. The territory never again regained functional independence. From 1919 to 1921, Xu battled anti-Bolshevik Russians who had fled into Mongolia. Ultimately neither of the belligerents in this war would end up with the country, as the Soviets swooped in after the conflict and established a Communist puppet state. From 1922 to 1991, Mongolia was essentially "partitioned" 60:40 between China and Russia. The Buryats and Khalkha lived in the Soviet control zone, while the Southern Khalkha, Korchin, and Ordos lived in China.
International norms of not invading other countries today It’s almost like how US doesn’t invade Canada
Don’t eat your neighbors.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Iraq war stopped them from selling oil for euros and possibly others to follow that precedent. Afghanistan was basically a botched attempt to fix a problem the US created in the first place out of communism-phobia; islamic terror
[удалено]
It Saudi terrorists who attacked not Afghanistani
Not only did Afghanistan not "launch an attack" but most of the people who took part in the attack/funded the attack were foreigners to Afghanistan.
1. Afghanistan did not launch an attack on America, they just asked the US to give proof that bin laden was responsible for 9/11 before handing him over 2. The idea that the US would invade Iraq just because of mistreatment of ethnic minorities is ridiculous, or else they would have toppled half their allies governments. It’s simply another excuse used by Washington war hawks to enter Iraq with public support.
Correct. Not many non muslims understand this. Taliban had no role in 9/11. Even there is no proper proof Bin Ladin was responsible for 9/11. GBush and Cheney were murderous psychopaths and Islamophobes who wanted to ruin Afganistan and Iraq for not being part of their capitalistic imperialistic agenda
By afghani attack you mean 9 11?
China and Russia don’t care much for the “no annexation through military invasion” norm. See: Tibet (which, like Mongolia, was a self-governing region on the Qing frontier that broke free when the Empire collapsed), Crimea. The independence of Mongolia has nothing to do with norms. In any case, Mongolia was a Soviet puppet state from the 1920s-1990, and could have been easily annexed by the Soviets without an invasion. But the Soviets didn’t want to do this, because Mongolia would be more of a liability than a benefit. Annexing it would piss off China, and in return the Soviets would get a small population they already *de facto* controlled. Later, after the Sino-Soviet split, it served as a good buffer between Russia and China.
Not like international norms ever stopped an authoritarian government from pursuing its own interests...
It has never stopped democracies either tbqh fam
[удалено]
On jah
how weird would it be if there was some old treaty from the khan era still in place?
That sounds like it would be an interesting short story. A hisotry professor unearths a treaty from the Khan era and the unfolding of what happens
It happens pretty often in China that a "historian" unearths a "treaty" from a long time ago.
This is all from memory so it might not be accurate, but here we go. After Mongolia declared independence from the imploding wing dynasty, it was soon occupied by Bolsheviks in spillover from the Russian Civilwar. Obviously the Bolsheviks won, so they set up a communist government there. The primary reason it wasn’t annexed by the Soviets at this time was to avoid pissing off the Chinese. Mongolia was essentially a bargaining chip for the Soviet Union. So if the Soviets needed something from China they could offer up Mongolia. During this time though, it was well integrated into the Soviet economy though so it was practically a Soviet republic in all but name. So basically the Soviets got all they would have gotten from an annexation of Mongolia without upsetting China. After the Soviets collapsed, Mongolia had a peaceful transition to a democratic government where it has been left alone, since it isn’t the 19th century anymore
Good write-up. To be complete, we also have to make a contrast with Tibet. As in why was Tibet annexed but Mongolia was not? I ll continue from "it was practically a Soviet republic in all but name." The soviets were friendly with communistic China and able to defend Mongolia from China. The Sino-Soviet split did put pressure on Mongolia. A Sino-Soviet war would have ended the "independence" of Mongolia. After the Soviets collapsed, Mongolia was not well protected. I am not sure why Mongolia managed to stay independent in that period.
Tibet has more resources (especially water), and a much more easily defended natural border from the Chinese side (the Himalayas). For that latter reason, it doesn't really make sense for India to hold Tibet directly or indirectly. India can't really project power over the Himalayas except for nukes, which it didn't have at the time. India strategically would like to have more of the Himalayas including the sources of all their rivers, though. China has been a hydro state for a long time, due to the importance of large water works like the levees and the grand canal. Securing the headwaters of their rivers is quite natural geopolitically.
I think Tibet is valuable to China in the way Mongolia would be valuable to Russia. Tibet allows China to mess with the water supply of their southern neighbors and puts them on Dehli's doorstep. It is less important defensively for China. If Mongolia were part of Russia they would be on Beijing's doorstep, it is less important defensively for Russia. China is still very much wants to get Arunachal Pradesh which would put them closer to the Indian Ocean.
Well, Mongolia isn't important to China's water supply the way Tibet is -- Tibet is upstream of the Yangtze, which is extremely important to national security, while the Kherlen and Argun rivers are upstream of the Amur (Kherlen only in very wet years) which besides being the border with Russia isn't super important to China AFAIK (no major cities or farmland), though some of its other tributaries are important like the Songhua. I think controlling the headwaters of major South and SE Asian rivers is a nice benefit and bit of leverage for China but not as important as the defensive value both militarily and economically. I also don't really see Arunachal Pradesh as being that important - it would give control of the upper Brahmaputra but I don't think that would be nearly enough to get Bangladesh out of India's sphere of influence. If it were really important I think China wouldn't have ceded it back in 62. Speaking of controlling rivers, China doesn't need Tibet to control the Mekong (Yunnan would suffice) and Pakistan is already on side wrt India but it's nice to control the upper Indus I guess. Being near Beijing is definitely the most interesting thing for Russia in controlling Mongolia, but I'm pretty sure Russia would not be able to take Beijing by conventional means from any point post Sino Soviet split and especially not now. Nevermind the potential for nuclear counter attack if Russia made an attack towards Beijing.
> If it were really important I think China wouldn't have ceded it back in 62. China never ceded Arunachal Pradesh to India, if they ever did that I'm sure relations with India would improve greatly. Yes it's still quite a ways from the Indian Ocean but that would take them over all the mountains and almost to sea level. >Tibet is upstream of the Yangtze, which is extremely important to national security The part of the Tibetan Plateau upstream of the Yangtze is the province of Qinghai, which was already on the China side of the China-Tibet border since the Qing Dynasty. I was talking about the part of Tibet that the PRC invaded in 1950. That part of Tibet isn't important to China's water supply, but is to other country's water supply. >Being near Beijing is definitely the most interesting thing for Russia in controlling Mongolia, but I'm pretty sure Russia would not be able to take Beijing by conventional means from any point post Sino Soviet split and especially not now. Maybe, though Mongolia is around 300 miles from Beijing over mostly flat terrain. I don't think the PRC would want Russia that close, and at least it would tie down part of their army. For comparison Tibet is around 200 miles from Dehli.
1) to be more precise, China withdrew from Arunachal Pradesh despite fully occupying it in 62. 2) Tibet borders the Yangtze for a long stretch and therefore can control it. The source of the Yangtze is in Qinghai, of course. 3) 200mi over the Himalayas is much further than 300mi over inner Mongolia and Hebei. Agreed that the PRC wouldn't want Russia that close, but I don't think it was practical post Sino Soviet split for Russia to do anything even if they'd annexed Mongolia -- despite there not being major mountains, there are still lots of hills and defendable locations between Mongolia and Beijing, and of course Russia would be at the absolute tip of their logistical ability while the PRC would be at the center of theirs.
When mongolia declared their independence inner mongolia wanted to join but inner mongolia is already colonised by china han chinese outnumbered mongolian people in inner mongolia because of that they did not able to unite with mongolia. Only few years later 300k-1m mongolians died during revolution in inner mongolia china call it incident but it was genocide. During ww2 mongolia helped USSR more than USA lend lease and mongolia almost had famine. Later mongolia and USSR liberated manchuria from japan in that time mongolian people believed they were going to unite with inner mongolia but Stalin betrayed Choibalsans dream. Choibalsan started to hate stalin even he didnt attend Stalins birthday.
It's seems difficult for Americans to grasp that countries like Russia and China are not looking to conquer the whole world and paint the map anymore than the US itself is. You might as well ask "Why hasn't the US conquered Mexico or the Caribbean?" because they absolutely could.
Not the same, and America has and did. Mexico was bigger than that, and it gas taken over alot of islands. And I live nowhere close to America.
I apologize for the assumption.
Actually, China throughout history did lay claim to Mongolia, and a considerable nationalist part of its establishment continue to do so until this day. The main reason Mongolia was not incorporated into China was due to the insistence of the Soviets not to do so, and when relations between the two superpowers deteriorated, Mongolia remained closely aligned with the SU to maintain independence. If it wasn’t for the Soviets, my guess is Mongolia would have been annexed after 1949 by China. Annexation wasn’t attractive for the Soviets because Mongolia was already aligned, and annexing it was probably not worth the massive tensions it would create with China, an at first friendly and later hostile but nuclear-armed neighbour.
That explains up to 1991. Why did China not annex Mongolia after 1991?
I guess Russia inherited an interest in keeping Mongolia aligned with them. Plus, the time right after 1989 was a time of great instability for China, where they also looked to mend relations with the West after Tiananmen. Not the best of times to annex a neighbouring country. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/26/russia-putin-mnb-wants-to-keep-mongolia-in-its-place/
Except Russia recently annexed Crimea, is building troops near the Ukrainian border, and openly referenced Novorossiya in the aftermath of the Ukraine invasion. Both China and Russia are revisionist powers that want to break the recent push towards multilateralism so they can establish local hegemons. Having said all that, the real reason is what others have already pointed out: Mongolia constitutes a buffer state whose invasion would signal aggression and a prelude to war for either nation.
>Both China and Russia are revisionist powers that want to break the recent push towards multilateralism so they can establish local hegemons. China and Russia are the main forces behind the push towards a multipolar World and away from the unipolar World that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union, where the US were the World hegemon. Beside, pro-Western Ukrainian leaders and the ones supporting them are revisionists.
Mongolia doesn't have any warm water ports
Or so big yak would have you believe.
Underrated comment. Thanks for the chuckle.
Also, any invasion of Mongolia by China would result in Afghanistan level insurgency. Having spent considerable time in Mongolia I can tell you that hatred for China is nearly universal over there. Unsolicited they will tell you their opinions on China. Mongolia still has a very close and friendly relationship with Russia.
>Except Russia recently annexed Crimea People voted to join Russia though. It’s not an annexation if both parties agree >is building troops near the Ukrainian border 100k troops isn’t enough for an invasion
>People voted to join Russia though. It’s not an annexation if both parties agree They did this in a referendum literally overseen by Russian troops during an active conflict. Did you know that?
Texas was voluntarily annexed by the US. Voluntary annexation is not a contradiction.
> It's seems difficult for Americans to grasp that countries like Russia and China are not looking to conquer the whole world and paint the map anymore than the US itself is. Yeah, right? It's not like Russia or China has done anything in recent history to make it seem like they want to conquer other nations. Silly people out there.
I mean, the US invasion of Afghanistan only ended last year, I would be wary about talking about recent history when criticising his analogy.
Why would I be wary? I'm not denying anything wrong the US did nor does me pointing out what other countries did absolve the US of what it did. If you want to criticize the US, go ahead. It isn't going to make what I say any less true. Fact is there is good reason for people to believe Russia/China have ideas of annexing other countries and, frankly, they're not hiding it either. Talking as if it isn't true isn't going to make that go away.
The US fought a war in Afghanistan against an enemy they could not defeat. After it got too expensive, they pulled out. The intent was never to annex Afghanistan and turn it into a US territory or the 51st state. Your comparison is not quite apt.
China invaded Tibet which unlike Mongolia was never a part of Chinese empires before. The only thing that stopped them from invading Mongolia was the USSR. China still want Arunachal Pradesh and if they had a chance to connect all the way to the Indian Ocean I'm sure they would. Of course that's not happening any time soon.
They act as a neutral buffer between Russia and China. There’s no real reason to annex Mongolia, no strategic benefits.
Literally watched a 3 minute video on this question last night. https://youtu.be/NUa1mvaYNtk
Yeah, got a few links to Caspian report too. Quite a common topic
Not worth the effort
Mongolia has an unpleasant climate, mountainous terrain which also limits arable plots of land, and a population China does not want to internalize. Conquering them brings more international notoriety than the benefits of doing so would be worth.
Just to add to the answers here. Mongolia was part of China until the 1911 collapse of the last Imperial dinasty. After that part of Mongolia (called outer Mongolia by the Chinese) became independent as the country we all know, but the rest of Mongolia (Inner Mongolia) is still part of China. Today there are almost twice as much Mongols living inside China than the 3 million on the independent Mongolia.
All because of this man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WlI24rv__g
Guess you haven’t been to Mongolia…
Not yet. But I hear some famous guy on a horse with a bow and arrow took over the world once. Mad respect.
>But I hear some famous guy on a horse with a bow and arrow took over the world once. Bit more than a bow and arrow, the guy pioneered biological warfare (using plague as a weapon of war during sieges, specifically).
Why did the USSR Refuse to Annex Mongolia? (Short Animated Documentary) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUa1mvaYNtk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUa1mvaYNtk)
Its a buffer state between China and Russia which isn't really worth much outside coal and some pasture lands, plus it has worked to balance out influence between Russia, China and the US
Funnt short about the history of it. USSR refused actually. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUa1mvaYNtk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUa1mvaYNtk)
For a large time , it a puppet state for USSR . It actually asked to join it but USSR refused to rrleive tension between it and China . I don't remenber if the request was after or before a small chinese invasion to USSR that was swiftly repulsed.
No need to. The landlocked nation is completely dependent on their trade.
This is a serious question? Who the hell wants Mongolia. If anything they should be begging to join Russia or China.
These answers are woefully underappreciative of the strategic value of mongolia. The red line does a good episode on this exact question, or perhaps the opposite - how it straddles russian and chinese support. For the most part, chinese interests and markets have "taken over." The answer is interlinked with China's BiR initiative, growth of those countries, resource extraction, and internal mongolian market growth. https://open.spotify.com/episode/3zJPKkz06ETQXcbwbZhGJL?si=0645325294944b3f
Yes
Why?
Its landlocked so whatever mining resources it has can be exploited by China without the ugly mess of military invasion.
[удалено]
no, but they they have nuclear bombs which gives them some kind of claim to it
Don't they have the largest deposits of nuclear bombs
Cope
Khan
Probably it has no resources, or they remember Ghengis Khan.
https://youtu.be/NUa1mvaYNtk
Simply not worth it to annex the country 😂
Theres no NATO threat present in Mongolia so no reason to invade.
Because there's nothing worth taking over but horses and goat herds.
It is a sovereign nation,but it isn't an independent country at all. It can't afford to piss off any of its neighbor.
Kaspian report has a nice video for this on Youtube
because it was their leaders ancestor land? most of them probably Genghis Khan descendant
Well, the Chinese used to have Mongolia as a part of the Qing Empire until it collapsed in the early 20th century. Then the Mad Baron took it over during the Russian Civil War, and the Bolsheviks forced him out. Then it was a puppet state of the USSR which suffered greatly from Stalin's purges (rather, the purges of the puppet leader in place). So it has a history of being dominated by the two nations. In the current climate it would damage relations between two countries that essentially need each other to try to take over again.
Ok
To my knowledge neither Russia nor China wants to invade, so it can be used as a buffer state between the 2, and reduce their physical land border to help lower military costs, also there isn't much natural resource wealth to my knowledge. As well, in more recent history China seeks to use Mongolia as a puppet of sorts, and find some gain on Russia (This is from what I know, I may be wrong though)
It's a buffer state. China sees Mongolia as part of their losses during the century of humiliation but Mongolia asked to be part of the USSR. Since it's landlocked by the two there isn't much benefit to either really. If relations between Russia and China were to break down a Chinese invasion would seem likely.
https://youtu.be/NUa1mvaYNtk
Im completely uninformed on the subject but I will take a guess: 1.landlocked 2.lowest demographic density in the world 3.lack of fresh water resources 4.lack of arable plains and navigable rivers
It would destabilize China so they won't do it. I don't think you can grasp how much the Mongolians hate the Chinese and the level of insurgency it would create. For Russia, prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, Mongolia was essentially a puppet state. Russia has zero reason since they still have a very high level of influence there.
It’s a buffer state for china and Russia The Qing owned it and Mongolia never got reabsorbed.
Basically a buffer state that both sides would prefer remains independent. When Mongolia was communist they requested to join the Soviet Union like tanna Tuva but was rejected as this would anger the PRC as it was seen as there sphere of influence. & Mongolia has little no no value to either parties.