solarz
Brigadier
Did you forget that the US is a naval power? It's influence on inland countries is severely curtailed. That's why they put a lot of effort into HK, Taiwan, Vietnam, and not so much into Mongolia and Nepal.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Did you forget that the US is a naval power? It's influence on inland countries is severely curtailed. That's why they put a lot of effort into HK, Taiwan, Vietnam, and not so much into Mongolia and Nepal.
If I remember correctly, the US is also a superpower, if not the only one, isn't it?
Especially if you look at the world in 2005 to 2015. The US back then, has more than enough resources and very little real competition. Of course it would be much more costly to invest in inland countries for the US back then, but it does NOT mean it was impossible.
If the US do thing ONLY like bickering penny-pinching higgling-haggling merchants, than they don't even deserve to be called a superpower.
Remember in Chinese history, Lv Buwei invested heavily heavily in Yiren (the prince how is the father of Qin Shihuangdi, First Emperor of China). If you go back to when Lv Buwei first made up his mind about bidding on Yiren, people would thing this merchant is an idiot gone crazy. However, we all know what happened later.
Now if the USA is so stupid and short sighted that in pick between HK and Nepal, they pick HK to invest only because it's less costly, than they don't even have what it takes to be the highest tier merchant. They are nothing but low class short sight thrift seekers at best!
You invest in costly and more risky objectives, precisely because they are NOT low hanging fruit. And you need to do it exactly when you have abundant cash/wealth. Abundant implies cheap. Riskier and costlier objectives exist SOLELY for the real powerful to realize their value. Sure you have a greater chance to lose a lot of money, but so what? You do it when money is cheap (that means when you have an abundance of money). Because even if you lose, it won't be so detrimental of deduction of your total worth. However, if you win, you win a world. The opportunity cost of NOT investing in costlier and risky when you have abundant cash lay around getting only low return on invests, is huge.
The US don't have the guts and vision to invest in the risky and costly when they have the abundance of extra money. And now they are constrained on money, they put little wee bit of sugar in these risky and costly objectives with many strings attached. They're gonna lose even more. Because they actually became the negative example for competitor (China) to showcase their competitive advantage on.
500 million USD only? And with many unpopular/upsetting strings attached? Isn't that the BEST advertisement for Chinese investments?! Now the Chinese can just come in with 5 billion USD and with far less strings attached, and Nepal would go crazy for it.
Last edited:
You do understand that CA and Mongolia are literally landlocked between Russia and China? Moreover, Central Asia borders other anti-US countries like Iran, Azerbaijan, etc. and is mostly authoritarian. How do you picture the US "making a huge presence" there? Same with Nepal and Bhutan which are locked between China and India, despite the recent warming up, India and the US are not allies - the Russia-Ukraine conflict showed that as India refused to back sanctions and actively purchases Russian commodities. Trying to commit into those places would require immense resources, far more than Afghanistan, and would be doomed from the start due to geography - all these countries could never afford to act as American bulwarks because they would be effectively shut out from the world markets as their trade routes pass through anti-American countries and logistics of supporting a military presence there would be a nightmare. Plus trying to establish large military presence in Nepal or Bhutan would instantly anger most South Asian states, complicating things for the US further. America is not omnipotent.
Last edited:
delete
An alliance among China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, India, and Nepal would be beneficial to all.
Doctor, the meds!
"I am more confident than ever that we can walk, chew gum, and play chess at the same time. I look forward to continuing this work in the year ahead with you."
"I am more confident than ever that we can walk, chew gum, and play chess at the same time. I look forward to continuing this work in the year ahead with you."
Well, you should certainly take a look at what the US have done with Mongolia before. It's not like they never bothered with it.
Remember Mongolia even sent troops to Afghanistan as a part of the US-led coalition.
I remember the US was going to deal with China when 9/11 happened.
China took the break to prepare and moved quickly to a position that can withstand the onslaught from the US, 20 years later.
I guess $500 million for Nepal in 2022 is now a lot for the US, considering they have a $20 trillion debt.
.
solarz
Brigadier
Again, did you forget the US was mired in Afghanistan and Iraq until last year?
US goal wasn't to beat down China, it was global hegemony. It spent plenty of money to undermine China, but it couldn't afford to do nothing but undermine China, as it had other interests in the world.
It was only in the last few years that the US has started turning its full attention to China.
Did you forget Myanmar? The US succeeded in installing a pro-West stooge there, but it turned out she ended up cozying up to China anyway. When the military deposed her, the US media were in a tizzy about how they were about to turn against China. How did that work out?
Well, it looks sound what you write that theory out on paper.
But if you start thinking critically about it, it makes no sense.