The amount of cobwebs and dumb sh&t in the ROC constitution is really something isn’t it.
Guy
1 Like
I mean, I’m failing to see anything strategic about controlling Mongolia in the first place. It’s on the edge of Siberia, which is where people were (are?) sent to die. I’m not saying literally no one lives there, but there’s a reason virtually no one lives there. You control Mongolia, and then? Build a great green wall to stop desertification from getting worse in the region? You’re hardly securing a necessary border or any resources…
Major mineral resources there.
Too bad though. It’s been an independent country since the 1920s. 
Guy
1 Like
Many people here will tell you it’s part of the hidden Chinese plot to conquer the world by taking over Central Asia and Siberia in order to take their natural resources and give them cheap plastic junk in exchange, which is sort of what they’re doing now, except the secret plan is different, somehow.
1 Like
Great. Can’t wait /s
Major powers have been known to want to have buffers between them.
1 Like
And they were also a ruthless murdering regime… The only reason (from a US perspective) for supporting them was that they weren’t communist.
1 Like
That’s one way to look at it, but communism alone is not enough reason for the US not to support a regime, even during the Cold War. They supported Yugoslavia. They supported the Khmer Rouge after the Killing Fields were discovered. It’s simply a question of whether or not they think supporting a regime is useful at any given time.
2 Likes
They weren’t communist communists (Russian controlled / in the sphere of influence). 
They were still communists (or even Communists), just like the also-not-Russian-controlled Chinese.
1 Like
Certainly in the Russian sphere of influence though.
Well no, not really, after the Sino-Soviet split. Or you mean physically in their sphere of influence? That’s inevitable for next-door neighbors.
2 Likes
I mean in overall influence/ thought - China was still Marxo-Lenninist (and still cooperated at times geopolitically during the split (Vietnam for example)).
For the US at that time, it did seem that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” was salient (including the unfathomable stupidity, as mentioned by @yyy , of supporting the Khmer Rouge simply because Vietnam had invaded Cambodia and thankfully took them out of power).
Guy
1 Like
Sure, at times. Meaning when they weren’t having border wars with their supposed allies, when they weren’t officially rejecting the majority of communist countries for ideological impurity, when they weren’t at war with Vietnam a few years after helping to drive the Americans out (that was also because of the KR btw – making China and the US, sort of, allies)…
Also I haven’t looked into this, but supposedly one reason for the success of the royalist regime in Thailand was that the China-aligned communist rebels and the Vietnam/USSR-aligned communist rebels didn’t get along with each other.
Realpolitik has this persistent habit of trumping ideology.
1 Like
Not really meaningless then haha…surely, we have never seen or heard anything similar before…?
Its either official or its not. Otherwise its ALL fluff.