Kazakhstan protests

[thetutle]

Considering it was only "manchurian" not han land for a few decades i think it is very fair do you not? Show me which actual Chinese dynasty from Xia to Ming did China dominate Siberia/Outer Manchuria and sent Han to populate those areas. Show me historical evidence that Han people ever migrated or used outer mongolia/manchuria besides Manchurians occupying it for a few years then handing it to the Russians.

I can only let the Chinese speak for me on this one. If they accept it was never really Chinese thats fine.

Sakhalin island, a small island off the coast of outer Manchuria, (size of Austria) was under Chinese sovereignty for 500 years and now it's with the rightful owners, the Russians. Who have controlled it for about 75 years. The true historical owners with a 75 years history there.

 

[retaxis]

I can only let the Chinese speak for me on this one. If they accept it was never really Chinese thats fine.

Sakhalin island, a small island off the coast of outer Manchuria, (size of Austria) was under Chinese sovereignty for 500 years and now it's with the rightful owners, the Russians. Who have controlled it for about 75 years. The true historical owners with a 75 years history there.

Okay I just wanted you to know how weird it sounds that you think it is Chinese land. It is like an Indian thinking Australia/Cananda is Indian because they were both owned by the British. Manchurians who ruled China owned some Mongolian/Manchurian land too but they were never settled by Han Chinese so no Han Chinese consider it their land unless they have screws loose.

 

[thetutle]

Okay I just wanted you to know how weird it sounds that you think it is Chinese land. It is like an Indian thinking Australia/Cananda is Indian because they were both owned by the British. Manchurians who ruled China owned some Mongolian/Manchurian land too but they were never settled by Han Chinese so no Han Chinese consider it their land unless they have screws loose.

I think you are confusing sovereignty with settlement of one ethnic population. American Samoa was not settled by Anglo Saxons, yet it is sovereign American land. You dont need to settle a particular ethnicity for it to become your sovereign land.

Falkland isands are British but you can't say for certain that most people there are Anglo Saxon or Celtic or Norman. Who cares what they are. Its British land. As was Hong Kong despite Chinese living there.

Outer Manchuria has been under Chinese sovereignty for centuries and centuries, regardless of who lived there.

 

[kingQamaR]

Well done.

Destroy the pan turkism shit once and for ever.

Keep your sectarian none sense to yourself I’m not surprised with you folk with unstable mentality Arabs & Turkish struggle with you

I hope mods on here take note at your endless offensive posts on Arabs & turkey.

 

[MH.Yang]

Well if you attacked Hong Kong you would have the same success as you did in Korea. Lost a bunch of people and pushed back to the font lines where you started. Just like in Korea. I am glad your leaders thought the same as me and did not bother repeating Korea.



I know its not Chinese land anymore. Its Russian land and all 1 million sq kilometres will stay Russia just as was agreed during the Opium wars. A fair outcome you would agree right?

The USA is willing to send troops to North Korea, but will not send troops to Hong Kong. If it were not for logistical supplies, the Americans fighting in North Korea would have been driven into the sea by the Chinese army.
Hong Kong has neither depth nor logistical supply problems. Fighting China here, Americans are committing suicide. As for the British, they are rubbish.

BTW: While PLA fought with the USA, China also help the Vietnamese drive the French away. The French are rubbish, too.

 

[MH.Yang]

Well if you attacked Hong Kong you would have the same success as you did in Korea. Lost a bunch of people and pushed back to the font lines where you started. Just like in Korea. I am glad your leaders thought the same as me and did not bother repeating Korea.



I know its not Chinese land anymore. Its Russian land and all 1 million sq kilometres will stay Russia just as was agreed during the Opium wars. A fair outcome you would agree right?

We did that in 1982.

Deng Xiaoping: get out.
Thatcher: Yes, sir.

In 1950, we tried again. We also invited the British to participate in the Olympic Games with POW from 26 countries.

which country do you come from? If it were a NATO country, your soldiers must have participated in our Olympic Games.

By the way, we tried it this year again. In the future, we will impose more and more sanctions on the British, and the British need to learn to get used to it.

China imposes sanctions on UK MPs, lawyers and academic in Xinjiang row

Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith says he will wear the retaliation like a ‘badge of honour’

www.theguardian.com

 

[mike2000 is back]

After all, the world is all about strength. The reality is that we can’t handle Russia and Japan, and Russia is now a friend of China.

Well, at least that will make more sense. However, the others were not admitting it was because Russia is too powerful, reason CCP made concessions to them and avoided bringing unpleasant loss of territory or disputes with them. If that's the case then it makes more sense, and I actually see nothing wrong in that. After all we have to be realistic in life.
I was just saying same policy could have been adopted with Japan and letting go of the past and especially not over a rock dispute. Lol

 

[thetutle]

The USA is willing to send troops to North Korea, but will not send troops to Hong Kong. If it were not for logistical supplies, the Americans fighting in North Korea would have been driven into the sea by the Chinese army.
Hong Kong has neither depth nor logistical supply problems. Fighting China here, Americans are committing suicide. As for the British, they are rubbish.

BTW: While PLA fought with the USA, China also help the Vietnamese drive the French away. The French are rubbish, too.

There was no need to send any troops to save Hong Kong, Your leaders were very smart and did not invade.

Now Hong Kong is yours. The Island and Kawloon. This is a good thing, It was taken unfairly. But also given back. something that Russia will never do even though they took Vladivostok the same way under the same treaty. The british allowed Chinese to migrate to Hong Kong in the millions, Something Russians never allowed in Vladivostok or other cities in outer Manchuria.

We did that in 1982.

Deng Xiaoping: get out.
Thatcher: Yes, sir.

Because the British were fair and reasonable to you. Chinese never contemplated invading Hong Kong. There was no way for Hong Kong to Survive without the new Territories that had to be returned. Had British kept Hong Kong it would be an insignificant isolated island with no future. They didn't want to destroy what they had built. It's still the best and richest part of China.

 

[tower9]

The only reason it had 7 million Chinese there is because the British allowed them to live on sovereign British territory of Hong Kong and Kawloon. Had the British been like the Russians they would have kicked out the few Chinese that lived there and settled it with English people, like Russia did in Outer Manchuria.

Britain is not like that and prefers to trade than ethnically cleanse territories and keep them as their own.



Some nato would help but China would still win, but the occupation would never be recognised by the world. It was British Sovereign territory until they graciously decided to give it back to China. Britains right to Hong Kong is no less than Russias right to Vladivostok, They came out of the same treaty.



China didn't take Hong Kong and Kawloon because it was sovereign British land until 1997.

Hong Kong is deeply in the Han Chinese core.

Well, at least that will make more sense. However, the others were not admitting it was because Russia is too powerful, reason CCP made concessions to them and avoided bringing unpleasant loss of territory or disputes with them. If that's the case then it makes more sense, and I actually see nothing wrong in that. After all we have to be realistic in life.
I was just saying same policy could have been adopted with Japan and letting go of the past and especially not over a rock dispute. Lol

It’s about the future as much as it is about the current or the past. When China and Russia settled the border, they had fought many border skirmishes over it in the past few decades. At the time, Russia was emerging from the shadows of the Soviet Union and china was focused on desperately needing long term economic development. So both sides were eager to settle the issue once and for all in order to maintain peace in those borderlands. What happened next is that that peace became a foundation for building trust and as both countries are constantly being antagonized by the west, they increasingly turned towards each other for support. Now it’s a quarter century from that, and the relationship now is very much about the future. Both countries are deeply committed to a peaceful and stable Eurasia that can become a power base for both countries facing an unstable and hostile world, so the alliance between the two countries are now deeply mutually beneficial and necessary. That’s why there is no point dwelling in the past, instead the focus is on the future.

 

[thetutle]

So both sides were eager to settle the issue once and for all in order to maintain peace in those borderlands.

Of course Russia wants to settle the issue once and for all. As long as they keep the land. Once you have the land, may peace last forever.

That’s why there is no point dwelling in the past, instead the focus is on the future.

I would love china as a neighbour. Take their land, and look to the future and forget the past. I love it.

 

[MH.Yang]

There was no need to send any troops to save Hong Kong, Your leaders were very smart and did not invade.

Now Hong Kong is yours. The Island and Kawloon. This is a good thing, It was taken unfairly. But also given back. something that Russia will never do even though they took Vladivostok the same way under the same treaty. The british allowed Chinese to migrate to Hong Kong in the millions, Something Russians never allowed in Vladivostok or other cities in outer Manchuria.



Because the British were fair and reasonable to you. Chinese never contemplated invading Hong Kong. There was no way for Hong Kong to Survive without the new Territories that had to be returned. Had British kept Hong Kong it would be an insignificant isolated island with no future. They didn't want to destroy what they had built. It's still the best and richest part of China.

In the 1950s, we did not send troops to occupy Hong Kong. It's not because we can't, but because we don't want to.
We need a window to communicate with the west, and we need to observe the operation of the western system, so as to find a more suitable way for us. This has nothing to do with the wishes of the British.


BTW: In 1976, Portugal offered to return Macao in advance. China refused, and we insisted on recovering Macao in 1999. It is the same reason that China did not send troops to occupy Hong Kong.

 

[mike2000 is back]

You’re giving Japan way too much credit. They invested in China for their own profit not out of good will. Japan is still actively engaging in covertly supporting the independence of Taiwan so it’s never even stopped interfering with chinas sovereignty so on what basis should China be ceding diaoyutai to Japan?

Well, I think Japan has waited even too long to adopt a Taiwan interference policy.
China has been hostile with Japan for a long time , and has kept the dispute with Japan going for even longer to Stoke nationalism. This has created alot of hostilities on both sides and China jas reiterated that it won't ever give up its claims over that barren rock against Japan. Obviously , its normal that both sides will be in confrontation. Why should Japan adopt a neutral stance towards China?
It's normal for them to take the side of China's rival the US in such a confrontation. The enemy of my enemy is my friend remember ?
If there was no dispute between both sides then things will be different , as there won't have been much hostility and trust would have been built with time. Just imagine you still had not solved your border issues completely with Russia and had still maintained your claim over Mongolia, part of outer manchuria and even border dispute with Russia you guys fought for in the 60s . Do you think you and Russja would have been in such good terms now today and trust would have been built to this extent?
You guys are now only getting close and building trust because you solved your border dispute and gave up on some past territorial claims the soviets illegally annexed/took from China during those unequal treaties. If your goevvrmebt had maintained their claim to this day, then your relatuons with Russia would still be hostile and they might even had partner with your enemies or at least sort out good times with your rivals/enemies.
Same with India, if you guys didn't have any border dispute don't you think your ties with India(I agree here that it was Indias fault not only have agreed to settle the border in the past when you guys were ready to are concessions ) would have been very friendly, deep and close today?
Border dispute creates alot of enmity and bad blood. In this regard China hasn't been as flexible with Japan like it has been with Russia or even India(or better still even Vietnam) to be honest. There can only be one reason for that, the CCP needed something to Stoke nationalism when needed .

 

[mike2000 is back]

All Japanese actions are based on Japan's interests first, not out of regret or remorse for any country. Japanese money is not free, it also comes with many conditions and constraints from the Japanese side. Next is that technology is also not freely and unconditionally shared, China only receives outdated-inefficient technologies, and the most common form of technology is the joint venture between the two countries, China becomes the consumption market of Japanese enterprises. In fact, not only Japan, but also European companies do the same. Industrial standardization, technology sharing... Japan has, so does Europe and America. And now the Japanese still dream that without them China would never modernize.
-Does Japan invest in China because they want China to become rich-modern or because they want their businesses to make a lot of money in China? If China does not have a large consumer market, low labor costs, will Japan accept investment-joint ventures with China?
- Japan wants to help and support China? If true, why would they send so many spies into China, even posing as economic experts, to infiltrate China's industrial and defense facilities?

View attachment 806763
Pictured is Hiromasa Ao, he pretends to be an economist, hides in China for 37 years, and was only caught in 2016

Dude, do you mean you have never had spies in Japan? Every country spies on others its normal. In fact even Britain has had spies in US,Germany France eventhough we are allies. Doesn't change much . Even allies spy on each other much less countries who are not allies and who have disputes together.
Furthermore, there is no denying that Japan's aid, investments, technology collaboration/JV and involvement in China has helped China especially when China was very poor and backward and was just opening up. The rest is inconsequential. Of course Japan wouldn't invest and share technology for free. Obviously they wanted to also make money/profits for their companies.You both benefitted from it and it helped China during its growth as well.
Does China invest in Africa and other countries for free? Of course its also to make money , have a market for their products , for profits. Does that means the country receiving those investment doesn't benefit from theee Chineee investments? Of course they do. It's win-win.
What did the Russians invest in China during this time when China needed it? If anything they were busy fighting you guys. However that doesnt means you will use that excuse to be hostile with Russia today. We have to be realistic and let bygones be bygones . So if China despite all this past issues with Russia can have friendly ties with Russia today and made concessions, why can't you do the same with Japan ? Its possible, the only reason CCP hasn't done so over a barren rock is simply political. That's all.

 

[Stranagor]

Well, at least that will make more sense. However, the others were not admitting it was because Russia is too powerful, reason CCP made concessions to them and avoided bringing unpleasant loss of territory or disputes with them. If that's the case then it makes more sense, and I actually see nothing wrong in that. After all we have to be realistic in life.
I was just saying same policy could have been adopted with Japan and letting go of the past and especially not over a rock dispute. Lol

You know rocks are important, right? Oki Islands in the sea of Japan were simple rocks submerged in high tide. Japan did one of the earliest island building there, and now it claims full EEZ (200 nm) considering them full fledged islands. Of course PRC/ROC does not recognize it. But, can hardly say rocks or shoals are unimportant.

There was no need to send any troops to save Hong Kong, Your leaders were very smart and did not invade.

Now Hong Kong is yours. The Island and Kawloon. This is a good thing, It was taken unfairly. But also given back. something that Russia will never do even though they took Vladivostok the same way under the same treaty. The british allowed Chinese to migrate to Hong Kong in the millions, Something Russians never allowed in Vladivostok or other cities in outer Manchuria.



Because the British were fair and reasonable to you. Chinese never contemplated invading Hong Kong. There was no way for Hong Kong to Survive without the new Territories that had to be returned. Had British kept Hong Kong it would be an insignificant isolated island with no future. They didn't want to destroy what they had built. It's still the best and richest part of China.

HK alone is depressing. But, Greater Bay Area is great.

 

[MH.Yang]

Of course Russia wants to settle the issue once and for all. As long as they keep the land. Once you have the land, may peace last forever.



I would love china as a neighbour. Take their land, and look to the future and forget the past. I love it.

You Europeans, if you hate Russians, you should attack Moscow like Napoleon and Hitler. Instead of trying to incite the Chinese.