The Australia of Europe.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Look at the existing populations of the cities and urbanisation levels along the Silk Road-Urumqi routes.
They are not going to become megacities which justify a HSR line.
For example, Nur Sultan has a population of only 1million
For Central Asia, I think it's obvious you have to use a land route.
My point is that seaborne trade is far greater and important than the overland railways through Central Asia.
Remember that Almaty only has a population of 2 million.
Last edited:
Except for the EU Parliament thing. The biggest mistake the EU did was expanding into Eastern Europe. They are now too inflexible and too big in order to make quick and comprehensive decisions/reforms. Plus they fell into US' trap because the US can play the Russia card and make the whole EE their puppets for "protecting" them against Russia.
EU, a good idea, hijacked by the US and the complicity/idiocy of EU politicians
Yeah, but in worse position, at least Aust have iron ore and gold, that patch of occupied Russian territory (Lithuania) exports just small amounts of dairy products to China.
The EU parliament members are just getting a reality check on two fronts. The first one is they can not arbitrarily sanction the world largest trader and expect to be employed afterward, and they are not parliament members of a sovereign state.
EU Parliament members are dumb as rocks. Each member state's ruling party is basically shipping their idiot/political dangerous members to the EU Parliament in order to get rid of them.
Now imagine what happens when all the idiots from all over the EU are gathered in a single institution..
"far greater and important" for whom and for what purpose?
Let me clarify myself again so we are talking about the same subject. My central point in the past number of replies is that the land section of BRI is NOT just meant for Europe but to develop China's western region through connecting Central Asia and Western Asia and Russia.
Staying within the premises, seaborne route does not have any advantage.
The highlighted text indicate that you are still thinking that Central Asia is just a passage serving Europe from China. This is a point that I have been repeatedly object, because China sees Central Asia as a new future not just a passage.
You may keep your opinion, but that seems to me is not what China intended for BRI.
EU could have been a good idea but it is not. It is the direct continuation of which means it was built in wrong foundations. It's a supernational organization of the European Industrial-Financial capital to serve their own interest coordinated. They just put an excuse of "democracy" but if you dig deeper you will find that some high level legislative organs are not even electable by the people. You may check the books of Varoufakis to have a taste. Sadly, It's a well organised imperialist dictatorship in line with the US capital centres.
Definetely with you on that. The EU Parliament has minimal to zero *actual* power. The real power is on the member states.
So the US can make the Parliament pass all the motions they want against China, however the real action depends on the heads of state of every country.
What I am most worried is German Elections. It seems that their stance towards China will turn more hawkish. Add it to France's Little Napoleon delusions and supporting Taiwan on participating on international organisations and it is bad news.
We will see how much their economy will allow them to turn against China.