Mark Steyn notes that Russia has leased 10,000 square kilometers of land to China for 49 years:
The Federal Forestry Agency recently announced plans to lease 1 million hectares of woodlands to China for 49 years, "The Moscow Times" reported on August 23. The daily carried a commentary from Ekho Moskvy radio that argued that "Russia has not undertaken anything on this scale since selling Alaska to the United States in 1867." The article noted that it would be unwise to conclude such an agreement given "the Chinese people's diligence, sheer numbers, and ability to think in terms of centuries.... Suppose 49 years from now, Russia realizes there are no ethnic Russians living on those 1 million hectares. How would it ask the Chinese to leave?" The commentary also argued that "the Kremlin is cozying up to China to spite the United States.... [But] however much the Kremlin dislikes the United States, Washington is not after Russian land or witnessing enormous emigration, and is certainly not interested in Russia falling apart and the appearance of, for example, a Chinese-Finnish border and a Caucasian caliphate." The article suggested that the Kremlin dislikes the United States because Washington "has the unpleasant habit of raising questions about human rights and official corruption."
Caving in to China over land (and in general) is a foolish practice, as I argued here.
Of course, the article misleads to compare the land deal to the scale of Alaska (close to 1.5 million square kilometers). We're talking a Lebanon or Cyprus in land area. And it matters whether this is along the border or not. I don't know where the land deal is located.
But the land deals will all be going one way. And once China starts lumbering north, who will send them south? Certainly not Russia. And when China wants to lease more land, who in Moscow will say no?
A Cyprus here, a Latvia there, and pretty soon we're talking real land area.
