When the army is strong, can mountains and rivers be consolidated forever?

Does the strength of the army mean that the country will be solid forever?

I'm afraid not.

Because the major security threats faced by contemporary powers have changed.

With the development of nuclear weapons technology and the expansion of international trade, it is impossible for a full-scale war similar to World War II to break out between nuclear powers-no country can bear the devastating consequences of a big country war except a madman with nothing. This makes the traditional threat of foreign military invasion faced by big countries actually extremely controllable and limited-at most, it is manifested as containment strategy.

However, although the threat of foreign invasion with naked fire has been contained, another threat that has been ignored has become increasingly serious.

"The occupation of soldiers is inferior to that of immigrants"-Machiavelli

Because invasion includes not only armed invasion, but also unarmed invasion, conquest includes not only the conquest of land, but also the replacement of population.

NATO's powerful military strength helped the West deter the invasion of Soviet troops, but it could not resist the steady stream of Muslim peoples to establish an order belonging to God in the heart of Europe. The unparalleled fleet of the United States can establish a solid maritime defense line on the far west coast of the Pacific Ocean, but it cannot stop the Latinization of southern cities; The Russian army has the most powerful nuclear force in the world, but it can only watch the Russian people flee Chechnya and Dagestan.

Without loyalty, what can people do to ensure the loyalty of the land except intimidation and inducement? After all, the ownership of a piece of land depends not only on the flag hung by the military post, but also on the recognition of the local people. Machiavelli once said, "the most appropriate and effective way to conquer a piece of land is immigration, because the occupation of soldiers is not as good as immigration." On the other hand, without the flag of the army and loyal people, the so-called territory cannot be really controlled.

The map of the forbidden areas in France shows that most of these areas are occupied by immigrants from the Middle East, becoming "untouchable" places beyond the jurisdiction of the French government and laws, and actually losing their territory completely.

From 65438 to the 1940s, the American conquest of northern Mexico was started by immigrants rather than troops: a large number of American Puritans crossed the border and settled in Texas, Mexico, and gradually became the dominant population, eventually making Mexico lose control of more than half of its territory.

Therefore, in the final analysis, the ownership of land depends on the recognition of local people, and the superficial political form is also established.

Tocqueville witnessed the continuous influx of American Puritan immigrants into Mexico's desolate Texas and realized that Mexico would eventually lose this land; Machiavelli prefers to invade other countries through immigrants rather than troops, not because of his naivety, but because of his profound understanding of human nature and history.

Therefore, in today's international society, where traditional threats are contained and trivial territorial disputes are common, China should focus on those unknown but deadly internal threats. This is not only the root of the demise of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, but also the reason for the prosperity of the Han Dynasty and the collapse of the Tang Dynasty, and it is also a lesson left to us in the process of the decline of the contemporary West.