Putin promises infrastructure investment in Mongolia www.channelnewsasia.com

ULAANBAATAR: Russian President Vladimir Putin has promised to help finance new infrastructure in Mongolia on a one-day visit this week, as the landlocked country looks to reduce its reliance on Beijing.

The Russia-Mongolia Strategic Partnership www.globalresearch.ca

On September 2nd, Russian President Vladimir Putin began a 2-day visit to the Mongolian capital Ulaanbaatar, at the conclusion of which a permanent treaty of mutual friendship and extensive strategic partnership will be signed with Mongolian President Khaltmaagiin Battulga. This new treaty contains a particular focus on infrastructural cooperation, but also includes economic and scientific aspects. In a parallel development, the East Asia Railroad Community initiative will include North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and Mongolia, and there are hopes that it might also develop into a strategic partnership encompassing trade, energy-cooperation and some security-cooperation.

Undoubtedly, the personal affinity between Presidents Putin and Battulga, enhanced by their achievements as elite judokas, has smoothed the path to this treaty. However, in order to understand Mongolia’s developmental trajectory and its mutually beneficial relations with both Russia and China, we need to look beyond interpersonal considerations.

First let’s look at the historical, geographical, demographic and economic fundamentals.

Mongolia has the world’s 18th largest surface-area but only the world’s 134th largest population. It has the lowest population-density of any sovereign nation-state on Earth. However, Mongolia also has extremely impressive mineral-deposits, with copper, gold and coal the most notable among them. Minerals account for 80% of all Mongolian exports, with livestock accounting for most of the rest.

Put those facts together, and prima facie we might initially be justified in imagining that Mongolians were perpetually prone to geo-strategic anxiety. However, there seems to be very little evidence that this is actually the case. Mongolia serves as an exemplary case of pragmatic, non-conflictual geo-political management on the part of its own leadership, and also on the part of both the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. The depth and complexity of the interconnections between the developmental trajectories of Russia, Mongolia and China as distinct but cross-pollinating civilizations, and the interconnections between their ancestral populations, lie far beyond the scope of this article, so I will limit my discussion of the historical background, beginning with the immediate post-war period.

Upon the foundation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, a treaty of mutual recognition was signed with Mongolia, and the PRC agreed to recognize Mongolia’s admission to the United Nations, finally settling the sovereignty issue once and for all, in 1961. Cooperation between the Soviet Union and Mongolia was extensive. In an interview with the Mongolian newspaper Odriyn Sonin published on September 1st, President Putin drew attention to the joint Russian-Mongolian victory over the Japanese in the battles of Khalkhin Gol in 1939, which delayed Japan’s entry into the second world war, and thereby made more Red Army units available for the Battle of Moscow. President Putin also made a point of noting Russia’s debt of gratitude to the Mongolian people, who sent aid to the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. This aid included sending horses to Soviet cavalry-units and warm clothes for Red Army soldiers.

However, with that heart-warming history cursorily laid out, it still hardly requires explanation that, given Mongolia’s geography, demographics and natural resources, the maintenance of a stable and secure Mongolia will always require pragmatic, non-conflictual geo-political management by Mongolia’s own political leadership, and by the political leaderships of the Russian Federation and the PRC.

The good news is that this is actually happening.

All parties concerned recognize that the world needs buffers.

Isn’t there a lesson in here for the architects of the Ukrainian catastrophe?

Regarding Ukraine, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard people argue that

“President Kuchma (or Yanukovych) made the mistake of trying to sit on two stools….”

I have always been bemused by this argument – in the cases of both Kuchma and Yanukovych, “sitting on two stools” was the only pragmatic or viable policy. As long as Russia could have secured protections against its markets being flooded through entrepôt-trade and against the prospect of NATO advancing to its borders, and as long as the EU didn’t get greedy for yet another colony, then the policy of “sitting on two stools” would have been the optimal policy for the maintenance of a secure, stable and prosperous Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the EU leadership just wasn’t prepared to make those kinds of pragmatic compromises. The Eurasian Customs Union offered Ukraine $15 billion in aid with no strings attached, immediate quota-free access to all of its markets, and equal partner status. The EU wasn’t prepared to match that offer – they just wanted an agricultural colony with some “human rights” lullabies mixed in to pacify the gullible natives (a bit like the British persuading Aboriginal Australians to relinquish any claim to their ancestral lands in exchange for bags of coloured glass beads).

The Aboriginals had never seen glass before, let alone shiny coloured glass. They reasoned that it must have been very valuable.

Anyway, back to Ukraine, as soon as the Eurasian Customs Union offered Ukraine a better trade-deal than the EU was prepared to offer, it immediately triggered a pro-western coup d’etat.

In contradistinction, isn’t Mongolia a refreshing example of geo-political pragmatism?

President Battulga understands that his nation’s sovereignty is best maintained through a balanced trade-policy and FDI-policy. Furthermore, he is absolutely committed to the principle, which is enshrined in Mongolia’s constitution, that Mongolia’s natural resources belong to Mongolia’s people, and should be used for their benefit. What we see in Mongolia is a model of sovereignism which is premised on multilateral, mutually respectful recognition of Mongolia’s status as a natural buffer.

Royalty rules renewed www.montsame.mn

Ulaanbaatar/MONTSAME/. At its regular meeting on September 4, the Cabinet renewed the rules on fixing, imposing, reporting and paying royalty.

Incentive for wool supply set at MNT 1500-2000 www.montsame.mn

Ulaanbaatar /MONTSAME/. The Government of Mongolia approved a resolution on some measures to support national producers and increase jobs in 2011. The resolution regulates to grant monetary incentives to members of herder cooperatives and citizens with livestock when they supply wool of sheep and camel to national factories.

Emart to open 3rd store in Mongolia on brisk sales www.pulsenews.co.kr

South Korea’s leading retailer Emart Inc. opened its third store in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, on Friday as it hopes thriving business there could make up for the mounting losses at home.

Mongolia-born sumo champion Hakuho takes Japanese citizenship www.asia.nikkei.com

TOKYO -- Mongolia-born sumo Grand Champion Hakuho became a Japanese citizen on Tuesday, according to a government media release. The step is necessary for the 34-year-old yokozuna to remain active in the sport when he retires from the ring.

Russia to start oil and gas exploration in Mongolia www.news.ru

Rosgeology, Russian state-owned holding in charge of mineral resource exploration, will start the oil and gas exploration in Mongolia in cooperation with the Mongolian Mineral Resources Agency.

Moody's announces completion of a periodic review of issuers including Mongolia, Government of www.moodys.com

Singapore, September 03, 2019 -- This publication is for information only, and does not announce a rating action.

Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") reviews all of its ratings periodically in accordance with regulations -- either annually or, in the case of governments and certain EU-based supranational organisations, semi-annually. This periodic review is unrelated to the requirement to specify calendar dates on which EU and certain other sovereign and sub-sovereign rating actions may take place.

Moody's conducts these periodic reviews through portfolio reviews in which Moody's reassesses the appropriateness of each outstanding rating in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers. Since 1st January 2019, Moody's issues a press release following each periodic review announcing its completion.

Moody's has now completed the periodic review of a group of issuers that includes Mongolia and may include related ratings. The review did not involve a rating committee, and this publication does not announce a credit rating action and is not an indication of whether or not a credit rating action is likely in the near future; credit ratings and/or outlook status cannot be changed in a portfolio review and hence are not impacted by this announcement. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.

The credit profile of Mongolia (issuer rating B3) incorporates its "Low(+)" economic strength, supported by strong growth potential balanced by a small and narrowly diversified economy; its "Low(-)" institutional strength, which takes into account a weak institutional framework, but also reform progress against an ongoing program with the IMF; "Very Low" fiscal strength, reflecting a high debt burden, weak debt affordability, and reliance on foreign currency denominated debt; and a "High (-)" susceptibility to event risk, driven by external vulnerabilities.

This document summarizes Moody's view as of the publication date and will not be updated until the next periodic review announcement, which will incorporate material changes in credit circumstances (if any) during the intervening period.

The principal methodology used for this review was Sovereign Bond Ratings published in November 2018. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.

This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.

Anushka Shah
Vice President - Senior Analyst
Sovereign Risk Group
Moody's Investors Service Singapore Pte. Ltd.
50 Raffles Place #23-06
Singapore Land Tower
Singapore 48623
Singapore
JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350
Client Service: 852 3551 3077
Marie Diron
MD - Sovereign Risk
Sovereign Risk Group
JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350
Client Service: 852 3551 3077
Releasing Office:
Moody's Investors Service Singapore Pte. Ltd.
50 Raffles Place #23-06
Singapore Land Tower
Singapore 48623
Singapore
JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350
Client Service: 852 3551 3077

Mongolian and Russian Presidents sign Comprehensive Strategic Partnership www.montsame.mn

After the official talks between the Mongolian and Russian Presidents at the State House, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Mongolian President Kh.Battulga attended a ceremony to sign intergovernmental and inter-agency documents on bilateral relations and cooperation.

World's most livable city for 2019, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit www.cnn.com

It's long been known for its grandiose architecture, lashings of green spaces and traditional coffee shops -- and now Vienna is building itself a reputation for something even more covetable.
The Austrian capital has been ranked the world's most livable city for the second year running, topping the table with almost perfect scores for stability, culture and environment, education and infrastructure, and health care.
It was followed by Melbourne -- which Vienna toppled from pole position last year after seven years at the top. Sydney, Osaka and Calgary make up the top five on the annual Global Liveability Index of 140 cities around the world, researched by The Economist Intelligence Unit.

Lucie Lamster Thury, a New Yorker who moved to Vienna in 2004 and runs shopping tours of the city, said Vienna "taught me how to live.
"Coming from Manhattan it was hard to slow down but I love the pace of Vienna. It's relatively quiet, clean and culturally abundant, and I've never felt safer in Europe or in the States. I thought I'd never get used to shops being closed on Sundays, but it has changed my life -- people actually get to rest here, and private life is as important as work."

Although the top 10 was dominated by Australia, Canada and Japan, Europe performed well overall. Eight of the top 20 cities are in Northern Europe, with Copenhagen following Vienna into the top 10, and Zurich, Frankfurt and Geneva 
Helsinki, Amsterdam and Hamburg also made the top 20, while Berlin and Luxembourg came in at 21 and 23 respectively.
Honolulu was the top ranked US city at 22, with Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Seattle and Washington, DC in the top 40. Chicago was rated 41st.
London and New York ranked 48 and 58 respectively. Both were rated highly for culture but were brought down by their lower scores for infrastructure and stability, with a higher risk of crime and terrorism.
Paris' stability rating also took a tumble thanks to the "gilet jaunes" anti-government protests. It fell six places from last year's ranking to 26.

Singapore came in at number 40, and Dubai at 70. Hong Kong was ranked 38 -- the listings were compiled before the recent political upheaval. Cairo and New Delhi were downgraded due to environmental issues such as poor air quality and inadequate water provision.

Damascus, in Syria, was judged the world's least livable city, followed by Lagos, Nigeria, and Dhaka, Bangladesh. The Venezuelan capital Caracas was rated the tenth least livable city.
Karachi, Tripoli and Harare also featured in the bottom 10.

The world's most livable cities 2019

1. Vienna, Austria
2. Melbourne, Australia
3. Sydney, Australia
4. Osaka, Japan
5. Calgary, Canada
6. Vancouver, Canada
7. Toronto, Canada
7. Tokyo, Japan
9. Copenhagen, Denmark
10. Adelaide, Australia

The world's least livable cities 2019

1. Damascus, Syria
2. Lagos, Nigeria
3. Dhaka, Bangladesh
4. Tripoli, Libya
5. Karachi, Pakistan
6. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
7. Harare, Zimbabwe
8. Douala, Cameroon
9. Algiers, Algeria
10. Caracas, Venezuela