You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is the USA's to screw up. China WANTS desperately to feel like they are in control and not loose face. China at the same time will not send much to Russia. We unfortunately need to look the other way for a small amount of aid. We are not ready for a trade war, neither is China, but the better thing is to go after other suppliers like Iran.You need to think this through better. If China stops sending goods to the west in exchange for bits of paper, will Chinese consumers have:
A. more goods to consume themselves, or
B. fewer goods to consume themselves?
Not a hard question. Of course China needs some exports to fund their oil and food and raw materials imports, but they get enough hard currency selling to non-western countries for that. And they're working on their oil dependency via EV mandates, so that part isn't a long term problem.
There would be disruptions, of course, as factories re-align their output toward domestic tastes. And they'd have to dial back some of their overseas investment programs, which would ding Xi's global strategic ambitions. But it'd be wonderful for China's consumers.
Oh, the Kremlin is going to be fuming about this one.
Re the long range weapons issue:
There are a lot of rumours flying around in UK about giving Ukraine a UK/French cruise missile called Storm Shadow/SCALP, somewhat analagous to Tomahawk. I had previously discounted this but the amount of buzz in the rumour network means it may be genuine. It has been used against targets in Syria so any extra intel value to the Russians arising from use would be minimal. The UK only has the air-launch version so either that would need integrating onto the Ukraine aircraft, or the UK would need to supply a 'land' version of the naval system. It is possible that a limited range 'export' version might be supplied. The warhead has an anti-bunker capability so it could also reasonably be used against significant strategic infrastructure targets. To be honest I figured that this would be too 'much' weapon to give Ukraine and so had discounted it. For example Storm Shadow range is ordinarily 350-miles versus 190-miles for ATACMS; and warhead of 450kg (990lb) versus 230kg (500lb). But with all the rumours out there one can't be sure.
You need to think this through better. If China stops sending goods to the west in exchange for bits of paper, will Chinese consumers have:
A. more goods to consume themselves, or
B. fewer goods to consume themselves?
Not a hard question. Of course China needs some exports to fund their oil and food and raw materials imports, but they get enough hard currency selling to non-western countries for that. And they're working on their oil dependency via EV mandates, so that part isn't a long term problem.
There would be disruptions, of course, as factories re-align their output toward domestic tastes. And they'd have to dial back some of their overseas investment programs, which would ding Xi's global strategic ambitions. But it'd be wonderful for China's consumers.
Your characterization assumes China has a lack of goods to consume themselves, when they don't. What they have is a lack of wealth in the lower to middle class, not a lack of goods. Domestic consumption simply is not enough to support their economy (even though China is making moves to improve it). Personally I don't think their regime will topple regardless of what happens to their economy (they have done some fairly ridiculous policies for Covid, but seemed to mostly have gotten away with it with only limited resistance from the public), but certainly I don't think the regime wants to threaten their exports too much, especially for Russia.You need to think this through better. If China stops sending goods to the west in exchange for bits of paper, will Chinese consumers have:
A. more goods to consume themselves, or
B. fewer goods to consume themselves?
Not a hard question. Of course China needs some exports to fund their oil and food and raw materials imports, but they get enough hard currency selling to non-western countries for that. And they're working on their oil dependency via EV mandates, so that part isn't a long term problem.
There would be disruptions, of course, as factories re-align their output toward domestic tastes. And they'd have to dial back some of their overseas investment programs, which would ding Xi's global strategic ambitions. But it'd be wonderful for China's consumers.
Isn´t that where the Chinese come in? Oli and gas for weapons? But for which goods in the future?If there is a ceasefire, both sides will be scrambling to rearm. The Ukrainians will be getting western gear that is modern or one generation old. Russia's ability to build a lot of new equipment is limited. They can refurbish a lot of older equipment given time. The new equipment they are building lack a lot of modern gear because they can't get the parts.
On another note- I´m beginning to worry about the POTUS being super frail.
Even tho they used the best scripting and cutting, the clips from Joe Biden walking and hugging Selenskij were showing an almost senile state of the POTUS. But BTT
Obvious strategy would be for the two large Communist countries (Russia and China) to join forces.
Biden really likes train travel so that may have actually relaxed him.I don't often give downvotes but I did to this. Firstly it is a team effort, and Biden and the USA are definitely key parts of the team. Secondly Biden did great. We need to pull together, not take pot shots at key players.
"Out of 24 hours, president Biden spent 20 on the train (both directions), and only 4 in Kyiv."
I don't know about you, but for me doing 10-hours in a train, 4-hours on show, then 10-hours back in a train would be a tad unappealing. Well done to that man.
Oh, and that was after 7-hours locked up in plane.
Biden really likes train travel so that may have actually relaxed him.
Train travel is awesome.Biden really likes train travel so that may have actually relaxed him.
Well, Russia still has nukes, so that is a pretty big deterrent to China just rolling in. As for their relations, even during the Communist days, it has been complex. I think frenemies is the closest term to describe them. They were united in their hatred of the USA, but otherwise they still hated each other's guts and were deeply suspicious of each other.Obvious strategy would be for the two large Communist countries (Russia and China) to join forces. China has tremendous manpower & firepower, while Russia has tremendous energy reserves. Problem is that after Ukraine is resolved, China is powerful enough to then annex and occupy it's next door neighbor...Russia. Russia would be powerless to stop China from rolling in their back door and taking, by force, all the territory they pleased. Russia has set the stage for their own demise. The one weakness of China becoming the Worlds strongest Superpower would be eliminated once they could annex the oil/coal/gas rich areas of Eastern Russia.
They wouldn't lose "all" exports. About 1/3rd of exports are to US and Europe. Add in South Korea, Japan, etc. and you get to about half. The 10% that goes to Hong Kong would continue (duh), as well as exports to the rest of Asia, India, the Middle East, Africa, South America, etc.19% of China's GDP comes from exports. Their domestic economy can't absorb all that if foreign trade goes away. Additionally 2/3 of what comes in goes out again for imports. Without the money coming in, they won't be able to import the stuff they need.
Losing all those exports would also result in massive unemployment.
Sure. Especially for strategic products. But it will be highly inflationary. The politicians neglect to tell you that part.I have read that at least in some areas the US is re-industrializing to replace Chinese imports. The west should be doing as much as possible to break away from China.
I guarantee Chinese demand for goods is higher than current consumption. That's why consumption grows every year. It'd just grow faster for a few years.Your characterization assumes China has a lack of goods to consume themselves, when they don't.
They actually had mass unemployment during COVID, just that as I pointed out, it wasn't enough to threaten the regime, given they had strong control of the media, plus the police can easily control any unrest.And forget about mass unemployment. They'll keep those workers busy doing something.
Growth in demand doesn't mean they have a lack of capacity to satisfy domestic demand for consumer goods. Losing the export market simply means they would have an overcapacity.I guarantee Chinese demand for goods is higher than current consumption. That's why consumption grows every year. It'd just grow faster for a few years.
Cracks are showing. Great!
This was the news today, translated from "Spiegel.de":
"Prigozhin: Shoigu wants to "destroy" Wagner Group
The head of Russia's Wagner mercenary force, Yevgeny Prigozhin, accuses Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu of trying to destroy his units. Shoigu and the Chief of General Staff are depriving his fighters of ammunition, Prigozhin says in a voice message on his Telegram channel. This, he said, amounts to treason.
"There is simply direct opposition," Prigozhin says. There has been an attempt to "destroy Wagner," he says. Prigozhin has repeatedly been critical of the Defense Ministry for military setbacks to the Russian army. He has also complained that he feels the merits of his mercenary units have not been sufficiently appreciated."
On another note- I´m beginning to worry about the POTUS being super frail.
Even tho they used the best scripting and cutting, the clips from Joe Biden walking and hugging Selenskij were showing an almost senile state of the POTUS. But BTT
Obvious strategy would be for the two large Communist countries (Russia and China) to join forces. China has tremendous manpower & firepower, while Russia has tremendous energy reserves. Problem is that after Ukraine is resolved, China is powerful enough to then annex and occupy it's next door neighbor...Russia. Russia would be powerless to stop China from rolling in their back door and taking, by force, all the territory they pleased. Russia has set the stage for their own demise. The one weakness of China becoming the Worlds strongest Superpower would be eliminated once they could annex the oil/coal/gas rich areas of Eastern Russia.
They wouldn't lose "all" exports. About 1/3rd of exports are to US and Europe. Add in South Korea, Japan, etc. and you get to about half. The 10% that goes to Hong Kong would continue (duh), as well as exports to the rest of Asia, India, the Middle East, Africa, South America, etc.
Furthermore, the half of exports that currently go to the west wouldn't disappear. It'd be the same shell game we saw with Russian oil. WalMart won't let their shelves sit empty -- they'll increase purchases from other countries (Viet Nam, Malaysia, Mexico, etc.). And existing customers of those countries will have to turn to China. Despite disruptions (and severe inflation), markets and shippers will adjust.
For the sake of argument let's say half of China's 3.6T exports are to the west and half of those actually go away entirely. That's still 2.7T of exports, enough to fund 100% of their imports. And they won't even need all 2.7T of imports any more (e.g. no need to buy so many iPhone chips if they no longer export iPhones). So they'd still run a trade surplus, just not nearly as big.
And forget about mass unemployment. They'll keep those workers busy doing something.
Sure. Especially for strategic products. But it will be highly inflationary. The politicians neglect to tell you that part.
I guarantee Chinese demand for goods is higher than current consumption. That's why consumption grows every year. It'd just grow faster for a few years.