21 ms·

That possibility makes me really nervous. A few weeks ago I was pretty sure that Beijing would not be that stupid, and simply stick with sending tons of dual-us

That possibility makes me really nervous. A few weeks ago I was pretty sure that Beijing would not be that stupid, and simply stick with sending tons of dual-use goods, to keep up the plausible deniability. But Chinese rockets hitting Ukrainian kids in Kyiv/Europe? That would trigger dramatic sanctions. I don't think that is priced into the current world stock market.

pessimizer 4y ago
It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. The US aren't the only people allowed to do proxy wars.
- duxup 4y ago
  > almost risk-free Wouldn’t the article indicate otherwise?
- ajvs 4y ago
  The risk is that China becomes a pariah to the West, which much of their economic system depends on.
  - TexanFeller 4y ago
    The US depends on China to a level where I'd say they own us, not the other way around. They play a large part in making almost every product we use in the US, without trade with them we're screwed.
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      Decoupling has already started and is accelerating. It’s possible to be mostly done within 8 years
      - b112 4y ago
        My pants were made in China, and now they are made in Mexico. Mexico is optimally aligned, with a shared historical/cultural ethos, and desire for NA stability, too. Also, it solves a problem; one cannot wage war without pants. Well, unless you are General Buck Naked... But my point is, manufacturing is returning to the West, which also has low cost production zones. And imagine, a revitalized Mexico, with the cartels broken, and a very strong middle class.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        I think you need to read what decoupling means and how the term applies to trade with China unless you’re replying to the wrong comment.
        b112 4y ago
        You can't decouple without pants on. And I said made in, not assembled in.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make because it sounds like you disagree with my comment, but all of your points support my argument
        b112 4y ago
        I am agreeing with you, but for some reason you're disagreeing with my agreeing! I was merely providing additional data, my pants were made on China, now the label says Mexico! Same style/brand.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 4y ago
      US/China trade is a surprisingly small. Canada, Mexico, China, the EU are all roughly equivalent plus a long tail of every other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa... Where China has an oversized impact is our trade deficit and consumer goods which makes them seem vastly more important than they are. However, that’s also the most flexible with south east asia replacing Chinese manufacturing as Chinese workers become more expensive. Our trade deficit with China isn’t as bad as it seems because we export goods to countries China then imports from. Hong Kong for example is a 25.8B trade surplus and really should be included in Chinese trade numbers.
      - coffeebeqn 4y ago
        Long term China could be (already is being) replaced by countries like Vietnam and India as manufacturers. Possibly growing African countries like Nigeria as well. Chinese labor isn’t globally that cheap anymore but they do have the existing infrastructure
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  Bought fully into the Russian propaganda then… you’d do well to listen to pretty much any interview by Fiona Hill and you’d quickly realise there’s nothing the US wants less than borders starting to be changed by wars; there are so many disputed lines that it could lead to conflicts all over the world. China starting a proxy war with the US and Europe is going to be extremely bad for business.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > there’s nothing the US wants less than borders starting to be changed by wars I think it's a major mistake to talk about any country as if it's one homogenous, unanimous entity. There are those in the US, and elsewhere, who stand to make a great deal of out of money from war.
    - andy_ppp 4y ago
      Which part of the American government forced Putin to invade Ukraine? I presume you have some evidence of this because you sound so sure it was all planned?
      - macinjosh 4y ago
        1. NATO which is primarily funded by the US has been pushing up closer and closer against Russia’s border. 2. US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government. 3. Ukraine, being a US client state, refused to uphold the Minsk peace agreements. 4. Immediately prior to the invasion the US/Ukraine side of the proxy war escalated shelling of Russian leaning parts of Ukraine crossing known red lines. 5. Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. Which we all know is how democracies function /s
        chaostheory 4y ago
        > US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government. Extreme corruption and mismanagement had a much larger influence on the ‘coup’. I’m not saying that the current gov is clean, but that’s what leads to regime change. Also the election you were referring to was a complete sham, which is common with most Russian supported governments > Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. This happened after the 1st invasion, and not prior to that
- Zigurd 4y ago
  Globalization is sponsored by the US, and the US could reverse that. Without US defense of oil shipping routes, China sucks oil through a long, thin straw from an unreliable partner. Just those two factors amount to material risk.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Don't forget that China has significant oil reserves too, they're just hardly tapping them because they know oil only becomes worth more over time.
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    Iirc they are highly dependent on fertilizer imports as well
  - yucky 4y ago
    The Russia/China border isn't a very thin straw though.
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  > It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. It's stupid and risky for either the US or China to escalate a war that threatens to become a global conflict between nuclear powers. I wish saner heads urging restraint would prevail.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    As opposed to what, just allowing the US to dominate you? Some people would rather destroy this planet than be subjugated by a foreign power. I don't blame them. At least they have the strength necessary to present such a credible threat. I wish my country did.
  - papito 4y ago
    So, China and Russia can just point on a map and say "I want that, and I have nukes, so, you know, WWIII". If we are going to play this game, let's have it all out now, because that's no way to live. We all agreed a long time ago that this is not what nukes are for, and if someone wants to lay new rules, they should be ready for what's coming.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      Of course they can. The only real defense against this is for everyone to have nukes. The only question now is whether NATO is going to escalate to global thermonuclear war over some foreign country. Seriously doubt they care that much.
- lr4444lr 4y ago
  Unlike Russia, China is a net importer of food. You really think they can withstand even a fraction of the sanctions or tariffs we've put on Russia?
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  Risk free? They would start proxy World War III Plus they would push western unity to an all time high. The US foreign policy would be perfectly aligned across party lines against China.
favaq 4y ago
>But Chinese rockets hitting Ukrainian kids in Kyiv/Europe? That would trigger dramatic sanctions. Why? We haven't sanctioned the US for the children killed by Ukraine with US weapons in the Donbass.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Regardless of whatever equivalence you’re trying to make: the US is never going to sanction itself.
  - favaq 4y ago
    I meant the EU, since we are talking in the context of Europe.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      The EU also tends to look less kindly on military support for the expansion of the Russian empire than military support for European states' self defence. If you're having trouble processing why, a map of Europe may be handy...
      - lostmsu 4y ago
        There's no empire with current Russia. They have Belarus and stir a few nearby regions. It is just a fascist state angry it can't have more.
        notahacker 4y ago
        There's no shortage of aspiration to have the empire though, which is why we're talking about a war in Ukraine and why Poland, the Baltics and Moldova take a much more favourable view of sending weapons to Ukraine than sending them to Russia...
- oleksii88 4y ago
  When exactly did US invade Ukraine? (And at least here at HN you avoid the most obvious propaganda cliches) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_have_you_been_for_eight_years%3F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_have_you_been_for_eigh...
roenxi 4y ago
> A few weeks ago I was pretty sure that Beijing would not be that stupid... The US is executing the same broad strategy against both China and Russia - surrounding them with US-friendly states who then get military support. It seems to be working extremely well against Russia since they can barely get Russian troops into the Donbass safely. While I, personally, agree that it would be stupid I can certainly see that situation from the perspective of a hypothetical Chinese military planner. A destabilised Russia would potentially have a colour revolution leading to a US encirclement on 3 compass points. China would therefore have no choice but to support the war effort against Ukraine.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  > The US is executing the same broad strategy against both China and Russia - surrounding them with US-friendly states who then get military support. It seems to be working extremely well against Russia since they can barely get Russian troops into the Donbass safely. What US-Friendly states are between Russia and the Donbass then?
  - wsc981 4y ago
    I think he meant that Russia is pretty much surrounded by NATO allies, excluding of course China and this is something Russia is not to happy about (stated this many times in the past as NATO was expanding).
    - gebruikersnaam 4y ago
      > I think he meant that Russia is pretty much surrounded by NATO allies, excluding of course China And Kazakhstan. And Mongolia. And North Korea. And Belarus.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        > > NATO allies, excluding > And Mongolia https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-mongolia/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-mongolia/ > Bordered by Russia and China, Mongolia describes the United States as its most important “third neighbor.” In 2019, the United States and Mongolia upgraded their bilateral relationship to a Strategic Partnership. > Mongolia deployed troops to Iraq from 2003 through October 2008. In Afghanistan, Mongolian soldiers supported Coalition operations for 18 years, with withdrawal underway in 2021 in coordination with the planned exit of U.S. forces. Training and equipment provided by the U.S. government support the professionalization of Mongolia’s defense forces and their continued engagement in United Nations peacekeeping operations. The United States military also regularly participates in Mongolia-hosted peacekeeping and humanitarian relief exercises, including the annual Khaan Quest exercise. Seems like an "ally" to me. > Kazakhstan And while not as close, still maybe an "ally"? https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-Kazakhstan/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-Kazakhstan/ > In the years since Kazakhstan’s independence, the two countries have developed a strong and wide-ranging bilateral relationship, jointly referred to as an enhanced strategic partnership since 2018. > Kazakhstan’s military participates in U.S.-funded military exercises like Steppe Eagle, Viking, Eager Lion, and Shanti Prayas. --- > North Korea The Russian border with North Korea is about 20 miles long.
stevev 4y ago
Well meanwhile the US is sending military aid targeting the donbas region, so what’s the difference?
- tjpnz 4y ago
  That Ukraine wasn't the aggressor?
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > what’s the difference? Morality. Sending military aid to a country to defend themselves is not the same as sending aid to a country to invade another. If this doesn't resonate, maybe this analogy does: giving a gun to a murderer is different to giving a gun to someone who is going to be murdered.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
The west will only shoot its own foot with such sanctions. World economy melted down after sanctioning Russia. Imagine sanctioning China, the country which the entire world depends on for the cheap consumer goods that keeps the engine of capitalism running.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  It’s definitely the end of the US dollar as the global reserve currency, but you’re acting as if we had a choice when idiot dictators are committing shortsighted mayhem. Decoupling will be painful, but not as painful to the US as it will be to China.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    It'll be painful for the entire world including US citizens which elect future presidents.
    - andy_ppp 4y ago
      I think my impression of Xi as some kind of Machiavellian genius was shattered in his confrontation with Justin Trudeau. The idea that China or Xi are ready to try going it alone is fanciful. Western governments and rightwing media are perfectly capable of creating an anti-China narrative strong enough for nobody to be electable on a pro trade with China situation.
908B64B197 4y ago
> But Chinese rockets hitting Ukrainian kids in Kyiv/Europe? That would trigger dramatic sanctions. I don't think that is priced into the current world stock market. Short term this would wreck western economies worse than the 2007 crisis. Long term, it would be the end of China and give a massive boost to western economies. In the mainland it would mean massive stagnation/industry collapse as manufacturing is moved to pro-western southeast Asian countries. Millions of unemployed and unmarried (thanks to out of control population control policies) aggressive young man roaming the country with no hope to emigrate thanks to sanctions. Add food insecurity to the mix, since some countries exporting food to China might re-consider their allegiances not to get sanctioned as well and it would spell disaster for the regime. High net worth individuals getting their foreign assets seized for double allegiance in the west would provide relief to native home buyers and free so much capital to be spent on consumptions good, to soften the blow of higher production costs because of re-shoring.
wefarrell 4y ago
Wouldn’t they be more likely to sell off the shelf components that Russia can use in their missiles? It’s not like Russia lacks an industry that specializes in weapons production.

pessimizer 4y ago

It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. The US aren't the only people allowed to do proxy wars.

duxup 4y ago
> almost risk-free Wouldn’t the article indicate otherwise?
ajvs 4y ago
The risk is that China becomes a pariah to the West, which much of their economic system depends on.
- TexanFeller 4y ago
  The US depends on China to a level where I'd say they own us, not the other way around. They play a large part in making almost every product we use in the US, without trade with them we're screwed.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    Decoupling has already started and is accelerating. It’s possible to be mostly done within 8 years
    - b112 4y ago
      My pants were made in China, and now they are made in Mexico. Mexico is optimally aligned, with a shared historical/cultural ethos, and desire for NA stability, too. Also, it solves a problem; one cannot wage war without pants. Well, unless you are General Buck Naked... But my point is, manufacturing is returning to the West, which also has low cost production zones. And imagine, a revitalized Mexico, with the cartels broken, and a very strong middle class.
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        I think you need to read what decoupling means and how the term applies to trade with China unless you’re replying to the wrong comment.
        b112 4y ago
        You can't decouple without pants on. And I said made in, not assembled in.
        chaostheory 4y ago
        I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make because it sounds like you disagree with my comment, but all of your points support my argument
        b112 4y ago
        I am agreeing with you, but for some reason you're disagreeing with my agreeing! I was merely providing additional data, my pants were made on China, now the label says Mexico! Same style/brand.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 4y ago
    US/China trade is a surprisingly small. Canada, Mexico, China, the EU are all roughly equivalent plus a long tail of every other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa... Where China has an oversized impact is our trade deficit and consumer goods which makes them seem vastly more important than they are. However, that’s also the most flexible with south east asia replacing Chinese manufacturing as Chinese workers become more expensive. Our trade deficit with China isn’t as bad as it seems because we export goods to countries China then imports from. Hong Kong for example is a 25.8B trade surplus and really should be included in Chinese trade numbers.
    - coffeebeqn 4y ago
      Long term China could be (already is being) replaced by countries like Vietnam and India as manufacturers. Possibly growing African countries like Nigeria as well. Chinese labor isn’t globally that cheap anymore but they do have the existing infrastructure
andy_ppp 4y ago
Bought fully into the Russian propaganda then… you’d do well to listen to pretty much any interview by Fiona Hill and you’d quickly realise there’s nothing the US wants less than borders starting to be changed by wars; there are so many disputed lines that it could lead to conflicts all over the world. China starting a proxy war with the US and Europe is going to be extremely bad for business.
- logifail 4y ago
  > there’s nothing the US wants less than borders starting to be changed by wars I think it's a major mistake to talk about any country as if it's one homogenous, unanimous entity. There are those in the US, and elsewhere, who stand to make a great deal of out of money from war.
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    Which part of the American government forced Putin to invade Ukraine? I presume you have some evidence of this because you sound so sure it was all planned?
    - macinjosh 4y ago
      1. NATO which is primarily funded by the US has been pushing up closer and closer against Russia’s border. 2. US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government. 3. Ukraine, being a US client state, refused to uphold the Minsk peace agreements. 4. Immediately prior to the invasion the US/Ukraine side of the proxy war escalated shelling of Russian leaning parts of Ukraine crossing known red lines. 5. Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. Which we all know is how democracies function /s
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        > US helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew a democratically elected but Russian friendly government. Extreme corruption and mismanagement had a much larger influence on the ‘coup’. I’m not saying that the current gov is clean, but that’s what leads to regime change. Also the election you were referring to was a complete sham, which is common with most Russian supported governments > Ukraine has outlawed Russian language, culture, religion, political parties, and jail those who practice them. This happened after the 1st invasion, and not prior to that
Zigurd 4y ago
Globalization is sponsored by the US, and the US could reverse that. Without US defense of oil shipping routes, China sucks oil through a long, thin straw from an unreliable partner. Just those two factors amount to material risk.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Don't forget that China has significant oil reserves too, they're just hardly tapping them because they know oil only becomes worth more over time.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  Iirc they are highly dependent on fertilizer imports as well
- yucky 4y ago
  The Russia/China border isn't a very thin straw though.
JasonFruit 4y ago
> It's not stupid. It's bold and almost risk-free. It's stupid and risky for either the US or China to escalate a war that threatens to become a global conflict between nuclear powers. I wish saner heads urging restraint would prevail.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  As opposed to what, just allowing the US to dominate you? Some people would rather destroy this planet than be subjugated by a foreign power. I don't blame them. At least they have the strength necessary to present such a credible threat. I wish my country did.
- papito 4y ago
  So, China and Russia can just point on a map and say "I want that, and I have nukes, so, you know, WWIII". If we are going to play this game, let's have it all out now, because that's no way to live. We all agreed a long time ago that this is not what nukes are for, and if someone wants to lay new rules, they should be ready for what's coming.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Of course they can. The only real defense against this is for everyone to have nukes. The only question now is whether NATO is going to escalate to global thermonuclear war over some foreign country. Seriously doubt they care that much.
lr4444lr 4y ago
Unlike Russia, China is a net importer of food. You really think they can withstand even a fraction of the sanctions or tariffs we've put on Russia?
coffeebeqn 4y ago
Risk free? They would start proxy World War III Plus they would push western unity to an all time high. The US foreign policy would be perfectly aligned across party lines against China.

favaq 4y ago

>But Chinese rockets hitting Ukrainian kids in Kyiv/Europe? That would trigger dramatic sanctions. Why? We haven't sanctioned the US for the children killed by Ukraine with US weapons in the Donbass.

woodruffw 4y ago
Regardless of whatever equivalence you’re trying to make: the US is never going to sanction itself.
- favaq 4y ago
  I meant the EU, since we are talking in the context of Europe.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    The EU also tends to look less kindly on military support for the expansion of the Russian empire than military support for European states' self defence. If you're having trouble processing why, a map of Europe may be handy...
    - lostmsu 4y ago
      There's no empire with current Russia. They have Belarus and stir a few nearby regions. It is just a fascist state angry it can't have more.
      - notahacker 4y ago
        There's no shortage of aspiration to have the empire though, which is why we're talking about a war in Ukraine and why Poland, the Baltics and Moldova take a much more favourable view of sending weapons to Ukraine than sending them to Russia...
oleksii88 4y ago
When exactly did US invade Ukraine? (And at least here at HN you avoid the most obvious propaganda cliches) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_have_you_been_for_eight_years%3F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_have_you_been_for_eigh...

roenxi 4y ago

> A few weeks ago I was pretty sure that Beijing would not be that stupid... The US is executing the same broad strategy against both China and Russia - surrounding them with US-friendly states who then get military support. It seems to be working extremely well against Russia since they can barely get Russian troops into the Donbass safely. While I, personally, agree that it would be stupid I can certainly see that situation from the perspective of a hypothetical Chinese military planner. A destabilised Russia would potentially have a colour revolution leading to a US encirclement on 3 compass points. China would therefore have no choice but to support the war effort against Ukraine.

wkat4242 4y ago
> The US is executing the same broad strategy against both China and Russia - surrounding them with US-friendly states who then get military support. It seems to be working extremely well against Russia since they can barely get Russian troops into the Donbass safely. What US-Friendly states are between Russia and the Donbass then?
- wsc981 4y ago
  I think he meant that Russia is pretty much surrounded by NATO allies, excluding of course China and this is something Russia is not to happy about (stated this many times in the past as NATO was expanding).
  - gebruikersnaam 4y ago
    > I think he meant that Russia is pretty much surrounded by NATO allies, excluding of course China And Kazakhstan. And Mongolia. And North Korea. And Belarus.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      > > NATO allies, excluding > And Mongolia https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-mongolia/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-mongolia/ > Bordered by Russia and China, Mongolia describes the United States as its most important “third neighbor.” In 2019, the United States and Mongolia upgraded their bilateral relationship to a Strategic Partnership. > Mongolia deployed troops to Iraq from 2003 through October 2008. In Afghanistan, Mongolian soldiers supported Coalition operations for 18 years, with withdrawal underway in 2021 in coordination with the planned exit of U.S. forces. Training and equipment provided by the U.S. government support the professionalization of Mongolia’s defense forces and their continued engagement in United Nations peacekeeping operations. The United States military also regularly participates in Mongolia-hosted peacekeeping and humanitarian relief exercises, including the annual Khaan Quest exercise. Seems like an "ally" to me. > Kazakhstan And while not as close, still maybe an "ally"? https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-Kazakhstan/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-Kazakhstan/ > In the years since Kazakhstan’s independence, the two countries have developed a strong and wide-ranging bilateral relationship, jointly referred to as an enhanced strategic partnership since 2018. > Kazakhstan’s military participates in U.S.-funded military exercises like Steppe Eagle, Viking, Eager Lion, and Shanti Prayas. --- > North Korea The Russian border with North Korea is about 20 miles long.

stevev 4y ago

Well meanwhile the US is sending military aid targeting the donbas region, so what’s the difference?

tjpnz 4y ago
That Ukraine wasn't the aggressor?
andsoitis 4y ago
> what’s the difference? Morality. Sending military aid to a country to defend themselves is not the same as sending aid to a country to invade another. If this doesn't resonate, maybe this analogy does: giving a gun to a murderer is different to giving a gun to someone who is going to be murdered.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

The west will only shoot its own foot with such sanctions. World economy melted down after sanctioning Russia. Imagine sanctioning China, the country which the entire world depends on for the cheap consumer goods that keeps the engine of capitalism running.

chaostheory 4y ago
It’s definitely the end of the US dollar as the global reserve currency, but you’re acting as if we had a choice when idiot dictators are committing shortsighted mayhem. Decoupling will be painful, but not as painful to the US as it will be to China.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  It'll be painful for the entire world including US citizens which elect future presidents.
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    I think my impression of Xi as some kind of Machiavellian genius was shattered in his confrontation with Justin Trudeau. The idea that China or Xi are ready to try going it alone is fanciful. Western governments and rightwing media are perfectly capable of creating an anti-China narrative strong enough for nobody to be electable on a pro trade with China situation.

908B64B197 4y ago

> But Chinese rockets hitting Ukrainian kids in Kyiv/Europe? That would trigger dramatic sanctions. I don't think that is priced into the current world stock market. Short term this would wreck western economies worse than the 2007 crisis. Long term, it would be the end of China and give a massive boost to western economies. In the mainland it would mean massive stagnation/industry collapse as manufacturing is moved to pro-western southeast Asian countries. Millions of unemployed and unmarried (thanks to out of control population control policies) aggressive young man roaming the country with no hope to emigrate thanks to sanctions. Add food insecurity to the mix, since some countries exporting food to China might re-consider their allegiances not to get sanctioned as well and it would spell disaster for the regime. High net worth individuals getting their foreign assets seized for double allegiance in the west would provide relief to native home buyers and free so much capital to be spent on consumptions good, to soften the blow of higher production costs because of re-shoring.

wefarrell 4y ago

Wouldn’t they be more likely to sell off the shelf components that Russia can use in their missiles? It’s not like Russia lacks an industry that specializes in weapons production.