4 ms·

For sure China has a ton of people and a huge economy. Fair point that the regulatory framework there may be more homogenous, but it's also weaker. And it lack

For sure China has a ton of people and a huge economy. Fair point that the regulatory framework there may be more homogenous, but it's also weaker. And it lacks all the other inbuilt advantages I mentioned. Remember, the USA can ship goods back and forth between itself and what... 90% of the ex-US global economy? With very little geopolitical interference. This is largely a function of geography, plop a cargo ship in the water, sail it, boom you arrive in Western Europe, or East Asia, without getting anywhere near some other country's sphere of influence. China can't say the same. To ship cargo to America they have to sail near multiple political rivals (and they seem to enjoy antagonizing America itself as well). To ship cargo to Europe they need to do the same. So there are all these countries and political forces that could disrupt Chinese trade at any time. In the long run they have inbuilt geographic risk, the US has inbuilt geographic immunity.

paganel 4y ago
I think this is a skewed perspective. In case of a war the Chinese leaders won't care about the fact that they won't be able to sell their plasticky stuff to Europe or the US, they'll only care to have enough food for their population and enough raw materials for their Army (it takes lots of iron and access to cheap energy to make lots of artillery shells). Lack of enough food for their population was what brought the Germans down in WW1, partial lack of raw materials helped bring down the same Germans in WW2. By itself China won't be able to feed its people in case of a US naval blockade, but that's where the alliance with Russia comes into place. Transporting grains by rail instead of by sea is not as cost effective but will do the trick, and Russia has lots of grains. The same Russia has also lots of raw minerals. That's why throwing Russia into China's open arms is such a geo-strategic stupid thing to do from the West's point of view, really, really stupid.
- tomcam 4y ago
  Spot on. Russia will have much more grain if it crushes Ukraine, which is very possible.
- pjc50 4y ago
  The alternative of allowing Russia to conquer another state and openly threaten further states would be far worse. The West has disengaged with Russia (and Russian money and gas) only very reluctantly.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    China has been a clear threat since the 1990s. The US utterly failed to recognise it as a strategic danger. Russia could have been Westernised with a little more effort, and turned into an ally and partner. (Which is not to say it would have been easy, but it would have been possible.) Instead Russia was neoliberalised, turned into a mafia economy with huge concentrations of wealth on top of raging poverty, and its imperial pretensions were tolerated for two decades. Ukraine and Russia are both direct US foreign policy failures.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      > Russia could have been Westernised > Instead Russia was neoliberalised The West has also been neoliberalised. Sadly I think that's why nothing better happened to Russia; everybody was comfortable with having a strongman to deal with and oligarchs to take money from. Even to the extent of overlooking crimes like the Salisbury poisonings and the airliner shootdown. It's a common pattern in US partner states. Most of the former USSR and Yugoslavian states have sought freedom, although there are questions about Serbia, Hungary and to a lesser extent Poland.
- bandrami 4y ago
  Nah. It's time to let Russia fall apart; if they can't even throw their weight around in their region they aren't any use to us against China.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    We'll have to buy their nukes at some point.
    - bandrami 4y ago
      Sure, just like we did with Ukraine. That's what a money spigot is for.
- safety1st 4y ago
  I'm not convinced this analysis holds up to the numbers. China imports around $135B of food per year. Before the war Russia was exporting around $35B. Admittedly a lot of the Chinese imports are luxury foodstuffs but that's still a big big gap. China can't feed itself, even with Russia's help. This is a recurring problem throughout China's history. I think you underestimate the importance of "plasticky trinkets." Exports are the backbone of the Chinese economy. Without them it can't afford to import food, and millions of Chinese starve. If China declares war and isolates itself so that Russia is its primary remaining trade partner, millions of Chinese starve. The biggest importers of food to China today are the US, Brazil, Australia, and a handful of Southeast Asian countries - basically that's all gone if China goes to war or isolates itself in some other way. Now I mean sure anything can happen in a war and the CCP might very well choose to let millions of Chinese starve, they've done it before. My point here was that isolation would inflict terrible and permanent damage to China. A war is unlikely to happen in the first place because not only is this damage so great, but China would probably lose any battle that wasn't very close to their home theatre. By the way, Chinese food security is a great topic for illustrating how dysfunctional they are as a country. Here's an article on the topic - https://www.cfr.org/article/china-increasingly-relies-imported-food-thats-problem https://www.cfr.org/article/china-increasingly-relies-import... - basically they don't have food security, achieving it is one of their top priorities, and they are failing to achieve that priority. The cost to grow soybeans in China is 30% higher than in the US, and the yield is 60% lower!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

paganel 4y ago

I think this is a skewed perspective. In case of a war the Chinese leaders won't care about the fact that they won't be able to sell their plasticky stuff to Europe or the US, they'll only care to have enough food for their population and enough raw materials for their Army (it takes lots of iron and access to cheap energy to make lots of artillery shells). Lack of enough food for their population was what brought the Germans down in WW1, partial lack of raw materials helped bring down the same Germans in WW2. By itself China won't be able to feed its people in case of a US naval blockade, but that's where the alliance with Russia comes into place. Transporting grains by rail instead of by sea is not as cost effective but will do the trick, and Russia has lots of grains. The same Russia has also lots of raw minerals. That's why throwing Russia into China's open arms is such a geo-strategic stupid thing to do from the West's point of view, really, really stupid.

tomcam 4y ago
Spot on. Russia will have much more grain if it crushes Ukraine, which is very possible.
pjc50 4y ago
The alternative of allowing Russia to conquer another state and openly threaten further states would be far worse. The West has disengaged with Russia (and Russian money and gas) only very reluctantly.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  China has been a clear threat since the 1990s. The US utterly failed to recognise it as a strategic danger. Russia could have been Westernised with a little more effort, and turned into an ally and partner. (Which is not to say it would have been easy, but it would have been possible.) Instead Russia was neoliberalised, turned into a mafia economy with huge concentrations of wealth on top of raging poverty, and its imperial pretensions were tolerated for two decades. Ukraine and Russia are both direct US foreign policy failures.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > Russia could have been Westernised > Instead Russia was neoliberalised The West has also been neoliberalised. Sadly I think that's why nothing better happened to Russia; everybody was comfortable with having a strongman to deal with and oligarchs to take money from. Even to the extent of overlooking crimes like the Salisbury poisonings and the airliner shootdown. It's a common pattern in US partner states. Most of the former USSR and Yugoslavian states have sought freedom, although there are questions about Serbia, Hungary and to a lesser extent Poland.
bandrami 4y ago
Nah. It's time to let Russia fall apart; if they can't even throw their weight around in their region they aren't any use to us against China.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  We'll have to buy their nukes at some point.
  - bandrami 4y ago
    Sure, just like we did with Ukraine. That's what a money spigot is for.
safety1st 4y ago
I'm not convinced this analysis holds up to the numbers. China imports around $135B of food per year. Before the war Russia was exporting around $35B. Admittedly a lot of the Chinese imports are luxury foodstuffs but that's still a big big gap. China can't feed itself, even with Russia's help. This is a recurring problem throughout China's history. I think you underestimate the importance of "plasticky trinkets." Exports are the backbone of the Chinese economy. Without them it can't afford to import food, and millions of Chinese starve. If China declares war and isolates itself so that Russia is its primary remaining trade partner, millions of Chinese starve. The biggest importers of food to China today are the US, Brazil, Australia, and a handful of Southeast Asian countries - basically that's all gone if China goes to war or isolates itself in some other way. Now I mean sure anything can happen in a war and the CCP might very well choose to let millions of Chinese starve, they've done it before. My point here was that isolation would inflict terrible and permanent damage to China. A war is unlikely to happen in the first place because not only is this damage so great, but China would probably lose any battle that wasn't very close to their home theatre. By the way, Chinese food security is a great topic for illustrating how dysfunctional they are as a country. Here's an article on the topic - https://www.cfr.org/article/china-increasingly-relies-imported-food-thats-problem https://www.cfr.org/article/china-increasingly-relies-import... - basically they don't have food security, achieving it is one of their top priorities, and they are failing to achieve that priority. The cost to grow soybeans in China is 30% higher than in the US, and the yield is 60% lower!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]