China is slowly joining the economic war against Russia?
jpkoning.blogspot.com
jpkoning.blogspot.com
For example: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2024/05/24/china-russia-join...
In which they literally agree to cooperate in nearly every economic area.
Neither wants OFAC:
"... Both sides oppose interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, unilateral sanctions without international law basis or UN Security Council authorization, and 'long-arm jurisdiction' ..."
To my knowledge, these joint statements are not usually officially translated to English (or covered in the Western press).
And I wonder why China is supporting Russia like this. I have an wild probably unrealistic theory, but I cannot get it out of my head.
I suspect China as usual is in a long term planning phase, keeping a close eye on Siberia. Helping Russia may make the post-Putin era crash far worse then without that help.
Then China can head north and take Siberia. That area has vast resources, low population and is in the North. China has a large population that may need to head north as Climate Change worsens. So I expect some day China will end up owing Siberia.
Basically they're doing to Russians what Russians were doing to others.
Russia will continue having (one of) the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world and you can bet they would use it when China invaded Siberia like that.
It also makes zero sense for China to turn your most important "ally" (in the sense of resistance to the West) to your mortal enemy.
It's individual Chinese companies being intimidated by American market denial who cut ties in Russia, not the other way around at all.
Chinese state companies continue to work with Russia as usual.
Change the headline.
You'll know when Russia runs out of ball bearings when their trains stop and their conscripts are conducting assaults on horseback. Until then, you should assume China, and anyone else that can make such products, have found a way, and that they're going to keep doing it at least until Russia can no longer pay.
So I can definitely see a similar sort of “free trade agreement” occurring between China and Russia as there’s very little incentive for either to care to monitor all the busy businessmen, so long as the right palms get greased.
The easiest place for hazelnuts to go upon leaving Turkey is pretty much Italy, especially without paying for the Suez Canal
-My understanding is that China loves in shell hazelnuts, basically like a traditional thing over there, possibly being related to new year celebrations.
-We have multiple varieties of hazelnuts that each have their advantages and disadvantages. We have a lot that work well for direct eating. It’s more difficult to get exactly what you need from Turkey, since their focus seems mostly about fat content, rather than taste/color/size/texture/shelf-life.
-American reputation for safe and sanity food. Our farms are more sanity (as much as any farm can ever be), less contaminated with pollution and pesticide residues, and we have much more capable cleaning infrastructure where nuts are washed/sanitized(a “kill step”)/dried.
-We control the moths and bacterial blight which results in low amounts of infested nuts going out. If you’ve ever eaten in shell pistachios, you’ll know that occasionally you’ll get a dried worm or shriveled/moldy black nut. Can’t really eliminate it yet, but we keep it at an “acceptable” level.
-We are better at keeping the nuts climate controlled, so they don’t go rancid.
-Geographically we are well positioned, able to send them to the ports within state, and across the pacific.
-When prices are reasonable, the demand in China is big enough that they could completely absorb our output even if we doubled it and sent it all to China. Last I checked we produce about 4-5% of the world output. Turkey is like 75%.
There are three major direct railway connections between China and Russia. Exactly zero of these sites have any Western observers with the authority necessary to ensure anything about what is in the box cars. And that's just the railways. There are also roads, boats and aircraft.
We don't know what's going on: we can't measure any of this credibly. Certainly not well enough to draw precision graphics and cite volume numbers with single digit precision.
Beyond that, even if the given numbers are dead nuts accurate, how can we claim this is down to China's better nature as a non-pariah state contributor to international prerogatives? It could also be that Russia just doesn't have enough liquid hard currency to pay. It could be that Russia's demand for industrial inputs has fallen off simply because they're running out of factory workers. There is public data and anecdotal evidence for both of these as well: all similarly unverifiable.
So for me the story fails on both fronts: unverifiable claims about the quantity of trade and unverifiable attribution of the reason for the former.
Ultimately my hang up here is the creation of illusions. We know far less than we pretend, and that is one factor in bad decision making. Acknowledging unknowns -- often a very difficult choice, especially when there is an ample supply of spreadsheet ninjas and graphics artists eager to paint whatever the preferred reality of the day might be -- improves decisions.
Re: troubles with payments: For all I, or you, know, the money is being concealed as well. Despite the triviality of concealing industrials inputs moving across the unmonitored borders of friendly nations, concealing money is even easier.
Yep, quite different from Egypt-Sector Gaza border))
As for ball bearings, one would hope 2 years is enough for RU to setup their own plants. PRC not just selling them inputs, RU getting capita equipment to build their manufacturing base.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-sanctions-ukraine-war-fuel-t...
Only by omission. An army consists of people who have "joined" but some of them may have been drafted. If the title don't say, it does not imply that they all enlisted voluntarily; that question is left open.
As an example aspect of how India might view Western nations: the US was one of the first to recognize Pakistan after the forced partition of India by the British on their way out of South Asia. Despite a long history of harboring terrorist groups (like the Taliban or Al Qaeda) and themselves conducting terrorist attacks, Pakistan was somehow recently designated as a major non NATO ally of the US. India has strained relations with Pakistan and Bangladesh, whose territories were historically part of the Indian / Hindu world, but were taken away to form those nations as part of the partition of India. Obviously given Islamic invaders were the original colonizers of India for hundreds of years, before European colonizers arrived, anyone legitimizing those nations as the US has, will not be seen by India as a reliable friend.
Meanwhile Russia has long supported India and cooperated with them on defense, space, etc. Although Russia does have diplomatic relations that India does not support, they have been a friend to India on very important and sensitive areas like defense. That has made them a very popular ally, not just with the government of India, but also its citizens. They’re seen as being far less fickle than Western partners.
So India finds itself in the middle of all these global conflicts, and is taking a somewhat neutral route that serves its interests well. I think to them, these other conflicts aren’t “their fight” and they’re more focused on their own reality. If other countries take issue with it, we need to work to earn their trust, and give something significant in return for the long history of not treating them as friends. I am no foreign policy expert, but I feel it would be irrational for us to expect them to act against their own interests.
EDIT: I am not sure how to reply to the flagged reply under me, so adding some thoughts here. There is a long and documented history of Islamic Arabs invading India and taking over most of its territory, which is what I was referring to, and which underpins their geopolitical position today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_the_Indian...
These invasions involved killing huge numbers of people, settling/occupying their lands (almost the entirety of modern India), ruling over them through authoritarian power, subjugating them, extracting wealth from them, and destructively affecting local culture (for example by demolishing buildings). This is all very literally colonialism, and there are many similarities between this period and the period under European rule. I think that HAS to affect how India evaluates foreign policy today.
Most Islamic empires in India Indianized rapidly, adopting local customs, languages, and traditions. Does this legitimatize invasion/forced conversion? Of course not, but things were different 1300 years ago (first Islamic invasion). No Muslim empire ever ruled the entirety of the subcontinent.
Colonizers? Most Muslim empires came and stayed and did not pilfer to benefit the motherland like the British Raj. India was likely the world's largest economy under the Mughals (Muslims) before the British came and did what they do best.
The most well-known symbol of India, the Taj Mahal, was built under Muslims, exemplifying a blend of Indo-Islamic architecture.
In the modern age of Modi, I keep seeing this garbage viewpoint. The Great Qing dynasty was not Han Chinese, but the Chinese didn't attempt to shed that vital piece of their heritage. I don't care if you're specifically Hindu or not but consider adopting a more nuanced viewpoint.
Who cares what the US stance and role in this is. India is a big boy and this is their stance in Ukraine's anticolonial struggle.
I’m not familiar with their relations - can you share how they’ve been a good friend? I’ve only heard of their relations after the current conflict began, where there were reports that Africans and Indians faced racism and segregation at the Ukraine border:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/students-allege-racism...
But the real question is how is it that India is always whining about the colonial past yet they are not even prepared to politically confront neoimperial Russia at such minor economic costs.
At deep discounts. Discounts which finance its balancing vis-à-vis China. It’s a stable system, provided Xi’s replacement isn’t a Caligula.
'India deserves a thank you for purchasing Russian oil': EAM S Jaishankar - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYRk_Vgm-g
The World Is Thanking Us For Buying Russian Oil: Hardeep Singh Puri | Davos 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VDpVY44rNUw
An equivalent economic policy would be if Europe and India were both allowed to buy oil, but capped at India's current amount (let's say 20% of pre-war baseline). Perhaps this can be called a "fractional" embargo.
Is this really desirable? The pain of going from 80% embargoed to 100% is much greater for Russia than 0% to 20% -- a 100% would likely cripple the war. To be fair, not saying that was a card in play due to China, Iran, etc. But arguing it's good economic/diplomatic policy is unclear since it makes the embargo weaker
1) The disillusionment and hope of Western sanctions against Russia - https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/disillusionment-russia-sa...
2) The impact of Russia–Ukraine war on crude oil prices: an EMC framework - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02526-9
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/09/04/c...
It's complicated. A good chunk of territory changed hands after the Convention of Peking. On the other hand, much of that territory has extremely hostile climate and not much to do other than mining fly-in fly-out style. Let's see what happens.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-banks-reject-80-russian-0...
They are not openly hostile to Russia and will not admit to aligning with the West, but they certainly do not want trouble (sanctions) or an open war with Russia. They told Putin they will not pay for the Syberian pipeline, because they don't have to. Given how bad the Russia's economic situation is China can do nothing, squeeze every last penny out of them, and enjoy cheap access to the Russia's mineral resources without having to conquer and run the place.
How Xi can "manage" Kim when Pyongyang already is a telephone government? North Korea is a Chinese proxy.
When China wants to increase badness against US, JP, SK, it pushes forward its pawn, and orders Kim to do something to spook them.
The independence of NK regime when it completely existentially depends on China for everything is a myth.
It is much more than that; NK is China's "pawn which can be promoted to a queen" if and when a nuke war happens. That is the only aim of its existence.
https://www.state.gov/assessing-u-s-efforts-to-counter-china...
The real point is that EU interests are with the EAEU, being all Europeans till the Urals, being almost compatible (EAEU is like ancient ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) the base of the modern EU) technically is the most reasonable move for both party:
- they both need an ally, the western need natural resources and space, the easterner modern industry and management;
- they are in territorial continuity, and both can't much invade each others;
- they are both oppressed by their current allied, the EU driven by conflicting USA/UK interests, Russia by the China dominance and economical colonization of the Siberia and the Russian Far East.
That's a socially nearly utopia but technically most sound partnership. China knows that and they need to avoid that as the USA and the UK. If that happen for a reason or another China, USA, UK are simply dead because they can only kill each others in an economical al military war both falling on their own internal weakness. So China need to control Russia, but not allow it to strength much, the USA/UK need to control EU. They have a point in common, but a conflicting one, so it's very unlikely they agree on anything.
Aside China need South America, something USA can't accept at all, but can't really go to war, at least that's the last thing they do want. On the other side UK in primis, but also USA desperately need a global war, UK to avoid a civil war, witch is VERY near due to a completely failed economy and way too much general population poverty, USA and in a far better status but they can't lose nor south America nor the dollar dominance so they need a war a well. The probability of an alliance in such war between USA/UK and China is very unlikely, their ruling class is very similar in thinking terms, but they are definitively conflicting without much choice. They are not like Nazi-Fascist-Japan axe today because resources are scarce for all.