China

[The Don]

And in the long run, what will that get China? The loyalty of a dictator of a country with a ◊◊◊◊ economy? Perhaps. How much is that really worth? Not much.

China's economy is not doing well. Their foreign investments won't pay off, their demographic collapse has already begun, and the inherent corruption of the CCP will prevent them from actually solving any of their structural problems. They might get a few wins here and there, but that won't be enough.

As compared to what ? Squandering your soft power and influence through a series of needless tantrums and spats ?

IMO China has played their hand pretty well. They've got cheap hydrocarbons and other raw materials and a ready market in Russia. They've demonstrated to countries with an historic bone to pick with the Western powers (Africa, Asia and the Middle East) that they can be a counterweight and even to Western countries other than the US, they're positioning themselves as a (slightly) less untrustworthy trading partner (any idea of being a political or military ally is IMO ridiculous).

In cash terms it's cost them less than nothing.

 

[Ziggurat]

IMO China has played their hand pretty well. They've got cheap hydrocarbons and other raw materials and a ready market in Russia.

They have a supply of cheap hydrocarbons from Russia, sure. But that supply isn't nearly enough for them. And it's not going to be enough any time soon, because it would take a few decades to build the pipeline infrastructure to actually be able to pump enough of Russia's supply to offset their need for other oil imports. In the mean time, most of their oil imports come via tankers. And China cannot protect the shipping lanes that supply them that oil. One of the ironies here is that China actually depends on the US Navy to keep shipping lanes pirate free. Their naval assets are purpose-built for a Taiwan invasion, and cannot handle an operation like protecting tankers in the Malacca or Hormuz Straits.

As for Russia being a market, that's a joke. Russia doesn't have the money to buy much of anything from China. China depends on the US being its primary export market.

They've demonstrated to countries with an historic bone to pick with the Western powers (Africa, Asia and the Middle East) that they can be a counterweight and even to Western countries other than the US, they're positioning themselves as a (slightly) less untrustworthy trading partner (any idea of being a political or military ally is IMO ridiculous).

The Soviet Union did that too. They had lots of allies in Africa and the Middle East. Didn't keep them from collapsing.

And you're wrong about Asia. China has no real friends in Asia except North Korea and maybe Myanmar. But North Korea is a basket case, and Myanmar is in the process of imploding. Most of their neighbors don't like them.

And if you think China is less untrustworthy than the US, then you don't understand anything about China.

In cash terms it's cost them less than nothing.

A veto at the UN costs nothing, sure. But they've blown quite a bit of cash on the Belt & Roads with little to show for it.

 

[Helen]

Warning: I know nothing, I'm from Halmstad, but isn't China completely dependent on selling unimaginable amounts of cheap crap to the rest of the world, in order to feed their population (no matter how many of them there really are)? And isn't it reasonable to think that as long as that market isn't threatened, they can be trusted, sort of? Trusted not to rock the boat too violently, at least?

I suppose I must add that I have no love for China, for their authoritarianism, or their state terrorism against minorities, and so on, and on, and on, but I would trust them over Russia, for instance.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Scale of China

Plus: The 50th anniversary of Jaws.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The Scale of China

Plus: The 50th anniversary of Jaws.

foreignpolicy.com

Stopped at the Betterhelp ad.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

you are allowed to skip them, thereby depriving them of the sponsorship money.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

you are allowed to skip them, thereby depriving them of the sponsorship money.

I prefer not to patronize channels that take sponsorships from scummy companies at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Warning: I know nothing, I'm from Halmstad, but isn't China completely dependent on selling unimaginable amounts of cheap crap to the rest of the world, in order to feed their population (no matter how many of them there really are)?

Yes.

And isn't it reasonable to think that as long as that market isn't threatened, they can be trusted, sort of? Trusted not to rock the boat too violently, at least?

What counts as rocking the boat too violently? Theft up to and including military technology apparently isn't rocking the boat too violently. Nor is running secret police operations on foreign territory, or using potentially lethal force against ships in international waters, or lots of other bad ◊◊◊◊ they're already doing.

The other issue is that dictatorships sometimes act irrationally. China shouldn't get too violent (for some definition of "too violent"), but that doesn't mean they won't. They shouldn't try to invade Taiwan, for example, but they might. Dictatorships suffer from an intrinsic information processing problem. In order to control the population, they have to control and corrupt the flow of information to that population. But that ends up corrupting the flow of information to the top as well, even if they don't want that. That's why, for example, Putin thought he could conquer Ukraine in a few weeks. So China could easily convince itself that the consequences of something like a Taiwan invasion (or opening fire on a Philippines naval vessel, or....) would be very different than the actual consequences.

And that's not even the end of it, because there's also an agency problem. Domestic concerns (fear of a coup, the need to rally the populace around an external enemy, etc) can drive a dictator to take actions which might benefit them personally in some way even at massive cost to the country as a whole. And given the opacity of dictatorships, from the outside it's generally impossible to predict how such internal concerns might manifest in external actions.

tl;dr: China will probably behave relatively rationally, but that rationality includes a lot of bad behavior, AND there's still a significant risk of irrational behavior because they're still a dictatorship.

I suppose I must add that I have no love for China, for their authoritarianism, or their state terrorism against minorities, and so on, and on, and on, but I would trust them over Russia, for instance.

That's a very low bar.

 

[Helen]

That's a very low bar.

It is, but I'll take what comfort I can find nowadays. Russia has always seemed far more volatile, less predictable, and atm, some kind of stability is comforting.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is, but I'll take what comfort I can find nowadays. Russia has always seemed far more volatile, less predictable, and atm, some kind of stability is comforting.

Russia is more volatile, but they're also weaker. Their invasion of Ukraine has had fairly limited global impact, even though it's causing devastation in Ukraine (and in Russia itself). But a Chinese attack on Taiwan, even if a lower probability event, would also have far greater global impact.

 

[steenkh]

But a Chinese attack on Taiwan, even if a lower probability event, would also have far greater global impact.

How? If Ukraine falls, a number of countries will be next line. If Taiwan falls, there are no obvious candidates that were not there before.

And I am not convinced that a Taiwan war is a lower probability event.

 

[Ziggurat]

How? If Ukraine falls, a number of countries will be next line.

Which countries? The Baltic NATO states? Yeah, I'd be concerned if I were them too.

But Russia is unlikely to want to directly attack NATO, they've already vastly weakened themselves, and not to be rude, but the Baltic states aren't globally very important.

If Taiwan falls, there are no obvious candidates that were not there before.

The problem with Taiwan being attacked isn't that someone else is next, the problem is that Taiwan itself is vital to the global economy. They are the premier microchip foundry for the entire world. We depend on them. Remember when COVID hit and car manufacturing had issues because of a shortage of chips? That's nothing like what would happen. Taiwan is a vital strategic and economic interest to the US. Ukraine isn't. And that's ignoring the issue of other nations getting sucked in.

And I am not convinced that a Taiwan war is a lower probability event.

It's very hard to judge these probabilities. Too much information is hidden. It's enough that the probability isn't zero, and the consequences would be catastrophic.

 

[steenkh]

The problem with Taiwan being attacked isn't that someone else is next, the problem is that Taiwan itself is vital to the global economy. They are the premier microchip foundry for the entire world. We depend on them. Remember when COVID hit and car manufacturing had issues because of a shortage of chips? That's nothing like what would happen. Taiwan is a vital strategic and economic interest to the US.

I thought that the lessons from Covid and the fire in one factory had got everyone scrambling to establish chip factories elsewhere. I read about factories in Israel and somewhere in Europe (Ireland?). And Trump has demanded that factories are built in the U.S. (can it really be true that this initiative was not taken earlier?). The strategic dependence on Taiwan should be diminished.

I also think that China itself is dependent on the Taiwanese factories, and that could be one good reason why they don't want to see a destruction of them in a war. But as you say, you never know what a dictatorship will do if thinks it will help staying in power.

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought that the lessons from Covid and the fire in one factory had got everyone scrambling to establish chip factories elsewhere.

There are chip factories all over the world, sure. And more have been built since 2020. But for the most part they aren't cutting edge.

For some things like running a digital odometer, you don't need the cutting edge capabilities. But there are damn few foundries outside of Taiwan that can do cutting edge chip manufacturing. Samsung in South Korea and Intel are basically the only competitors to TSMC at the top end, but they're both second place to TSMC.

I read about factories in Israel and somewhere in Europe (Ireland?).

Intel plants.

And Trump has demanded that factories are built in the U.S. (can it really be true that this initiative was not taken earlier?). The strategic dependence on Taiwan should be diminished.

Yeah, TSMC has recently opened a new plant in the US. That initiative started in 2020, I believe. Their Arizona facility uses their 4nm process, which is advanced, but still a generation behind what they're doing in Taiwan. They're going to be moving to more advanced nodes there, but they'll still be behind the Taiwan plants.

This facility reduces but does not remove our strategic vulnerability. Which is a good thing, to be sure, but does not mean China attacking Taiwan wouldn't still be a major disruption to the global economy.

I also think that China itself is dependent on the Taiwanese factories, and that could be one good reason why they don't want to see a destruction of them in a war. But as you say, you never know what a dictatorship will do if thinks it will help staying in power.

Indeed. Logic would dictate that attacking Taiwan is too costly, but dictators make errors.

 

[The Atheist]

China will probably behave relatively rationally, but that rationality includes a lot of bad behavior, AND there's still a significant risk of irrational behavior because they're still a dictatorship.

Pfft. Dictator or democrat, your fat pig in an orange suit has shown the world you don't need to be a dictator to behave badly, and right now, if I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd sit down with Pooh rather than the disgusting thing in the White House. Xi might be a despot, but he's definitely not a moron.

Donny must be gutted he didn't get star billing at the party - all his pals are there.

A lover scorned...

 

[The Atheist]

But as you say, you never know what a dictatorship will do if thinks it will help staying in power.

There is zero threat to the CCP, so that's not valid for starters.

The difference between Putin's attack on Ukraine and China's on Taiwan is really obvious. Putin wants to destroy everything in Ukraine - China's goal is to take Taiwan without a shot being fired, so as to preserve the infrastructure. Like Hong Kong, Taiwan has immense wealth and the CCP is nothing if not pragmatic.

How they achieve the takeover without a hot war, will be engineering a means of giving Taiwanese a choice between surrender or death. As long as Taiwan thinks it can battle, it won't happen.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Currently, China's goal is to slap its capitalist class around for a while until it knows its place again.

The lesson from Ukraine the West should learn is not to make too strong guarantees for Taiwan, lest Beijing feels the need to stake its claim, similar to Putin thinking he has to take Ukraine before it gets into NATO.
China sees the West and the US in particular in decline, so there is absolutely no rush to take Taiwan - unless the US forces its hands.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Considering the Scale of China is important to realize how much the world economy has shifted away from the US and Europe.

China has the population of North America and Western Europe combined.
It uses twice the power of the US, and is the primary or even only supplier of many key components or machines needed in other countries.
Half the Steel in the world comes from China, it produces more cars than any other country and more solar panels by a large margin. It is not wrong to say that China is doing more for the Energy Transition that the rest of the world combined.
Most of the stuff China makes and is also bought in China. And while GDP growth is slowing down, it is still at a level any Western government would kill for.

It is hard to overstate who much the relevance of The West has declined: Africa has now a population equal to North America, South America and Europe combined, and Asia has three times that number. Literacy is basically at 100% globally, and most people have access to cell phones.
Asia's power relative to The West will only increase with time - China has no need to test its entirely unbloodied army against anyone.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is zero threat to the CCP, so that's not valid for starters.

I think you misunderstand. Threats to Xi can come from within the CCP.

 

[Ziggurat]

China sees the West and the US in particular in decline, so there is absolutely no rush to take Taiwan - unless the US forces its hands.

I hope that's how they view it. I'm not convinced they do. I think they probably know what you evidently do not: China has started its demographic death spiral. Time is not actually on their side.