Would Russia accept that, though? China would literally own them.
That’s imperialist thinking. We ascribe it to Russia, but let’s not forget that Putin was KGB. They could do a communist revival, this time with China as the more powerful partner.
But:
Besides, China doesn’t have the capacity to process or even store that much oil and gas.
China doesn’t have to buy gas. They can finance Russia directly. If Russia is beaten and shifts to the West, China has a serious security problem. So maybe China just hands over money.
That’s a lot of very bad economics you’re talking about. Right now, Russia has been dumping money into a deepening hole, and getting nothing back…and their economy is starting to collapse.
What you’re suggesting is that China starts dumping money into that exact same hole, and getting the exact same nothing back. China will soon find its own economy in the same situation that Russia is in. Backing Russia unconditionally like that, will eventually become an anchor dragging them down. It is not sustainable, even for a country like China.
In which way? Right now money is shifted from the EU to the US and Ukraine is accumulating dept. The West, in total, doesn’t make money, only the weapon manufacturers
Weapons manufacturing is a significant percentage of GDP in the countries involved in supplying those weapons. That’s what makes the military industrial complex so successful, and insidious.
And right now, Ukraine is becoming more and more important in that cycle of funding. They are on the cutting edge of cheap drone manufacturing. Everyone wants what they’re making…and the investments are already rolling in. Both Ukraine and the countries supplying them with supplementary weapons systems, are all making bank off of each other.
@Archangel1313@plyth
The problem with the arms industry generally is that while it contributes to an apparent “GDP” growth & makes billionaires of its shareholders, in terms of overall ROI for the people of the countries it “serves”, it is zero-sum. There is NO ROI. Because arms’ singular purpose is to destroy, not build.
The arms race (to the bottom) is ultimately the total failure of diplomacy: the wrong people are in charge. Everywhere.
That’s not necessarily true. Obviously, the people at the top make the lion’s share of the profits…that’s just the unfortunate reality behind all Capitalism. But military technology requires an enormous amount of supply chain infrastructure to produce. There are entire downstream industries that support those manufacturers, that also support a ton of completely unrelated industries as well. Without those primary industries, all the others would be severely underfunded.
Economies are like ecosystems. Every part contributes to the overall health of every other part, either directly or indirectly. And unfortunately in most countries that have a military industrial complex, the weapons industry acts like a keystone species. Get rid of that, and entire branches of the national supply chain simply cease to exist, and all the jobs associated with them also disappear.
The unfortunate reality that this creates, is a dependency on war, in order to maintain economic stability. That’s why countries like the US simply rotate between different enemies…only ever letting peacetime last long enough to restock weapons stockpiles, before moving onto another target.
@Archangel1313
I don’t agree with you at all. :ablobsmile: The MIC is a virus in the ecosystem. There is nothing to prevent investment in downstream & related industries anyway, without the MIC. Referring to them being productive as an excuse to justify the MIC is ignoring the massive overall LOSS to all military-driven & -affected economies.
That said, we as yet do not have a viable response to the literally (& *growing*) *capitalist* reflex for more war machines & more wars.🤷
People can be paid to digg holes and fill one with the dirt from another. That creates GDP, but only with surplus money that could be spent more productively.
Or from the other side, Russia and Iran are also building drones that other people want, and China is supplying everybody with the parts.
Ignoring the economy, the war will escalate, and the only thing that will matter is, who can deliver more drones to the front.
I think China will be able to produce more, but the transport will be the bottleneck since the West will close China’s access to the sea and there is a limit to what can be delivered by train.
That’s imperialist thinking. We ascribe it to Russia, but let’s not forget that Putin was KGB. They could do a communist revival, this time with China as the more powerful partner.
But:
China doesn’t have to buy gas. They can finance Russia directly. If Russia is beaten and shifts to the West, China has a serious security problem. So maybe China just hands over money.
That’s a lot of very bad economics you’re talking about. Right now, Russia has been dumping money into a deepening hole, and getting nothing back…and their economy is starting to collapse.
What you’re suggesting is that China starts dumping money into that exact same hole, and getting the exact same nothing back. China will soon find its own economy in the same situation that Russia is in. Backing Russia unconditionally like that, will eventually become an anchor dragging them down. It is not sustainable, even for a country like China.
The West is equally dumping money. Whoever wins will control Asia and its resources, according to the above linked strategy.
That’s true. The difference is, the West is also making money from it.
In which way? Right now money is shifted from the EU to the US and Ukraine is accumulating dept. The West, in total, doesn’t make money, only the weapon manufacturers
Weapons manufacturing is a significant percentage of GDP in the countries involved in supplying those weapons. That’s what makes the military industrial complex so successful, and insidious.
And right now, Ukraine is becoming more and more important in that cycle of funding. They are on the cutting edge of cheap drone manufacturing. Everyone wants what they’re making…and the investments are already rolling in. Both Ukraine and the countries supplying them with supplementary weapons systems, are all making bank off of each other.
@Archangel1313 @plyth
The problem with the arms industry generally is that while it contributes to an apparent “GDP” growth & makes billionaires of its shareholders, in terms of overall ROI for the people of the countries it “serves”, it is zero-sum. There is NO ROI. Because arms’ singular purpose is to destroy, not build.
The arms race (to the bottom) is ultimately the total failure of diplomacy: the wrong people are in charge. Everywhere.
That’s not necessarily true. Obviously, the people at the top make the lion’s share of the profits…that’s just the unfortunate reality behind all Capitalism. But military technology requires an enormous amount of supply chain infrastructure to produce. There are entire downstream industries that support those manufacturers, that also support a ton of completely unrelated industries as well. Without those primary industries, all the others would be severely underfunded.
Economies are like ecosystems. Every part contributes to the overall health of every other part, either directly or indirectly. And unfortunately in most countries that have a military industrial complex, the weapons industry acts like a keystone species. Get rid of that, and entire branches of the national supply chain simply cease to exist, and all the jobs associated with them also disappear.
The unfortunate reality that this creates, is a dependency on war, in order to maintain economic stability. That’s why countries like the US simply rotate between different enemies…only ever letting peacetime last long enough to restock weapons stockpiles, before moving onto another target.
@Archangel1313
I don’t agree with you at all. :ablobsmile: The MIC is a virus in the ecosystem. There is nothing to prevent investment in downstream & related industries anyway, without the MIC. Referring to them being productive as an excuse to justify the MIC is ignoring the massive overall LOSS to all military-driven & -affected economies.
That said, we as yet do not have a viable response to the literally (& *growing*) *capitalist* reflex for more war machines & more wars.🤷
People can be paid to digg holes and fill one with the dirt from another. That creates GDP, but only with surplus money that could be spent more productively.
Or from the other side, Russia and Iran are also building drones that other people want, and China is supplying everybody with the parts.
Ignoring the economy, the war will escalate, and the only thing that will matter is, who can deliver more drones to the front.
I think China will be able to produce more, but the transport will be the bottleneck since the West will close China’s access to the sea and there is a limit to what can be delivered by train.