He understands Putin well enough, but the dead Presidents on money speak louder.
Steve
1 Like
Specifically, what position has changed?
The regime’s opening position was to give Putin everything he was asking for, which Putin could reasonably interpret as more USian concessions could be obtained in negotiations. Now, the US is saying “no more”, and seems willing to continue to provide aid for Ukraine.
Steve
But the US hasn’t taken any offers off the table that we’re aware off, right? So the stance has remained the same.
Plus Sec. of State Rubio (or Lil’ Marco as the Russia state media refers to him) said talks had come to a standstill before the minerals deal was signed.
I agree that Putin has no desire to agree to a deal, because the potential deal just keeps getting better for him, and there are number of reasons besides that too.
I think what is happening is that Rubio and envoy Witkoff (who has zero international experience) are slowly coming to the realization Putin doesn’t want a ceasefire. Which is what the state media has been saying for some time now.
2 Likes
What’s the over/under on when the first of these dealt Ukrainian rare earths find their way into US products?
I’ll take the over.
2 Likes
So many pessimists and haters on the board predicting doomsday.
Cheer up. Its Spring.
4 Likes
In recent years, there has been a growing consensus in the U.S. that admitting China into the WTO was a strategic mistake—one that, in the eyes of many Americans, led to the country being “taken advantage of.” That sentiment, especially among certain segments of the population, has been politically leveraged by figures like Trump. The Federal gov’t has not done much for these people and it is blaming China for their lack of actions.
In truth, it’s not that America became weaker. On the contrary, it emerged even more powerful after the Cold War. What changed is that China rose significantly, becoming more comparable to the U.S. in economic scale and global influence. That rapid progress has been striking, often catching Western observers off guard—“Wait, they can do that?” Yes, they can. And while China still lags behind in many areas, its trajectory has been undeniably impressive.
China has no intention of confronting the U.S., but the U.S. is unwilling to let China get too close in global influence. It wants to maintain its position as the sole hegemon. Realizing that too much of its supply chain relies on China—or passes through China—the U.S. now sees this dependency as a strategic threat, especially after labeling China as a rival that refuses to conform to its expectations. That, I believe, is the broader context of this trade war. By imposing tariffs on other countries, the U.S. hopes to gain leverage to restructure global supply chains in a way that places itself at the center—similar to the role China currently plays (and has played for more than a decade).
But why China has to be the Enemy? Does the US really need one for its own sanity?
Some in the U.S. are now admitting that this is not just a misunderstanding. The real misunderstanding was the belief that the U.S. could reshape China into something resembling the West. That was a fundamental misreading of what China is. China never held such illusions about the U.S. or any other country. It has always been willing to trade and engage with others (during the periods it was willing to do so)—Western or non-Western, democratic or authoritarian—without assuming its own system should or could be exported elsewhere. That remains the core misunderstanding.
China is not anti-anything. It certainly is not anti-American and wants to craft mutually beneficial relationships with all. It only have design for the preservation of its national integrity. Like Nixon said: “China’s primary concern is its security. Philosophy is only its second. If there is a conflict between the two, its security always come first”. As far as the hegemonic ambition is concerned, China power projection is radically different than what the western geopolitical theorists claim to be the goals. China wants to be recognized but it is not in its historical nature to impose itself out-rightly. The US is getting in its face for the wrong reason.
Some in the U.S. try to draw a line between China’s Marxist-Leninist party and the Chinese people, claiming they oppose only the former. But in practice, there is no distinction. The Chineses have the government they have, and the US should deal with it accordingly. Most Chineses around the world hope for China’s progress and prosperity, and that is not a threat to anyone. That should be understood but it is not.
I would radically challenge those who claim that China is the US clear enemy, and that there is no misunderstanding how that conclusion came about. Those people have it wrong. Completely wrong.
6 Likes
China is a rival. China has money, size and large advantage of manufacturing capacity. They are making massive number of drones, ships, weapons, robots and large investment in AI and space technology. It is ahead on many fronts.
It is not wise strategy to give them hundreds of Billions (trade deficit).
You don’t want to live at mercy of others.
5 Likes
I understand. Its capabilities are threatening to the US position but aren’t we imagining shadows? China has no intention to harm America whether it has the capabilities or not. In truth, it doesn’t care just like America does not care about China and its people.
Why American tech is not threatening to the rest of the world? Because we are the ‘good guys’? The French had their ‘mission civilisatrice’. The Brits had their ‘white man’s burden’. The Americans have its ‘Manifest destiny’.
China wants a community of shared future. It sees itself as a civilizational state that contrary to the western ones has no missionary aim. It is what it is, and it decides what it will be.
I find this statement focusing on the wrong thing. We are not giving them anything. We have wanted what they produced. Find comfort in that we have a surplus of services with the world.
China was glad to sell us things. We were happy with what we got. But this had to be changed by some. We might want to do some of the stuff ourselves. Fine. Just do it. That should not have anything to do with China. We did not treat our workers well. We did not do anything about it for a long while. But that is not China’s fault. It is the US government’s fault. It’s always easy to blame the other. That is what typically happens in history. Always.
4 Likes
America feels a need to spread democracy across the world. To me (as an ex-Catholic and a current non-believer) this mirrors Christianity, which is mandated by their god to spread their religion as well. The two go hand in hand.
I’ve never had a Buddhist try to convert me, and I’ve known many.
4 Likes
Big surprise. Trump has negotiated himself down by about half on the China tariffs. Now “80%” seems about right.
Wait another two weeks, and it’s be 40%. And two weeks after that…
Ahead of key China talks, Trump says 80% tariff ‘seems right’
The great negotiator. Ha.
9 Likes
Trade wars are easy to win if you just give up.
10 Likes
Trade deficit is NOT FREE. You are giving away a part of the country. Your main profession cannot be “consumption”. Eventually the credit card bill comes due.
Trump is engaged in a risky game but the alternate is sure shot default if we continue to spend $Trillions more than we produce.
2 Likes
David Hume and Adam Smith explained why this isn’t true. Your arguments sound like the spontaneous generation theory of biology. It kinda sorta makes sense unless you’ve actually thought about it for a few minutes.
11 Likes
I don’t know who these guys are but they are spouting nonsense and you are falling for it.
Spending more than you can afford only ends in one way.
1 Like
They are two of the most famous economists in history. Indeed, Adam Smith is basically the father of economics and of capitalism, arguably the single most influential writer on political economics to ever exist. Both, of course, have been dead for centuries.
The fact that you don’t recognize those names - and indeed apparently mistook them for contemporaries - instantly reveals a lot about your total lack of knowledge about economics. Or even a basic educational background to talk about business and politics in general. How can you not know Adam Smith?
18 Likes
dividends, those two men were amongst the triggers of modernity, a d extremely worth reading, at least in the wiki hyper readers digest version so you can fake it better in the future. Most of us already suspected that you knew little of economic reality….
10 Likes
OMG I’m laughing on the floor right now that you admitted not knowing who these two people are. If you want to know why so many people here dismiss you as an uniformed crackpot, well…
10 Likes
Ha! This is the understatement of the year. I’d scratch “economic”…
Who’s gonna tell him that the trade deficit is different from the federal spending deficit?
4 Likes
Replying to myself here. China tariffs are now down to 80% from 145%, with a hint they could come down further. As far as I know, China has made no concessions.
7 Likes