John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Will Putin be willing to get involved in a belt and road deal with China? Would China trust Putin to honour the terms of of any such deal. In any event, sea transport is extremely cost effective compared to rail/road.
China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.
- Thread starter ngatimozart
- Start date
-
- Tags
- china geopolitics geostrategy prc
It is feasible that sea shipping from Australia is cheaper than building railroads and bridges and then shipping from Russia via rail. I would, however, based on earlier responses in this thread, speculate that China simply wants to diversify its suppliers, which would give it a leverage in negotiations with original suppliers, that is Australia. It is not even clear that the project would be cost effective compared to existing trade routes, I strongly suspect such deals with Russia will pursue mostly political and geostrategic goals.
RoyZZConnor
Member
Currently Mongolia is the top coke coal exporter to China. It is unlikely China will unban coal import from Australia due to Australia's hostile action against China in South China Sea.
This "hostile action" would be what exactly ? Your constant one line posting is beginning to look like gish gallop trolling.Currently Mongolia is the top coke coal exporter to China. It is unlikely China will unban coal import from Australia due to Australia's hostile action against China in South China Sea.
China changes coal suppliers due to their strong belief in magical sky fairies living within Mongolian coal. See what I did there ? Claims made without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
RoyZZConnor
Member
Consider it a Chinese equivalent of CAATSA. Australia uses coal money to buy US military hardware. US is China's adversary. So Australia pays the price of China coal ban from Australia. If Australia uses coal money to buy Chinese military hardware, you can bet your boots China won't ban coal import from Australia.
Last edited:
Russian coal is far cheaper than Australian coal due to lower labor cost. And now with the bridge across the Amur river it is far cheaper to deliver coal from Russia by train than it is to deliver coal from Australia by ship. I honestly don't see any reason China will resume coal import from Australia.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/share_image_2048x2048-53c462d9eb504718860c7c514b6ce475.png)
Russia Travel Tips & Advice
Russia's historic cities, notable museums, and vast interiior crossed by the Trans-Siberian Railroad are maor attractions.www.travelandleisure.com
I know you have been banned but this deserves comment. You clearly know nothing about coal and have not read much.
It is not an homogenous product with a wide range of thermal properties and quality. Australian thermal coal from the east coast is of high quality (much higher than most) and is more efficient to use. China actually converted or build power stations based on its quality. Coal from other sources simply does not have the same efficiency and in some cases the new stations cannot use it (without being tweaked and subject to some associated issues).
Coking coal is different again and is used for steel making. The best coking coal (in large quantities) comes from Australia and Canada. By cutting off Australia coking coal prices have gone up by $140USD per tonne. Mongolia has good coking coal but needs to increase production if it is going to compete noting China's steel making needs.
China mulls lifting coal ban as Aussie trade war backfires big - MacroBusiness
Australian coal producers are reacting and looking for other markets. It is unlikely miners will devote the majority of their capacity to serving China (some have reduce production) as was the case in the past so prices will remain higher that was the case prior to 'banning' Australian coal even if exports resume.
I actually think that the hostile action is the other way around and it is the CCP / PRC's illegal political war against Australia that is the hostile action. The 14 demands presented to the Australian government by the PRC are tantamount to a declaration of war because they are a significant assault on Australian sovereignty. You post andother posts of yours finally shows you for what you truly are, a CCP troll.Currently Mongolia is the top coke coal exporter to China. It is unlikely China will unban coal import from Australia due to Australia's hostile action against China in South China Sea.
Other affected Australian industries are also being forced to diversify given the China problem. See for example The future of Australia’s wine industry - it's quite a listen but Croser is also quite bullish - or https://www.news.com.au/finance/bus...p/news-story/38a7cb5b891bbe269412495a2717537f. Decreased reliance on one market, particularly when that market is China is probably a good thing.
Overall, anyway, Australian exports have been up recently, including China, despite the bans - Australia winning China trade stoush, export figures reveal
Overall, anyway, Australian exports have been up recently, including China, despite the bans - Australia winning China trade stoush, export figures reveal
After the events of 2014-15, Russia and China have gotten far closer. Russia finally sold China the Su-35S, and is even participating in developing China's early-warning radar network (the ones dealing with ICBMs). I wouldn't be surprised if Russia would be eventually willing to get involved in a Chinese infrastructure deal, especially as relations with the west deteriorate. I suspect Putin would like to get closer to the EU again, and repair relations with the US, but not at the cost of sacrificing his domestic political stability, and not at the cost of giving up his positions in Ukraine or Syria. At least not without getting something far more tangible in exchange that merely improved relations. This means that as relations inevitably continue to sour (the US has already indicated that it's not actually interested in any compromise on the subject) Putin will work on improving relations with China more and more.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
.......however they do have a bit of 'history', they share a very long border with a few issues, a surging PRC economy contrasts to a stagnant Russian one. I would be very, very careful if I were Mr Putin. Junior partner is the phrase that comes to mind.
Boatteacher
Active Member
[Comment overtaken by more detailed ones by others]
Last edited:
I think you make some great points! In fact, these are some of the exact points that make me question how a supposed Sino-Russian alliance would really hold up. Because despite what some analysts and many fanboys would have you believe China and Russia are not natural, or even suitable allies.
As @cdxbow said "they do have a bit of 'history", which is right. But the only time that they became friendly was when China fell to the CCP and they where ideologically aligned, and it didn't take long for them to drift apart. While before that the Russians gladly partook in the so called "century of humiliation" and beyond the territorial disputes that are currently outstanding there is probably a lot more territory in the Russian far East that China would like to lay claim to. And China is also expanding it's influence in central Asia which Russia sees as being within it's traditional sphere of influence. The way I see it, Russia is being pressed as much in the East as it is in the West.
For Russia, a partnership with China is convenient right now, rather it's the only partner available to them right now. But in my opinion Russia moved towards China not so much because their interests align and more because of poor geopolitical moves from the West pushing them together. Russia is one of a few sovereign actors on the world stage and their interests will inevitably come into conflict with Chinese interests. Which means at some point someone's interests will have to take front stage, and like posters before me I question whether Russia will be willing to accept this.
As for trade. There's reasons why most trade is done by sea, costs and efficiency being two of them. It is impossible for land based trade to match sea based trade in cost, this is especially the case with bulk commodities like coal and ore. But it's also important to consider that because sea based trade is preferred, our societies are built around making the most efficient use of sea borne trade. In China the big population centers are mostly situated in coastal areas (usually centered around a large estuary). This is where most people live, where most work is done and where most commodities are needed. Most coal is burned towards the Eastern and Southern parts of China. So even if rail could match ships in cost mile for mile, Russian coal would still have to traverse a whole lot of China, while Australian coal can be delivered right where it's needed.
I don't know if China miscalculated Australia's capability to move on the free market, or whether they overestimated their power in the international sphere and their grip on Australian society. But it seems to me that they made a bad move here and they had to take a bad hit for making petty demands.
In the long run, inevitably, yes. Unless of course internal crises pull China apart or at least deal them a serious blow. The problem is that there isn't much of an alternative. Russia under current leadership (not just Putin but in my opinion many around him) will not return Crimea to Ukraine, and will not simply roll over on supporting the few 3rd world client states it has left (like Syria). With that being set in stone, rapprochement with the US is off the table (the current US position is: return Crimea and we'll remove the sanctions). Relations with the EU could be better, and are better (than relations with the US) but are still prone to friction. The EU cares about things like Russia's human rights record, and is under considerable US pressure to adopt a stance that mirrors the American one. What other options does Russia have in the short-medium term? Russia expects to be treated as an equal by the US and the US sees no reason to do this (because Russia and the US aren't equals in reality). At the same time there are objective geopolitical trends on a global scale that are changing the world from mono-polar at the end of the Cold War, to a multi-polar one. And Russia has the potential to be one of the poles, though likely not one of the bigger ones, in this new multi-polar world.
For China this is, in my opinion, ideal. Russia is a strategic communication and trade route that can not be blockaded by sea unlike China itself (it of course can but only if both are being blockaded at the same time, and at that point we're looking at a very different world). Russia is also a source of resources, many many resources. They're more expensive to extract and more expensive to transport, but Russia is highly unlikely to stop deliveries. There are almost no realistic political developments that would involve Russia cutting off coal, gas, or oil to China. Russia also is not a threat. I mean it's a threat in principle, giant nuclear arsenal and all, but not in practice. Nuclear deterrence between Russia and China is well in place, and Russia currently has no reason to go to war with China. Current Chinese expansionism is geared towards the south and south-west. Central Asia does represent somewhat a conflict of interests but a relatively minor one. Remember not too long ago there were US and NATO facilities in the region and now where are they? China doesn't even have that kind of presence. I suspect that many of the CAR autocrats would prefer to continue maneuvering between Russia and the West, Russia and China, with Russia being the constant due to their willingness to be a security provider, and (ironically) their weakness. They're unlikely to simply take over Central Asia, be it through regime change or overwhelming economic power.
In a way it's even good for Russia to have China stirring the pot on the border with India or in the SCS. It distracts attention away from what Russia may or may not be doing, and pushes the situation in Ukraine away from the focus.
In the long-long run it would be nice, in principle for China to absorb large portions of the Russian Far East and Siberia, but in practice this is more of a wishlist item then a priority agenda. Taking the territory from Russia won't make the resources free, they will still have to be extracted and transported. Fighting said war will cause a major disruption in supplies and China can't simultaneously face potential supply problems from Russia and the rest of the world. And to top it off the resources are already available, reliably, from Russia. And of course there's that pesky nuclear arsenal.
But of course the power dynamic in this relationship is inevitable going to shift. China will surpass Russia in GDP per capital if nothing changes, likely around 2030. Russia currently still has some high-end technology to offer, and may continue to do so in some limited niches (like nuclear power and reactor tech). But overall China will likely overcome almost all of its dependence on Russian components over the next 10-15 years. China will also be a competitor for global arms markets, and even political influence. This is where things will get interesting. If China proves to be more willing to let Russia keep their political and economic positions in places like Syria, I suspect Russia will be willing to come to agreements. Look at Russia's relationship with Turkey. They're objectively competing for some of the same things, but it doesn't prevent Russia and Turkey from coming to an agreement time and time again, despite again objective circumstances placing them literally on the brink of war.
Sorry this is very long, but I think this is an important factor to consider. I think that if western countries want to keep Russia from being a close ally of China, the best thing to do is to start coming up with a political compromise that will allow Russia to retain a sphere of influence of some sort. Placing this neo-imperialist foreign policy within some international framework may on the one hand work to limit Russian expansionism in places like Africa, and on the other hand bring Russia back to trade and interdependence with the West. For China it's the exact opposite, their best bet is to be the best customer for Russian resource exports, and even some high-tech products, to invest in joint infrastructural development, while not directly threatening Russia's interests, and hoping that the tensions between Russia and the US, and Russia and the EU, continue to get worse, driving Russia inevitably in China's open arms.
Too right @Feanor ! I'm not an atlanticist and I know Russia wouldn't be hostile to the rest of Europe if we weren't hostile to it. But over the last three decades all we've seen is hostility. NATO has been creeping East (even though promises where made about this) and the disastrous situations in Syria and the Ukraine are a result of the misguided policies of crusty American cold warriors fighting the previous war.
The way I see it the US with the help of the EU instigated a violent coup d'etat in the Ukraine with the aim of directly threatening Russia's strategic position. It's only logical that Russia would respond, and the people of the Crimea had wanted to be Russian since the USSR fell apart. The many Ukrainian service personnel that stayed there is an illustration of that. And Syria is a long time Russian ally so it's natural that they would intervene there. I even think they held back a lot only intervening directly as late as they did.
I think Russia is (needlessly) being chased into the arms of China turning potential rivals into powerful and convenient partners.
The way I see it the US with the help of the EU instigated a violent coup d'etat in the Ukraine with the aim of directly threatening Russia's strategic position. It's only logical that Russia would respond, and the people of the Crimea had wanted to be Russian since the USSR fell apart. The many Ukrainian service personnel that stayed there is an illustration of that. And Syria is a long time Russian ally so it's natural that they would intervene there. I even think they held back a lot only intervening directly as late as they did.
I think Russia is (needlessly) being chased into the arms of China turning potential rivals into powerful and convenient partners.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Just a tip, when people say "I'm not an X, but Y..." X and Y are supposed to be at opposites. For example, "I'm not a Trump supporter, but even I have to admit his confrontational policies re China woke the world up to the threat it posted". What you've done is just say you have your views of NATO-Russian relations and are sticking by them. That's not really anything of note.
As for Russia, I don't think the Kremlin wants rapproachment. Obama tried it, and Putin spat in his face. It serves Putin to pretend to the Russian people that they have an enemy on their doorstep - an enemy that is content to trade with it and impose only the mildest of sanctions.
If Putin wanted better relations with Europe and America he would stop poking around in the Baltic States and end his support for the Ukrainian rebels. Even if he might not legally be allowed to keep Crimea, it could pave the way to de-facto recognition of Russian control of the area. But he can't pretend he can have Crimea and keep undermining Ukranian integrity and the security of NATO members like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
I appear to have taken this in an unfortunate direction. A reminder this thread is primarily about China and geostrategic and geopolitical issues surrounding it. Russia is only relevant in so far as they are friend or foe, neighbor and trading partner, to China. Issues such as Russia-NATO relations in this thread are only meant to be discussed in so far as they impact China. We have an appropriate threat for discussion of Russia-NATO relations, and geostrategic issues surrounding Eastern Europe.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
"Children as young as six are to learn about crimes under Hong Kong's national security law.
Schools will be asked to monitor children's behaviour and report any support for the pro-democracy movement, as part of new education rules."
Quite worrying, but it fits in the character of the chinese communist party policy of absolute control and submission.
www.bbc.com
Schools will be asked to monitor children's behaviour and report any support for the pro-democracy movement, as part of new education rules."
Quite worrying, but it fits in the character of the chinese communist party policy of absolute control and submission.
Hong Kong: Children to be taught about national security law
New guidelines require teachers to report any support for the pro-democracy movement.
www.bbc.com
"Children as young as six are to learn about crimes under Hong Kong's national security law.
Schools will be asked to monitor children's behaviour and report any support for the pro-democracy movement, as part of new education rules."
Quite worrying, but it fits in the character of the chinese communist party policy of absolute control and submission.
Hong Kong: Children to be taught about national security law
New guidelines require teachers to report any support for the pro-democracy movement.
Is it that different from their normal procedure? I'm not an expert on China, but the USSR had the following system. Children joined the Young Octoberets started at age 7, and would be allowed to become Pioneers at age 9 (though not all simultaneously) and later graduated to the Komsomol starting at 14 (and ending at 28, at which point if they did not become party members, they became regular non-party citizens). It's my understanding that China also has a communist pioneers organization starting quite young. So this would be standard, and a logical step in integrating Hong Kong into China.
Just so we're clear these are political organizations, aimed at promoting the ideals of communism, and preparing the youth for being ideologically sound members of society and potential party members.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Well, we are talking here about china, so....
Cheng Lei: Australian journalist arrested on China spying charges
TV presenter Cheng Lei, detained since August, is accused of supplying state secrets overseas.
www.bbc.com
It is troubling because it is another infringement on the SAR status of Hong Kong. They are supposed to be self-governing without mainland influence - a notion that keeps becoming more distant as the PRC seeks to integrate Hong Kong and wipe out the decades of western influence. And also making sure they stop mentioning Tiananmen Square and 1989.