Secretary of State Antony Blinken ended his three-day trip to China by instructing Beijing to end exports that help Russia’s industrial sector or face US sanctions and tariffs. In China, Blinken met with People’s Republic of China (PRC) President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.
During his prepared remarks, Blinken explained that the US would weaken China’s economy if Beijing did not limit exports to Russia. “Now, even as we seek to deepen cooperation where our interests align, the United States is very clear-eyed about the challenges posed by the PRC,” he said. “The PRC is providing components that are powering Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. China is the top supplier… dual-use items that Moscow is using to ramp up its defense industrial base.”
“I made clear that if China does not address this problem, we will. I also expressed our concern about the PRC’s unfair trade practices and the potential consequences of industrial overcapacity for global and US markets,” he said, suggesting the US would work to limit Chinese exports of electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels.
Responding to questions, Blinken said he believed that sanctions could be effective because the US is a large buyer of Chinese products, and Washington was prepared to add more sanctions on Beijing. “We’re looking at the actions that we’re fully prepared to take if we don’t see a change… we’ve already imposed sanctions on more than 100 Chinese entities, export controls, and we’re fully prepared to take additional measures,” Blinken said.
Blinken’s visit to China is the latest in a series of high-level meetings between US and Chinese officials since Biden met with President Xi in San Francisco last year. America’s top diplomat claimed there has been “important progress” in improving ties recently.
However, Washington continues to take steps that Beijing views as provocative and a violation of its sovereignty. After a meeting between top defense officials, the US conducted a rare military flight over the Taiwan Strait, a region Beijing views as its territory.
Additionally, part of the $95 billion foreign military aid bill included financial assistance for Taiwan to purchase weapons from the US. “I would like to stress that getting closer militarily between the United States and the Taiwan region will not make the latter safer or save ‘Taiwan independence’ from doom. It will only heighten tensions and the risk of conflict and confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, and will eventually backfire,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in response to the passage of the military aid bill.
The bill also included a provision that forces the Chinese company ByteDance to sell the popular video-sharing platform TikTok or face a ban in the US. Blinken said he did not discuss TikTok with Chinese officials.
Foreign Minister Wang warned Blinken that the US-China relationship risked falling into a “downward spiral” before the two diplomats met on Friday. “China’s legitimate development rights have been unreasonably suppressed, and our core interests are facing challenges,” he said.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.
The end of an economic war with China can be easily predicted. We will lose and our nation will eventually throw out the Democratic party and its leadership for a long, long time. The Chinese people are far more resilient than we are. Consider the following fact. Cuba, a much smaller, and economically far weaker nation than China, has not buckled under our economic warfare. Most East-Asian nations will recognize the Neo-colonial aspect of this attack, and gravitate towards China, no matter where their governments stand.
I’ve arrived at the point where I would be happy to see the democratic party disqualified from playing any future role in governing above county level.
Which would leave us with what? Something better? D’s and R’s are not distinguishable from one another.
Did I mention the Republicans in my comment? Please tell me where I did that.
Does objecting to the presence of one thing imply approval of any others? Maybe we have different educational backgrounds.
Sorry for pointing out the obvious. Who exactly is going to replace the democrats? And did my reply really deserve that insult?
I feel that that about the GOP, the party of Neo-Nazis and Christian fascist.
I am not a Democrat either. A pox on both their houses.
After taking a moment to reflect, I am completely dumbfounded by the ignorance, arrogance and sheer stupidity of the decisions and posturing being made by this dying Empire.
Just this incident alone speaks volumes. The collective wisdom, or should I say ‘Confederacy of Dunces’, thought they would cripple Russia. How the f*ck do they think anything they do or say will sway China?
Not to mention people will be pissed off that they can’t get goods. Things will break down and can’t be replaced.
Nevertheless, it’s going to happen. And on a bipartisan basis. It’s not hard to see the pattern. And Washington is desperate.
China has experienced a period of economic and/or political chaos every couple of generations. At the end of it they get up, shake themselves off, and go back to being China.
China knows that if Russia falls to US-NATO, the US drive for full-spectrum dominance will be turned on full against China.
Russia losing in Ukraine is hardly the same as Russia falling – no one is proposing invading Russia neither Ukrainians nor any NATO leaders or political leaders of NATO countries.
Ignorant comment. US-NATO leaders have clearly stated their intention is “regime change”in Russia as well as effectively neutering Russia economically and militarily. They have no intention of stopping even if they force Russia to surrender control of Crimea and Donbas and their inhabitants.
You are clear off your rocker if you think that NATO forces are going to invade Russia – that would lead straight to nuclear war – though the NATO countries would like to see regime change I’m not aware of even one of them having ‘clearly stated their intention is “regime change”in Russia‘ – do you have an actual source for this claim?
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/regime-change-in-moscow-definitely-the-goal-joly-says
Neither of these are arguing for military actions against Russia – yes we would like regime change in Russia – but there is no threat of a military invasion
The point was about eliminating Russia as an effective ally to China for resisting US-NATO domination.
You are lamely attempting to reject that by mis-characterizing it as a claim that US-NATO was going to militarily invade Russia like they have other countries.
Well that point we agree on – if Russia does not withdraw from Ukraine before being utterly defeated it would sit very badly with the Chinese.
It looks like Russia is anything but defeated.
I also agree with that point – I actually doubt that Russia will be defeated on the battlefield – if Russia ‘loses’ it’ll be like the Soviets (and the US) lost in Afghanistan.
2 very different military campaigns. Plus, stakes are much higher with the latest.
Absolutely – but the outcome will be the same if the Russians cannot win the peace and/or provide a (nearly) as good or better future for their own population.
Massive suppression and a Stalin like holodomor might achieve the first – if sanctions are not lifted then they have no possibility to achieve the second.
WE? Fuck you.
You have a problem with me accepting some responsibility for the actions of my government?
What do you think about the new “doomsday plane”? Why on earth would we parade that thing unless there are enough dummies in high places that think we would survive the nuclear war they have orgasms thinking about, not thinking about the frying of their citizens by weapons generating heat waves hotter than the sun? While they hide in their bunker.
The planes or bunkers intended to demonstrate survivability are intended to make sure the other party does not get the idea that they can execute a decapitation strike.
They are not intended to plan for a nuclear war – no one in government or in the military would ever entertain the idea that they personally would live a better life than they do now by surviving a nuclear exchange.
Lindsey Graham & others have pushed for regime change & having Putin arrested as war criminal
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/lindsey-graham-spearheads-u-s-regime-change-effort-in-russia/
So not a leader of a NATO country – if you take this person as a spokesperson for NATO then Medvedev who have promoted the idea of nuking several European countries before Graham stated his idiocy is an indicator of the Russian goals.
Better chance pigs will learn to fly next week!!!
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/biden-putin-remain-power-anxiety-europe-ukraine-war-rcna21783
“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” – Genocide Joe Biden
Again not a call to invade Russia – there simply is no credible threat of a NATO operation to invade any part of internationally recognized Russia.
“Regime change” operations don’t always require an invasion, the NATO-designed and propaganda-fed ‘color revolutions’ should have taught you that.
Sure that is true when there is a large opposition to the corrupt leadership that is possible – are you claiming that this is the case in Russia (mind you not even in my most optimistic moments have I entertained such a scenario).
Even when there’s a small but exceedingly violent opposition, like in Ukraine in 2014 and a plethora of other countries before and after. Most people are not going to stand up to a bully with an automatic weapon, even if they outnumber them, so the ultra-right wing doesn’t actually need that much support as long as their followers are nasty enough to keep the rest cowed.
Sure that could have been the case, if so we would not have seen them scrambling for a vote and we would surely not have seen the extreme right loosing progressively more seats in parliament – losing the last in 2019.
The theory that this was driven by bullies with automatic weapons is not supported by the facts.
It could have been the case it just was not.
You really should read the Wolfowitz Doctrine memorandum. It is the blueprint for US foreign policy after the fall of the Soviet Union and it is all about the US maintaining unipolar domination of the globe.
Here’s a link: https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2008-003-docs1-12.pdf
I’m very familiar with this – nothing in it however called for an invasion of Russia – which is what was debated here, i.e. was there a threat to (the integrity of the) Russia(n territory).
I have never questioned the US desire for hegemony.
Meddling with another country’s internal affairs is invasion using lawfare,,,
End the US goal to rule the world for wall street banksters. Resist US wars.
With very few people getting maimed or killed though.
Sure that is why the European countries joined in EU – invading a neighbor like Russia did to Ukraine is not a preferable alternative the rules base world order even when it is imperfectly implemented as was/is the case in e.g. Israel.
Applied also to Assad of Syria. That is why we have ISIS, our foreign legion, there. It all involves oil, Texas Tea, the goo. Applied to any leader who defies the “indispensable one”, protects their country’s resources.
US post Cold War 1 geopoltical strategy for 30 yrs written by Brzezonski and Wolfowitz has been the Balkanisation of Russia. Its readily available to read.
Yes and none of it called for a conventional invasion of Russia – why would you assume that I’m unaware of US cold war strategy?
The Wolfowitz strategy is post-cold war. And yes, you appear ignorant about it.
See also the RAND Report, “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia” (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html)
And by the way, don’t expect anyone high up in NATO to speak openly about invading Russia. Even they are not quite so dense. And Russia is much too large.
Their goal is to do everything just short of invading. As with the proxy war in Ukraine.
What makes you think so???
Brzenzinski crowed about killing Russians in Afghanistan, creating Al-queda, which is the mother of ISIS, our very own foreign legion. He confirmed what we suspected that he armed and sent the mercenaries into Soviet Union, prior to the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan. He had an axe to grind about Poland, but also to establish battle lines against the Soviet Union. It is evident to me that my country, the U.S.A. talks peace, cooperation, but its actions spell out dominance over the world, and d*mn anyone that gets in her way. Anyone. The Israel, Palestinian thing is more than what appears, according to Michael Hudson: https://michael-hudson.com/2024/04/gaza-the-strategic-imperative/
What utter brain dead crap!!! The U.S. & it’s retard allies have ZERO CHANCE OF DEFEATING Russia & China. It is not going to happen!!!!!
Russia losing in Ukraine is some Neocon pipe dream. Super nukes with hypersonic delivery is why. Feckless Ukraine does not have a prayer of defeating Russia.
Hypersonic weapons are grossly overvalued – they are not the weapons to beat Ukraine – nukes are not going to be used – and if you had actually bothered to read my comment it was an argument that even should Russia opt to end their SMO that would not lead to an invasion of Russia neither by Ukraine nor by any NATO country.
If Russia ‘loses’ in Ukraine then it’ll be like the Soviets (and the US) lost in Afghanistan – i.e. because they decide that it is not worth their while to continue.
That’s highly unlikely, because Russia understands that it is in a struggle for its existence against an empire that is on the brink of collapse, and proportionally desperate to retains its grasp on power.
The US could walk away from Ukraine and survive. Not so for Russia.
John Mearsheimer is quite clear about this, and he is by no means pro-Russia. He is, however, very realistic in his understanding of Great Power politics.
Ukraine is a pawn in the struggle, but a very strategic pawn. And sometimes the chess game turns on a pawn.
I agree that this is how they portray it and likely how a good lot of Russians see it.
I have not seen the Russians portraying the US(whieh I guess you are hinting at) as being on the brink of collapse (on the brink of civil war I think I’ve seen though).
Sure the rules based order however would not likely survive and Xi taking Taiwan would hurt them pretty bad.
Taiwan is the likely consequence of giving up on Ukraine, a near certainty if sanctions are not kept up for at least a decade.
Yes I’d say that this is a pretty accurate assessment of how the US sees/saw Ukraine.
The US empire is in decline.
The Russian empire is in decline.
Putin, for the most part, has just spent the last 20-odd years trying to slow the decline of the empire he heads.
Successive US emperors, for the most part, have spent the last 20-odd years lashing out in attempts to redeem their imperial fortunes.
In Ukraine, Putin made the mistake of emulating the US. With, so far, similar results.
Ah, that LOST U.S. primacy in military & economic spheres. But its over, pissed away playing hide & seek with “terrorists”. It was good for Israel I guess but fatal to US. Full Spectrum hegemony.
Yep. Our dumb administration has said it was setting things up for a 10 year war. It is high time that a little bit of war be visited on us. We are so high and mighty because we have been involved in two world wars (late comers in the European theater), with no carnage on our cities like Europe received. In 1945, we announced to the world that we were the king of the hill, discounting the sacrifice the Soviet Union made in defeating the bulk of the Wehrmacht, like more than 20 million killed. It meant nothing to us. After all, the Soviet Union was a commie menace. From George W. Bush removing the U.S. from the ABM Treaty, to Donald Trump removing the U.S. from the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, and now dumb drooling Biden, we have had really dumb, wasteful presidents. Lest we forget, we have had equally dumb “representatives”. All squandering what could have been; Peace on Earth. Such stupidity.
Blinken in an interview with BBC news exhibited unchecked arrogance and total ignorance typical of many US officials dealing with critical issues. He threatened China with severe consequences for aiding Russia but ignores the fact that US is providing military support and weapons to Taiwan and China object to that. The pot calling the kettle black Or should it be “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”
On one hand the US is browbeating China to reduce it’s trade with Russia, on the other begging India to attend the Ukraine Peace conference hoping it’ll bring some Global South. Reminds me of a Jerry Jeff Walker song ….
Warning China, stop sending us and the world so much green sustainable infrastructure, or else. Our green new deal is that we don’t want to be green, new, or make deals.
China telegraphed that it knew this was coming before Blinky arrived by announcing its stimulus program. This program does not directly retaliate against any sanctions that the White House imposes on China. Rather, it rewards the Chinese people when they buy Chinese products instead of foreign products. They literally beat Biden to the punch in this matter.
While the Chinese stimulus rewards people for buying ANY new car, it is understood that the Chinese people are just as angry with us as their government is. I think we know how this will pan out.
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/china-wants-everyone-to-trade-in-their-old-cars-fridges-to-help-save-its-economy
Tony Blinkered, US Secretary of Shit.
I made clear that if China does not address this problem, we will.
So what are they going to do, bomb the factories?
We’re looking at the actions that we’re fully prepared to take if we don’t see a change
Can you imagine the reaction in the US press corpse if China said anything like that?
He cant help himself. Just lectures never listens. I suppose thats the nature of the job for the Exceptional Nation’s chief Hypocrat.
Beta Boy Blinken must have forgotten that China has nuclear warheads, ICBM missiles, and a loyal fifth column.
Fifth column: A group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.
For example: A vast numbers of military age young Chinese men who crossed the southern border illegally in the past 3 years!
Your “for example,” absent additional evidence, is a non sequitur.
OK, China does NOT have nuclear warheads, ICBM missiles, or fifth column minions in America. Hope that fantasy makes you happy.
Pointing out that your arguments for Claim X are fallacious is not the same thing as arguing against Claim X.
The waters around the Republic of Taiwan don’t belong to the dictatorship in Beijing, they belong to Taiwan. The waters east of Vietnam belong to Vietnam, despite China’s claims to this area too. The waters outside Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore belong to those countries, despite Beijing’s claim that it should control all of this area even far south.
The democratic republic Taiwan has the right to purchase weapons to defend itself. If you support Donbass’ right to break away from the regime in Kiev you are a hypocrite if you don’t support Taiwan’s right to be free, after several GENERATIONS of Taiwanese living free from Beijing’s control.
“Oh no, anything said by Washington is wrong, and any opponent is right in every issue!” The usual libertarian knee-jerk response. And those who fight against the military dictatorship in Burma are U.S. “puppets,” as are China-hostile politicians in Thailand and the Philippines, etc.
It’s neocon thinking but in reverse. Instead of “Washington is always right and every opponent in the Middle East is an Iranian proxy,” it’s “any side Washington supports is wrong and that means they are all Washington’s proxies.”
Your point will be valid right up to the point when the US manages to initiate a proxy war between Taiwan and China. Then your point will be as full of bullshit as it would be re Ukraine.
What goes on beyond the borders of the planet’s biggest pain in the ass is none of the planet’s biggest pain in the ass’s business.
It is so hard for the alpha to accept the fact that its time has come.
China is making and exporting stuff. Russia is providing the raw materials and energy. Asking China to destroy its own economy and standard of living won’t work like it did in Germany.
Russia accounts for 3-4% of Chinese exports they export more to EU than they do to Russia and 15% of their exports are to the US.
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/exports-by-country
So asking the Chinese to keep trade with Russia and lose much of their exports to the US and Europe is asking China to destroy its own economy.
China also imports more from the US than it does from Russia (at least before the SMO) the difference is however not as large so the increase in trade post western oil sanctions may have changed this.
But if you include the other Ukrainian backing countries then the trade is again dominated by the ‘western’ countries.
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/imports-by-country
As the Brits might say, blinkin idiot.