> What's not to understand? Russia is doing the pre-production research of how China will need to protect their economy when they put their military in Taiwan.

China will not get sanctioned like Russia has. The world's dependence on Chinese manufacturing is like Europe's dependence on Russian gas, times ten.

Or, more precisely, it will get sanctioned like Russia has, but like the Russian sanctions, they will include exceptions for everything the West needs to buy from China, which is nearly everything.

I think it would take less sanctions to send Chinese to the streets, so China would be more likely to try not to get sanctioned. We see locally they vent fury over economic issues quite often despite much more locked down media and a generally better looking economy than Russia. People in China are fine with the government as long as the economy is good, not sure how they would react to the government getting sanctioned to a degree that makes their lives worse

Hard to say. Patriotism/national chauvinism is one hell of a drug, and one in copious supply in times of armed conflict.

If the sanction feels like an attack, it will only rally people, IMO. By all accounts, China isn't like the US where we mock blind nationalism all the time, they are very nationalistic and patriotic.

My understanding is some manufacturing is already moving away from China. If China invades Taiwan, the West won't be able to sanction them as quickly and as intensely, but it can accelerate the move to take its business elsewhere... Which it will have to do, because most of the world's most advanced chips come from TSMC, and if that's controlled by China, it's just dangerous.

Agreed. Now that the world is riveted by Russia's mad rush to pariahhood, this is an insanely bad time for anyone to jump on Russia's bandwagon. Apparently China has yet to learn that by showing wanton disrespect now for the most basic of international civil rights, you terrify and alienate your customer base. Barbarism is very bad business, and will surely haunt both the actors and their cheerleaders for a looong time to come.

This cuts both ways though, China is dependent on foreign agriculture[1], which Russia cannot provide them right now (certainly it will be hard to farm in Ukraine during an active conflict). Particularly for things like pork.[2]

Stopping the flow of just pork products to China may result in enormous unrest and it certainly wouldn't be a given that the CCP would be capable of quelling that.

[1]: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/china-evolving-demand-world-s-...

[2]: https://www.worldstopexports.com/international-markets-for-i...

> The world's dependence on Chinese manufacturing is like Europe's dependence on Russian gas, times ten.

This assumes that we won't make moves to mitigate this dependence in response to Russia's invasion. The US Innovation and Competition Act [1] likely has a much higher chance of passing today than it did prior to Russia's invasion. It calls for $250 billion investment in high tech manufacturing [2]. It has passed the Senate and is currently waiting in the House. I wouldn't be surprised to see the bill grow in scope.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/126...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-passes-bipa...

> China will not get sanctioned like Russia has

Nobody thought Russia would get sanctioned like Russia has.

Well, I read your comment, I look around me, I see no item that is not "Made in China".

There is no way China gets sanctioned for barely anything without years (decades ?) of re-industrialization of the west.

Well, at some point, I even think that China could make the entire west civilization collapse just by stopping their exportation.

>I even think that China could make the entire west civilization collapse just by stopping their exportation.

Then the West retaliates by stopping their export to China of even more basic things like food. I'm guessing China needs food imports much more than the West needs cheap plastic wares, knock off products, and other less critical than food things.

For consumer goods, sure. But much of that is not what makes up the entire west civilization, imho

A lot of people in the west couldn't potentially afford a single modern computer or a smartphone without any piece from China.

At least it would push us to take reusing more seriously. Brutal decoupling from China could be really, probably extremely hard, but in a lot of aspects, intellectually interesting to watch.

How Europe will react to adapt the current crisis regarding fossils will also be really interesting. I'm just hoping that it will accelerate the de-carbonation of our energy sources. But it's just that, hopes.

It’s infuriating that the west allows itself to remain dependent on a dictatorship.

We stopped letting them manufacture anything of strategic military or government significance. We are mostly dependent on them for basic household goods and consumer electronics. Those things could be cut back significantly without destroying our own economy. Keep in mind that China can't feed itself without the world. That is a much more dangerous dependence.

You are correct. The "Buy American Act" has some good features. We recently had to buy Anchor Chain for a gov vessel refirb and it literally took an act of congress to override and buy Chinese anchor chain. There is no one in USA who could provide it in a timely fashion. 52 week lead time is unsat.

China will trade Russia for wheat due to bad harvests. We are driving Russia into Chinese hands with currency and transactions. Too bad they have an dictator for life. He gambled and lost.

Russia effectively becomes a vassal state of the Chinese economy; wonder how they will re-tool the Xinjiang re-education for the Tibetski 2.0?

> We stopped letting them manufacture anything of strategic military or government significance. We are mostly dependent on them for basic household goods and consumer electronics. Those things could be cut back significantly without destroying our own economy.

That dependence still creates a significant political risk, which the West is in a poorer position to manage.

> Keep in mind that China can't feed itself without the world. That is a much more dangerous dependence.

That would be a serious vulnerability, except the world probably isn't united enough for it to matter. For instance, my understanding is Russia is a major food exporter. Add in a conquered Ukraine and maybe a couple other countries and you might fill that gap.

In the bigger context, we always did and still do. Even going so far to actively support some of them and not just tolerate. Especially when they were supposed to keep "communists" in check.

Just some examples. Those lists are for the US but of course by no means is it exclusive to the US.

- https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/americas-mos... (linked for the list, not for "Obama" - obviously it is independent of who is president)

- https://en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_s...

- https://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_ba...

And not to forget

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

It's not exclusive to the US of course, it was just easier to find links quickly. Here's an example with France:

- https://www.dw.com/en/french-support-for-chad-dictator-makes...

- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-14/france...

> In the bigger context, we always did and still do. Even going so far to actively support some of them and not just tolerate. Especially when they were supposed to keep "communists" in check.

And the West may need get more comfortable with doing that, since we've seen some of the consequences. IMHO, sanctions against Belarus were probably a significant contributing factor to this war (i.e. they put Belarus in a position to be dominated by Putin, who took full advantage to support/strengthen his invasion of Ukraine).

I wonder if some middle ground is tenable (e.g. make a deal with a dictator that he will get full support for life, as long as he agrees his successor will be a properly democratic government).

We like to blame the West for the actions of dictators, but I wonder if a saner reading is that these things are generally inevitable. We wanted to "westernize" China by way of trade, and we probably succeeded to the extent that we could even if China remains communist. We sanctioned Belarus which probably would have become a dictatorship anyway. Similarly, I suspect your proposal to "make a deal with a dictator" will just result in that dictator declining his commitment on his deathbed (what does he have to lose? He's already gotten his lifelong dictatorship side of the deal).

Ultimately, democracy isn't just a way of organizing politically, it requires a culture that values/expects/demands democracy. If people don't value or demand democracy, then perhaps no amount of sanctions or toppling dictators is going to result in a reasonably democratic government, but conversely sanctions and toppling dictators probably isn't worsening the democratic prospect either (contrary to anti-Western propaganda and criticism).

We wouldn't need to sanction them like Russia, they are much closer to a debt crisis and need growth to maintain it.