China

Superpowers sponsoring conflict won't necessarily harm them much, but you are correct about playing with fire.

Case in point is Ukraine, which was one of the rare instances where we saw China get played.

Chinese officials on TV stating that there was no invasion while video of large Russian army groups and armor columns on Ukrainian soil was displayed as a backdrop made them look unprepared and amateurish, which I suspect are the two cardinals sins of Chinese diplomacy.

It also locked them into a spiral with Russia which is probably not a rosy as two governments pretend it is, and one that China is paying a price for during current events.

can you link to that td, i googled it and found nothing

It came from a US MSM media source (I forget which one), so take it for what it is worth. But I remember reading somewhere that China is using Russia's current dependence on them as a means to get very lopsided concessions, which they view as revenge for the early CCP period, when it was exactly the opposite and Russia (then the USSR) dealt with them on very unfavorable terms. This includes Russia being forced to sell them natural resources at well below market value, and even selling them land below market value.

But of course this is balanced by the potential costs of China potentially losing influence and market access throughout the Western world, who might be less willing to deal with them for ethical reasons due to their support of Russia's invasion. For example, Ukraine had contracts with China's Belt and Road Initiative, which it is hard to imagine they will want to continue when the war ends.

Then again, Trump's erratic behavior might be giving Europe the perception they have no choice but to treat with China out of principle as well as necessity, as the more reliable trade partner.

by tame_deuces m

The statements by China's assistant foreign minister at the time:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/china-refuses-to-call-attack-on-ukraine-an-invasion-blames-us.html

CNBC

China refuses to call Russian attack on Ukraine an ‘invasion,’ deflects blame to U.S.

However, this story is far more revealing:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/m...

thank you

ukraine was a big trading partner of china and at least in the kyiv area a major infrastructure developer - ie belt and road development infrastructure is no joke and ukraine played a large role in that

was there with my chinese ex gf and being chinese a lot of ukrainians would be sure to point out that this new building and that new highway were all built by china

also, her family were major real estate developers and one night when we were out she saw one her dad's business rivals at another table and surmised he must have a lot of projects going on to be there

Do you think everyone is going to just ignore the major role China has played in the Russian invasion and business will go back to normal after the war? Or do you think China's major part in this war will have ramifications dealing with Ukraine and rest of Europe after the war?

I would assume it would be the latter, but Europe for its part just announced major trade alignment with China moving forward.

I really find the entire European narrative tremendously bad faith and hypocritical. They are cozying up to China economically, who is the main supplier of the Russian war effort. And at the same time they are screaming bloody murder that Trump is on Russia's side. Just horribly hypocritical.

I mean Trump's rhetoric is ridiculous. But this whole narrative that Europe is propping up Ukraine while Trump/US is betraying Ukraine is complete nonsense. The US is actually sanctioning Russia while going into a trade war with China. While Europe is still the biggest market for Russian natural gas and are aligning economically with China (and indirectly Russia) as much as possible.

i think it's wrong to characterize china as an ally of russia's

they are basically saying they are remaining neutral and we're saying "neutrality is choosing russia"

Would you be willing to share your thoughts on why you think that?

To simplify a few things.

Russia needs a lot of help from China. China knows this and has up'd their trade with them and has been assisting them by purchasing a boatload more oil.

China benefits by having russia be a major supplier of oil, gas and coal.

China would rather have the US tied up with Ukraine to help take eyes off of Taiwan - just liek the US would like Russia to drain itself against Ukraine.

China is clearly helping Russia and it makes sense for them to do so.

In addition, if China is really looking to take Taiwan, they would want any final peace plan to involve Russia keeping some of the territory it gained from Ukraine, and they would most certainly like to see Trump continue to talk about annexing Canada and/or Greenland.

However weak China's argument is that Taiwan , at some point, was part of the People's Republic, it would still have a much stronger claim to occupy Taiwan than the US would have in annexing Canada.

And yeah, I get the argument that Trump would never use force to take over Canada and the chances are like 1%, but if that is true then his advisors should really tell him to STFU about it, because China could insincerely claim that they felt that the USA threat to Canada was inevitable and they feared that the US would also attempt to absorb Taiwan for strategic interests if China did not envelop Taiwan for its own protection.

What is Trump going to say to China? "Where did you get the crazy idea that the USA was focused on expansionism?"

china is engaging with russia no differently than they would engage with any other country right now

they are not getting subsidized

they are not getting special treatment

china is benefitting immensely from this situation where they are now the conduit to russia - that is why they are doing it

this is like if lesbians started boycotting carhartt and they were forced to lower their prices to unload all their female centric inventory and soccer moms started buying it up on the cheap - it would be wrong to imply that the soccer moms were only supporting carhartt because they hated lesbos as the far better explanation is that this good quality brand is suddenly a lot more appealing once you can get a good pair of their jeans for $19 at costco while picking up bulk juice boxes

I guess rhe point is what kind of world does china think they are going to be the preeminent civilization over?

They are facilitating Russia. They are facilitating North Korea. They are facilitating Iran. They are facilitating Houthis. They seem to be facilitating a lot of horrible stuff in Africa.

It just seems like they are objectively making the world a much worse place for their own selfish interests.

Maybe you could say the US has historically had a similar same dynamic. But I don’t think the Us/West ever had as cynical an approach as China does now (post WW2 at least) where they are destabilizing the world so much and so completely indifferent.

i think you're putting on a pretty subjective slant to it and viewing it under terms of "supporting bad actors"

china doesn't care who you are or what you do

they view themselves the same way you'd view a waiter - if someone is ordering food, you bring them food, you don't vet to see if the customer is cheating on his wife or jacks off to child porn

i don't think it'd be fair to call mcdonald's an agent of chaos simply because every day they serve up big macs to criminals

a lot of the businesses which exited russia did so because it was a neutral or tiny loss of ev to do so and it was overcome by the postive pr they gained by doing so, mcdonald's actually increased their profit margin after selling off their stores because they were low margin to begin with, kfc waited another year or so because it took them longer to find a good offer, burger king, which also pledged to leave has apparently been unable to find a good offer and still maintains operations there

far more multinational conglomerates remained in russia than exited, we're just highlighting those which chose to leave

i can also tell you that they do not historically have a good relationship with russia and even during the peak of the cold war when they'd be most natural allies they would have had hot conflicts with them on the border and didn't settle their border disputes until 2003

mao literally built an artificial range of hills along the border between beijing and mongolia out of fear the soviets would tank rush their capital

during most of the cold war, china viewed the US far more favorably than they did Russia, china is full of underground nuclear bunkers not out of fear of american nukes but those coming from moscow and they often made big efforts to undermine Russia's pre-eminence in the warsaw pact

they likely view russia same as we do, a poor country with a lot of natural resources who are now selling all their stuff on the cheap because nobody else will buy it

as for iran/houthis/etc i can't really speak to that other than, again, they just view anyone will to buy or sell stuff with them as the same = if someone is selling oil, they don't care much beyond the price and quality - if a pedophile is selling it to spend money on candy and vans then that's not their problem

but north korea is very much out of self interest

the commies obviously didn't want us bases and possibly nuclear missiles located in south korea

stalin was pushing them to invade and said they'd only offer token logistical and air support so they were on the fence about it - mao then came in with millions of veterans of questionable loyalty and no job prospects and said "hey i can kill two birds with one stone"

mao had a major problem on his hands, he'd won the civil war, but that was the easy part, removing local warlords from power and the deeply unpopular kmt was relatively easy - in fact, the majority of his soldiers were conscripts who were drafted into the kmt or other local warlord armies and had surrendered to mao's armies instead of fighting - while most were just hapless peasants trying to live their best lives, assuredly, many of those were not drafted but rather volunteers who still supported the kmt but were feigning loyalty to mao because the entire battalion he was in surrendered and he had no choice

so he was going to do things now that were going to be so deeply unpopular it required jailing and killing of millions of his own people for compliance and meanwhile he had millions of jobless young veterans that they didn't want (nor could afford) to keep in the army and used to warfare and able to handle a weapon who may end up opposing their new visions

so china didn't send their best and brightest, they didn't even send their actual military - they instead sent recently discharged veterans who'd probably otherwise be imprisoned to serve in korea as a volunteer paramilitary unit - it was a win win for mao, kill off some people of questionable loyalty while also keeping nuclear bases off their doorstep with a buffer state in between them and nato

you often hear about china's human wave strategy in korea, a strategy they never used previously or after

and today it makes sense to continue to prop up north korea because any strife between their would lead to millions of north korean refugees flooding into china and then it's always nice to have one of the largest militaries in the world as an ally there for "in an emergency break glass" situation

In my book Government Top Leadership change in the next 6 months has gone up to 20%

Allies aren't always friends, and they might not even have each-other's best interest in mind.

In the "west" we have gotten used to alliances lasting several generations, due to the surprising stability of our post-WW2 diplomatic, economic and strategic cooperation. This between countries that historically were often at war or in conflict with each-other. It took almost 75 years for this constellation to start dissolving.

That said, Russia and China has engaged in genuine diplomatic and cultural programs aimed at boosting support for each-other, and their alliance has come with economic projects that hint at long-term ambition.

Still, these are two countries currently governed by imperialistic ambition, justified by a rosy-hued interpretation of history and dubious combinations of centuries-old maps. They have also both over the last two decades become increasingly autocratic, have regimes that exist in a constant state of paranoia and distrust and as nations have a history of alliances that break down and ensuing conflict.

So, I would say it is a definitely bit more than just an alliance of convenience. I think their "shared idea" that an alternative to western hegemony hinges on genuine alliances is real, and I think there are some overtures to pursue it. However outside diplomatic smiles and handshakes, I suspect both regimes hold large levels of distrust for the other that they will likely be unable to overcome. Their autocratic leadership is also a weakness, as so much will hinge on personal ambition and corruption.

stumbled across this randomly - this is the most accurate portrayal i've ever seen of traveling through china

lol, watching it reminds me of the little i remember of the time i blacked out on a train to macau

last memories are going to dining compartment and taking available seat at a table and everyone wants to drink baijiu - i think i'm brilliant in that i pull out a bottle of spanish brandy and suggest we drink that instead

my next memories are waking up laying down across 3 seats (train was packed with standing room only and these were not my seats so this means that some people gave up their spots so the drunken foreigner could pass out

backpack is on the floor next to me - all my money and valuables - including my poker roll are still there and intact

i notice the russian vodka is also gone so must have gone through that

as i realize what happened - i apologize profusely to everyone and try to go wait out the remaining trip alone away from that embarrassment and the rest of the morning just dude after dude comes up and tells me how much fun they had with me last night and gives me their business card so we can party again later and i don't recognize a single one of them - no exaggeration, no less than 6 men did that

As RE is my specialty...
Skirting of the edge. The current RE heavyweight Vanke is on the verge of going under now too.
350B Yuan in debt, (50B USD)
Vanke Bonds dropped from 80c on the dollar to 20c on the dollar after the company lost support from the company's main backer Shenzen Metro
(owns approx 30%)

Shenzen Metro is losing lots of money in its regular operations and essentially needs the cash to pay its workers.

Vanke failed to make a bond payment this week Dec 15, and is in a 5 day grace period (to find alternate funding) before a final creditor vote in 3 days.

14 quarters of housing declines in China and it is not close to finishing.

Timestamp 1:15 to see the current trading price of 8 of China's Publicly traded stocks.
Sunac, Shimao, Country Garden, Kaisa all previously billion dollar companies are trading as penny stocks now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtiFETiX...

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance...
Shenzen Metro reports losses.
https://www.visiontimes.com/2025/10/03/s...

I predict the trains in Shenzhen will continue to run with little noticeable effect to the average citizen.

I would imagine the trains would continue like nothing ever happened even if the worst case scenario hits. Not sure how the trains have anything to do with this and they just continue to sell assets to pay for it.

If they can't fund the trains, they've lost their control and those under it would have lost confidence in that control.

Most public transport systems run at a loss.

China sabre rattling against the Philippines again
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacif...

This almost sounds like you think their governance structure is fundamentally incapable of lasting alliances.

Vanke bondholders reject debt payment extension, agree to extend grace period

Property developer China Vanke narrowly dodged a default on Monday after onshore bondholders approved a plan to extend the grace period of a RMB 2 billion ($284 million) bond repayment reports Reuters. The bond in question matured on December 15, and bondholders rejected an earlier proposal by Vanke to delay repayments.

But bondholders again rejected the state-backed developer’s proposal to delay repayment of the bond by one year, despite an offer to pay overdue interest by the end of the current five-day grace period on December 22.

The extended grace period to 30 trading days would mean Vanke now has until the end of January 27 to renegotiate and reach an agreement with bondholders on terms to delay the repayment. Otherwise, it would face a default and would likely need to pay all of its debt.

https://chinaeconomicreview.com/vanke-bondholders-reject-debt-payment-extension-agree-to-extend-grace-period/amp/

China Economic Review

Vanke bondholders reject debt payment extension, agree to extend grace period

Vanke Survived.
The key reason: China reportedly drops rules that sparked property crisis, ...

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › world › asia-pacific › china-...
Jan 2026 — China has done away with borrowing limits on property developers known as its "three red lines" policy, local media said on Thursday, ...

Without this reversal, Vanke (at the limit) would have certainly defaulted and been placed in bankruptcy. Now they can borrow more and pay off the old debt with more new debt.

Although China's property downturn has hit 16 quarters of down pricing there are signs of stabilization...
This does not help the millions with 'incomplete but paid for units' in China's many ghost cities. This reminds me of Bush's administration talking about "Green Shoots" after years of the GFR.

IMHO. The chances of a top Leadership turnover has dropped to less than 5% in the next 6 months.
It is always easier for the Governing party to point to outside forces for problems in their own Country. The US; although piling on the damage to the
Chinese economy.. (heavily dependent on foreign imports of oil) the CCP can rightly point to them as one of the key sources of the downturn in their economy.