Trump's Outrageous LIE About China's Wind Energy

 

From PolitiFact.com.

Trump Claims A Deal With China - It Is Not True

Once again, Trump is tooting his own horn. This time he is claiming to have reached a deal on trade with China. But as with most of his claims, it isn't true.

The two nations have only agreed on a broad outline of a plan to be negotiated. No plan has been approved or signed by either country - and it still could be quite a while before one is approved.

Trump did the same thing with Great Britain. He claimed to have done a deal with Great Britain on trade. But all the two nations did was agree on a broad outline to be negotiated. To this date, no plane has been agreed to or signed by either nation.

Trump has put tariffs on virtually every country in the world. He expected most to come to him on bended knee to agree to a trade plan that benefitted the United States. That has not happened.

Despite what Trump may claim, not a single trade deal has been approved, finalized, and signed with any country - NOT ONE!

Trump's economic policy remains a mess - creating chaos and confusion for businesses. Prices continue to rise, and shortages are on the horizon.

Anyone who thinks Trump is winning his worldwide trade war is living in a dream world.

China Is Holding The Best Cards In Trump's Trade War Game

 

There is a metaphor that Trump likes to use. It is about who "has the best cards" is a situation. He used it against President Zelensky in his White House meeting - claiming Zelensky had no cards.

When Trump initiated his Trade War against China by imposing massive tariffs on goods they import to the U.S., Trump ugly thought he was holding the best cards. He was convinced that China needed the U.S. market, and would quickly fold and agree to some tariff rate. He was wrong.

It turns out that China was not hurt by the tariffs as much as some thought they would be. While their exports to the United States have dropped sharply, they still have the rest of the world to buy their exports.

And China has an ace in the hole - and it may be the most powerful card in the deck (and one Trump had neglected to even consider).

China exports 90% of the world's processed rare earth minerals and magnets. And the United States needs those for semiconductors, medical imaging chemicals, cars, robots, offshore wind turbines, and a wide range of military hardware.

China not only responded to Trump's massive tariffs with high tariffs of their own, but they also immediately stopped all rare earth minerals shipments to the United States.

Trump than agreed to an agreement with China to lower the tariffs significantly and engage in trade talks. He thought that would get China to resume the rare earth exports. It didn't.

The trade talks continue. But the rare earth exports are still banned by China. China is smart. They know that's the best card they have to play - and they're not going to play it until they have a good deal (either no tariffs or very low tariffs).

Trump's trade war attack on China was a serious blunder. China is holding the best hand, and Trump is holding the losing hand.

Trump will eventually try to save face by claiming he forced China to agree to a deal that favors the United States. But it won't be true. He "doesn't have the cards" to do that.

Don't Be Fooled - Rationality Has Not Returned To Trump Policies

 Economist Paul Krugman gives us this chart and four points to know about the Trump announcement of a 90 day pause between the U.S. and China with lower tariffs.

Four points:

1. A 30 percent tariff is still really, really high, especially combined with the 10 percent tariff we’re imposing on everyone else. The back of my envelope says that the average U.S. tariff rate will now be around 13 percent, up from around 3 percent when Trump began his trade war. Before all this drama that would have been seen as wildly protectionist.

2. This wasn’t a case of both sides backing down. China only imposed its tariffs as a response to Trump’s gambit, and has reduced them only because he retreated. And retreat he did. This was basically Trump running away from the killer rabbit.

3. The prohibitive tariff has been paused, not canceled. Nobody knows what will happen in 90 days. I’ve long argued that the uncertainty created by Trump’s arbitrary, ever-changing tariffs is at least as important as the level of those tariffs. Well, the uncertainty level has arguably gone up rather than down.

4. This retreat probably hasn’t come soon enough to avoid high prices and empty shelves. Even if shipments from Shanghai to Los Angeles — which had come to a virtual halt — were to resume tomorrow, stuff wouldn’t arrive in time to avoid exhaustion of current inventories.

I guess it’s good news that Trump slammed on the brakes before driving completely off the cliff. But if you think that rationality has returned to the policy process, that the days of government by ignorant whim are now behind us, you’ll be sorely disappointed.

Trump Has Gone Too Far With Tariffs And U.S. Will Be Hurt More Than China

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between April 25th and 28th of a nationwide sample of 1,785 adults (including 1,626 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.2 points for adults and 3 points for registered voters.

Who Will Win The Trade War - Trump Or China?

Donald Trump unilaterally started a trade war with nearly the whole world. Currently, he has imposed a 10% tariff on nearly every country in the world - including some islands that are not populated with any humans (only penguins).

But the biggest trade war is with China, and it is the one that will likely affect Americans the most. 

Trump has imposed a 145% tariff on goods imported from China. He claims that China is negotiating with his administration to lower the tariffs.

China has retaliated by imposing a 125% tariff on goods from the United States. They have also banned the shipment of rare earth minerals and rare earth magnets to the United States - which are needed to make  many goods in the United States (including items for our military). And China has also cancelled purchases of agricultural products from the United States (like pork and soybeans). 

And China is denying that any negotiating is happening. I believe them.

China seems to have made the decision to just wait Trump out. They believe he will fold. And they have solid reasons for believing that. Trump has already backed down several times - including on electronics (like iPhones) made in China.

Trump likes to use an analogy of who is holding the best cards. In this situation, it looks like China is holding the best cards - including some Aces. Importing the rare earth minerals and magnets is critical, and the U.S. can't go long without them. Farmers had not fully recovered from Trump's first term tariffs on China, and this may be the end for many of them. And rising inflation is going to be a big problem due to the Trump tariffs.

Trump doesn't like to admit he made a mistake (and rarely does it). But he's painted himself in a corner with the ridiculous and unnecessary tariffs. He may try to paint it as a victory, but Trump will be forced to back down. The only other option is stagflation (rising inflation combined with a recession), which would be disastrous for his Republican cohorts and his own poll numbers (which are already dropping like a rock).

Trump is going to lose this trade war with China. Let's hope he gives in before he craters the U.S. economy.

Trump Blinks First In His Stare-Down With China

 

The orange bully in the White House thought he could bully China into doing what he wants. Although backing down on his "reciprocal" tariffs for other countries, he imposed a huge tariff on Chinese goods imported into the United States. And when China did not back down, he raised that tariff to a ridiculous 145%.

That means an import costing $10 would cost $24.50, and one costing $100 would cost $245. Trump thought the huge tariff would force China to beg for relief. They did NOT! Instead, they put a tariff of 125% on any American goods entering their country - making most American goods too expensive for Chinese consumers. It effectively cuts of the huge Chinese market for American producers.

The trade war stare-down was set. Who would blink first? It was DONALD TRUMP!

It turns out that nearly all of the electronics purchased in the United States are made in Asia - most of them in China. Those electronics (smart phones, TV's, computers, etc.) would be hit with the 145% tariff. And there would be no way for American consumers to avoid the massive price hike. They would have to pay the huge price tag, or do without!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out this was going to make Americans very angry. The U.S. public is already angry over continuing inflation (which Trump had promised to fix during the campaign). Such huge price hikes on electronics is guaranteed to hasten Trump's already declining approval with voters.

Realizing he has badly miscalculated, Trump backed down. He exempted electronics and computer chips from any tariff. 

Meanwhile, China is holding firm - and it doesn't look like they will back down anytime soon. Knowing they could be selling less of many things to the United States, they are shifting their view to other countries - especially the European Union. Other things China could do - refuse to buy any goods from U.S. farmers, restrict what targeted U.S. corporations could export from (or into) China, cut off the supply of rare earth minerals to the U.S., and devalue the Yuan.

It looks like China is in this for the long haul, and willing to accept some economic pain. Trump is not. He's already shown he'll back down when things get too hot.

Trump can't win this trade war. The only question is how much damage will he do to the U.S. economy before he realizes that.

China Bans Shipping Critical Minerals To The United States

China is going to react to the tariffs and proposed tariffs levied against them. Last time they stopped purchasing agricultural products from the U.S., and that is likely to happen again. And they aren't waiting for Trump to take office. They have banned the export of key minerals to this country.

From Reuters.com: 

China has banned exports to the United States of items related to the minerals gallium, germanium and antimony that have potential military applications, it said on Tuesday.

A commerce ministry directive on dual-use items with both military and civilian applications cited national security concerns. The order, which takes immediate effect, also requires stricter review of end-usage for graphite items shipped to the U.S..

"In principle, the export of gallium, germanium, antimony, and superhard materials to the United States shall not be permitted," the commerce ministry said. . . .

Gallium and germanium are used in semiconductors, while germanium is also used in infrared technology, fibre optic cables and solar cells.

Similarly, China's overall October shipments of antimony products plunged by 97% from September after Beijing's move to limit its exports took effect.

China accounted last year for 48% of globally mined antimony, which is used in ammunition, infrared missiles, nuclear weapons and night-vision goggles, as well as in batteries and photovoltaic equipment.

This year, China has accounted for 59.2% of refined germanium output and 98.8% of refined gallium production, according to consultancy Project Blue.

"The move is a considerable escalation of tensions in supply chains where access to raw material units is already tight in the West," said Project Blue co-founder Jack Bedder.

What Nations Think About China And The U.S.

 The charts above are from the Gallup Poll. Approximately 1,000 adults were questioned in each country.

How Should We Deal With The Decline Of China?

The following is most of an op-ed by Bret Stephens in The New York Times:

The main challenge we will face from the People’s Republic in the coming decade stems not from its rise but from its decline — something that has been obvious for years and has become undeniable in the past year with the country’s real estate market crash.

Western policymakers need to reorient their thinking around this fact. How? With five don’ts and two dos.

First, don’t think of China’s misfortunes as our good fortune.

A China that can buy less from the world — whether in the form of handbags from Italy, copper from Zambia or grain from the United States — will inevitably constrain global growth. For the U.S. chip maker Qualcomm, 64 percent of its sales last year came from China; for the German automaker Mercedes-Benz, 37 percent of its retail car sales were made there. In 2021, Boeing forecast that China will account for about one in five of its wide-body plane deliveries over the next two decades. A truism that bears repeating is that there is only one economy: the global economy.

Second, don’t assume the crisis will be short-lived.

Optimists think the crisis won’t affect Western countries too badly because their exports to China account for a small share of their output. But the potential scale of the crisis is staggering. Real estate and its related sectors account for nearly 30 percent of China’s gross domestic product, according to a 2020 paper by the economists Ken Rogoff and Yuanchen Yang. It is heavily financed by the country’s notoriously opaque $2.9 trillion trust industry, which also appears to be tottering. And even if China averts a full-scale crisis, long-term growth will be sharply constrained by a working-age population that will fall by nearly a quarter by 2050.

Third, don’t assume competent economic management.

Last month Donald Trump described the rule of China’s president, Xi Jinping, as “smart, brilliant, everything perfect.” The truth is closer to the opposite. As a young man, according to a peer from his youth, Xi was “considered of only average intelligence,” earned a three-year degree in “applied Marxism” and rode out the Cultural Revolution and its aftermath by becoming “redder than red.” His tenure as supreme leader has been marked by a shift to greater state control of the economy, the intensified harassment of foreign businesses and a campaign of terror against independent-minded business leaders. One result has been ever-increasing capital flight, despite heavy-handed capital controls. China’s richest people have also left the country in increasing numbers during Xi’s tenure — a good indication of where they think their opportunities do and do not lie.

Fourth, don’t take domestic tranquillity as a given.

Xi’s government’s recent decision to suppress data on youth unemployment — just north of 21 percent in June, double what it was four years ago — is part of a pattern of crude obfuscation that mainly diminishes investor confidence. But the struggles of the young are almost always a potent source of upheaval, as they were in 1989 on the eve of the Tiananmen Square protests. Never mind Thucydides’ trap; the real China story may lie in a version of what’s sometimes called Tocqueville’s paradox: the idea that revolutions happen when rising expectations are frustrated by abruptly worsening social and economic conditions.

Fifth, don’t suppose that a declining power is a less dangerous one.

In many ways, it’s more dangerous. Rising powers can afford to bide their time, but declining ones will be tempted to take their chances. President Biden was off the cuff but on the mark this month when he said of China’s leaders that “when bad folks have problems, they do bad things.” In other words, as China’s economic fortunes sink, the risks to Taiwan grow.

Sixth, do stick to four red lines.

American policymakers need to be unbending and uncowed when it comes to our core interests in our relationship: freedom of navigation, particularly in the South China Sea; the security of Taiwan and other Indo-Pacific allies; the protection of U.S. intellectual property and national security; and the safety of U.S. citizens (both in China and in the United States) and residents of Chinese ancestry. Helping Ukraine defeat Russia is also a part of an overall China strategy, in that it sends a signal of Western political resolve and military capability that will make Beijing think twice about a military adventure across the Taiwan Strait.

Seventh, do pursue a policy of détente.

We should not seek a new cold war with China. We cannot afford a hot one. The best response to China’s economic woes is American economic magnanimity. That could start with the removal of the Trump administration tariffs that have done as much to hurt American companies and consumers as they have the Chinese.

Whether that will change the fundamental pattern of Beijing’s bad behavior is far from certain. But as China slides toward crisis, it behooves us to try. 

How Long Can Russia Count On China To Back Them?

The following is part of an op-ed by Sergey Radchenko in The New York Times:

In 1969, China and the Soviet Union seemed on the brink of war.

They fought a deadly border clash in March of that year and another in August. The Kremlin dropped hints of a nuclear strike. Over the next few years, they exchanged barbs. Mao Zedong warned, “You piss on my head, and I shall retaliate!” The Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev called Mao “treacherous.” An alliance that Moscow and Beijing previously billed as unbreakable quickly unraveled.

So Mao reached out to his avowed foe the United States. Mao, a scathing critic of what he called American imperialism, suddenly referred to President Richard Nixon as “the No. 1 good fellow in the world,” and by 1972, Nixon turned up in Beijing. It was a geopolitical earthquake that altered the course of history.

These days Vladimir Putin is Xi Jinping’s No. 1 good fellow as the two countries make common cause against the United States. But the Russian leader — his authority bruised in the wake of the aborted mutiny by the Wagner paramilitary group in June — would be wise to keep in mind China’s track record. As Mikhail Kapitsa, a top Soviet foreign ministry official, put it in 1982, “The Chinese never befriend anyone for a long time.”

The Chinese Communist Party’s approach to geopolitics is rooted in an ancient strategic culture of playing other nations — sometimes dismissed as barbarians during China’s imperial times — against one another for China’s benefit. Mao’s abrupt turn to the United States showed just how quickly Chinese loyalties can crumble when the usefulness of a strategic partner wanes. . . .

Mr. Xi, perhaps sensing diminishing returns from deeper engagement with America, has brought things full circle once more during the Putin era, embracing the Russian leader and denouncing the United States.

The West is right to be worried. Turning the clock back to the days of Sino-Soviet brotherhood, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi have unequivocally sided with each other in challenging the Western-led world order. The combination of Mr. Putin’s revanchism and military aggression and China’s economic power is dangerous.

But Mr. Putin has made a potentially grave error, burning bridges with the West to go all in with China in reckless disregard for Beijing’s track record of instrumentalizing its friendships.

Despite offering diplomatic cover for Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, China has largely avoided running afoul of Western sanctions on Russia, essentially putting its own interests before those of its embattled client. Russia’s deepening isolation has given China access to discounted Russian energy products. Much of the trade between China and Russia is now conducted in the Chinese yuan, which reduces Russia’s exposure to Western economic pressure but also advances Beijing’s goal of undercutting the dollar’s dominance as the world currency. At the same time, China has been able to portray itself to much of the world as a responsible global player with its halfhearted calls for peace in Ukraine as the war has dragged on.

Mr. Putin, on the other hand, has made his country a junior partnerto China. Looking weakened and less secure after the Wagner revolt last month, he risks becoming even more dependent on China for political and economic support.

Mr. Xi will no doubt take note. Like past Chinese leaders, he respects strength but knows how to exploit weakness, and Russia will remain useful to him as he continues to challenge the United States. Mr. Putin can still make major strategic choices for his country, as long as they coincide with China’s interests. But will China stand by him if those interests diverge? Or if Russian elites run out of patience with his poor decisions and try to push him out? Or if the global costs of standing with him prove too onerous for China?

China remains the same secretive, self-serving Communist Party state that it was in Mao’s day, with an outlook on global politics in which alignments are viewed as temporary. There are no “good feelings,” as Mr. Geng put it five decades ago, just cold calculation.

The West, so concerned today about this newly united front between China and Russia, should remember that.

So should Mr. Putin.

China Is Viewed As The Greatest Enemy Of The U.S.

The chart above is from a Gallup Poll -- done between February 1st and 23rd of a nationwide sample of 1,008 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Public's Favorable View Of China Has Plummeted

 The charts above are from a Gallup Poll - done between February 1st and 23rd of a nationwide sample of 1,008 U.S. adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

What Is U.S. Policy? Would We Defend Taiwan Or Not?

If you ask a government representative if our policy regarding Taiwan is a clear one, they would probably say yes. But frankly, I don't think that is true. And I'm not sure anyone in government even knows exactly what our policy is. Would we defend Taiwan if China attacked, or not?

Two of the leading Democrats in government recently seemed to say that we would. On May 23rd, President Biden was asked if the U.S. would use force to defend Taiwan. He answered:

“Yes.”

“That’s the commitment we made.”

And just a few days ago, Speaker Pelosi visited the island nation and said the U.S. would not abandon Taiwan. She went on to say:

 "America's determination to preserve democracy, here in Taiwan and around the world, remains ironclad."

That would seem to be.a clear YES. But immediately after those statements government spokesmen said the United States continues to have a "One China" policy. What is the "One China policy"? Here is what the Center for Strategic and International Studies says:

When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.

The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

If that's not confusing, I'm not sure what could be. We say that the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China, but refuse to recognize their claim to Taiwan. How can both be true? Obviously, both can't be true.

This brings up the question of what would the U.S. do if China invaded Taiwan. 

I think the answer is No. We made that clear by our failure to fight for the Ukrainian democracy. We gave them weapons and money, but no U.S. forces are actively engaged in fighting to defend Ukraine. And one of the main reasons is that while they support sending weapons, the American public does not support sending U.S. troops or aircraft. The second reason given is fear of Russia's nuclear weapons.

Frankly, neither is a good reason to not actively defend a democracy under attack. And the Chinese have been watching. They have a better and larger army than the Russians, and they also have nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't they think we would react to an invasion of Taiwan the same way we reacted to the invasion of Ukraine?

Sending weapons and good wishes will not be enough in Taiwan -- and it would be much harder to get those weapons in the country because there will likely be a Chinese blockade. Is the U.S. ready for a war with China (after backing down from war with Russia)? Probably not, and trying to run a Chinese blockade would be a good way to start that war.

China is going to try to take back Taiwan, and it will happen sooner than later. Xi has made it pretty clear he wants it to happen under his leadership.

What will the U.S. do? The current obfuscation is not going to work. The American people need to know what will happen, and so does China and the rest of the world. It is time for the U.S. to establish a clear and unequivocal policy.

Chinese Ambassador Tries To Clarify China's Position

Both the press and world governments are trying to determine just what China's position is on Putin's aggression against Ukraine. The following (from The Washington Post) is a statement from Qin Gang (China's ambassador to the United States):

Many Americans are understandably trying to understand where China stands as the crisis in Ukraine unfolds, so I want to take this opportunity to explain fully and dispel any misunderstandings and rumors.

There have been claims that China had prior knowledge of Russia’s military action and demanded Russia delay it until the Winter Olympics concluded. Recent rumors further claimed that Russia was seeking military assistance from China. Let me say this responsibly: Assertions that China knew about, acquiesced to or tacitly supported this war are purely disinformation. All these claims serve only the purpose of shifting blame to and slinging mud at China. There were more than 6,000 Chinese citizens in Ukraine. China is the biggest trading partner of both Russia and Ukraine, and the largest importer of crude oil and natural gas in the world. Conflict between Russia and Ukraine does no good for China. Had China known about the imminent crisis, we would have tried our best to prevent it.

China is committed to an independent foreign policy of peace. As a staunch champion of justice, China decides its position on the basis of the merits of the issue. On Ukraine, China’s position is objective and impartial: The purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter must be fully observed; the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine, must be respected; the legitimate security concerns of all countries must be taken seriously; and all efforts that are conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis must be supported.

Given this, threats against Chinese entities and businesses, as uttered by some U.S. officials, are unacceptable. Neither war nor sanctions can deliver peace. Wielding the baton of sanctions at Chinese companies while seeking China’s support and cooperation simply won’t work.

Some people are linking Taiwan and Ukraine to play up the risks of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait. This is a mistake. These are totally different things. Ukraine is a sovereign state, while Taiwan is an inseparable part of China’s territory. The Taiwan question is a Chinese internal affair. It does not make sense for people to emphasize the principle of sovereignty on Ukraine while hurting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity on Taiwan. The future of Taiwan lies in peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and the reunification of China. We are committed to peaceful reunification, but we also retain all options to curb “Taiwan independence.” We hope the United States earnestly abides by the one-China principle and does not support “Taiwan independence” separatism in any form. To ensure long-term peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, China and the United States must work together to contain “Taiwan independence.”

In Ukraine, China has made huge efforts to push for peace talks and the prevention of a humanitarian crisis. In a phone call with President Vladimir Putin on the second day of the conflict, President Xi Jinping expressed China’s desire to see Russia and Ukraine hold peace talks as early as possible and received a positive response. When virtually meeting with leaders of France and Germany, Xi emphasized the need to jointly support peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Yang Jiechi, the director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs, just met with national security adviser Jake Sullivan in Rome, and State Councilor Wang Yi has also maintained close communication with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other foreign ministers, exchanging views on the Ukraine crisis. China has also outlined a six-point initiative that calls for making sure that humanitarian operations abide by the principles of neutrality and impartiality; gives full attention to the displaced persons in and from Ukraine; ensures the protection of civilians; provides for safe and smooth humanitarian aid activities; provides for the safety of foreign nationals in Ukraine; and supports the United Nations’ coordinating role in channeling humanitarian aid, as well as the work of the U.N. crisis coordinator for Ukraine. The first tranche of emergency humanitarian supplies provided by the Red Cross Society of China to its Ukrainian counterpart has been shipped from Beijing.

As a Chinese proverb goes, it takes more than one cold day to freeze three feet of ice. The long-term peace and stability of Europe relies on the principle of indivisible security. There must be a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture. The priority now is to achieve a cease-fire to protect civilians from war. But as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and a responsible major country, China will continue to coordinate real efforts to achieve lasting peace. We stand ready to do whatever we can and work with other parties. Our ultimate purpose is the end of war and support regional and global stability.

China Can't Keep The Russian Economy From Crashing

Because of all the sanctions imposed on Russia because of their illegal war against Ukraine, the Russian economy is suffering -- and on its way to a complete crash. Russia is turning to China for economic support, but that is not going to save the Russian economy.

Nobel Prize-winning economist explains why. Here is part of his article in The New York Times: 

The West has, however, largely cut off Russia’s access to the world banking system, which is a very big deal. Russian exporters may be able to get their stuff out of the country, but it’s now hard for them to get paid. Probably even more important, it’s hard for Russia to pay for imports — sorry, but you can’t carry out modern international trade with briefcases full of $100 bills. In fact, even Russian trade that remains legally permitted seems to be drying up as Western companies that fear further restrictions and a political backlash engage in “self-sanctioning.”

How much does this matter? The Russian elite can live without Prada handbags, but Western pharmaceuticals are another matter. In any case, consumer goods are only about a third of Russia’s imports. The rest are capital goods, intermediate goods — that is, components used in the production of other goods — and raw materials. These are things Russia needs to keep its economy running, and their absence may cause important sectors to grind to a halt. There are already suggestions, for example, that the cutoff of spare parts and servicing may quickly cripple Russia’s domestic aviation, a big problem in such a huge country.

But can China provide Putin with an economic lifeline? I’d say no, for four reasons.

First, China, despite being an economic powerhouse, isn’t in a position to supply some things Russia needs, like spare parts for Western-made airplanes and high-end semiconductor chips.

Second, while China itself isn’t joining in the sanctions, it is deeply integrated into the world economy. This means that Chinese banks and other businesses, like Western corporations, may engage in self-sanctioning — that is, they’ll be reluctant to deal with Russia for fear of a backlash from consumers and regulators in more important markets.

Third, China and Russia are very far apart geographically. Yes, they share a border. But most of Russia’s economy is west of the Urals, while most of China’s is near its east coast. Beijing is 3,500 miles from Moscow, and the only practical way to move stuff across that vast expanse is via a handful of train lines that are already overstressed.

Finally, a point I don’t think gets enough emphasis is the extreme difference in economic power between Russia and China.

Some politicians are warning about a possible “arc of autocracy” reminiscent of the World War II Axis — and given the atrocities underway, that’s not an outlandish comparison. But the partners in any such arc would be wildly unequal.

Putin may dream of restoring Soviet-era greatness, but China’s economy, which was roughly the same size as Russia’s 30 years ago, is now 10 times as large. For comparison, Germany’s gross domestic product was only two and a half times Italy’s when the original Axis was formed.

So if you try to imagine the creation of some neofascist alliance — and again, that no longer sounds like extreme language — it would be one in which Russia would be very much the junior partner, indeed very nearly a Chinese client state. Presumably that’s not what Putin, with his imperial dreams, has in mind.

China, then, can’t insulate Russia from the consequences of the Ukraine invasion. It’s true that the economic squeeze on Russia would be even tighter if China joined the democratic world in punishing aggression. But that squeeze is looking very severe even without Chinese participation. Russia is going to pay a very high price, in money as well as blood, for Putin’s megalomania.