Elon Musk is literally carrying America on his back | X- Freeze

Elon Musk is literally carrying America on his back

At this point, the whole America vs China industrial race is actually

Elon Musk vs China

China is an entire industrial superpower

Thousands of companies, massive supply chains. Enormous manufacturing capacity, state-backed infrastructure....

And yet across many of the technologies defining the future, America’s strongest counterweight keeps coming back to one man: Elon Musk

EVs + autonomy: Tesla vs China

Humanoid robots: Optimus vs China

AI + massive data centers: SpaceXAI / Colossus vs China

Batteries + grid storage: Tesla Energy vs China

Lithium refining + battery materials: Tesla vs China

Advanced manufacturing: Tesla + SpaceX vs China

Space launch + reusable rockets: SpaceX vs China

Satellite internet: Starlink vs China

Logic + memory + advanced chip packaging: TerraFab vs China

Energy infrastructure: Tesla solar + storage vs China

Orbital AI compute: SpaceX vs China

Now zoom out and look at the stack:

EVs → batteries → energy → AI → robots → chips → manufacturing → rockets → satellites → orbital compute

These are not isolated businesses. Each layer increasingly feeds the next

Elon is literally building an American industrial stack capable of going head-to-head with the industrial power of China itself

One ecosystem vs an industrial superpower

Absolutely insane when you zoom out

H/t: X Freeze. 

"China quietly saved the world last month" | Max Fisher

The above vid dropped before the most recent increased hostilities. And the recent spike over $100 a barrel. It's had 3 million views to date. 

But still, it's a fascinating outline of what's going on in the international oil market, and likely reasons. 

Max Fisher, the presenter, now makes his living off The Bigger Picture, an Explainer-type vid. He's ex The New York Times, The Atlantic and the Washington Post, so you can make your own judgements of his priors.

I will say however, the above presentation comes across as based and neutral, even to me, a man of a certain bias. 

I asked Grok to do a summary of Max's vid: 

Xi to Trump (in Beijing): “We should be partners not rivals”

🚨 XI JINPING TO TRUMP: “WE SHOULD BE PARTNERS, NOT RIVALS”

This was a remarkable moment.

Standing beside President Trump in Beijing, Xi Jinping openly declared:

“China and the United States both stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation.”

Then came the line nobody expected:

“We should be partners, not rivals.”

That is an extraordinary statement considering the years of:

• Trade wars

• Taiwan tensions

• Tech sanctions

• Military build-ups

• Economic confrontation

• Anti-China rhetoric from Washington

Xi also spoke about making 2026 “a historic landmark” for U.S.-China relations.

Translation?

Something much bigger may now be underway behind the scenes.

Because if the world’s two largest powers move from confrontation toward strategic cooperation, the geopolitical map changes overnight.

Markets.

Trade.

Energy.

AI.

Military tensions.

Global alliances.

Everything shifts.

The political establishment spent years framing U.S.-China relations as an unavoidable collision course.

Now suddenly the language coming out of Beijing is partnership, prosperity and cooperation.

That will send shockwaves through the global power structure.

H/t: Jim Ferguson 

Peter Forsythe comment: this is all Chinese duchessing Trump and America. At very best it’s wishful thinking by the likes of Jim Ferguson. At worst it’s delusion. 

Still, one can hope it’s true. That something positive comes out of it. Just hope. Not expectation. 

My mate Musk, in China with president Trump

Elon Musk just defended America better than every politician in Washington combined. [Talking to Joe Rogan]

Musk: “After World War 2, the US could have basically taken over the world and any country. Like we got nukes, nobody else got nukes. We don’t even have to lose soldiers. Which country do you want?”

One nation on earth held a weapon nobody else had.

Total dominance. Zero competition. No risk of retaliation.

Every empire in history that held that kind of advantage used it.

Rome. The Mongols. The British. The Ottomans.

They conquered until they collapsed.

America had a bigger advantage than all of them combined.

And it rebuilt the countries it just defeated.

Musk: “The United States actually helped rebuild countries. So it helped rebuild Europe, it helped rebuild Japan. This is very unusual behavior, almost unprecedented.”

Almost unprecedented?

It had never happened before. Not once in 5,000 years of recorded history.

The Marshall Plan wasn’t foreign aid.

It was the most radical act of restraint any superpower ever committed.

America turned its enemies into allies. Turned rubble into economies. Turned surrender into partnership.

Germany went from ashes to the economic engine of Europe in a generation.

Japan went from unconditional surrender to the third largest economy on earth.

Three years after the war, America was flying food into Berlin.

A city in the heart of the nation that just tried to destroy it.

That’s not policy.

That’s a civilization deciding what it is at the exact moment it has the power to be anything.

You’re being told a story right now.

That America is the villain of history.

You hear it everywhere. Media. Universities. Social platforms.

Musk: “There’s always like, well America’s done bad things. Well of course America’s done bad things, but one needs to look at the whole track record.”

Every nation on earth has dark chapters. Every single one.

The difference is what a country does when nobody can stop it.

And when nobody could stop America, it fed its enemies and rebuilt their cities.

Musk: “The history of China suggests that China is not acquisitive. Meaning they’re not going to go out and invade a whole bunch of countries.”

Probably right.

China has historically built walls, not fleets.

But the real question isn’t about borders anymore.

We’re approaching a moment that mirrors 1945 in ways nobody has fully processed yet.

AI is going to give a handful of people a power advantage that makes nuclear monopoly look quaint.

If someone is going to hold that kind of power, who do you want it to be?

The country that conquered when it could? Or the one that rebuilt when it didn’t have to?

Every alliance. Every trade route. Every economy.

Billions lifted out of poverty.

All of it traces back to one act of restraint that had never been done before.

And carries no guarantee of being repeated.

The most powerful thing America ever did wasn’t building the bomb.

It was what it didn’t do after.

H/t Dustin

Salt & Vinegar Chips. Spitting Chips. Sour Grapes.

Salt & Vinegar Chips. Spitting Chips. Sour Grapes. 

Take your pick. 

I'm talking about how pissed off China is that the largest high-end chip-maker in the world, TSMC, has done a deal with the United States to make their chips there. Beijing are super pissed off. 

How do they show their anger? Reveal their saltiness? Display they're spitting chips? 

Why, through the voices of pro-Beijing columnists in the South China Morning Post, of course! There's plenty of them these days. 

The most pro-Beijing, the most of a sock-puppet for Beijing is long-time columnist Alex Lo. Who writes two days ago, in his column: KMT Chief shows way forward to avoid blind confrontation with Beijing. [Internet Archive page]

Taiwan’s political pendulum is reversing. The government led by Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) William Lai Ching-te is increasingly discredited, not least for selling out the jewel of its semiconductor industry to the United States under pressure from President Donald Trump.

"Selling the family jewels"?? Hardly. They're increasing Chip capacity by manufacturing in the United States. Does it make sense? Surely it does. 

America is the largest customer of TSMC by a long way. America takes some 75% ot TSMC's output. Next largest customer is Taiwan itself with 9%.  Only then comes China, with 8%, a figure that's actually fallen in recent years. IOW America takes ten times the amount China does of TSMC's output. Of course it makes sense to manufature some of your product in your dominant customer's home. 

Committing some $US 500 billion to build facilities in America is just smart. 

But it smarts for China too. This is not TSMC "selling family jewels". It's TSMC being smart.

From China, from  Alex Lo, the OG Beijing sock-puppet, it's just... Sour Grapes. 

===================

ADDED: My post on TSMC: the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.

Who's TSMC? From Grok:

TSMC produces the vast majority of the world's most advanced semiconductor chips (over 90% of leading-edge nodes below 5nm or so), which serve as the foundational "brains" powering everything from smartphones and consumer electronics to AI accelerators, high-performance computing, data centers, and modern military systems.

Without TSMC's manufacturing capacity and technological leadership, global supply chains for AI innovation, digital infrastructure, and countless high-tech products would grind to a halt, making the company a critical chokepoint for the modern economy and technological progress.

In short, TSMC is the indispensable engine behind today's digital world and the AI revolution.

America Maoism redux

 

I was in Beijing on 9 September 1976, the day Mao died, as was Xi Van Fleet. Fifty years ago this September. Yikes!

So I know exactly what she's talking about. China of that Cultural Revolutionary time. The poverty. The corruption. The oppression. The main food that winter was Chinese cabbage piled high on street corners. All other food was rationed. I needed ration tickets for rice. Ration tickets for cotton. Ration tickets for shoes. Bread didn't exist. You needed permission to travel anywhere. The average urban wage was $25 per month. Farmers much less. 

I was a language student. My attempts at essays in my learner's Chinese were graded not just for grammar and character strokes, but for political content. There was correct view and a wrong one. (It’s from Mao that the term “political correctness” comes).

It was in the socialist China of those days that I learned I didn't much like socialism. Let alone communism. Though I tend to treat "socialism" and "communism" pretty much interchangeably. Socialism: bad. Communism: badder.

Socialism in practice, as in China of the 70s, destroyed my lazy-hazy undergraduate chardonna-socialism that I shared with my class mates. 

Sadly, though, it's starting again in America. Socialism. Communism. Maoism redux. We see it everywhere. 

I've followed Xi Van Fleet for years on X. She's a vocal critic of the CCP. Her grandparents were the Chinese equivalent of Kulaks, small landowners, who had their land confiscated (ie, stolen) by the CCP.  Her grandparents were named "Black Faction" members, Hei Pai. And therefore so were her parents, and therefore so was Xi herself. One person in the family is a Black Faction, all the family members are Black Faction. The only escape from the branding was to escape the country. 

Talking in the vid above to Adam Carolla, Xi warns of the dangers of resurgent Maoism in America. The only difference from China's of the 60s and 70s being that the divisions between "good" and "bad" -- which in China of the Mao era were class-based, rich or poor, Hei Pai or Hong Pai, Black faction or Red faction -- in America are based on race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or all three. The operatives are the same. The M.O. is the same. Define and name the parties, label one "good", the other "bad", and have at it -- divide the country; go to war. (Joe Biden was pretty good at this. Remember his speech in Philadelphia in October 2024? Where he labelled half the country, Republicans, “near Nazis”?). 

With the "good" side, of course, pre-ordained to come out on top of the evil "Black faction". Or so they believe.

When you look at what's going on in America today, in big chunks of the Democrat party, moving ever Left (the communist hammer & sickle red flag of communism at the "No Kings" protests!), often paid by wealthy donors in America and overseas, can you really say her warnings are not relevant? Are some kind of crazy conspiracy theory? 

Meantime, China's Communist Party perseveres, even as China's economy is less socialist and more a kind of crony-capitalism. But, The Party stays in power -- 75 years and counting. 

The Party Abides, dude.

ADDED: Some background to the Chinese influencer who's popped up all over the internet recently, Jiang Xueqin.

USA > CRINK

	Apple Lamps ⁦‪@lamps_apple‬⁩ Look at the board. Russia's economy is being eaten alive from the inside. China just posted the lowest growth target in its modern history and admitted, for the first time ever, that deflation has been devouring their economy for three straight years. Iran's supreme leader is pic.x.com/uyQkjPY5KM   16/3/2026, 2:37 pm

People on the Left hate this. Islamists hate this. The Red-Green alliance hates this. They all Hate America standing up for the West. America being dominant. 

Look at the board. Russia’s economy is being eaten alive from the inside. China just posted the lowest growth target in its modern history and admitted, for the first time ever, that deflation has been devouring their economy for three straight years. Iran’s supreme leader is dead, and their Navy is scattered across the ocean floor. Venezuela’s dictator is sitting in a jail cell in lower Manhattan. Cuba can’t fuel an airplane. And the great CRINK alliance… China, Russia, Iran, North Korea… the coalition that every think tank in Washington warned us was going to end American dominance? It fell apart the first time any of them actually needed help. Every single time. Not once did one of these countries come to the rescue of another. Not once.

And where is America? Military deployed across multiple theaters with a speed and precision that stunned the entire world. The economy absorbing global shocks that would flatten any other nation on earth. The dollar still the reserve currency of the planet. NATO still intact. And a president who demonstrated in a matter of hours in Caracas what Russia has failed to accomplish in four years in Ukraine. A matter of hours. 

The United States of America is operating from a position of strength that would have seemed impossible five years ago. Every major adversary is weaker. Every supposed counter-alliance is fractured. Every bet against America has lost. And there is not a thing… not a single thing… that any country on this earth can do to stop it.

This, this, is the Rules Based Order. 

And you know who China welcomed today? The Dictator of Turkmenistan. The only country that makes North Korea look normal! The alliance of scoundrels and misfits.

Abiding by the “Rules-based order”… except when you don’t

From today’s South China Morning Post 

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi “… urged Manila to 

“… be aware of its responsibility, refrain from being distracted by its own self-interests, demonstrate its due commitment, and play a positive and constructive role in promoting regional peace and stability” as Asean chair.

Does that come across as bullying? Sure does to some.

The “Rules based order” that everyone is so obsessed with lately, is the post-war order that was birthed by the United States. The Marshall Plan, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, later the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations and its myriad bodies, Japan’s peace constitution, Germany’s peace constitution. All American ideas and ideals. And by any measure most magnanimous. 

At the beginning China was the America and the West’s good ally. Until it wasn’t. It was allowed to join the WTO and abided by its rules, until it didn’t. 

It loved the United Nations until it found against its expansive “9-dash” claims in 2019. Until it didn’t. 

So now is pushing its “Golden Rules” for disputes in the South China Sea. Here’s hoping they are magnanimous.

Just looking at the United Nations alone, it’s extraordinary just how corrupted it’s become. With “human rights” bodies chaired by the likes of North Korea and Yemen. With an anti-Israel, anti Zionist obsession. A dysfunctional Security Council and a virtue-signalling General Assembly.  The United Nations, founded and majority funded by the United States. Which one could forgive for getting tired of its nonsense. 

Bloodletting in the Beijing Barracks. (Metaphorical, of course)

Imagine in the United States if Donald Trump purged ("you're fired!") 6 of the 8 members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Imagine! 

It would be massive news and provoke intense commentary. 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) normally has 8 members: Chairman, Vice Chairman, plus the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and National Guard Bureau.

Purging 6 of 8 (leaving just Chairman + one other) would gut the top uniformed advisory body, creating a leadership vacuum unprecedented in modern US history.This would trigger:Wall-to-wall media coverage (CNN, Fox, NYT, etc.) framing it as politicization, instability, or authoritarian move.

Outrage from retired generals/admirals, Congress (bipartisan hearings likely), think tanks, and allies questioning US military readiness/apolitical tradition.
Comparisons to historical purges (e.g., Stalin's or recent foreign examples), plus domestic alarms over civilian-military balance.

The Dems would for certain attempt version #24,289 of "Impeach Trump".

Stock market dips, recruitment worries, and international signals of weakness.Even smaller recent firings (e.g., Chairman + a few others in 2025) drew huge backlash, condemnation from ex-officials, and "purge" headlines. A 6/8 wipeout would be exponentially louder—potentially a constitutional crisis-level event. 

Now... 

Imagine that the same thing just happened in China. 

No need to imagine! It just did. 

China's president, Xi Jinping is the head of the China Military Commission, which has 6 others, for a total of 7. These are the equivalent of the JCS in America. Xi purged four of the seven up to last week. And last week purged that most senior of them, general Zhang Youxia, an old comrade of Xi's, and the son of Xi's own father's best mate during the Revolutionary War against the Japanese and then against the Nationalists, that they eventually drove out to Taiwan in 1949, to establish the People's Republic of China. 

So this is a huge deal. 

But the coverage of it is slim. Mainly because that's the way China rocks. It doesn't talk about such stuff. Neither in China, nor in the international media. 

In China there's been zero coverage. In the west, also close to zero coverage. Of course, you can find discussion of it, in parts of the legacy media, and even more on social media. But you have to look for it. 

One commenter summary: 

It's major news in foreign policy/security circles (especially US, Asia-Pacific watchers), with dozens of articles and expert takes in the last 72 hours, but not dominating mainstream headlines like a US equivalent might—due to China's opacity and controlled domestic silence. The story underscores Xi's consolidation but highlights PLA vulnerabilities.

One big question is:

What does this mean for Taiwan? Does it make a China invasion of its "renegade province" more or less likely? 

The very first legacy media analysis I saw, Sky News, reckoned that it made the likelihood MORE likely. 

I'm not so sure. I reckon a China attack on Taiwan is, for now, somewhat LESS likely. Precisely because of the turmoil. You would not want to attack a well-defended island while your own military is still licking wounds inflicted by decimating its most venerable, most respected older leaders. Would you? 

Of course, what do I know? Pretty much nothing. I didn't get Xi right when he came to power in 2012. I thought he'd be more of the benign collective leadership that had led to his own ascendancy. But no... that's not how it's worked out. 

So I'll just put a few references below, while we keep a close eye on it, and on what's transpiring up north there in Beijing, the "Northern Capital". 

Whatever is going on, if is significant and consequential. 

A few quick references:

• Ex-CIA Official on What Xi Jinping's Purge of Top Chinese General Reveals, Bloomberg Television
• Standoff in Beijing?  Real Talk
• China's top general investigated as Xi continues purge. ABC Australia
• Xi Jinping conducting military purge. Sky News Australia

United States Allies remain United States Allies....

China aside, all other countries increased their 
holdings of US Treasuries in 2025

President Trump is the the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he apparently (we don't have details), ended up with some sort of deal agreed with NATO over US involvement in Greenland. 

This is -- of course!  -- being mocked on the likes of CNN. Whose latest go-to talking point is that "Allies are deserting the US, and making up with China". [E.G.]

Do tell. 

One of the best ways to measure just how much countries trust the United States, how much they trust any given administration, or any given set of economic circumstances in the United States, is how much money they have invested in US Treasuries. Since I learned to walk it's been one of the most quoted stats by the cognoscenti. "How are Treasuries doing?"

"Treasuries" just being the American name for US Government Bonds issued by the Treasury Department. Where they borrow your money, promise to pay you a certain amount of interest (the "Coupon") and to give you your Principal back at the end of the term. 

If the US economy is not trusted, countries will pull their money out of US Treasuries. If they don't like an administration, or how it's handling the economy, they'll pull money out of Treasuries. If countries Sell Treasuries, their price will go down, and the interest rate on the basis of that price will go up (because the Coupon remains the same)*. Hence the importance of the trend of Treasuries. They affect the overall creditworthiness of the US and of its short and long-term interest rates. 

So, now back to the reality of what the likes of CNN and other Trump-haters are saying. Which, to repeat, is along the lines of: "American allies hate what Trump is doing, they don't like his grab for Greenland, and are going to look elsewhere, like to China, for support and economic engagement. Meantime they're dumping their Treasuries, which will put upward pressure on US interest rates."

Well... no. 

The Treasuries tell a different story.

 U.S. Treasury International Capital (TIC) site (of the US Treasury Department) has a Table of the monthly Treasury holdings by country. I've taken out some of the main players and summarise them below to 2025, up to the latest, which is to end November 2025: 

Key points I notice: 

1. All countries except one, have increased their holdings of US Treasuries in the last year. On average by nearly 10%. 

2.  China is that one country that has reduced its holdings in the same period, by 10%. 

3. Overall, countries, including all US Allies, have increased their holdings, by a total of $US 738 Billion. 

4. Japan and the United Kingdom have always been, and remain, the largest holders of US Treasuries. All US allies have substantial holdings of Treasuries. 

5.  Denmark, suzerain of Greenland, holds only $10 B in Treasuries, while the bottom of the Top Twenty chart above, Israel has $107 B, ten times more. So, Denmark threatening to sell down its holdings, is, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “irrelevant”. 

6.  China has not just recently started to reduce its US Treasuries holdings. It has done so since it reached its highest holdings in 2013, in the middle of the Obama presidency:

The only time China holdings went up since 2013
was during the Trump first administration

China's reduction of US Treasuries beginning in 2013 was signalled a the time. I remember it. It correlates closely with the arrival of Xi Jinping to the leadership in 2012. Xi is temperamentally anti-west (See "Document 9"), pro China's self-reliance, pro finding investments for its massive surpluses other than buying the "World's safest investment", US Treasury Bonds. 

In short, there's no evidence, from the holdings of US Treasuries, that US allies are upset by Trump's agressive moves like his one on Greenland. 

And the China divestment has been going on for over a decade.

 

==============================

* The inverse relationship between Bond Prices and Interest Rates: 

One of the first things I learned in Economics 101, in 1969. 

When Bond prices go up, interest rates go down.

When Bond prices go down, interest rates go up. 

EG: There's a Bond issued with a price of $100 and a Coupon of 5%. That means you pay $100 for the Bond and you get paid $5 every year. i.e. 5%.

If the price of the Bond goes down in the secondary market, to, say, $90, the Coupon remains 5% (it never changes), and so the buyer of that Bond, paying just $90, would still get the $5 every year for which he has paid only $90.  $5 divided by $90 = 0.0556, or 5.56%. 

“The Maduro effect: US raid accelerates Asia’s drift away from Washington” | SCMP

The Maduro effect: US raid accelerates Asia's drift away from Washington scmp.com

 You have to read past the headline. 

If you only read the headline, you'd think the South China Morning Post is actually talking about "Asia". In which case, Wow! Damage to US — Asia relations! Can't be good!

Read further past the headline and it turns out they're talking about three countries: Cambodia, Laos and North Korea. Sure they're in Asia. But they're the poorest and worst governed of Asia. 

• These three are 54 million population out of 4.85 Billion in Asia, or just 1.08% of the total. They are inconsequential. 
• Each one is a one party authoritarian state. You'd expect them to be worried about the legitimacy of their own rulers. 
• None of them has been known for making wise decisions. From the insanely murderous Pol Pot in Cambodia to the Kim family in North Korea, they've made one bad decision after another. 
• Meantime who in Asia are getting closer to America? The countries that matter. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, India. (We leave China aside. Of course they're against whatever America does).

In sum: The above article is bogus drivel. I guess “click bait” would cover it.

Venezuelans everywhere delighted by Maduro arrest | Nicholas Freitasis

Nicholas Freitas is a Green Beret who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Green Berets are like the Delta Force that carried out the snatch and arrest of Mr and Mrs Maduro last week. So he know a thing or two about the whole issue.

He supports the operation. As does every single Venezuelan I’ve seen since. Not just “most” Venezuelans, but every Venezuelan. That’s key and appears to be ignored by the Leftie Luvvies demonstrating in Times Square to “bring back Maduro”. When a year ago they were mocking Trump for not having Maduro taken down. Literally no way to win any Democrat approbation. Now when you’re Donald Trump. 

Nick is worried about “regime change” and what Trump means when he says “we’re in charge” of Venezuela. For now. Temporarily. So am I and so are many. But I do believe Foreign Secretary Marco Rubio has thought this through and the upside for Venezuelans can be massive and positive. 

Let me summarise the Upsides:

Good for Venezuelans. Check out YouTube. It’s nothing but wild celebrations from Venezuelans worldwide. 

Many of the 8 million Venezuelans who fled return home.

Less drug traffic

Less human trafficking

Less involvement in Venezuela by China, Iran, Russia.

“Kill the chicken to frighten the monkeys”. Putting the fear of god into dictators everywhere.

What are the Downsides?

Chaos and failed state. But it’s a chaotic failed state already.

Having to listen to whining from anti-Trumpers about how awful this is …

That’s it. That’s all I can think of. 

China - Japan imbroglio: "The best outcome for China, Taiwan, the Globe, is the status quo" | Peter Forsythe

"The best outcome for China, Taiwan, the Globe, is the status quo"

Herewith a self-criticism.

I only just learned that there's a Sino-Japanese brouhaha. And I'm told it's serious. Just the latest one (I muse), but "it's serious!", I'm assured. 

Here's the thing. This would not have happened a few years ago. I would not have not known about this latest brouhaha. Because of newspapers. 

All my adult life I got hard copy newspapers, made out of actual paper. Here in Hong Kong it was the International Herald Tribune, the New York Times and the South China Morning Post, delivered to my front door every crack of dawn.

I'd come down for breakfast and luxuriate over an actual physical paper. It was a wonderful routine. 

What it meant was, one could know what was what in the world by the time of one's bus. At least the headlines. And in many cases, the story of the day in some detail. 

Then, over time, I let the hard copy subs lapse. As did most of the world. I did so a bit later than most -- the last one I finished just last year -- but finish the hard copy subscriptions I did. 

What I did was to take the digital version of all these. That means an App. But whereas there's only the paper newspaper in the morning, there's many Apps on one's phone. AI tells me that the average person has 60 to 80 Apps on their phone. I checked mine just now: I have 93! Yikes. 

So it's easy to forget. And since I -- we -- no longer watch the news on telly either, there's only what you get on the App if you go to the App. And sometimes I forget. I aim to look at my South China Morning Post App each day. After all, I do live in China, the Hong Kong part of it. But somehow haven't opened it for a week. I've been otherwise engaged with YouTube or doctors' visits. 

And so I've missed the story of the Japanese Prime Minister, the new one Sanae Takaichi, making a statement that made Beijing melt down in fury. I get told that by some OR's and that I ought to be incensed myself. And scared. 

Having looked into it now, I'm not incensed. And I'm not scared. 

Though for sure, this was avoidable and a mistake (I think) by the Japan PM, the newbie Sanae Takaichi. 

My basic thought about the situation is simple:

The best situation for China, Taiwan and the world is the status quo. We want things to just stay as they are. That's the best for all countries involved and for the world. 

Any war by China against Taiwan would be a regional and a global disaster. Even if China had a victory in landing on the island and taking over, it would be very much a Pyrrhic victory: with the costs way more than the benefits. 

With the status quo we have all the benefits of trade, investment, cross-border tourism and investment, with none of the costs. Taiwan is de facto independent, without the hassles of fighting for a de jure independence. The rest of the world trades with both, just fine. That's the way things are, and that's the best way things could ever be. Per Beatles: "Let it Be". 

I have long thought that the status quo was the best for China-Taiwan. Going back to my time in China in 1976, and my first visit to Taiwan in the same year. I learned of China's position on it. Pretty quickly I thought: this is something best left to be the proverbial can kicked down the proverbial road. Forever. 

Because it's very nice peace. As we have now. Or very awful war. Which would be disastrous. 

I've also said so on this blog over the years. Some examples below what I'm about to say.

Which, cleaned and tidied up, is this: 

"The best outcome for China, Taiwan, the Globe, is the status quo".
It has held for decades. It delivers prosperity to both sides of the Strait and prevents a catastrophic war that nobody could win cleanly. Beijing gains leverage by constant threats without paying the immense cost of actually firing a shot. 
Taipei preserves its democracy and its de facto independence. 
Washington keeps its policy of strategic ambiguity, which has deterred invasion while avoiding provocation. 
Everyone understands the rules. Everyone benefits from not breaking them.
That delicate balance is why no responsible leader should speak openly about Taiwan independence, and equally why no leader should spell out in public exactly what would trigger military support for Taipei. Strategic ambiguity works precisely because it is ambiguous. It forces Beijing to consider the worst-case scenario without giving it a clear casus belli.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s explicit linkage of a Taiwan contingency to Japan’s “survival-threatening situation” therefore broke a long-standing taboo. Her remarks were factually grounded in Japan’s 2015 security legislation, but stating them so plainly from the prime minister’s office was unnecessary and unwise. It handed Beijing a gift.
One could attribute it to inexperience – Takaichi has been in office less than a month. A more seasoned leader would have left the interpretation to staff officers and think-tank scholars. China, for its part, could simply have ignored the statement or filed a routine protest. Instead it chose maximum escalation: summoning the ambassador, military exercises, and a full-throated propaganda offensive.
That reaction was entirely predictable. On Weibo and WeChat (I get daily summaries) the response has been ferocious – wave after wave of virulent anti-Japanese hatred, calls for boycotts, historical grievances dredged up yet again, and wall-to-wall praise for the government’s “firm stand”. This is the standard playbook. Every external hint that Taiwan might not be unconditionally Chinese becomes an instant domestic rallying point. Which strengthens the Communist Party. the CCP does not need to invade Taiwan to profit from the Taiwan issue; it only needs the issue itself.
Meantime, the United States – the one power whose response actually matters – has remained remarkably calm. Neither President Trump nor Secretary of State Marco Rubio has amplified the controversy. Washington understands the game and has chosen not to play.
My guess: Beijing will not launch a war over a single Japanese prime ministerial statement. It will not invade Taiwan because of it. Nor should it. The noise will die down in a week or two, the patrols will return to their normal rhythm and the status quo – that quietly successful arrangement – will still be the least bad option for everyone. Cross fingers.

The lesson is simple: keep quiet, keep cool, and let ambiguity do its essential work. 

Here endeth the lesson.

===========================

Some references I've made to China-Taiwan status quo in the posts on this blog:

Don't tweak the dragon's tail, 6 Nov 2013.

What did the Occupy Central leader think it would achieve by meeting Shih Ming-teh [the former chairman of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan]? It's simply not worth getting Beijing riled and suspicious. 

If you tweak the dragon's tail, 2 Jul 2019

It strikes me as dangerous and boneheaded for the demonstrators to storm Legco (HK's parliament) vandalise the interior and especially to fly British flags. Crazy, silly, juvenile, counterproductive and dangerous. The same for calls for Taiwan "independence". 

Glimpses of the obvious: wars aren't good, 29 Jun 2023

If there is war over Taiwan it will only be because Beijing starts it. Taiwan just needs to stand pat, to keep saying “the status quo is best”. Because it is. And not call for “Independence”. Don’t do that. Don’t tweak the dragon’s tail.

Why China Won't invade Taiwan, 14 Nov 2025 

Anyhow: let's hope Warburg and I are right. The status quo is the most attractive, for sure. We hope that China, Beijing, also sees that it is.

"Why China won't invade Taiwan" | Paul Warburg

 

I don't know Paul Warburg -- I came across him just today -- but he makes good sense, above. It's kinda long, but worth it for those interested in the geo-politics of our region here in East Asia. 

I've long thought the best thing for China-Taiwan relations is simple: the status quo.

There's no real good outcome for China for an attack on the island of Taiwan, which would be fraught at best. 

Meantime: Beijing threatens. And gets a lot of attention for that. It gets leverage. The best outcome for China is precisely the current one: keep pressure on the world, keep it wrong footed, use the leverage of threats to "regain" the "renegade province" in any international negotiations. 

But don't actually do anything. 

China would have a tough time if it did attack Taiwan. It has a limited amphibious landing fleet, that can only slowly be replenished. It has no decent Blue Water fleet. Its two aircraft carriers are ancient Russian rust buckets.  

Taiwan is protected by its mountainous terrain and limited beaches to land on. It's defensible. Taiwan now has huge inventories of anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles and the latest military drone technology from Ukraine. All the pressure would be on the attackers. 

Meantime Taiwanese are 70-80% in favour if staying just as it is. No interest there in becoming part of the motherland. Our Hong Kong experience has made it clear to Taiwanese just what it means to have "One Country, Two Systems", an early strategy of China, to make it seem attractive to its "renegade" to come back into the embrace of the Motherland. Since the 2020 Hong Kong riots and the resulting National Security legislation, that's no longer a reasonable hope.

Another thought: China has had no experience of war or battles since it fought Vietnam in 1979.  Which didn't go well. It now has 45 years of Zero experience in war, apart from a few trifling border skirmishes with India. The United States, meantime, for better or worse, has been in almost constant war. Its Navy is well practiced and hugely outguns and out-technologies the Chinese. Some war game scenarios have China winning; but, really, I can't see them winning against the battle-hardened, technologically superior US Fleet, assuming it came in support of its ally Taiwan. Don't believe me? Check out some of the amazing vids of on-board training exercises on US carriers. 

I've also seen reports that Chinese naval commanders are not up to chop. They're inexperienced soyboys.... (So goes the scuttlebut). FNGs in military slang.

Warburg also suggests that a number of countries in the region -- Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan -- would come to the support of Taiwan, in case of any Chinese aggression. 

As for the Naval Blockade scenario. The trouble with that from China's point of view is that it's easily countered. A blockade of Taiwan would lead to counter blockades of China, blockades of the Straits of Malacca, of the ports of Burma, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It would see a catastrophic drop in its trade and in imports of energy. 

And all for what? For pride? For getting hold of Taiwan's chip industry? (not likely to survive a war). For... what.... I don't see it. A game not worth the candle. 

Anyhow: let's hope Warburg and I are right. The status quo is the most attractive, for sure. We hope that China, Beijing, also sees that it is. 

Is Trump’s America like Gorbachev’s Soviet Union?

RE: "Is Trump’s America at the start of a Soviet-style downfall?" by Zheng Yongnian 

in the South China Morning Post

And short answer … NO.

From my post the other day, noting a major article in the South China Morning Post that likely reflects thinking in Zhongnanhai -- China's Kremlin. Or perhaps informs it. And therefore needs fact-checking and debunking where necessary. Which I'm going to do here as a PSA. As they say: “Buckle Up!”

Some clips, indented in purple, and my comments after each:

“America’s transformation under President Donald Trump has parallels with Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms in the last years of the Soviet Union…”

No. I was in the Soviet Union just before Gorbachev's perestroika. It was an obviously failing socialist economy. Brittle. Autarkic. The main GUM Department store had pyramids of pickled cabbages in tins, on display. That was it. You could get a Coke-bottle's worth of vodka for just a few pennies. But not Coke. It was still the place where packs of Marbloros got you taxis. Jeans bought you night in a hotel. 

Trump's America is a strong, post-industrial market-driven technological powerhouse. Trump andmini efforts to re-shore industry will make it even stronger. There's simply no comparison between the two countries. Between one strong capitalist country and one crumbling communist empire.

“ Zheng argued that Trump had altered US party politics – the foundation of American democracy – reshaping the Republican Party through populism and leaving no consensus between Republicans and Democrats.”

Nah. To the extent that there's "no consensus" where does that stem from? As soon as Trump was in power for the second term, the Dems began fighting. They fought against the border closure and against deportations (both supported by 80% of voters). They became violent when Trump’s DOGE began cutting government expenditure to reduce the huge debts — racked up most rapidly by Biden’s team. They sent teams of aging hippies to burn, torch, vandalise and destroy Teslas and Tesla facilities, because Elon Musk was in charge of the DOGE effort. As we speak they and their Antifa proxies are resisting, violently, every move of the Immigration Customs Enforcement efforts of Federal officers to find and deport violent illegal immigrants. They’ve voted to shut the government down. Go figure. 

"Consensus"? dream on Dems... you're the ones that created the nightmare. 

“Globally, the US used to play a leading role in promoting and expanding American-style democracy, Zheng said, adding that the global backsliding of democracy was “unprecedented”, with the US retreating from its role.”

Nah. The US bombing Iran's nuclear facilities by Operation Midnight Hammer was a brilliant show of US power, of Peace through Strength and of a hammer blow to Islamic Theocracy in the name of peace and democracy. 

The Gaza Peace Deal is a blow for democracy. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. They have won the war against Hamas. Despite the human shield tactics against them and despite the western liberal opinion against them. They did it with American support, and specifically with Trump's support. 

US democracy promotion = mixed bag historically (coups galore). Backsliding = real but not unprecedented (1930s worse). US under Trump = active, not retreating (Ukraine/NATO/Iran bombing/Gaza peace deal prove it). 

“Zheng described Trump as showing little interest in American democracy itself …”

Nah. 

Trump shows transactional interest in democracy—via elections, courts, free speech for allies—not "little." He won fairly twice; institutions survived intact (e.g., no martial law, media thrives).  He's a disruptive player in robust system. Revised: “...as prioritizing personal loyalty over institutional democratic norms.”

“As an example, he cited Trump’s push to end the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the American government’s humanitarian aid coordinating body and, until recently, one of the world’s largest such agencies.”

Huh? The USAID program is revealed — by DOGE — to be a vast money laundering racket, independent of any overview. Its programs exclusively served left to far-left political causes. The administration costs (money going to staff and relatives of staff) ate up to 80% of donations. Welcome to The Foreign Aid Industrial complex. None of this is denied by the Democrats. They just don’t like it being cut off. As Elon Musk said “the loudest squeals come from the most corrupt”. Even so, USAID has not been completely shut down. It’s been trimmed to focus on urgent needs and its administration brought under the State Department. 

By the way, it was not “one of the largest…” it was THE largest such agency in the world. It dwarfed Chinas own tiny foreign aid budget. (Its “Belt and Road” funding is manly loans, not grant aid). 

“According to Zheng, Trump was also largely undermining the core of US constitutional governance – the separation and balance of powers – pressuring the legislative and judicial branches and fundamentally altering the system.”

Nah. No way Trump is "undermining... constitutional governance". Every Executive Order that I've read has a statement: ".... to the extent permitted by law". And every time there's a SCOTUS decision around an EO, the Trump Admin has followed it. 

The very fact of the number of Federal Judge injunctions against Trump EOs shows the resilience of the system. "Undermining or altering" is a myth—courts/Congress check him (180+ blocks, bipartisan bills). 

All up this article of professor Zheng's is a hatchet job. I get the idea that he came up with a nice notion — America is just like pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union — and shoehorned his “evidence” to fit his conclusion. 

Which, sadly, the majority of SCMP readers seem to have bought into. And that the leaders in Beijing may also sip and sup and digest. But it's wrong. And to the extent that it's wrong, it will lead to miscalculations by Beijing. They will, if they believe this nonsense of the academic Zheng, judge America to be more brittle, weaker and more vulnerable than it is. And that in turn could lead to dangerous miscalculations. 

Here's hoping that a blog in Hong Kong can find its way to Zhongnanhai and give them a different perspective!