US officials said that China provided more than 70% of the $900m (£723m) in machine tools – probably used to build ballistic missiles – imported in the last quarter of 2023 by Russia.
They also said that 90% of Russia’s microelectronics imports – used to produce missiles, tanks and aircraft – came from China last year.
So China gets to make money while Russia does all the dirty work, with both Russia and the West falling into economic peril.
Win-win for the Chinese.
Don’t worry, US will respond by being held hostage by Putin’s insurrectionist puppet
China also gets to ramp up war economies for Taiwan
China does have a huge Navy now
Except “the west” (stupid term) is not falling into economic peril.
Burn Moscow and sanction China so they can do what they do best. Starve.
Yet another item of IP they learned from America
I mean, it’s the same thing with the West giving weapons to Ukraine.
Somebodies getting rich off of that, it’s just not any of us.
Unless you own Raytheon stock.
It is not. We are supplying them with unused weapons that have expired.
Not true. We have increased production of shells in order to send them to Ukraine.
Not quite… It it’s the same thing the West did in WWII
The USA did not get directly involved until funds from France and later the UK were complete depleted
so did the us with ukraine…
and that just pushed russia straight to the arms of the chinese
While I don’t ever want to see WW3, I’ll get some small satisfaction after getting downvoted to hell last year for saying Russia and China were teaming up.
🙄
Its not a team up. Its one state consolidating power over the other and converting them into a vassal state. Russia had power and influence around the world. They traded all of that to be China’s pet.
It’s gonna be a team up.
Nah.
Yah.
This isn’t China sending aid. This is China just not sanctioning Russia on dual-use goods.
My bits are firmly placed on an eventual military team up. It may not be acknowledged by either country, but they’ll share all the same enemies, and have many of the same goals.
Exactly. Iran and NK will join that side for WW3, whenever it may be. When the conflict is done, the world will have prosperity and cooperation for a couple decades - history repeats.
More that China is laughing all the way to the bank.
Chinese companies do business with whoever pays them. Ukraine, for example, is heavily reliant on Chinese drones and has been buying over half the global supply of DJI’s Mavic quadcopters.
And Chinese companies aren’t alone in this. Lots of developing economies don’t feel they gave a stake in the conflict and have continued to do business. Most of Russia’s oil exports have been going through India. The fact that the US has been so muted in its response to this, because they feel like India is “on-side” in the confrontation against China, makes the singling out of China seem hypocritical.
Removed by mod
Because China benefits.
Ladybugs supporting Praying Mantises in massive predatory expansion Aphids say.
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
China is helping Russia undertake its biggest military expansion since Soviet times, ramping up sales of machine tools, microelectronics and other technology that Moscow is using to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft and other weaponry for its war against Ukraine, according to a US assessment.
US officials are hoping the release of the intelligence will encourage European allies to press China, as the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, heads to Beijing this weekend and G7 foreign ministers meet next week in Italy.
“Our view is that one of the most gamechanging moves available to us at this time to support Ukraine is to persuade the PRC [People’s Republic of China] to stop helping Russia reconstitute its military industrial base,” the official said.
The secretary of state, Antony Blinken, is expected to make the case on China’s ties with Russia as he meets top diplomats of other industrial democracies at the G7 talks in Capri, Italy.
The administration hopes that such dialogue, including a recent telephone call between Biden and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, can help contain tensions between the world’s two largest economies but US officials have stressed they will still press on concerns.
Also on Friday, the US and UK prohibited metal-trading exchanges from accepting new aluminium, copper and nickel produced by Russia and barred the import of the metals in the latest effort to disrupt Russian export revenue.
The original article contains 583 words, the summary contains 229 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
US officials said
Unnamed US officials said, without providing any evidence, …
Fixed that for them
… what difference would having a name make here…
Accountability. If there was a name they would have to provide some kind of evidence or justification for the claims. As it is we just have to take their word for it.
I want to argue, but you’re absolutely right - I cannot for the life of me find any source information whatsoever besides that it was from 2 senior Biden administration people.
I’m wondering if this something they do to prevent foreign adversaries from identifying which information complex (cia, fbi, nsa, dhs, etc) actually figured out what was going on.
It would make sense in this specific case but they kinda lose credibility when hiding behind anonymity and it certainly raises red flags with the people regarding propaganda.
Won’t let another Afghanistan happen with my vote
Read your news carefully. Western news media almost never give a name unless there is real evidence. You will frequently see things like “according to experts familiar with the matter”, or “speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to talk to the press”, or any number of other permutations.
And yet, when quoting Putin, Xi or any of their other favourite pantomime villains they always qualify their statements with “without citing any evidence.”
They could very well get evidence without wanting to name someone. Protecting sources is pretty normal in journalism
That does not and should not extend to US government officials or their press releases. Ask a credible journalist. This story was sent to Agence France Press who redistribute it, without without verifying anything, to hundreds of news outlets worldwide in the knowledge that many will just print it as is because they don’t have the resources to follow any of it up.
You should probably educate yourself on how the news industry works, although you wont like it.
Sure, any sources should be checked. That said, do you have any particular reason to doubt the figure?
The two countries have declared a “no limits” partnership, have they not?
The Intel seems to be about CNC machine tool exports from China to Russia, and FT has also reported (here) on the increase, citing Russian customs data.
Are there any Russian or Chinese sources you know of that are reporting contradictory information?
Were you born yesterday? Protecting sources in journalism has been standard practice since the dawn of time. Media literacy is in the gutter here smh
If you truly think this is a problem that could only ever be on the “western side”, you’re a fool and a hipocrit.
I get you might not like western practices, but if you truly care about truth honesty and respect for your fellow people, and aren’t a racist POS, you’d choose your words more carefully next time friend. You ruined the entire conversation we just had because you had to make a shallow point like this.
Just a thought.
Is only the US allowed to supply countries with tools used for military purposes?
When the US supplies arms for countries committing genocide, it’s wrong. When China does it, it’s also wrong. There is no contradiction here so there’s no need to immediately clutch your whatabouts. Maybe we can try engaging with the issues instead.
What issue is there to engage in? The US screams about other countries arming up in order to justify its own military industrial complex. In other words, it’s the US clutching its pearls on whatabouts in the first place.
No, but it’s definitely worse when more countries do it.
deleted by creator
