Tag: war

London Throws in the Towel

One of Clown World’s senior mouthpieces, The Times, indicates that London and Brussels have given up any hope of winning their proxy war in Ukraine.

It is bitter to say, but Kiev will not last until spring. Despite all the encouraging words from the EU, there is simply no money or desire to continue to defend Ukraine.

Like others in the West, I admire the steadfastness of Ukrainians in their long, often inventive struggle against the Russians. However, with the approach of winter, Vladimir Zelensky‘s chances of holding out are melting before our eyes. Money for weapons, medicine and heat for Ukraine is running out. The Western will to support the conflict is fading. The defense of Kiev as an independent capital is no longer considered a strategic priority.

A different picture may emerge when looking at the rhetoric of European officials — the same von der Leyen calls on Europe to “fight for its values and the right to self—determination” – or at the lively actions at the front and in diplomatic corps. American sanctions are hitting Rosneft and Lukoil, trying to undermine the economic basis of the Putin regime.

But none of the above changes the course of the conflict much.

It will probably be another six months before Clown World bows to the inevitable, another half-year of needless suffering and death in Ukraine and unnecessary economic damage to the Western economies, but the end is now in sight.

Putin and the Russian generals have been very patient, and very cautious, as befits the heirs of Kutuzov, but the time will come when the mass Zhukovian offensive will be launched and it will probably be much larger than any Western analyst expects.

DISCUSS ON SG

A US Military Withdrawal

The US pulls a brigade out of Romania:

The US is withdrawing some troops from Romania, on NATO’s eastern flank, as the Pentagon works to shift its focus away from Europe and toward homeland defense and Latin America, US and European officials said on Wednesday.

The US is sending home the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division back to Kentucky and will not be replacing the unit after its scheduled rotation out of Eastern Europe, according to US Army Europe and Africa. The redeployment comes as eastern flank NATO countries have faced a spike in threats from Russia in recent weeks, including multiple drone incursions in Polish airspace and repeated violations of Lithuanian airspace.

The Army said the reduction in troops is part of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “deliberate process to ensure a balanced U.S. military force posture. This is not an American withdrawal from Europe or a signal of lessened commitment to NATO and Article 5,” the Army press release said. “Rather this is a positive sign of increased European capability and responsibility. Our NATO allies are meeting President Trump’s call to take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe. This force posture adjustment will not change the security environment in Europe.”

Translation: the US military is not going to help Ukraine defend Odessa.

The Army press release notwithstanding, European military capabilities have declined over the last two years, they have not increased in the slightest as their economies collapse and social unrest rises. While the US is unlikely to do what it obviously should, and withdraw entirely from the European zone in order to focus on its own sphere of influence, whoever is calling the shots clearly recognizes that fighting Russia in Europe is a war that it cannot hope to win.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Last Bluff

Big Serge explains the real reason why the USA cannot afford to provide any Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine:

The basic pattern here is well established. The United States has done what it can to backstop Ukrainian strike capabilities, but it has held them at a level where Ukraine’s damage output falls far short of decisive levels. So long as that is the case, Russia has clearly demonstrated that it will simply eat the punches and retaliate against Ukraine. Hence, when the United States helps Ukraine target Russian oil facilities, it is Ukraine that receives the reprisal, and it is Ukraine which has its natural gas production annihilated as the winter approaches. In a sense, neither side is really trying to deter the other at all. The United States has raised the cost of this war for Russia, but not enough to create any real pressure for Moscow to end the conflict; in response, Russia punishes Ukraine, which is something the United States does not really care about. The result is a sort of geostrategic Picture of Dorian Gray, where the United States vicariously inflicts cathartic damage on Russia, but Ukraine accrues all the soul damage.

In the case of Tomahawks, the risk-reward calculus is just not there. Tomahawks are a strategically invaluable asset that the United States cannot afford to hand out like candy. Even if the launch systems could be provided (highly doubtful), the missiles could not be made available in sufficient quantities to make a difference. The range of the missiles, however, significantly raises the probability of miscalculation or uncontrolled escalation. Ukraine shooting American missiles at energy infrastructure in Belgorod or Rostov is one thing; shooting them at the Kremlin is another thing entirely.

There is, however, another aspect of this which seems to be garnering little attention. The biggest risk of sending Tomahawks is not that the Ukrainians will blow up the Kremlin and start World War Three. The bigger risk is that the Tomahawks are used, and Russia simply moves on after eating the strikes. Tomahawks are arguably one of the last – if not the last – rung in the escalation ladder for the USA. We have rapidly run through the chain of systems that can be given to the AFU, and little remains except a few strike systems like the Tomahawk or the JASSM. Ukraine has generally received everything it has asked for. In the case of Tomahawks, however, the United States is running the most serious risk of all: what if the Russians simply shoot down some of the missiles and eat the rest of the strikes? It’s immaterial whether the Tomahawks damage Russian powerplants or oil refineries. If Tomahawks are delivered and consumed without seriously jarring Russian nerves, the last escalatory card will have been played. If Russia perceives that America has reached the limits of its ability to raise the costs of the war for Russia, it undercuts the entire premise of negotiations. More simply put, Tomahawks are most valuable as an asset to threaten with.

The USA has been relentlessly bluffing, and the Russians have been relentlessly calling those bluffs, since the launch of the Special Military Operation nearly four years ago. There can be little doubt that the Russians will do the same thing if the Tomahawks are deployed against them, and then the US military will be revealed as the paper tiger it is so far outside its zone of influence.

Which, of course, is the one thing the US military cannot afford to happen in light of its global pretensions and asymmetric war with China.

DISCUSS ON SG

Odessa is Next

Col McGregor observes the significance of the recent Russian crossing of the Dnieper River.

The Russians have crossed the Dnieper River. They already have special operations forces and agents on the ground outside of Odessa. They’re now putting together a bridgehead on the west side of the Dnieper River. For all intents and purposes, it’s a bridge head that will be utilized to position forces to cross that river in strength. Now, why would the Russians cross the river, the South Dnieper with large forces? It would be to take Odessa.

Why would you take Odessa? Odessa, if it’s in Russian hands, would stop the flow of many, many arms, equipment, and support into Ukraine from the sea, from the Black Sea. Secondly, it would also landlock Ukraine. In other words, turn this future rump state we call Ukraine into a state with no outlet to the sea, which of course would be very harmful to the future of Ukraine. Now, everybody’s saying, “Oh, no, that will never happen.” No, absolutely. I think it’s going to happen…

So, these things take time, but I think at this point, President Putin has probably signaled to the general
staff, let’s plan on taking Odessa.

In the meantime, it’s being reported that the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, has informed President Putin of the encirclement of 31 Ukrainian battalions in the Donetsk region. That implies that between 7,500 and 15,000 Ukrainian soldiers will be forced to surrender before the end of November and quite possibly much sooner.

It goes without saying that if the Kiev regime had any concerns for the fate of the Ukrainian people, it would have surrendered already. The fact that it hasn’t, and that it not likely to do so anytime soon, does not bode well for whatever is left of Ukraine in the post-war period. If Russia now feels the time is right to take Odessa, that suggests that the UFA has been weakened to the point that it will not be able to put up much in the way of resistance, given its importance to the Kiev regime.

DISCUSS ON SG

Cold War 2.0

The strategists of Clown World have belatedly realized that the neocons are not only lunatics, but rank amateurs when it comes to assessing military capabilities and are attempting to establish some sort of Cold War-style detente with China before the asymmetric warfare of the last 25 years goes hot. A 100-page report offers some principles and initiatives conceived to replace the outmoded idea that the US military can simply enforce the will of its masters with regards to the Middle Kingdom. (PDF)

Several broad principles can guide efforts to stabilize intense rivalries

  • Each side accepts that some degree of modus vivendi must necessarily be part of the relationship.
  • Each side accepts the essential political legitimacy of the other.
  • In specific issue areas, especially those disputed by the two sides, each side works to develop sets of shared rules, norms, institutions, and other tools that create lasting conditions of a stable modus vivendi within that domain over a specific period (such as three to five years).
  • Each side practices restraint in the development of capabilities explicitly designed to undermine the deterrent and defensive capabilities of the other in ways that would create an existential risk to its homeland.
  • Each side accepts some essential list of characteristics of a shared vision of organizing principles for world politics that can provide at least a baseline for an agreed status quo.
  • There are mechanisms and institutions in place — from long-term personal ties to physical communication links to agreed norms and rules of engagement for crises and risky situations — that help provide a moderating or return-to-stable-equilibrium function.

Six broad-based initiatives can help moderate the intensity of the U.S.-China rivalry

  • Clarify U.S. objectives in the rivalry with language that explicitly rejects absolute versions of victory and accepts the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party.
  • Reestablish several trusted lines of communication between senior officials.
  • Improve crisis-management practices, links, and agreements between the two sides.
  • Seek specific new agreements — a combination of formal public accords and private understandings — to limit the U.S.-China cyber competition.
  • Declare mutual acceptance of strategic nuclear deterrence and a willingness to forswear technologies and doctrines that would place the other side’s nuclear deterrent at risk.
  • Seek modest cooperative ventures on issues of shared interest or humanitarian concern.

I think it is at least 15 years too late for any sort of meaningful rapprochement between China and the Clown World West, because the Chinese now understand what we have also learned in the interim: there is an ancient and malevolent evil that is not limited by human reason or timeframes that is the motivating force behind Clown World. Any compromise with it will eventually result in submission and destruction.

I am not the only one who is skeptical. Simplicius, too, has serious doubts about the ability of the Western states to change their course, as well as the probability that the Chinese will be convinced to alter their own.

It’s clear that RAND is trying desperately to make US policymakers abandon their obsolete and blinkered world view centered on the idea that any challenger must by its nature represent the selfsame kind of hegemonic exceptionalism cultivated by the US itself for over a century. The US views the entire world as a threat in the same light that a thief mistrusts all those around him—it is past guilt sublimated into national suspicion and Machiavellian subversiveness.

The US, being the pernicious by-blow of the late British Empire, has inherited all the hawkish trappings of its former parent. RAND here attempts to ween the US political culture away from this perpetually adversarial and hostile approach to foreign diplomacy because, as it has become apparent, the people ‘behind the scenes’ have slowly recognized not that confrontation with China will lead to some kind of global war, but rather the much barer reality that the US simply isn’t what it once was, and does not have the sheer overwhelming capability to bully the world’s foremost ascendant power. Thus, this RAND call to action is not—as they would have us believe—some kind of de-escalatory peacenik measure, but rather a desperate attempt to stave off the US from a historically fatal humiliation and geopolitical defeat at the hands of China.

I tend to agree that this attempt at establishing a new detente is nothing more than the desperate flailings of a failing power to avoid its now-inevitable decline and fall.

DISCUSS ON SG

Carriers to the Caribbean

Well, at least one carrier, anyhow:

The Pentagon plans to send the Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier to the Caribbean, marking a major escalation of the Trump administration’s military campaign to target drug smugglers and threaten governments in Latin America. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, which is currently deployed in the Mediterranean, to the Caribbean, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said Friday, bringing dozens more fighter and surveillance aircraft, along with other Navy warships that accompany a carrier.

The further away it is from Russia or China, the better. It would be good if the USA would withdraw all of its military forces from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East and concentrate on its own sphere of influence while it still has one.

DISCUSS ON SG

Immigration is Importing Poverty

The big lie about immigration is that it is “good for the economy” and “necessary to maintain the social security structure”. Because in any advanced economy, immigrants reduce the productivity of labor and impose a tremendous financial burden on the economy that significantly outweigh any benefits they could ever collectively provide.

New data shows that foreigners account for a substantial share of people living in absolute poverty in Italy, even as the poverty rates of families with two Italian parents drops. One director of La Verita newspaper, Maurizio Belpietro, has run an opinion piece in his newspaper lamenting that Italy is “importing poverty.”

“We are importing poor people. Of the total immigrant population, 35.6 percent live in absolute poverty. This rate is five times higher than that of Italians,” writes Belpietro, who is an influential voice in Italian politics with 360,000 followers on X.

He further notes that although foreigners make up a small percentage of the population, they represent a huge share of the number of people living in poverty.

“Of the 2.2 million households living in poverty, i.e., do not have enough income to support a minimum standard of living, 1.5 million are Italian and 733,000 are foreigners. This means that, despite being less than a tenth of the population, poor non-EU citizens are one third of the total,” he wrote. The data, from the Italian government’s Istat, shows that for those families with one Italian and one foreign parent, the absolute poverty rate is only slightly lower, at 30.4 percent.

Claims that mass immigration would “save” European pension systems are increasingly running into reality.

Citing the article, Italian commentator Francesca Totolo wrote on X: “No, immigrants do not pay pensions to Italians. The absolute poverty rate among families of only foreigners is 35.2%, while among families of only Italians it is 6.2%. This means that it is and will be Italians who have to pay for assistance, subsidies, housing, and pensions to foreigners without resources.”

This finding has been replicated in many other countries, which shows that the left’s promise that foreigners would feed into the pension system falters when confronted with the data. Notably, there are substantial differences between EU and non-EU foreigners, with EU foreigners often boosting GDP and contributing to the tax base, in particular those from certain EU countries.

According to a landmark study from the Netherlands, the report found that migrants had cost the state €400 billion between 1995 and 2019. In Germany, the estimated cost of migrants is currently at €50 billion a year, including social benefits, housing, integration, education, and child allowances.

In 2021, French author and academic Jean-Paul Gourévitch said in an interview with Radio Sud that employment data show that it is a myth that immigration to France has economic benefits.

“I have studied this topic extensively and today everyone in France, from the left to the right agrees that immigration costs more than it brings in,” Gourévitch said. “There is a major difference between left and right (oriented) economists regarding the costs: the leftist economists say the deficit is six to ten billion [euros per year], while those on the right say it is 40 to 44 billion. My own scientific research shows that the deficit is 20 to 25 billion [euros],” he said.

There is absolutely no positive economic argument for permitting mass immigration except for the appeal to debt-funded GDP growth that could be much less expensively provided by simply having the government distribute more spending money directly to the native population to boost consumer spending.

Mass immigration is an economic disaster as well as a societal disaster. There are only three solutions: mass repatriations, mass violence and ethnic cleansings, and total societal collapse. And no amount of magic-wording, word-spelling, and name-calling is going to create a viable fourth option.

The mass importation of foreigners is almost unprecedented in history. And extreme policies such as we have suffered will inevitably result in extreme consequences.

Consider that Great Britain has been invaded by 10x more foreigners than have invaded Ukraine. How can anyone expect the consequences for Great Britain to be less significant over time than the consequences of defeat for Ukraine? A military invasion is often less significant over time, because in the case of a military invasion, most of the foreigners eventually return home.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Special Interview

This is a real treat! Big Serge interviews Dr. Sean McMeekin, the author of the excellent book STALIN’S WAR:

Big Serge: “One of the first things that stands out about your work is that you have found success writing about topics which are very familiar to people and have a large extant corpus of writing. World War One, the Russian Revolution, World War Two, and now a broad survey of Communism – these are all subjects with no shortage of literature, and yet you have consistently managed to write books that feel refreshing and new. In a sense, your books help “reset” how people understand these events, so for example Stalin’s War was very popular and was not perceived as just another World War Two book. Would you say that this is your explicit objective when you write, and more generally, how do you approach the challenge of writing about familiar subjects?”

Dr. McMeekin: “Yes, I think that is an important goal when I write. I have often been called a revisionist, and it is not usually meant as a compliment, but I don’t particularly mind the label. I have never understood the idea that a historian’s job is simply to reinforce or regurgitate, in slightly different form, our existing knowledge of major events. If there is nothing new to say, why write a book?

Of course, it is not easy to say something genuinely new about events such as the First World War, the Russian Revolution, or World War Two. The scholar in me would like to think that I have been able to do so owing to my discovery of new materials, especially in Russian and other archives less well-trodden by western historians until recently, and that is certainly part of it. But I think it is more important that I come to this material – and older material, too – with new questions, and often surprisingly obvious ones.

For example, in The Russian Origins of the First World War, I simply took up Fritz Fischer’s challenge, which for some reason had been forgotten after “Fischerites” (most of them less than careful readers of Fischer, apparently) took over the field. In the original 1961 edition of Griff nach der Weltmacht (Germany’s “Bid” or “Grab” for World Power, a title translated more blandly but descriptively into English as Germany’s Aims in the First World War), Fischer pointed out that he was able to subject German war aims to withering scrutiny because basically every German file (not destroyed in the wars) had been declassified and opened to historians owing to Germany’s abject defeat in 1945 – while pointing out that, if the secret French, British, and Russian files on 1914 were ever opened, a historian could do the same thing for one of the Entente Powers. I had already done a Fischer-esque history on German WWI strategy, especially Germany’s use of pan-Islam (The Berlin-Baghdad Express), inspired by a similar epigraph in an old edition of John Buchan’s wartime thriller Greenmantle – Buchan predicted that a historian would come along one day to tell the story “with ample documents,” joking that when this happened he would retire and “fall to reading Miss Austen in a hermitage.” So it was a logical progression to ask, if Fischer can do this for Germany’s war aims, why not Russia?

Both the interview and the book are highly recommended.

DISCUSS ON SG

Asymmetric Economic Warfare

Despite being more vulnerable to trade war pain due to its export surplus, China has adroitly managed to gain the upper hand in the economic conflict by taking advantage of the fact that semiconductors require input factors that are almost entirely under Chinese control.

Despite the show of progress and professed optimism for a potential de-escalation in the Madrid trade talks, the US wasted no time to launch a series of trade and tech sanctions against China immediately afterwards, just like it launched the sneak attack on Iran shortly after its 5th round nuclear talks with Tehran.

  • The US Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) tightened its chip ban on China, expanding the embargo to cover all semiconductor related software and equipment sales to China, in an effort to completely choke off China’s ability for chip production
  • Washington expanded its entity list (i.e. black list) to deny high end sales to businesses outside of China that have 50% or more Chinese ownership
  • It announced a plan to charge million-dollar port fees for any Chinese-operated shipping companies, Chinese-made ships, or non-Chinese shippers with Chinese-made ships in their fleet or on their order books, in an effort to undermine China’s shipping building industry
  • Washington also put a 721% tariff on Chinese clean energy products such as solar panels
  • It imposed 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products and copper-intensive goods (e.g., wiring, batteries) under Section 232, targeting China’s dominance in EV/tech supply chains
  • It ended de minimis exemption for low-value packages, hitting e-commerce from Chinese platforms such as Temu and Shein

Faced with the bad faith from the Trump regime, China retaliated swiftly with a suite of counter actions:

  • Beijing published its latest restrictions on rare earth products to deny any sales of China-sourced rare earth magnets, processing technology, and equipment to foreign military and semi-conductor industry
  • It revoked import license for US lumber and soybeans. China was the biggest buyer of US soybeans in the past and accounted for over 50% its export. But it has ordered no purchase in 2025
  • Beijing announced it would charge reciprocal port fees for any US-operated or US-owned shipping companies. China runs 7 out of the world’s top ten container ports and has by far the highest port calls. Though the US builds few ships and few large shipping companies are US operated, US pension funds and asset managers own large shares in some of the world’s top shipping companies like Maersk which are now subject to the port fees. This move directly targets US financial interests
  • China also tightened up export of lithium ion and graphite anode, critical for green transformation
  • It expanded the unreliable list (China’s answer to the entity list) to cover more US defense contractors, tech firms, and critical mineral companies. It also launched anti-trust investigation against Qualcomm, a large US chip manufacturer

The latest tit for tats strongly indicates China is ready to move up the escalation ladder in its confrontation with the US on trade and technology issues.

In particular, Beijing’s enhanced rare earth restrictions are expected to deal a massive blow to high tech and military production in the US and its vassals.

In its embargo of chip technology against China, the US utilized the Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR) to block chip export to China if non-US made chips use any American technology, software, or equipment somewhere along the supply chain.

In essence, the FDPR allows US to claim jurisdiction to any products US technology touches even if it is made overseas such as the case with TSMC and ASML. The rule gives the US extraterritorial reach.

With the new rare earth restrictions, China flips the logic back to the US. Beijing has announced any non-Chinese companies operating anywhere must obtain Beijing’s approval to export rare earth magnets or semiconductors if those products contain Chinese original rare earth, or if they are produced using Chinese rare earth technology, process or equipment.

Beijing is denying all rare earth products, technology, equipment, and technical support to foreign end users it doesn’t approve.

The Chinese economic strategists understand that in an economic war, pain flows downstream. The US thought it was in the driver’s seat – and indeed, I assumed much the same due to the fact that the US economy would benefit greatly from refraining from importing goods from China and onshoring its now-absent industrial manufacturing capabilities.

But the stranglehold China has upon the materials required for modern warmaking materials, particularly drones and semiconductors, means that the USA will have to choose between its ability to make war and its ability to maintain the global Clown World economy. And for the first time, it is not possible for Uncle Sam to choose guns and butter.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Warns the USA

China is no longer content to permit the USA to throw its economic weight around without consequences.

Beijing has made it clear that it won’t yield to Washington’s latest tariff threats, urging the United States to seek a negotiated settlement instead of escalating tensions.

The warning came as part of an official statement released by China’s Ministry of Commerce on Sunday. The response followed US President Donald Trump’s plan to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese imports, citing Beijing’s new restrictions on rare earth exports – vital materials used in products from smartphones to fighter jets.

“China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it,” the ministry stated.

The Chinese people are even less inclined to submit to US posturing on trade and interference with Chinese affairs.

We are simply sick and tired of the nonstop demonization of anything related to China by the US. This export ban of rare earth minerals is just the start. If the US does not correct its course, and stop interfering our legitimate rights for development, then we will engineer global economic collapse. Do you really think you can take China down, without us taking you down too? After that, we will let our weapons do the talking.

I was on Chinese state television during President Trump’s first term. Back then, neither the economists nor the journalist believed that Trump would start a trade war with China, which I suspect is why the initial Chinese response to all of the US provocations were so mild and passive. But now, with the panoply of sanctions, direct and indirect, that are being imposed upon China, such as the attempt to ban flights over Russian territory from landing in the USA because it provides Chinese airlines with an advantage of European and US airlines that can’t fly over Russian territory, the Chinese have decided to start playing hardball.

And Larry Johnson explains why China is, contra the expectations of economists like me who were primarily looking at the overall trade picture, actually in a very strong position vis-a-vis the USA in a trade war.

Drones
China dominates the US commercial drone market, with Chinese firms supplying the vast majority of units.

  • Import Share: Approximately 80-90% of US commercial drones are Chinese-made, led by DJI (50-70% market share) and Autel Robotics (15%). US imports of Chinese unmanned aircraft dropped 58.9% from Jan-Nov 2023 to Jan-Nov 2024 due to tariffs and restrictions, but China still holds over 70% of the residual market.
  • Broader Reliance: In 2025, US tariffs reached 170%, tripling prices and slashing imports by up to 75%, yet no viable domestic alternatives have scaled to replace this volume. Military and consumer sectors remain vulnerable, with ongoing Section 232 investigations into national security risks.
  • Implications: Disruptions could halt 80%+ of commercial operations (e.g., agriculture, surveying), per CSIS analysis.

Drone Components
US drone manufacturing heavily relies on Chinese-sourced parts, complicating diversification efforts.

  • Supply Chain Dependence: China provides 70-90% of key components like motors, flight controllers, imaging equipment, and batteries. In 2024, China restricted exports of these to the US, causing price surges of 200-300% and supply shortages.
  • Recent Trends: By April 2025, combined US tariffs hit 170% on components, disrupting global chains; 15 Chinese firms were added to the US Entity List in October 2025 for supplying parts used in conflicts. Indirect reliance persists via third countries (e.g., Vietnam assembly).
  • Implications: The US military drone supply chain is “deeply dependent” on Chinese inputs, per Forbes, with domestic production lagging; restrictions weakened Ukraine’s drone capabilities as a proxy example.

Processed Rare Earth Minerals
Processed rare earths (e.g., oxides, compounds) are essential for electronics, EVs, and defense; China controls ~90% of global processing.

  • Import Share: China supplied 70% of US rare earth compounds and metals imports from 2020-2023, with 2024 estimates holding at ~70-77% (10.4 million kg total imports). Net import reliance dropped to 80% in 2024 from >95% prior years, thanks to minor diversification (e.g., Malaysia 13%).
  • Value and Volume: 2024 imports valued at $170 million (down 11% from 2023); apparent consumption ~6,600 tons.
  • Recent Trends: In 2025, China tightened export controls on seven elements, impacting US defense; US mined 45 kilotons but exports 95% for Asian processing.
  • Implications: 70-80% exposure leaves sectors like renewables and missiles vulnerable; USGS warns of supply risks.

So while the USA is in a stronger overall position and will benefit greatly from onshoring manufacturing and industrial capacity during a trade war, China is in a much stronger military position if the trade war becomes an actual war, either direct or by proxy.

DISCUSS ON SG