Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

What sanctions on Russia and China really mean

By       Message Pepe Escobar       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   6 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 7   Well Said 7   Valuable 4  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 10/19/18

Author 73066
Become a Fan
  (180 fans)

From Asia Times

- Advertisement -
The Pentagon may not be advocating total war against both Russia and China -- as it has been interpreted in some quarter

From en.kremlin.ru: Russian-China versus President Trump {MID-319605}
Russian-China versus President Trump
(Image by en.kremlin.ru)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

A crucial Pentagon report on the US defense industrial base and "supply chain resiliency" bluntly accuses China of "military expansion" and "a strategy of economic aggression," mostly because Beijing is the only source for "a number of chemical products used in munitions and missiles."

Russia is mentioned only once, but in a crucial paragraph: as a -- what else -- "threat," alongside China, for the US defense industry.

- Advertisement -

The Pentagon, in this report, may not be advocating total war against both Russia and China -- as it was interpreted in some quarters. What it does is configure the trade war against China as even more incandescent, while laying bare the true motivations behind the sanctioning of Russia.

The US Department of Commerce has imposed restrictions on 12 Russian corporations that are deemed to be " acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the US ." In practice, this means that American corporations cannot export dual-use products to any of the sanctioned Russian companies.

There are very clear reasons behind these sanctions -- and they are not related to national security. It's all about "free market" competition.

- Advertisement -

At the heart of the storm is the Irkut MC-21 narrow-body passenger jet -- the first in the world with a capacity of more than 130 passengers to have composite-based wings.

AeroComposit is responsible for the development of these composite wings. The estimated share of composites in the overall design is 40%.

The MC-21's PD-14 engine -- which is unable to power combat jets -- will be manufactured by Aviadvigatel. Until now MC-21s had Pratt & Whitney engines. The PD-14 is the first new engine 100% made in Russia since the break up of the USSR.

Aviation experts are sure that an MC-21 equipped with a PD-14 easily beats the competition; the Airbus A320 and the Boeing-737.

Then there's the PD-35 engine -- which Aviadvigatel is developing specifically to equip an already announced Russia-China wide-body twinjet airliner to be built by the joint venture China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corp Ltd (CRAIC), launched in May 2017 in Shanghai.

Aviation experts are convinced this is the only project anywhere in the world capable of challenging the decades-long monopoly of Boeing and Airbus.

- Advertisement -

Will these sanctions prevent Russia from perfecting the MC-21 and investing in the new airliner? Hardly. Top military analyst Andrei Martyanov convincingly makes the case that these sanctions are at best "laughable," considering how "makers of avionics and aggregates" for the ultra-sophisticated Su-35 and Su-57 fighter jets would have no problem replacing Western parts on commercial jets.

Oh China, you're so "malign"

Even before the Pentagon report, it was clear that the Trump administration's number one goal in relation to China was to ultimately cut off extended US corporate supply chains and re-implant them -- along with tens of thousands of jobs -- back into the US.

This radical reorganization of global capitalism may not be exactly appealing for US multinationals because they would lose all the cost-benefit advantages that seduced them to delocalize to China in the first place. And the lost advantages won't be offset by more corporate tax breaks.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 7   Well Said 7   Valuable 4  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why Putin is driving Washington nuts

You Want War? Russia is Ready for War

Why Qatar wants to invade Syria

All aboard the New Silk Road(s)

It was Putin's missile?

Where is Prince Bandar?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

5 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments


Cas

Become a Fan
Author 89699

(Member since Aug 31, 2013), 1 fan, 56 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Thank you,Pepe, for keeping me wide awake.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 20, 2018 at 12:40:03 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 

John Rachel

Become a Fan
Author 66223
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Jun 2, 2011), 43 fans, 67 articles, 2928 comments, 2 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

When people say that the U.S. is lacking a clear and comprehensive foreign policy, I have to say I completely disagree. Pictured here is the operational strategy of the U.S. in its relations with the rest of the world community.


Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 20, 2018 at 11:06:27 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (4+)
Help
 
Indent

Devil's Advocate

Become a Fan
Author 500650

(Member since Nov 9, 2014), 7 fans, 1646 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to John Rachel:   New Content

Is "someone else" holding the gun, or is this a solo effort? (It's not clear in the photo.) Then, when I think of it, does that matter?

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 20, 2018 at 4:41:12 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

John Rachel

Become a Fan
Author 66223
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Jun 2, 2011), 43 fans, 67 articles, 2928 comments, 2 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Devil's Advocate:   New Content

He's holding the gun himself, just as America is destroying its own standing in the world. I thought the perfect match in skin color between the hand and the face was the tip-off. If the hand had been orange, we would have known it was the Orange Maggot doing the dirty work.

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 21, 2018 at 1:23:51 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 21 fans, 3 articles, 16043 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to John Rachel:   New Content

So the US has a clear and comprehensive policy of destroying her standing in the world?

Your claims are getting more and more bizarre.

Submitted on Monday, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:04:01 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Alexander Kershaw

Become a Fan
Author 500827

(Member since Nov 25, 2014), 3 fans, 259 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Once again Pepe has shown a light through the smoke screen to inform America. The rest of the world knows the bluster of POTUS, whoever he may be, is for domestic consumption. Some of the people think that US foreign and domestic policy is meant to protect and serve the citizens of America. Some of the people believe that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, America has a special monopoly on understanding of science and technology that has to be protected.

Russia and China has defense technology that the US military cannot defeat and will not be able to for who knows how long, so any bluster by the POTUS is just that and the military knows it.

In 1963 I took an undergraduate course in Economic Geography out of curiosity and to fill requirements. We were taught that industrial economies needed 21 raw materials. The US had 9 the USSR had 19. That explained a huge amount of world history and still does. Russia and China needs the US less than the US needs them. But even a dying viper can inflict damage.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 20, 2018 at 3:42:54 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (4+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment