Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

🇺🇸🇨🇳 Beijing doesn’t necessarily need to confront Washington directly as the global order fractures. It can simply wait. “Never interrupt an enemy when he’s making a mistake.” While Washington increasingly relies on military and economic coercion, Martenson says China is offering countries an alternative built around trade, manufacturing and... show more

Mario Nawfal

3,891,216 subscribers

56,155 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Bildung Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🇺🇸 Chris Martenson argues that Washington made a catastrophic strategic error by assuming it could maintain “escalation dominance” over Iran while drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. His warning: Iran can simply wait. As global inventories fall toward “tank bottoms,” Martenson says the U.S. has put itself in a position where its adversaries effectively determine how quickly the SPR is emptied and when Washington can afford to rebuild it. “The Iranians dictate when the petroleum reserves will empty out and when the U.S. can start refilling them.” Chris Martenson

🇺🇸 Chris Martenson argues that Washington made a catastrophic strategic error by assuming it could maintain “escalation dominance” over Iran while drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. His warning: Iran can simply wait. As global inventories fall toward “tank bottoms,” Martenson says the U.S. has put itself in a position where its adversaries effectively determine how quickly the SPR is emptied and when Washington can afford to rebuild it. “The Iranians dictate when the petroleum reserves will empty out and when the U.S. can start refilling them.” Chris Martenson

Mario Nawfal

92,330 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

$🇺🇸🇨🇳 The next world order may not begin with a war. It may begin with China vetoing Washington at the UN while the U.S. discovers it no longer has the leverage to force the outcome it wants. Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar argues the U.S. is entering a multipolar era overstretched, politically fractured, and weaker than it admits, while Beijing quietly positions itself to shape the rules of what comes next. “Anyone that thinks that the U.S. military is strong and ready for anything is simply not informed.” @AnthonyAgu88102$

🇺🇸🇨🇳 The next world order may not begin with a war. It may begin with China vetoing Washington at the UN while the U.S. discovers it no longer has the leverage to force the outcome it wants. Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar argues the U.S. is entering a multipolar era overstretched, politically fractured, and weaker than it admits, while Beijing quietly positions itself to shape the rules of what comes next. “Anyone that thinks that the U.S. military is strong and ready for anything is simply not informed.” @AnthonyAgu88102

Mario Nawfal

90,569 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump just declared economic war on anyone keeping Iran alive. There's just one HUGE problem: China. Trump's “Economic D-Day” is an attempt to financially isolate Iran on a scale Washington says has never been attempted before. And Treasury Sec. Bessent made the objective brutally clear: They want to collapse the Iranian regime. That means targeting not just Iran, but the countries, banks and businesses that continue trading with it. Which brings Washington directly into collision with Beijing. China buys the overwhelming majority of Iran's shipped oil. So if Trump genuinely intends to economically strangle Tehran, eventually he has to answer the question everyone is asking: What happens when China refuses to stop? He faces two choices: Don't enforce the sanctions aggressively against China, and Tehran retains the economic lifeline Washington is trying to sever. Enforce them, and what began as an economic war against Iran starts becoming an economic confrontation with the world's second-largest economy. And China isn't Iran. Beijing has economic weapons of its own: Rare earths, manufacturing, critical supply chains, and, crucially, an alternative financial architecture it's spent years developing precisely because it never wanted Washington to possess a permanent veto over Chinese commerce. That's the part of this story that could become far more consequential than whatever happens in Hormuz. America's greatest economic weapon isn't an aircraft carrier, it's the dollar. Access to the dollar system gives Washington an extraordinary ability to punish governments, banks and companies almost anywhere on Earth. But that power only remains overwhelming for as long as the rest of the world has no viable alternative. Every time Washington weaponises it, it creates another incentive to build one. And Trump is now threatening to demonstrate that vulnerability on an enormous scale. China doesn't need to overthrow the dollar tomorrow; it just needs enough infrastructure to continue trading when Washington says: Stop, or else. And once that infrastructure exists, other countries gain access to the same insurance policy. Trump's war on Iran exposed the limits of American military power. His economic war may be about to expose the limits of America's financial power too. Brandon Weichert

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump just declared economic war on anyone keeping Iran alive. There's just one HUGE problem: China. Trump's “Economic D-Day” is an attempt to financially isolate Iran on a scale Washington says has never been attempted before. And Treasury Sec. Bessent made the objective brutally clear: They want to collapse the Iranian regime. That means targeting not just Iran, but the countries, banks and businesses that continue trading with it. Which brings Washington directly into collision with Beijing. China buys the overwhelming majority of Iran's shipped oil. So if Trump genuinely intends to economically strangle Tehran, eventually he has to answer the question everyone is asking: What happens when China refuses to stop? He faces two choices: Don't enforce the sanctions aggressively against China, and Tehran retains the economic lifeline Washington is trying to sever. Enforce them, and what began as an economic war against Iran starts becoming an economic confrontation with the world's second-largest economy. And China isn't Iran. Beijing has economic weapons of its own: Rare earths, manufacturing, critical supply chains, and, crucially, an alternative financial architecture it's spent years developing precisely because it never wanted Washington to possess a permanent veto over Chinese commerce. That's the part of this story that could become far more consequential than whatever happens in Hormuz. America's greatest economic weapon isn't an aircraft carrier, it's the dollar. Access to the dollar system gives Washington an extraordinary ability to punish governments, banks and companies almost anywhere on Earth. But that power only remains overwhelming for as long as the rest of the world has no viable alternative. Every time Washington weaponises it, it creates another incentive to build one. And Trump is now threatening to demonstrate that vulnerability on an enormous scale. China doesn't need to overthrow the dollar tomorrow; it just needs enough infrastructure to continue trading when Washington says: Stop, or else. And once that infrastructure exists, other countries gain access to the same insurance policy. Trump's war on Iran exposed the limits of American military power. His economic war may be about to expose the limits of America's financial power too. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

536,670 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

🇺🇸🇨🇳🇮🇷 Beijing's alternative payment networks aren't necessarily designed to kill the dollar. They're insurance. If Washington can threaten China with sanctions, tariffs and financial restrictions, China has an obvious incentive to build a system that makes those threats less effective. And that matters for Iran. Washington may be trying to use economic pressure to isolate Tehran, while its biggest economic partner is building ways to make that pressure harder to enforce. The irony is brutal: The more aggressively the U.S. weaponizes the financial system, the more incentive its rivals have to build a system that can operate without it. Brandon Weichert

🇺🇸🇨🇳🇮🇷 Beijing's alternative payment networks aren't necessarily designed to kill the dollar. They're insurance. If Washington can threaten China with sanctions, tariffs and financial restrictions, China has an obvious incentive to build a system that makes those threats less effective. And that matters for Iran. Washington may be trying to use economic pressure to isolate Tehran, while its biggest economic partner is building ways to make that pressure harder to enforce. The irony is brutal: The more aggressively the U.S. weaponizes the financial system, the more incentive its rivals have to build a system that can operate without it. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

64,262 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

🚨🇺🇸🇨🇳 China built enough electricity in ten years to match everything the United States has ever built. Chris Martenson talked about how much further China has gone in preparing for current times through self-sufficiency. "If someday China wakes up and says, until United States, until you settle down, we're just going to suspend trade for a while, you could just put an egg timer on our economy before it absolutely implodes." Chris Martenson

🚨🇺🇸🇨🇳 China built enough electricity in ten years to match everything the United States has ever built. Chris Martenson talked about how much further China has gone in preparing for current times through self-sufficiency. "If someday China wakes up and says, until United States, until you settle down, we're just going to suspend trade for a while, you could just put an egg timer on our economy before it absolutely implodes." Chris Martenson

Mario Nawfal

41,393 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🇺🇸🇨🇳 TRUMP HOLDS “HIGH CARDS” IN NEW CHINA TRADE STANDOFF As tensions rise between Washington and Beijing, Trump’s team is arguing that America has the upper hand in any trade showdown. The U.S. ran a $295.5B trade deficit with China last year, but they note that actually gives America leverage, since China relies more than ever on U.S. markets. While China could withhold rare earths and pharmaceuticals, U.S. officials say America could hit back harder, from plastics to Boeing parts and services, potentially grounding half of China’s fleet. The message: Beijing may bluster, but Trump’s White House thinks it’s holding the winning hand. Source: Fox News

🇺🇸🇨🇳 TRUMP HOLDS “HIGH CARDS” IN NEW CHINA TRADE STANDOFF As tensions rise between Washington and Beijing, Trump’s team is arguing that America has the upper hand in any trade showdown. The U.S. ran a $295.5B trade deficit with China last year, but they note that actually gives America leverage, since China relies more than ever on U.S. markets. While China could withhold rare earths and pharmaceuticals, U.S. officials say America could hit back harder, from plastics to Boeing parts and services, potentially grounding half of China’s fleet. The message: Beijing may bluster, but Trump’s White House thinks it’s holding the winning hand. Source: Fox News

Mario Nawfal

341,403 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Vance is making a very American mistake: he is confusing overlapping interests with obedience. China does not want the Strait of Hormuz turned into a toll booth. China does not want nuclear proliferation. China has reasons to keep relations with Washington stable. None of that means Beijing has agreed to help Washington strangle Iran. China knows what it means to be invaded, sanctioned, humiliated and told by stronger powers that submission is “responsibility.” That history matters. Beijing may pressure Tehran. It may demand restraint. It may refuse to endorse Iranian actions. But joining a stronger power to kick a country while it is fighting for economic survival is a very different thing. America keeps mistaking Chinese pragmatism for ideological surrender. That is usually where the miscalculation begins.

Vance is making a very American mistake: he is confusing overlapping interests with obedience. China does not want the Strait of Hormuz turned into a toll booth. China does not want nuclear proliferation. China has reasons to keep relations with Washington stable. None of that means Beijing has agreed to help Washington strangle Iran. China knows what it means to be invaded, sanctioned, humiliated and told by stronger powers that submission is “responsibility.” That history matters. Beijing may pressure Tehran. It may demand restraint. It may refuse to endorse Iranian actions. But joining a stronger power to kick a country while it is fighting for economic survival is a very different thing. America keeps mistaking Chinese pragmatism for ideological surrender. That is usually where the miscalculation begins.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

15,765 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

China just glanced at Bessent’s allegation over the $1.2 trillion trade surplus: “We never intentionally sought this.” Translation: The world should be thankful that China earned a $1.2 trillion surplus through trade, rather than the United States extracting a $1.2 trillion surplus through unilateral tariffs. And if Washington thinks China’s $1.2 trillion trade surplus is something the world “cannot allow,” then perhaps the world should also ask why it should tolerate more than $40 trillion in U.S. debt while Washington keeps borrowing, printing, sanctioning and expecting everyone else to absorb the consequences. Now Washington wants the G20 to help pressure China. One small problem: many of those same countries have been hit by Washington’s own unilateral tariffs. America slapped its partners first, then turned around and asked them to join the anti-China choir. Except China is not a passive target. Countries that join the pressure campaign will have to absorb China’s retaliation too. So the deal Washington is offering its allies is basically: First, let America tariff you. Then, help America contain China. Then, you absorb the Chinese retaliation. What a fucking alliance. China earned its surplus by selling the world things it wanted to buy. America built its leverage by making the world finance what Washington wanted to spend. Your trade deficit is not China’s moral obligation to fix. If you cannot compete, that is not China’s crime.

China just glanced at Bessent’s allegation over the $1.2 trillion trade surplus: “We never intentionally sought this.” Translation: The world should be thankful that China earned a $1.2 trillion surplus through trade, rather than the United States extracting a $1.2 trillion surplus through unilateral tariffs. And if Washington thinks China’s $1.2 trillion trade surplus is something the world “cannot allow,” then perhaps the world should also ask why it should tolerate more than $40 trillion in U.S. debt while Washington keeps borrowing, printing, sanctioning and expecting everyone else to absorb the consequences. Now Washington wants the G20 to help pressure China. One small problem: many of those same countries have been hit by Washington’s own unilateral tariffs. America slapped its partners first, then turned around and asked them to join the anti-China choir. Except China is not a passive target. Countries that join the pressure campaign will have to absorb China’s retaliation too. So the deal Washington is offering its allies is basically: First, let America tariff you. Then, help America contain China. Then, you absorb the Chinese retaliation. What a fucking alliance. China earned its surplus by selling the world things it wanted to buy. America built its leverage by making the world finance what Washington wanted to spend. Your trade deficit is not China’s moral obligation to fix. If you cannot compete, that is not China’s crime.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

35,708 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

Washington is Furious as China Moves Into Latin America ▶️ Watch the full video: 🔹China signals a strategic shift, not a routine update: Beijing’s new policy paper on Latin America and the Caribbean—its first major revision since 2016—frames the region as central to a changing global order, reflecting a more fragmented world and an open U.S.–China rivalry that challenges long-standing U.S. dominance under the Monroe Doctrine. 🔹Latin America positioned as part of the “Global South”: China explicitly casts the region as a political and strategic force in building a multipolar world, emphasizing a “community with a shared future,” opposition to hegemony, and the idea that the old, U.S.-led system is fading. 🔹Political alignment over ideology: Beijing stresses support for the One China principle, especially on Taiwan, while offering mutual backing on sovereignty. It seeks broad engagement not just with governments, but with legislatures, institutions, and political parties across the ideological spectrum, prioritizing long-term influence over ideological conformity. 🔹Economic sovereignty and de-dollarization: Beyond infrastructure and the Belt and Road Initiative, China is pushing reduced reliance on the U.S. dollar through local-currency trade, currency swaps, deeper central bank cooperation, and expanded Chinese financial institutions—laying groundwork for a parallel financial ecosystem. 🔹Expanding security and strategic ties: The roadmap includes deeper defense and security cooperation—military exchanges, training, disaster relief, counter-terrorism, and peacekeeping—framed under China’s Global Security Initiative as an alternative to U.S.-led security frameworks, signaling China’s ambition to be both an economic and security partner in the region.

Washington is Furious as China Moves Into Latin America ▶️ Watch the full video: 🔹China signals a strategic shift, not a routine update: Beijing’s new policy paper on Latin America and the Caribbean—its first major revision since 2016—frames the region as central to a changing global order, reflecting a more fragmented world and an open U.S.–China rivalry that challenges long-standing U.S. dominance under the Monroe Doctrine. 🔹Latin America positioned as part of the “Global South”: China explicitly casts the region as a political and strategic force in building a multipolar world, emphasizing a “community with a shared future,” opposition to hegemony, and the idea that the old, U.S.-led system is fading. 🔹Political alignment over ideology: Beijing stresses support for the One China principle, especially on Taiwan, while offering mutual backing on sovereignty. It seeks broad engagement not just with governments, but with legislatures, institutions, and political parties across the ideological spectrum, prioritizing long-term influence over ideological conformity. 🔹Economic sovereignty and de-dollarization: Beyond infrastructure and the Belt and Road Initiative, China is pushing reduced reliance on the U.S. dollar through local-currency trade, currency swaps, deeper central bank cooperation, and expanded Chinese financial institutions—laying groundwork for a parallel financial ecosystem. 🔹Expanding security and strategic ties: The roadmap includes deeper defense and security cooperation—military exchanges, training, disaster relief, counter-terrorism, and peacekeeping—framed under China’s Global Security Initiative as an alternative to U.S.-led security frameworks, signaling China’s ambition to be both an economic and security partner in the region.

Lena Petrova

26,281 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🇺🇸 The buffer between America and a real energy crisis is now measured in weeks. PhD economist Chris Martenson ran the numbers, and the math is unforgiving. He lays out the tiers of escalation and where the US actually stands: "Going to war with China, that would be an emergency. So that's one level." By his calculation, the cushion has thinned to a razor's edge. The only real question left, Martenson says, is whether the country has two weeks or fourteen days of breathing room. Chris Martenson

🇺🇸 The buffer between America and a real energy crisis is now measured in weeks. PhD economist Chris Martenson ran the numbers, and the math is unforgiving. He lays out the tiers of escalation and where the US actually stands: "Going to war with China, that would be an emergency. So that's one level." By his calculation, the cushion has thinned to a razor's edge. The only real question left, Martenson says, is whether the country has two weeks or fourteen days of breathing room. Chris Martenson

Mario Nawfal

44,841 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Iran just told the world that any country backing U.S. sanctions will be treated as an enemy at war. Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson says China is already signaling it won't comply, and Pakistan won't either since Iran is its primary oil and gas supplier. The sanctions coalition Washington is counting on may not exist. SonofNewAmericanRevolution

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Iran just told the world that any country backing U.S. sanctions will be treated as an enemy at war. Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson says China is already signaling it won't comply, and Pakistan won't either since Iran is its primary oil and gas supplier. The sanctions coalition Washington is counting on may not exist. SonofNewAmericanRevolution

Mario Nawfal

65,356 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

🇺🇸🇮🇷🇨🇳 The Iran conflict may have just accelerated the world Washington feared most. Brandon Weichert argues the war has been a strategic disaster for the U.S., with no clear path to victory and only one possible upside: forcing America to finally leave the Middle East militarily and focus on its own hemisphere. “At every level, this conflict with Iran in the Middle East has been a strategic disaster for the U.S. There is no win here.” He warns the real winner is China, because the crisis is helping birth a post-American, multipolar world where the U.S. remains powerful but no longer sits alone at the top. He frames the future as China-oriented, not necessarily China-run: a global order where countries orbit Beijing’s economic and political gravity without China having to become the world’s policeman. The U.S. burned power trying to manage the Middle East. China may inherit the influence without firing a shot. Brandon Weichert

🇺🇸🇮🇷🇨🇳 The Iran conflict may have just accelerated the world Washington feared most. Brandon Weichert argues the war has been a strategic disaster for the U.S., with no clear path to victory and only one possible upside: forcing America to finally leave the Middle East militarily and focus on its own hemisphere. “At every level, this conflict with Iran in the Middle East has been a strategic disaster for the U.S. There is no win here.” He warns the real winner is China, because the crisis is helping birth a post-American, multipolar world where the U.S. remains powerful but no longer sits alone at the top. He frames the future as China-oriented, not necessarily China-run: a global order where countries orbit Beijing’s economic and political gravity without China having to become the world’s policeman. The U.S. burned power trying to manage the Middle East. China may inherit the influence without firing a shot. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

73,341 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Jensen Huang says it has “largely conceded” China’s AI chip market to Huawei Nvidia was not rejected because China “hates” Nvidia. It was pushed out because Washington turned chips into a leash. China learned the lesson very clearly: You cannot build AI sovereignty on hardware that your geopolitical rival can revoke with one export-control memo. Jensen Huang can be friendly. Nvidia can be excellent. Chinese demand can be huge. None of that changes the strategic reality. If the neck of China’s AI industry depends on an American-controlled chip supply, then it is not an industry. It is a hostage. So China did what any serious civilization-state would do: It built alternatives. It endured the pain. It let Huawei grow into the space Washington forced open. Now Nvidia says it has “largely conceded” China’s AI chip market to Huawei. That is not China closing a door. That is America sawing off the bridge, then acting surprised when China built its own road.

Jensen Huang says it has “largely conceded” China’s AI chip market to Huawei Nvidia was not rejected because China “hates” Nvidia. It was pushed out because Washington turned chips into a leash. China learned the lesson very clearly: You cannot build AI sovereignty on hardware that your geopolitical rival can revoke with one export-control memo. Jensen Huang can be friendly. Nvidia can be excellent. Chinese demand can be huge. None of that changes the strategic reality. If the neck of China’s AI industry depends on an American-controlled chip supply, then it is not an industry. It is a hostage. So China did what any serious civilization-state would do: It built alternatives. It endured the pain. It let Huawei grow into the space Washington forced open. Now Nvidia says it has “largely conceded” China’s AI chip market to Huawei. That is not China closing a door. That is America sawing off the bridge, then acting surprised when China built its own road.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

235,707 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🇺🇸 🇷🇺 Freezing Russia's reserves in 2022 proved they were never sovereign, and the world adjusted permanently. Economic researcher Chris Martenson notes that foreign-held Treasuries mostly sit in custody accounts inside the United States, which makes blocking a sale straightforward: "It kicked off gold. It kicked off all the BRICS countries setting up their own settlement systems. I don't think we can ever reel that back in." America still runs an $800 billion trade deficit for goods it can't quickly make at home. Chris Martenson

🇺🇸 🇷🇺 Freezing Russia's reserves in 2022 proved they were never sovereign, and the world adjusted permanently. Economic researcher Chris Martenson notes that foreign-held Treasuries mostly sit in custody accounts inside the United States, which makes blocking a sale straightforward: "It kicked off gold. It kicked off all the BRICS countries setting up their own settlement systems. I don't think we can ever reel that back in." America still runs an $800 billion trade deficit for goods it can't quickly make at home. Chris Martenson

Mario Nawfal

30,496 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: "China🇨🇳 was supposed to develop in a way that is subservient to the United States🇺🇸 (they didn't)...now they have to be punished." China is a target for one reason and one reason only: China refused to develop its economy to resemble a colony of Washington. Instead it developed its economy to staggering heights with an alternative economic system, showing the world that American capitalism is not the only model for development left in the world after the collapse of Soviet communism. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, China refused to bend the knee to Washington’s hegemonic diktats. The US would rather go to war with China rather than allow it to surpass it economically, and any country that doesn’t obey US diktats is viewed as an enemy.

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: "China🇨🇳 was supposed to develop in a way that is subservient to the United States🇺🇸 (they didn't)...now they have to be punished." China is a target for one reason and one reason only: China refused to develop its economy to resemble a colony of Washington. Instead it developed its economy to staggering heights with an alternative economic system, showing the world that American capitalism is not the only model for development left in the world after the collapse of Soviet communism. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, China refused to bend the knee to Washington’s hegemonic diktats. The US would rather go to war with China rather than allow it to surpass it economically, and any country that doesn’t obey US diktats is viewed as an enemy.

Afshin Rattansi

380,783 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

💥 Carl Zha Explains How China Would Really Fight the United States 💥 Carl Zha argues that people fundamentally misunderstand how China approaches confrontation with the United States because they keep imagining a Hollywood-style military showdown where Chinese fleets sail around the world to fight America symmetrically. But China’s real strength is not global military projection. Its real strength is economic power, industrial dominance, and control over supply chains the U.S. itself depends on. That is why, when Washington escalated the tariff war and sanctions campaign, Beijing responded not by trying to mirror American military behavior, but by targeting areas where the U.S. is structurally vulnerable. Rare earth exports. Industrial supply chains. Access to materials essential for the F-35, Patriot missiles, and large parts of the American military-industrial complex. For example, China openly instructed companies operating inside China not to comply with U.S. secondary sanctions targeting Iranian oil trade. In other words, Beijing signaled that American law does not possess automatic extraterritorial authority inside China anymore. That is a major shift in the global balance of economic power. Carl Zha says China does not need to defeat the United States by copying the American model of empire. It fights where it is strongest: production, industry, trade, and economic leverage. Because in a world still dependent on Chinese goods, Beijing understands that economic warfare may matter more than aircraft carriers. .Carl Zha .Syriana Analysis

💥 Carl Zha Explains How China Would Really Fight the United States 💥 Carl Zha argues that people fundamentally misunderstand how China approaches confrontation with the United States because they keep imagining a Hollywood-style military showdown where Chinese fleets sail around the world to fight America symmetrically. But China’s real strength is not global military projection. Its real strength is economic power, industrial dominance, and control over supply chains the U.S. itself depends on. That is why, when Washington escalated the tariff war and sanctions campaign, Beijing responded not by trying to mirror American military behavior, but by targeting areas where the U.S. is structurally vulnerable. Rare earth exports. Industrial supply chains. Access to materials essential for the F-35, Patriot missiles, and large parts of the American military-industrial complex. For example, China openly instructed companies operating inside China not to comply with U.S. secondary sanctions targeting Iranian oil trade. In other words, Beijing signaled that American law does not possess automatic extraterritorial authority inside China anymore. That is a major shift in the global balance of economic power. Carl Zha says China does not need to defeat the United States by copying the American model of empire. It fights where it is strongest: production, industry, trade, and economic leverage. Because in a world still dependent on Chinese goods, Beijing understands that economic warfare may matter more than aircraft carriers. .Carl Zha .Syriana Analysis

Kevork Almassian

37,107 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🇺🇸 The energy crisis is about to start hitting the real economy The Iran war is no longer just an oil-price story. Chris Martenson argues the global energy system is running out of spare capacity at precisely the wrong moment. Russia has gone from exporting roughly 1.1 million barrels per day of diesel to becoming an importer, while China has reduced output from some independent refiners. The result, Martenson says, is a structural diesel shortage. American refineries are now running at roughly 97.6% utilization. “That’s as high as you can go.” And they cannot stay there indefinitely. Maintenance eventually has to happen, tightening supply further. Meanwhile, traffic through Hormuz has fallen to its lowest level since May, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is approaching its statutory drawdown limit, and Martenson says no meaningful refilling has taken place. This is where the problem leaves the trading screen. Diesel feeds trucking, ports, agriculture and almost every physical supply chain underneath the economy. “When you don’t have energy, you don’t have an economy.” Martenson isn't predicting America simply runs out of fuel. His warning is more mundane, and probably more dangerous: energy becomes expensive enough that everything else starts breaking around it. Chris Martenson

🇺🇸 The energy crisis is about to start hitting the real economy The Iran war is no longer just an oil-price story. Chris Martenson argues the global energy system is running out of spare capacity at precisely the wrong moment. Russia has gone from exporting roughly 1.1 million barrels per day of diesel to becoming an importer, while China has reduced output from some independent refiners. The result, Martenson says, is a structural diesel shortage. American refineries are now running at roughly 97.6% utilization. “That’s as high as you can go.” And they cannot stay there indefinitely. Maintenance eventually has to happen, tightening supply further. Meanwhile, traffic through Hormuz has fallen to its lowest level since May, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is approaching its statutory drawdown limit, and Martenson says no meaningful refilling has taken place. This is where the problem leaves the trading screen. Diesel feeds trucking, ports, agriculture and almost every physical supply chain underneath the economy. “When you don’t have energy, you don’t have an economy.” Martenson isn't predicting America simply runs out of fuel. His warning is more mundane, and probably more dangerous: energy becomes expensive enough that everything else starts breaking around it. Chris Martenson

Mario Nawfal

277,693 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

‼️🇺🇸🇨🇳 Blinken’s Stark Warning: America Alone May Not Beat China Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered a blunt assessment of the global balance of power: “If we’re competing with China one on one, that’s a game that we may lose.” Blinken pointed to the scale of China’s advantages: A larger domestic market Manufacturing output roughly three times that of the U.S. Higher purchasing power parity More scientific papers and patents The world’s largest navy by ship count His conclusion: the United States cannot outmatch China alone. But when Washington aligns with Europe, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and Canada, the equation changes dramatically. Together, that coalition represents 50–60% of global GDP, creating an economic and technological bloc that Beijing cannot easily challenge. Blinken’s message was clear: America’s greatest strategic advantage is not acting alone, it is leading an alliance too large for China to ignore.

‼️🇺🇸🇨🇳 Blinken’s Stark Warning: America Alone May Not Beat China Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered a blunt assessment of the global balance of power: “If we’re competing with China one on one, that’s a game that we may lose.” Blinken pointed to the scale of China’s advantages: A larger domestic market Manufacturing output roughly three times that of the U.S. Higher purchasing power parity More scientific papers and patents The world’s largest navy by ship count His conclusion: the United States cannot outmatch China alone. But when Washington aligns with Europe, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and Canada, the equation changes dramatically. Together, that coalition represents 50–60% of global GDP, creating an economic and technological bloc that Beijing cannot easily challenge. Blinken’s message was clear: America’s greatest strategic advantage is not acting alone, it is leading an alliance too large for China to ignore.

War Radar

88,090 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten