Chinese airlines grab market share from US and European carriers who have to fly around Russia
Inside China Business | August 15, 2024
US and European airlines are banned from Russian airspace, and so must route around the world’s largest country. This is causing much longer and costlier flights between North America and Europe, and destinations in Southeast Asia. Chinese, Korean, and Indian airlines still enjoy Russian overflight privileges, however, and can thereby offer shorter and less expensive fares. As a result, Chinese carriers are gobbling up markets and gates across international markets. Chinese airlines already operate with 30% lower costs on a passenger-mile basis compared to US- and European-flagged carriers, and their cost advantages only multiply after adjusting for the issues involving Russian airspace.
Resources and links:
Flight maps from Great Circle Maps http://www.greatcirclemap.com) and Reuters, Unfriendly skies:
How Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is redrawing air routes https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKRA…
A year into Russian airspace ban, flight costs and lengths are rising https://globalnews.ca/news/9645165/ru…
Flight Radar, Which major airlines are still flying over Russian airspace? https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wh…
British Airways axes one of its ‘most important’ routes amid Russian airspace ban https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/…
Reuters, British Airways to halt flights to Beijing from Oct. 26 https://www.reuters.com/business/aero…
Reuters, Foreign airlines lose interest in China as domestic carriers expand abroad https://www.reuters.com/business/aero…
Bloomberg, US Airlines Urge Officials to Block Additional China Flights https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…
Europe buying Russian oil via India at record rates in 2023 despite Ukraine war https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo…
Reuters, Airbus wins reprieve from Canadian sanctions on Russian titanium https://www.reuters.com/business/aero…
Closing scene, Qingdao Olympic Sailing Center and Lighthouse, Qingdao, Shandong
Iran’s oil production nears pre-sanctions levels: Report
The Cradle | October 4, 2024
Iran’s oil production is running at almost full capacity despite US sanctions, amid Israeli threats to target Tehran’s oil infrastructure in an expanded regional war, Bloomberg reported on 4 October.
The Islamic Republic’s oil output has reached 3.4 million barrels per day, just a few hundred thousand barrels below a previous high of 3.9 million.
After US President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions on Iran, Tehran’s production dropped as low as two million barrels per day.
Iran now sells much of its oil to China at reduced prices, as Beijing has been willing to ignore US sanctions seeking to block the sales.
“Iran is having success exporting thanks to a willing customer in China, the increased sophistication of illicit transportation channels, and the relatively low interest in the US to take action,” said Henning Gloystein and Greg Brew, analysts at Eurasia Group. “There’s a risk that Israel strikes Iranian oil facilities.”
According to Bloomberg, Tehran’s increased sales to China have taken place with the “tacit approval” of the White House, as US President Joe Biden and his advisors have eased sanctions enforcement to keep gasoline prices low.
In August 2023, before the wars in Gaza and Lebanon began, Bloomberg reported that “months of secretive diplomacy” between the US and Iran “have yielded progress on prisoner exchanges, the unblocking of frozen assets, and possibly even Iran’s enrichment of uranium. They also seem to have produced an informal arrangement on oil flows.”
Israel reportedly threatened to bomb Iran’s nuclear or oil facilities following Tehran’s large-scale missile attack on Israel.
Iran fired as many as 400 ballistic missiles at Israel on 1 October in retaliation for its killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut on 27 September.
In an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter, Biden said that his administration has been “discussing” possible Israeli plans to attack Iran’s oil industry in retaliation for the Iranian attack.
Bloomberg added that world oil prices jumped five percent on Thursday after Biden’s comment.
Now it’s oil: China, BRICS and OPEC+ build new trading system, locking out US suppliers and banks
Inside China Business | September 27, 2024
China and Iran developed a comprehensive energy market, involving shadow fleets of tankers and a system of rebranding oil for domestic use, or for further export to other Asian countries. Russia has since joined, after sanctions were placed on oil producers and banks there. The result is a parallel economy that now totals millions of barrels per day in shipments to China by OPEC+ countries, and a sharp decline in global demand from Western suppliers. The implications for US and European oil suppliers are very negative, as global crude prices are now far below profit breakeven levels. Already, US oil majors are shelving oilfield development projects, and reducing active rig count. Resources and links: Barrons, BP Says Oil Demand Is Falling, While OPEC Says It’s Rising.
What Gives? https://www.barrons.com/articles/bp-s…
Rigzone, JP Morgan Talks Global Oil Demand https://www.rigzone.com/news/jp_morga…
S&P, Barclays lowers 2024 Brent oil price forecast to $93/b on demand concerns https://www.spglobal.com/commodityins…
Oil Prices Poised To Climb in 2024 Amid Geopolitical Uncertainty https://www.investopedia.com/oil-pric…
CNBC, OPEC is highly bullish on long-term oil demand growth. Not everyone agrees https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/24/opec-…
NPR, Oil prices plunge as demand from China falls https://www.npr.org/2024/09/14/nx-s1-…
Zerohedge, What Sanctions? China Imports Record Amount Of Iranian Oil https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/what…
The axis of evasion: Behind China’s oil trade with Iran and Russia https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs…
Oil price charts from finviz.com/futures and Bloomberg https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ash…
US drillers cut oil and gas rigs for fifth week in six, Baker Hughes says https://www.xm.com/se/research/market…
Average WTI price needed for U.S. oil and gas producers to stay profitable by well status in selected U.S. oilfields as of 2024 https://www.statista.com/statistics/7…
Capital Expenditure (CapEx) Definition, Formula, and Examples https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/…
Economic Collapse & the Post-American World
By Glenn Diesen | October 2, 2024
Washington’s declining fiscal responsibility was not resolved after the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-09 as the US instead kicked the can down the road. The problem has subsequently grown in magnitude as the banking crisis caused by too much borrowing and spending was overcome by borrowing and spending even more to get the economy restarted.
More than 15 years of low interest rates have fueled many asset bubbles, caused malinvestments, ballooned the debt, and laid the foundation for another banking crisis. The US public is deeply indebted, the middle class is shrinking, and the national debt stands at 35,5 trillion dollars. The US now pays 1 trillion dollars a year in interest on this debt.
The contradictions in the economy are evident as the stock market continues a prolonged strong performance as new money is recklessly introduced into the system, while the real economy goes from bad to worse.
The next banking crisis will likely cause a dollar crisis as the US cannot significantly increase the interest rate to save the dollar without sinking the economy, and it cannot significantly reduce the interest rate to save the economy without destroying the dollar. The US simply lacks the tools to deal with the coming economic crisis.
Reversing the Decline Without Addressing the Underlying Problems
The US attempts to revive its economic competitiveness by subsidizing its industries, demanding geoeconomic loyalty from allies, and sabotaging the industries of rivals. Subsidies are financed by debt and there is subsequently a risk that the US will exacerbate the basic problems. The generous subsidies for its industries under the Inflation Reduction Act have encouraged German and other European industries to relocate to the US. Furthermore, disconnecting Europe from cheap Russian energy with sanctions and the destruction of Nord Stream also incentivised energy-intensive European industries to move across the Atlantic. As the war in Ukraine continues and the sense of insecurity in Europe grows, the US can convert European security dependence into geoeconomic loyalty as Europe is also told to decouple from Chinese technologies.
With the future of NATO at risk as the US sets its eyes on Asia, the Europeans attempt to increase their value to Washington by abandoning former ambitions to pursue strategic autonomy and “European sovereignty”, and instead subordinate national interests to the whims of Washington. The gains of Washington’s renewed influence on the old continent will come at a cost as Europe becomes weakened and less relevant, while political alternatives in Europe are increasingly winning elections by challenging Washington and Brussels.
The economic coercion against China to roll back its technological and economic development is failing. The disruptions to supply chains by for example banning the export of computer chips to China resulted in American tech giants such as Intel taking huge losses in terms of revenue and losing thousands of employees as their main customer was China. While the US cannot diversify away from China, China can diversify away from the US by enhancing its technological sovereignty and establishing new technological partnerships. This has striking similarities to the EU’s failure to sever its economic ties with Russia. Russia could diversify away from Europe by reorienting its economy to the East, while Europe could not diversify away from Russia as evidenced by Europe’s economic problems.
American efforts to reshore its production are also disrupted by Chinese counter-sanctions on for example rare earth elements. The US has also discovered that tearing up the supply chains developed over decades creates problems as new competitive supply chains will take many years to establish. The old house is demolished before the new house has been built.
Efforts of “friendshoring” by sourcing supplies from friendly countries such as India also have limited success. India responds to the increased demand by sourcing more materials and technologies from China, which increases the costs to the US and further intensifies India-China economic integration in BRICS. This also has similarities to the EU’s economic coercion against Russia, as the Europeans buy Russian natural resources at a higher cost through third parties. Russia sells some of its resources at a discounted price to its economic partners to make up for the risks of secondary sanctions, and this discount only further increases the competitiveness of Asia vis-à-vis the West.
The US is also unlikely to recover its industrial might due to the heavy financialization of its economy as rent-seeking activities in the economy make it impossible to compete with industrial economies such as China. While China built infrastructure to enhance the economic competitiveness of its companies, the US burdens its companies with many costs that do not contribute to the production process.
US competitiveness worsens as China continues to increase its competitiveness in high-tech, and the profits from the positive trade gap are reinvested in the form of subsidies. The industrial might of China enables innovations, while the growth of patents increases rapidly. These developments are also seen in the education sector as Chinese universities are becoming more competitive and many Chinese researchers in the US even return to China. While American universities still dominate in areas such as finance, law, psychology and marketing, Chinese universities have begun taking the lead for the real economy and thus attract foreign students. The US economy will likely face growing structural problems as an economy cannot be built on the financial activities from growing debt, suing each other, and treating the growing mental disorders.
Finding Solutions
Many of America’s problems derive from imperial overstretch as its economy cannot sustain its military and strategic commitments around the world. Resources are transferred from the core to the periphery, resulting in the degradation of infrastructure, growing economic inequality, social instability, and political polarisation and decline. The US economy, society and political system are exhausted and need deep restructuring and adjustment to the multipolar realities on the ground. The US is unlikely to make the necessary changes due to the prevailing ideology, demonisation of adversaries, crushing of dissent, and lack of political imagination for alternatives. The US will either default on its debt or pay back in devalued dollars by printing its way out of trouble.
There are no simple solutions to America’s economic problems, and we live in a time when political leaders respond to socio-economic complexities with ideological sloganeering and simplistic solutions. The US could have restructured its economy with for example ambitious industrial policies and restoring fiscal responsibility, without an aggressive economic war with China. However, this solution would have required the US to give up on its objective to preserve global primacy.
Too many economic disputes are instead militarised, and the expensive US military is itself overburdened with responsibilities around the world. As the US military transitions to confronting great powers, rival powers have another reason for why they should not invest in US Treasuries or use the dollar as this entails financing their own military containment. The attacks on China’s tech sector and the theft of Russia’s sovereign funds have sent shock-waves throughout the international system as all rules are seemingly suspended under the so-called international rules-based order.
A Post-American World
The rest of the non-Western world can see the coming disaster and is getting out of the splash zone. This is done by constructing a parallel international economic system with new supply chains, tech hubs, energy pipelines, a grain corridor, new commodity exchanges, new bimodal transportation corridors, development banks, digital currencies, payment systems, insurance systems and other important components of the international economy.
Much of the decoupling from the US, including de-dollarisation, is being facilitated by BRICS which creates the economic institutions for a multipolar world order. Historically, liberal international economic systems and free trade occur under an economic hegemony such as with Britain in the 19th century and the US in the 20th century as it creates incentives for the dominant state to embrace liberal economics to organise the world economy under its administration, which cements its economic and political power. BRICS attempts to form a vastly different economic system by accommodating a multipolar system through a “balance of dependence”, in which a multivector foreign policy and economic diversification enable states to avoid excessive dependence on any one state or region. It remains to be seen if BRICS can create a more benign international economic system that harmonises the interests of rival economies, or if it will descend into neo-mercantilism. Either way, the world is making arrangements for the post-American world.
US universities losing hundreds of billions as top Chinese scientists and researchers go home
Inside China Business | September 29, 2024
Research and Development (R&D) is a major profit center for the top universities in the United States. Besides the nearly $100 billion they earn in grants from the US government and private sources, university-based researchers create patents and inventions that generate many more billions annually.
China is the largest foreign source of scientists and researchers, and they are concentrated in the hard sciences and in engineering, where over 95% of R&D spending takes place. But since 2018, Chinese scientists are increasingly deciding to return to China to set up new research departments. Of those who are still in the US, over 60% admit they are strongly considering moving, and over half now refuse to work on projects that involve funding by US government sources.
To American universities, the loss of these scientists, along with future contributions to scientific research and commercial applications and market value, are incalculable. But losses probably already exceed a trillion dollars, given the departures of so many top scientists in Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, medicine, biochemistry, materials science, nanotechnology, and quantum computing.
Resources and links:
More Chinese Students Are Staying in China to Study https://erudera.com/news/more-chinese…
Surge in Chinese Scientists Leaving US for Home Institutions https://erudera.com/news/surge-in-chi…
Caught in the crossfire: Fears of Chinese–American scientists https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas…
Scientists of Chinese descent leaving the US at an accelerating pace https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/s…
Reverse Brain Drain? Exploring Trends among Chinese Scientists in the U.S. https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-…
Resources on the Patent Revenue Budget Model https://financeandbusiness.ucdavis.ed…
R&D Expenditures at U.S. Universities Increased by $8 Billion in FY 2022 https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24307
South China Morning Post, Nanotech pioneer Wang Zhonglin leaves US to work in China ‘full time’ https://www.scmp.com/news/china/scien…
SCMP, The Chinese scientists leaving top US universities to take up high-profile roles in China, boosting Beijing in its race for global talent https://www.scmp.com/news/china/scien…
Closing scene, Suzhou, Jiangsu
The Russia-China grains corridor will completely displace the US, Canada, Australia, and France
Inside China Business | August 31, 2024
Russia and China are developing a transnational grains corridor, connecting Russia’s enormous agricultural production to export markets in China, South Asia, and the Middle East. When complete, Russian production and shipments on this network will exceed 8 million tons per year. China is the world’s largest importer of wheat and grains, and in 2023 imported over 6 million tons of wheat from the United States, Canada, Australia, and France.
Large distribution hubs are being completed in China’s Northern and Central provinces, which will further transport Russian food exports within China, and on to other Asian countries.
The proposed BRICS grains exchange enjoys wide support across the bloc, and will accelerate the decoupling of Global South markets from the Western banking and trading systems, to the detriment of farmers in North America and Europe.
Resources and links:
The Sino-Russian Land Grain Corridor and China’s Quest for Food Security https://asiasociety.org/policy-instit…
BRICS countries back grain exchange idea, Russia says https://gulfbusiness.com/brics-countr…
Russia, China agree to build new grain hub on border https://www.world-grain.com/articles/…
Visual Capitalist, Visualizing the world’s largest consumer markets in 2030 https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-…
U.S. Dominance in Corn Exports on the Wane Due to Brazilian Competition https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/202…
The New Land Grain Corridor, website and infographics https://www.nlgc.ru/en/
Closing scene, Chinese rural area outside Guilin, Guangxi province
US Bets on Allies to Bail Out Crippled Shipbuilding Industry
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 21.09.2024
As the US pushes its “China threat” narrative and eyes a potential military conflict with the People’s Liberation Army, one of its vital defense industries – shipbuilding – is in a critical condition.
The US is betting on its ally South Korea to help bail out its crippled shipbuilding industry.
South Korean shipbuilding company Hanwha Ocean recently announced its acquisition of a former naval shipyard in Philadelphia.
Along with the shipyard deal, valued at $100 million, Hanwha secured its first maintenance and repair contract with the US Navy.
The US shipbuilding industry has become notorious for years-long delays and cost overruns. Washington’s allies South Korea and Japan are the world’s largest shipbuilders, and hopes are that they could boost production of both commercial and naval vessels.
But stark new figures show that even with support from Asian firms, it could take the US years to close the gap with China in maritime power.

- Last year, China had orders for 1,794 large commercial ships, South Korea had 734, Japan had 587 — but the US had just five.
- While China commands 40 percent of global commercial shipbuilding output, the US accounts for less than one percent.
- China had over 5,000 oceangoing commercial vessels in early 2023, while the US-flagged merchant fleet had only 177.
- China’s shipbuilding capacity is over 200 times that of the US, according to a US Naval Intelligence chart cited by media.
The struggle to prop up the floundering US shipbuilding base comes as the US Navy has released its plan for a potential military conflict with China by 2027.
Announcing the Navigation Plan for America’s Warfighting Navy, US Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Lisa Franchetti referred to China as a “pacing challenge” and a “complex, multi-domain and multi-axis threat.”
The plan includes streamlining maintenance for warships, submarines and aircraft, eliminating delays and restoring “critical infrastructure that sustains and projects the fight from shore.”
What has NATO’s ‘expansion’ vaunted by secretary general brought?
Global Times | September 21, 2024
Outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg boasted of his achievements during his tenure in his farewell speech on Thursday, claiming that in 10 years, the number of NATO soldiers on its eastern flank increased from zero to tens of thousands, the number of troops on high readiness rose from thousands to half a million, and the number of its allies spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense increased from three to 23. Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland and Sweden joined the alliance, deepening their relations with countries in the “Indo-Pacific region.” Stoltenberg also summarized five lessons that are key to NATO’s continued “success” in the future, urging the US and Europe not to engage in isolationism, declaring that “freedom is more important than free trade” and NATO “must not make the same mistake with China” as they did with Russia.
In the context of the ongoing poor European security situation, Stoltenberg’s self-boasting is somewhat like “taking the wrong script.” However, when reviewing Stoltenberg’s 10-year term, NATO’s “expansion” indeed stands out as a central theme. In addition to the points he mentioned in his speech, statistics showed that NATO’s military spending had increased by over 30 percent during his tenure, reaching a record $1.185 trillion in 2024. As a transatlantic military alliance, NATO also saw strategic, geographical, and content-based expansion under Stoltenberg’s leadership. Not only did it label China as a “systemic challenge,” repeatedly hyping up the “China threat” and accelerating NATO’s “Asia-Pacificization,” but it also incorporated issues like supply chains, technological and economic security into its agenda.
The key question is, apart from self-proclaiming NATO as being “strong, united and more important than ever,” what exactly have these expansions brought to the world? How much of the 30 percent increase in military spending has flowed into the pockets of the US military-industrial complex, how much security anxiety has been spread around the world, and how much of it has been at the expense of the livelihoods, well-being and social stability of Europe. Is it safer or less safe for NATO countries to provoke confrontation with China by following the US’ China strategy? Is it weal or woe to securitize and weaponize the industrial chain, supply chain, cyberspace and other fields, and inject NATO-style confrontational mentality into areas that could have healthy cooperation and interaction?
If we are to give a more serious and thorough assessment of Stoltenberg’s past decade in office, these are issues that cannot be ignored, and the answers are quite the opposite of the achievements he highlighted. With Europe now facing such a precarious security situation, what responsibility does NATO bear?
It was NATO’s expansion that sowed the seeds of the Ukraine crisis, and its extension into the Asia-Pacific region has exported geopolitical tensions beyond Europe. Under Stoltenberg’s leadership, NATO has further aligned itself with US strategic goals, and all of NATO’s shifts reflected US strategic intentions. The historical evaluation of Stoltenberg, beyond being the second longest serving NATO secretary general due to internal divisions within the alliance, will likely include his image as a “loyal executor” of Washington’s policies and its “vanguard.”
NATO should have ended with the Cold War, its survival and development have always relied on creating security anxieties and engaging in conflicts, repeatedly. On one hand, NATO claims to be a regional alliance, but on the other hand, under the guise of ensuring its own security, it continuously expands globally. It claims to be a defensive organization, yet in the name of defense, it promotes deterrence and stirs confrontation. Stoltenberg attempts to portray NATO as a protector of regional and even global security, but the rhetoric that “military strength is a prerequisite for dialogue” is merely another way of saying “Might makes right.”
On the surface, this speech looks much like a smug war readiness declaration left by Stoltenberg to NATO, but in fact, the words between the lines cannot hide NATO’s own dilemma and loss. Amid domestic political uncertainty in the US, what will the future of NATO be and where will Europe’s sustainable security lie? Behind Stoltenberg, European countries and the world are left with a more divided situation.
Actually, NATO’s 75-year history has proven that it has not made Europe or the world more peaceful and secure. The existence and continuous expansion of NATO have become the root cause of security dilemmas. On the contrary, “long peace” has been achieved in places with less NATO intervention and confrontational mentality. The value of Stoltenberg’s farewell speech and the expansion of NATO he boasted about lies in telling the world that the current world does not need a NATO that provokes camp confrontation and spreads a Cold War mentality, let alone a globally expanding NATO. We urge NATO to “retire” together with its outgoing secretary general, alongside the outdated concepts of Cold War mentality and zero-sum game, the wrong practices of advocating military force and pursuing “absolute security,” and dangerous behaviors that disrupt Europe and the Asia Pacific as soon as possible.
How Could Lebanon Blasts Affect Global Security and Attitude to Western Hi-Tech Producers?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 19.09.2024
A series of blasts reportedly involving Taiwanese, Japanese, American, and European-made devices in Lebanon on September 17 and 18 have prompted grave security concerns worldwide.
“Weaponizing mobile communications devices will fill many people with horror and fear,” Marc Ostwald, chief economist at ADM Investor Services International, told Sputnik. “It may, at the margin, dampen demand.”
The Lebanese government attributed the attack to Israel, accusing Tel Aviv of an outright act of terrorism.
Given almost “unconditional support” provided to Israel by some Western countries, some of them may have colluded with Tel-Aviv, said Hasan Abdullah, analyst and researcher at Global Security and Strategy Institute.
“The US is going to be the country that’s going to generate the greatest trust deficit with their customers, primarily because of its very close collaboration with Israel,” Abdullah told Sputnik.
The US has long been one of the largest suppliers of communication equipment, including for military needs, to the Global South, the pundit noted, adding that the recent blasts could alienate the developing world from Western producers.
Earlier, researcher Mehmet Rakipoglu and military analyst Alexei Leonkov told Sputnik they did not rule out US involvement in the Lebanon attack.
The Intercept reported on Wednesday that the US military had explored the possibility of planting remote-activated bombs in innocuous devices starting from the 1960s.
Middle East and other developing countries could eventually turn to Russian, Chinese or Turkish tech firms out of fear that the US involvement could compromise their security, Abdullah said.
Ostwald and Abdullah believe that several measures could be taken to stop the covert bombings, starting with investigations into manufacturing processes and ending with the deployment of international watchdogs to oversee production and supply.
US Restoring Military Infrastructure on Pacific Island to Project Power in Region – Reports

Sputnik – 17.09.2024
WASHINGTON – The United States is refurbishing military infrastructure on the Pacific island of Tinian as part of efforts to bolster power projection in the Indo-Pacific region, Newsweek reported on Tuesday.
The US cleared overgrowth on taxiways and runways previously built on the island during the Second World War, the report said, citing recent satellite imagery and Pacific Air Forces spokesperson Capt. Keith Peden.
The US Defense Department established three projects to develop airfield operations on Tinian as part of its Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which focuses on defense planning for a potential conflict with China.
The Pentagon seeks to add refueling, takeoff, landing and parking operations on Tinian, the report said.
The projects will support a variety of aircraft and enable the US Air Force to “rapidly deploy and sustain forces” in diverse environments for both routine and contingency operations, Peden said.
However, China strongly opposes US efforts to bolster forward deployments in the Indo-Pacific region, Chinese Embassy in the US spokesperson Liu Pengyu reportedly said.
