X Close

The age of empire is back The battle over raw materials will decide who rules the world

China is winning the fight over who controls rare earth metals (Photo by Vadim SavitskyTASS via Getty Images)

China is winning the fight over who controls rare earth metals (Photo by Vadim SavitskyTASS via Getty Images)


February 17, 2021   6 mins

Later this year, a Royal Navy carrier group centred on the fleet’s new flagship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will leave Portsmouth for the Far East, on a mission to fly the flag in Britain’s new Indo-Pacific area of strategic focus and, we are told, to “confront” China. With its complement of new British-made F-35 jets, the Queen Elizabeth will be Britain’s most significant asset for projecting power overseas. It is darkly ironic then that, like the global economy more generally, the F-35 itself is dependent on Chinese manufacturing to function. 

Chiefly, the F-35 relies on rare earth elements, or REEs, to operate. Its jet engines are coated with yttrium-enhanced ceramic to achieve supersonic speeds, and it requires powerful magnets made from neodymium for its weapons systems to function. Each F-35 jet contains 417kg of rare earth elements, of which between 90% and 95% of the world’s supply is sourced from China. Between 60% and 75% of the world’s supply of finished rare earth magnets is also produced in Chinese factories. 

So fragile is this supply chain, and so dependent on continued free trade with China, that the Pentagon has begun to stockpile a six-month supply of rare earth magnets in case of an emergency, with experts urging the US to invest in domestic manufacturing capacity “so if we go to war with China, we’re not calling them up asking for supply”. America’s new “National Defense Authorization Act” now calls for urgent action from the Pentagon to ensure that the majority of its REEs are sourced from countries other than China within five years.

Rare earth elements are not especially rare — they are more common than gold, for example — but they are present in the earth in microscopic concentrations, making it laborious and costly to extract and refine them. It takes between ten and fifteen years to establish the infrastructure to mine and process them: left to the logic of the free market, there is no case to do so, as it is simply cheaper to import REEs from China. The Chinese government, thinking in strategic rather than narrowly economic terms, has ploughed huge sums into developing the country’s domestic REE production infrastructure, and in doing so has established a system of Western dependency. 

Surveying the global scene just a few years ago, any sensible observer would have noted that there were three potential stumbling blocks to the continued smooth functioning of the globalised economy: a global pandemic, the eruption of great power competition edging into conflict, and catastrophic climate change. The Covid crisis, as a worldwide but not especially lethal pandemic, has raised awareness of the fragility of global supply chains and the strategic necessity for domestic manufacturing capacity in multiple sectors. Yet it is the intersection of the two other risks, climate change and great power conflict, that will shape the world of our near future. 

With the great industrialised power blocs now redirecting their economies towards the “green transition”, with some form of Green New Deal now the dominant medium-term economic model for Britain, the United States, China and the EU, the supply of rare earth elements and other minerals strategically vital to the new economy will become a new arena for global competition. Just as the wars of the 20th century saw wrangling for control of oil resources, the conflicts of the 21st century will seek to establish control of the elements necessary for the new technologies to function.

Green politics seems inextricably tied, in the popular imagination, with a form of utopian optimism derived from the unworldly idealism of the parties who promote it. Yet perhaps we are looking at the various Green New Deal proposals the wrong way: there is already a great deal of scepticism about their capacity to meaningfully arrest catastrophic climate change. But if we reinterpret the Green New Deal as primarily a means to restart a sluggish global economy after decades of stagnation, a gigantic form of Keynesian stimulus analogous to the New Deal after which it is named, or to the Trente Glorieuses during which a shattered post-war Europe rebuilt itself, its appeal to global policymakers compared to the alternatives of either degrowth or the status quo makes sense. 

A perception of the various Green New Deals as a collection of industrial policies derived from strategic and economic self-interest, as opposed to wooly-minded idealism, has not yet filtered through to the British commentariat. A Times comment piece last weekend, for example, laments the lack of favour purportedly shown by the Government towards the City, and asserts that “the new-found enthusiasm for industrial strategies, which promoted favoured sectors such as self-driving cars, artificial intelligence and green energy almost at random,” is merely the product of a crude anti-banker populism unique to this country, rather than what it is: a new phase of global capitalism, perhaps as significant as the Industrial Revolution in scope, which will reshape the entire global order.

Though it has barely impinged on the popular consciousness, we are already witnessing a new “Great Game” as industrial economies seek to secure their control of elements like lithium, essential to the production of the lithium-ion batteries which are rapidly turning electric vehicles from an expensive toy into the affordable, and soon dominant, mode of transport. China already manufactures 73% of the world’s supply of lithium cell batteries, far ahead of the United States, which comes second with a mere 12%.  Yet China is not content with this vast disparity in its favour, and is buying up controlling stakes in lithium mines from Australia to Bolivia, seeking to control the global supply and establishing yet another structural pattern of Western economic dependence on Chinese manufacturing.  

With cobalt and manganese too, both elements vital to the production of lithium-ion cells, China possesses only 1% of global supply within its borders, but controls 80% of the global production of refined cobalt. Two-thirds of the world’s cobalt supply is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo: China owns eight of the country’s fourteen cobalt mines.

It is striking that while in Western countries, environmental policy has been until now limited to debating whether or not climate change is actually happening, and in the construction of an elaborate and largely meaningless system of carbon trading on the open market, Chinese policymakers have seen the future, and taken concrete steps to ensure that they control it.

It is, then, not far-fetched to imagine the Cold War between China and the United States, the initial stages of which we now live in, manifesting itself in an increased focus on and intervention in the politics of countries like Bolivia or the DRC. Myanmar, for example, mines around half of China’s supply of rare earth elements: its internal politics are therefore a matter of major strategic concern for China, and China’s leadership will aim to ensure a smooth and stable relationship with whoever controls the country, whatever their chosen system of government. This pattern will surely play out across the world, with climate change and the global order being fated to intersect, but what is the political end state? 

One strange and interesting recent book, Climate Leviathan, is a rare attempt to construct a non-utopian vision of the future political order deriving from both climate change and the industrial efforts to mitigate it. Taking their cues from the emphasis on sovereignty driving the political works of both Hobbes and Carl Schmitt, the authors, academics Geoff Mann and Joel Wainwright, assert that the logic of the Green New Deal, as of liberalism itself, ultimately leads towards global governance, the “Leviathan” of the title, which was perhaps always the endpoint of liberalism, as “all liberalism secretly anticipates a world government on the horizon of history”.

“A planetary green Keynesianism,” they write, “the only kind that might have a hope of confronting the problem in its scale and magnitude, is thus forced down one of two planetary paths — both of which lead, ultimately, to the same destination”: a form of Kantian perpetual rule under the hegemony of, most probably, the United States. By asserting both the urgent necessity of reordering the world in order to save it, and its own unique capacity to do so, the US will simultaneously assert itself, in Schmittian fashion, as global sovereign. 

“A US-centered Climate Leviathan like this could conceivably last a long time,” they predict, “since any attempt to defeat the United States militarily would also seem to unsettle the very management of life of Earth. Attempts to resist US hegemony would be treated as treasonous ‘terrorism’ of an extreme type, confronted with overwhelming military technology.”

Yet America does not necessarily possess the mandate of heaven: “we could see world war between two spheres of influence, leading to a collapse in the world system, or the consolidation of Climate Leviathan through collaboration between the United States and China [instead of] a US-centric Leviathan.”

It is very possible to envisage, they observe, Earth being divided into two great spheres of influence in a grand bargain between a declining United States and a rising China, a division of “the world system in a sort of grand compromise that includes shared planetary management, a “G2” concentration of the existing order bilaterally constituted to save life on Earth.”

Whether or not this vision is convincing, the urgency of theorising the politics of the emerging global system ought to be clearly apparent. Concrete action to mitigate climate change does not necessarily herald a new age of global cooperation against a shared threat: the Green transition is just as likely, if not more, to be a new arena of international friction and competition, against a darkening backdrop of ever-accelerating climate doom. 

The competition for the strategic resources of the new global economy, no doubt to be framed as ideological contests between liberal democracy and autocracy or between anarchic barbarism and human rights, will surely shape the world for the rest of our lifetimes. Whatever the merits of the Queen Elizabeth carrier group’s deployment to East Asia, the rare earth elements buried deep within the airframes of its showpiece fighter jets points to an unglamorous, but urgently necessary task for the government: to ensure that Britain secures its access to the minerals vital to the new technologies, and in doing so, safeguards our national security in the dawning age of great power competition.


Aris Roussinos is an UnHerd columnist and a former war reporter.

arisroussinos

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

118 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

It has proved impossible to reply to this essay, despite 13 attempts.

What has happened to UnHerd? Or is it now Unspoken?

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

This.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

George. I suggest that if this site continues as it is today it is much easier to invest in a bluetooth mouse. The edit function still works but you need the precision of a mouse to make it more user-friendly.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Thank you! How could I have missed the invisible coronavirus-shaped blob concealing the edit function?
(It’s hiding at the bottom right of your comment, if anyone else has failed to find it!)
PS Sometimes it isn’t hiding! Why it should be visible for some comments but not for others is beyond my fathoming.

Last edited 3 years ago by Ian Perkins
Neil Papadeli
Neil Papadeli
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

Not sure. I was banned for 3 weeks. No communication or explanation, no idea why. Nor notification that I could comment again. Weird.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Neil Papadeli

Thanks. I had better watch out.

Tom Hawk
Tom Hawk
3 years ago

What is said is all very good until one tries to put it into practice. Any hint of extracting REE is instantly faced with a BANANA or NIMBY group saying it’s not sustainable or eco friendly to win and work minerals from our hallowed “countryside”.

These days the cost of getting past the council workers and obtaining planning permission can actually match the physical expense of digging the minerals out the ground. Faced with such expense, we have to accept that we must rely on our potential adversaries for the supply of essential raw materials.

Of course the irony is that whilst we copper plate our environmental credentials to the point of financial ruin, the competition doesn’t bother with any such niceties to the extreme detriment of the environment.

Last edited 3 years ago by Tom Hawk
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Hawk

China is the biggest investor in renewables and will dominate the market on green-tech because western countries (esp. UK) have failed to capitalise on the huge green-tech market which is emerging.

Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Bell

They may be the biggest investor in renewables, I don’t know if they are or not, but what I do know is that they are by far the greatest emitter of carbon dioxide, and their voracious development involves ever more coal fired power stations being built. What is more they are exporting the technology and right now they are constructing about 44 Gigga watts of coal fired electricity generating stations around the world, probably mostly in Africa, in client states of theirs. When you consider that these new generating stations being built abroad, amount to more than the total generating capacity of the UK these days, you may get the picture about how focused on renewables the Chinese are. China is still building new coal power stations within its own borders.
All of this makes our own economy destroying decarbonisation plans look like national suicide.

Last edited 3 years ago by Tom Fox
larry tate
larry tate
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

Sorry, but you are terribly wrong. China is the biggest investor in renewables in the world, and it will keep being that because they have the money and the policy. Of course they are still building coal fired power stations, but that is just to keep them growing at full speed whilst the renewables take over later on. ItÂŽs the vision thatÂŽs making the difference, and in that respect, the Chinese are years light from us here in the West.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
3 years ago
Reply to  larry tate

The Chinese are not interested in renewables taking over in China. They’re just interested in selling them to the green, hairshirt-wearing, gullible idiots in the West.

Mike Bell
Mike Bell
3 years ago
Mike Bell
Mike Bell
3 years ago
Reply to  larry tate

You are right, Larry, but the anti-China propaganda machine has been so effective recently that most Western people can only see an ‘evil China’. Sure there is ‘bad stuff’. My understanding is that many of the coal-fired stations in China may never be used – something to do with decentralised planning some years ago.
We will probably have to wait till the massive efforts being made in China on renewables becomes more obvious before folks here will be prepared to listen.
Have you seen the hillsides covered in solar panels? Also required on the roofs of all tall buildings etc.

Nick Whitehouse
Nick Whitehouse
3 years ago

With all the problems that renewables will cause, perhaps it would be better for Britain to rely on its own resources.
I have an idea, how about coal?
We have plenty of it and it does not reply on whatever China does!!

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago

But do we any longer have the men prepared to do the job?

Allan Dawson
Allan Dawson
3 years ago

Would if you paid ’em…decent money from a stable job or working in a ZHC, NMW job in a call centre…or a ‘gig economy job’ that doesn’t pay enough to allow someone to save cash…

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago

“Renewables”…wind and solar et al, cannot power the server economy that the Green proponents are so invested in-I mean, Bitcoin alone uses more power than Argentina, and I have friends-many elderly- in Texas who have had no power for 3 days now in a freak winter storm that froze wind turbines and coated solar panels-the “renewables” that supply approx. 20% of grid power.

Simon Baker
Simon Baker
3 years ago
glenn gordon
glenn gordon
3 years ago

that is a big crystal ball.

Mary Bruce
Mary Bruce
3 years ago

Fed up with this new way of doing things. The old Unherd was excellent. Sad.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Mary Bruce

Truly-I like to see who is up and down voting. How does one do that with this new system?
I think that we may have lost some good contributors (in comments), many who read and vote but don’t often post.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

That was my thumbs-up. I liked that feature too.

Greg T
Greg T
3 years ago

While I haven’t read the book this article discusses, I can’t help but think the author is stuck in a resource based mentality that will have far less bearing on the green/circular economies of the future.

Yes, countries will need rare earth elements and yes that may be an issue if there is a complete Chinese monopoly. We will need neodymium for our wind-turbine generators to power our economies. The key difference is that when it comes time to replace or update your turbine, your neodymium is still there. The same is true for nearly all rare earth uses.
Cobalt is an interesting case as although the majority of it is used in high energy batteries (although this may change) a massive amount of it is also used to refine petroleum. And once you’ve burnt it along with your oil precursor, you can’t get your cobalt back so you need to go and dig up some more in the Congo (or get a child to do it for you).

To highlight what resources will become geopolitically valuable in the future is a point well taken. What has not been said is how potentially destabilising (or the reverse?) the newly afforded energy and resource self-sufficiency paradigm will have on countries who can fully utilise a green and circular economy.
This isn’t hippy shit anymore.

Mike Finn
Mike Finn
3 years ago
Reply to  Greg T

It’s a fair point to make. This might soon be true for some of our more traditional minerals, but it will likely be many years yet (and a lot of technological advances) before we have more rare earths out of the ground than we need to supply the increasing global demand. For the foreseeable future mining of these will remain of key geopolitical importance, though this itself should of course stimulate advances in alternatives, more efficient use, reuse and recycling.

Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
3 years ago

Well then, it’s might be time to 1) put an urgency into research & develop alternative products to such elements ( the west collectively HAS developed several vaccines at a record breaking pace) or 2) have a strategy to bring this industry home or 3) to curb our runaway desires for development & growth in the traditional sense . After all if you don’t feed the machinery that is China ….

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago

Re number 2, Donald Trump wanted to buy Greenland, which apparently has rare earth deposits.

Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

He may have wanted to buy it, but unsurprisingly, it is not for sale.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

Why unsurprisingly?
There are plentiful precedents: Alaska, Louisiana. Corsica, Russian California, the Dauphinois to name but a few.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

When Trump mooted the Greenland purchase there was a very good article by a Dane suggesting the sale would make very good sense from Denmark’s point of view.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

What were the views of Greenlanders?

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

Couldn’t wait for it.

Marcus Scott
Marcus Scott
3 years ago

It is not the microscopic quantities of rare earth processing that gives China a cost advantage. It is, largely, the fact that Chinese producers can operate with total disregard for local environmental damage. I mean actual environmental damage, not a Greta fantasy about CO2.
As to who “controls” these resources and whether Britain should “secure” access to these minerals I would ask precisely what is meant by these words?
In the event of any serious conflict with China it will be some months before any life changing impact is felt in the US of the UK if China stops the export of processed rare earths. If the importation of oil, coal and iron ore to China is stopped the impact will be immediate and severe. If there is military conflict what name is written on a share certificate for a mine in the DRC is of no consequence. What is of consequence is who physically controls the resource.
During WWII a mine in the Belgian Congo provided the uranium needed to build the atomic bombs. The local manager had the foresight to send almost his entire stockpile of uranium to a warehouse in New York in 1940 and, soon after, the US sent forces to the Congo to secure the mine. The mine had various Belgian shareholders who, in theory, the German government could have pressured to stake their claim to the uranium stockpile and assets. But at the point no one cared what the share certificates said. The US military controlled the mine and the uranium was heading to one country only.
Leaving aside actual conflict with China, it is in the interest of consumers that more rare earth processing plants are established. We can have rare earth processing in the UK and all we have to do is scrap all environmental regulations and lower the price of energy drastically. You have to make a choice, do you want to do these grubby industrial processes in your own country or would you prefer to export the environmental damage to another country or would you prefer to provide massive taxpayer/consumer subsidies to industry so that it can operate with a much higher cost base than in China with processing is not excessively environmentally damaging.
It is as simple as that.

Last edited 2 years ago by Marcus Scott
Allan Dawson
Allan Dawson
3 years ago
Reply to  Marcus Scott

You have to make a choice, do you want to do these grubby industrial processes in your own country or would you prefer to export the environmental damage to another country or would you prefer to provide massive taxpayer/consumer subsidies to industry so that it can operate with a much higher cost base than in China with processing is not excessively environmentally damaging.”
And for decades HMG has wanted those sorts of jobs exported overseas….

Sean Meister
Sean Meister
3 years ago

It’s the Chinese century simply because the West abrogated any sense of reality and the Chinese, in their industriously rational way, were all too happy to fill the void. There was a time when the West would be the global hegemon on all things science and energy, no longer. Our own elites are to blame.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

Europe will continue to give up its industry and get poorer and poorer. China will give up nothing and get richer and richer. The USA will struggle internally, especially if Mr T returns.
(We had a Mrs T and now there is a Mr T. Are they related?)

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Ahhh-a new wrinkle on TDS.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Mr T was America’s last hope.

Nigel H
Nigel H
3 years ago

Why care whether we have any resources to build a better future? Or the energy infrastructure to recycle what we currently have? As long as we are using the correct pronouns, that’s the main thing.
To the author of this article, reasonable effort, but it’s nickel and chromium which are the strategically important elements – 4/10 – must try harder


Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago

British-made F-35 jets?
“The F-35 features a significant chunk of British built components, with up to 10-15% of every jet sold being built or developed in Britain.”
UKDefenceJournal dot org dot uk

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

Do they mean the Ejector Seat?

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

I was wondering what the author meant by “With its complement of new British-made F-35 jets, the Queen Elizabeth will be Britain’s most significant asset for projecting power overseas.” Perhaps the Queen Elizabeth is equipped with British-made projector seats?

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

Projector seats? Is there time for in-flight videos?

David Bottomley
David Bottomley
3 years ago

I tend to think that the ‘Green’ element is a bit irrelevant and that the ‘battle ‘ between East and West was coming anyway. The Green aspect is just one ground on which this tussle will and is already taking place as the West slowly wakes up to the fact that in the pursuit of cheap Labour and goods to sustain its dream of ever increasing prosperity it has in fact been feeding a now very powerful competitor. A competitor whose prosperity has increased massively while the West can only claim marginal increases in prosperity for the vast majority of its citizens.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

Difficult to see us divided into two great spheres of influence because of the weakness of the USA. As China continues to grow and US citizens continue to lose blue collar jobs there will be such a reaction in the USA that the politicians will have to do something. They will have to create a series of incidents which will escalate until….. one side backs down.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I find it hard to see China backing down, as in ceasing to grow, in order to appease US blue collar workers. US companies have exported their jobs; it’s essentially an internal US problem. I also don’t see how China ceasing its growth would necessarily benefit them.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

When I said ‘until ……. one side backs down’ I was suggesting this as an alternative. I was afraid that the other alternative would be edited out.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Aha! “escalate until
.. one side backs down” as a euphemism for “escalate until
.. one side attacks the other.” One way to get around the censors, I suppose. Still, I agree it’s an all too possible scenario.

Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

Absolutely. This matter of jobs and industry is not a matter of warlike behaviour. It was US companies and US politicians who exported those jobs, just as it was here with our own country.If we want to re-establish our own manufacturing power, we can do it, but the goods will cost more.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

It’s not only not warlike, it’s not stealing either, though it’s often portrayed as such. US firms were begging and pleading with China to be allowed in. Nobody forced them; they wanted to do it.

Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

Yes – absolutely.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

The Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

There is absolutely no need for any aggression between China and the west and I don’t think much likelihood either. We absolutely MUST re-build our strategic manufacturing industry and stop buying everything from the Chinese, but this is no kind of aggression. China can develop its industry and buy raw materials and supply its own massive internal market, and if it is not massive enough, it can develop it. Our own weak and shortsighted politicians must prevent the transfer of strategic industrial capability to rival powers. We could end up incapable of doing anything for ourselves as a nation, if we continually export manufacturing jobs and capability and buy in everything ready made. That is classic bad position and one which leads a nation to be powerless under political pressure from a monopoly supplier. If we are still trying to contract Chinese or other foreign manufacturers and civil engineers to build critical infrastructure like power stations and networks, we should stop right now, and insist that it is sourced domestically.
One thing though – China is and will be a great power and will not be dictated to by us or the Americans over its domestic policies and over seceded provinces such as Taiwan. The idea that America has the right to parade about in the far east across the Pacific instructing the Chinese about how they must act towards a part of their country that split away seventy years ago is ludicrous; as ludicrous as the British prating about democracy in Hong kong. We ran that island under license for 150 years and THERE WAS NO DEMOCRACY in any recognisable form when we ran it, right up to the end. We only got interested in the Hong Konger’s democratic rights as we were on the way out of the door.

Last edited 3 years ago by Tom Fox
George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

Wrong again Mr Fox. Hong Kong was not ‘under licence’. The Island and Kowloon were ours in perpetuity thanks to victory in the two Opium Wars. The New Territories were under a 99 year lease thanks to victory over the Boxer Rebellion. Perhaps that is why you are confused over this issue?
War with China is inevitable. Why? Because they want it.

Looking back at the Disqus notes I see you were advocating carrying out ‘medical experiments’ on certain people that you disapprove of. How very unpleasant, you should ask your former GP ‘partner’ for some Valium it may cheer you up.

However I do like your expression Hong Konger’s!

Whist I was impressed you had heard of Sulpicia Lepidina, you are way out on Decimation. Go to Vindolanda and really find out about the Roman Army from Republic to Empire, Legions and Auxilia, pay and pensions, etc, you may find it quite absorbing. With it all on your doorstep you have no credible excuse, agreed?

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

Is George Lake permitted to comment?

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

You are going ga-ga, typing the same thing constantly, over and over.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Nearly.
The first salvo incurred the Censor’s ire, so I just kept trying, slipping in a few variations to see if it made any difference. It didn’t!
But then, idiotically all 13 were “approved”.

What a system, why can’t we return to the original, which as Fraser Bailey, said was perfection itself!

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

The idiotic thing is not that thirteen times the same thing was approved, but that thirteen times the same thing was written and posted. I’m surprised that this does not seem to have occurred to you.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

No they were not all identical, I tried to insert subtle differences to try and identify the word that was so offensive! For example insertion of the word gorgeous when describing the Chinese.

Off course it also illustrates how absolutely terrible this new COMMENTS and CENSOR system has been. Something that even you must agree with.

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I did the same thing, in an earlier post, and then they printed the “vetted and now approved” posts. this is what you get when busy little bees cannot leave a perfectly functioning system alone…

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

There seems to be a major problem here with our Han Chinese Censor.It was ever thus.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu?

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

GEORGE LAKE
right now
Awaiting for approval
AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu?

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu? Or is Pearl Harbour a verboten subject?

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu? Or is Pearl Harbour a verboten subject?

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu? Or is Pearl Harbour a verboten subject? How very weird.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

GEORGE LAKE
right now
Awaiting for approval
AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chinese in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu? Or is Pearl Harbour a verboten subject? How very weird.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chin*se in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu? Or is Pearl Harbour a verboten subject? How very weird.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The not so lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the gorgeous Chin*se in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu? Or is Pearl Harbour a verboten subject? How very weird.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

GEORGE LAKE
right now
Awaiting for approval
AWAITING FOR APPROVAL (sic)

The not so lovely Japanese found themselves in a similar position to the not entirely gorgeous Chin*se in the early twentieth century. Resource poor, but very aggressive with a genuine if misguided belief in their uniqueness.

Fortunately they were easily goaded into attacking Pear Harbour despite the obvious insanity of the plan.

What precisely is the problem with this Fu Manchu? Or is Pearl Harbour a verboten subject? How very weird.

Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

Is it necessary for you to spam the comment forum with the same nonsensical nonsense over and over again? If your posts are not getting published is there nothing you can do but keep on typing the same thing? Last week I was coming to the opinion that you were going gaga. Now the matter is clear. You are, and you probably have been for a while.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

Astonishing that one can live so long and yet know so little!
As Russell said “most people would rather die than think and most do”.
You, Mr Fox are the perfect example. Keep it up, there’s a good chap, only a few days till the 11th March.

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

Pay attention-he is changing words to see what passes…that they then belatedly decide to let them all pass is a function of their mad “improvement”. In Discus, usually a blocked post stayed blocked. But then, you no doubt know all this, and are using this to insult him.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

Thanks for that!
He is in fact a 69 year old pain in the arse, but I mustn’t “mock the afflicted”

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

Interesting some ‘offensive’ words are now automatically censored!

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

H.MS. Queen Elizabeth will be blown out of the water in minutes by the Chinese.
Just as the Japanese did to her predecessors, H.M.S. Prince of Wales,
H.M.S. Repulse & H.M.S. Hermes.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

Your comment about Trident missiles, currently just below this one, is one reason why China is unlikely to blow the Queen Elizabeth out of the water.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

I totally agree, but I am loathe to state that because it upsets some of our readers, who are of a nervous disposition.
eg: poor old Mr Fox of Bardon Mill.

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

Yet you state the Queen Elizabeth will be blown out of the water. What a curious nervous disposition.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

The triumph of hope over expectation.

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
Simon Baker
Simon Baker
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

Given the HMS Queen Elizabeth will have a US destroyer alongside it if the Chinese did that it would start WW3, so they won’t.
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-hms-queen-elizabeth-will-have-american-destroyer-bodyguard-south-china-sea-mission-3109662
The Japanese lost WW2 in the end of course

Last edited 3 years ago by Simon Baker
George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

“Eco-politics is the most important weapon in the battle for world supremacy”.
Nonsense, Trident II D-5 Ballistic Missiles are.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

“Eco-politics is the most important weapon in the battle for world supremacy”.

Nonsense, Trident II D-5 Ballistic Missiles are.

Good God! How did that get past the Censor?
Apologies for the repeat but it is impossible to add this to the previous post by EDITING

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

You are obviously getting a ‘name’ for aggression, trying to provoke Her Majesty into attacking the Japanese.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Heaven forbid!

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

One the great things about the new, dreadful, UnHerd comments system is that you can say the most outrageous things without conscience.

FIRE & FORGET as they say!

EDIT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ON 22nd ATTEMPT. HURRAH!!!!!!

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth and for that matter her sister ship H.M.S. Prince of Wales are pieces of obsolete junk. Built for blatantly political motives, to subsidise failing Scotland, yet again, by the dreadful Gordon Brown.

Even their US F-35’s won’t save them, come the day.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

George. I suggest that if this site continues as it is today it is much easier to invest in a bluetooth mouse. The edit function still works but you need the precision of a mouse to make it more user-friendly.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Many thanks. I shall speak to my technical officer!

Mike Bell
Mike Bell
3 years ago

When you say “ China owns eight of the country’s fourteen cobalt mines.” it sounds like these mines are owned by the Chinese government. This is part of the illusion we have about China – it’s not the government which bought them – it’s far-sighted companies who have analysed the market and see where profit can be made.
This is something the West used to do well – but we have fallen into a dream.

Tony Price
Tony Price
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Bell

Aren’t you suffering from the illusion that Chinese companies, far-sighted or not, are independent of the Chinese government?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Bell

This is part of the illusion we have about China – it’s not the government which bought them –
those companies operate free of govt oversight or influence? This is the same country that another article here has attacking basic freedoms we take for granted.

Victoria Cooper
Victoria Cooper
3 years ago

He who rules the air waves will rule the world. And who mines Helium3 from the moon.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

Genuinely interesting article that has made me want to learn more about something I knew nothing about. Thanks.

Earl King
Earl King
3 years ago

I want to say “exactly”! The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was precipitated by the US keeping oil from them in an attempt to prevent their hegemonic invasions of Asia and Southeast Asia. At some point China will go to far, either in response to US sanctions or simply to protect their access. If not outright war, a COLD war with China is coming. My problem with Conservatives is their utter dislike of what they term “industrial panning” as it speaks to an older Soviet model which failed. But industrial policy can identify a need and shift tax policy. So for the US the government should do what it can to encourage industrialists to develop REE domestically. Otherwise we will be left with “progressive” policies that will leave us as beggars beholden to China for the crumbs it wishes to leaves. What do I mean by that? The poor, especially of color vote Democrat because they perceived that Democrats will give them money, more money. Instead of thinking how can I get out of poverty, it is easier to say please may I have more. I have no idea which side will win the argument but as we are arguing China is eating our lunch.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Earl King

The USA consumes around a quarter of the world’s resources.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

The US exports food and fuel and foolishness.

Clive Mitchell
Clive Mitchell
3 years ago

Considering the lead time for building and commissioning modern weapons systems any war will be fought with existing equipment. Rare minerals may be rare, but in any future war, so will be time.

Vikram Sharma
Vikram Sharma
3 years ago

The 20th century saw the collapse of seven empires – Mandarin China, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey, Japan, the British empire, and twice in the case of Tsarist and Soviet Russia. The 21st is likely to see the decline of USA and the collapse of EU. Rare metals is the least of our worries.

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago

Probably the most important essay of 2021 so far. Well done Aris

vince porter
vince porter
3 years ago

So, when war comes, the adversaries will be mutually supportive of each other: China will supply the REE’s and America will trade them digital chips in return.

Cynthia Neville
Cynthia Neville
3 years ago

Excellent article. Thanks for a thought-provoking read

Allan Dawson
Allan Dawson
3 years ago

The presumption here is that govts. will go to war to secure the minerals required for battery powered cars…but there is nothing to stop a nation going, “Tell you what…you lot fight over in the corner…we’re not going to war over batteries so long as oil is around (and in any case what the f89k is going to recharge the masses of batteries required to power your battery cars)….cause it’s going to be coal, gas or n-powered grids….

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
3 years ago

From 1945 to 1989 many countries were fought over by the USA and the USSR or their proxies in order to control the supply of minerals that would stop the other from gaining military dominance. The French and the British intervened in their former colonies in order to control the ‘independent’ governments with varying degrees of effort and success. This rivalry has simply resumed with China taking the part of the USSR.

Tuan Jean
Tuan Jean
3 years ago

If you want to know more about how China use its abundant “Terres rares” to dominate the World, let’s read “Terres rares” by author Jean Tuan (C.L.C. Edition). You can buy it via Internet.

KWHK
KWHK
3 years ago

I would add that the so called “rare earths” are not actually all that rare. For example, you can get the lithium even from sea water if you really wanted. The main reason China has dominated the current production of rare earths is environmental as current extraction and refining technology is quite environmentally damaging hence not welcome in developed countries (the main reason is that while rare earths are common geographically they are rare in the ore meaning that large quantities of ore have to be dug out and processed and disposed of). It can be easily reversed if strategic rationale changes (obviously with some time required). That’s very different strategically than unequal geographic distribution of fossil fuels before so the parallels are not quite as apt in this case.

Simon Newman
Simon Newman
3 years ago

ever-accelerating climate doom
The actual doom we’re facing seems to be shivering to death in our beds with the power either off, or unaffordable.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago

Western plans for a greener future blindly and somewhat arrogantly seem oblivious to the likelihood that the two-thirds of the world that is developing are not going to accept inferior status to assuage rich nations’ hypocritical guilt; they are going to continue developing and catching up with the West to the effect that global industrial output will multiply many times over the coming decades and people in developing countries will approach western standards of living. This will expose the lunacy of green imperialists’ racist assumptions of superiority and reduce the deficit between rich and poor nations to the west’s cost. There are things we can do ‘if’ climate change seriously impacts upon human life through flooding and so on; these will mainly be massive construction of flood barriers and new cities able to cope with environmental change.

larry tate
larry tate
3 years ago

It seems that you do not fully understand the fact that the planet is overpopulated, overpolluted and very nearly dead. “If” climate change seriusly impacts upon human life you say, which in itself shows how blind and obtuse you truly are. ThereÂŽs no planet B, donÂŽt you get it?

Allan Edward Tierney
Allan Edward Tierney
3 years ago

CHINA IS OUR ONLY VIABLE CHANCE TO STOP U.S. PLANS

It is an open secret that since 9/11 it is the goal of U.S. elites to obtain full monitoring overview and hence control of our entire planet and every nation on it in order to ensure nothing like 9/11 ever happens again.

If it is your view that the elites of the United States are trustworthy guardians of all freedoms and human rights then this prospect will not bother you very much, perhaps not even in the slightest.

But if like me you consider the U.S. elites to be untrustworthy murdering and torturing bastards without any interest except self-interest and keeping North America the perpetual top dog by force then you will probably be looking for ways to stop this development.

Make no mistake, global domination, i.e. full spectrum dominance, lies at the root of the constant belligerence the USA is displaying and every act of aggression, every piece of rhetoric and carefully-crafted propaganda is designed with this foremost goal in mind.

The attacks upon Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen are only the start. Each and every nation that does not obey western commands and submit like a docile puppy to its needs will experience interference up to and including military attack and invasion to make them comply.

There may be intervals where it seems that the wars being waged by these elites have been paused. They havn’t. The CIA, MI6 plus the intel agencies and special forces of multiple countries are working tirelessly night and day, 24/7 in a covert war against every single target alongside the many facets of western economic terrorism.

If you don’t like the idea of living on a prison planet that the U.S. controls you may be interested in escaping from this prospect. If you would rather not spend your days and nights being spied upon by countless satellites orbiting in a global matrix 24/7 you may likewise be looking for a different future.

The ways the U.S. elites can gain full spectrum dominance worldwide are many and their data collection net is already spread very wide via the NSA, GCHQ and myriad nodes of Big Data including massive quantities via your cell phone, your credit cards, CCTV and the databases of the police, other security services and intelligence agencies.

Almost everything about you is already known because you volunteered much of the data through your electronic connections delineated above and via your use of social media.

But this is not enough for U.S. elites who typically, want it ALL. They want complete oversight in depth, anytime, anywhere with no hiding place for anyone or anything.

The above is just the start of the control they need to feel safe and maintain an ‘America First’ position from here on out. Along the way they want to reduce to zero any dissent which may build toward resistance to their rule. You will become very aware that saying anything out of line has consequences and you will hear of some who were considered sufficiently problematic to be jailed. The Obama years saw a major increase in the jailing of whistleblowers. Those such as Edward Snowden who reveal the U.S. state’s illegal surveillance programs and Julian Assange who exposed U.S. military war crimes will be disciplined on a regular basis with whatever punishments are deemed necessary.

In effect the elites of the USA will become our governors, the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong, a global police force in a far more universal sense than was the case before 9/11.

Again, if you feel this is all to the good and you feel you’ll be safer with this vengeful overlord taking care of you then you will have few problems about any of this.

However, if you know something of how these elites have treated a plethora of sovereign nations and their populations over centuries you cannot but have a few doubts about how far you can trust them to act well.

A cursory examination of how they have dealt with their neighbors in Latin America should be enough to instill a doubt or two in most minds. Then the recent regime change wars where hundreds of thousands died due to U.S. and UK elite lies should give everyone pause for thought.

These people are utterly ruthless. In Syria they went as far as recruiting terrorists to act as their proxies along with their allies. In Yemen they helped with high-tech weapons and logistical support to kill some of the poorest people of color on the planet.

At home their police murder hundreds of defenseless civilians (usually men and women of color) every year and the cops who do it usually escape jail or any comeback at all.

In their wars of choice their military has a certain saying that tells you pretty much all you need to know of their ethos: “Kill ‘Em All And Let God Sort ‘Em Out’.

These are the elites that work through their complicit mass media to spread lies, half-truths, misinformation, disinformation and propaganda to dupe westerners into giving their consent to their mass murder ops and destabilization efforts. The sheep are kept in line and kept bleating, “Something Must be Done!”

So, those looking to these elites to protect them should be careful what they wish for.

And those who see clearly every aspect of this iniquitous future I’ve presented for you may ask how this can all be avoided, and actively prevented from happening.

I’m afraid there is only one possibility. The continued rise of China.

Some of you may say no, it’s Russia, Russia is the one we want to do something about all this. And Russia WILL help. Russia with Putin at the helm has been a stalwart opposer of the West’s state terrorism and wars of choice. But she doesn’t have sufficient economic power to put a dent of any size in the West’s ambitions. But China has… and then some.

China has been growing at an incredible rate for decades. She has moved in 50 years from a deeply impoverished nation to a global powerhouse. The Soviet Union used to be a superpower but shorn of her allied satellite states and many of those previously with her union she is no longer the powerhouse she was. And economically she is no longer any kind of match for the USA. But China is.

The Covid-19 pandemic has shown which nations are fit for purpose in this new, threatening world where more pandemics and perhaps more lethal ones are certain rather than possible and where the cataclysms of human-caused climate change are just around the corner. While all nations in the West have dropped into negative economic territory China has shown a modest increase of around 3.5%, a percentage that is certain to grow as 2021 wears on.

China is building the most ambitious infrastructure project of all time all the way across from China to Europe on both land and sea. It is called the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ and it will facilitate the smooth transport of goods and resources in both directions. Meanwhile the USA and UK in particular are shrinking economically and are drowning in debt.

China is totally uninterested in having any other empire than a trading empire where all sides win. There will be no regime change wars instigated by China, nor will there be a pernicious entity such as the CIA, neither will there be diplomacy by threat. China wants to trade so that her citizens prosper. But it will certainly not be a one-way street, Europe will prosper also.

But in the generation of deeper and stronger economic connections between China and Europe with that will also come influence and in China’s case, unlike that of the USA, will be beneficial, reasonable and tending toward cooperation, agreement and mutual satisfaction and progress. Peace will emerge as one of the most significant by-products of this relationship through the diminishing role the USA plays in Europe. Its constant aggression, use of threats and dirty dealings will fade along with its reach.

Ultimately the insanely aggressive nature of U.S. elites, constantly seeking dominance, infiltrating their means of control and using criminal activity of all kinds to get their way, will be completely and permanently quarantined.

Russia will help as will every other nation not held captive within the U.S. sphere of influence. Russia will complete her Nord Stream 2 pipeline and this too will increase the cohesion between East and West, between Eurasia and Europe. Russia too is totally uninterested in having an empire or forcing its systems on others… again unlike the USA. All nations standing against the maniac obsession of the USA and UK to gain power, grow their empires and hold others in submission will stand together to ensure we move at last toward the stable peace that can bring the trust needed to ensure trust and civilized behavior planet wide.

But first and foremost it is China that must do the heavy lifting now and she is fully prepared for it. Every fundamental aspect is in place to do so for the most successful economy over the past fifty years that this planet has ever seen. There is no other nation that can take on the USA’s evil ambitions and win.

That is why I say with total conviction: “China Is Our Only Hope To Stop U.S. Plans”.

https://youtu.be/3G1EyvRZmOs

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

Well it looks like we in the UK made the correct choice in shackling ourselves to the US.

There is nothing in US History to compare with the barbarism of the Chinese ‘Great Leap Forward’ or even the ‘Cultural Revolution’, as you well know Comrade Tierney.

Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

Well that’s about right. Tierney is an obvious nutcase. His reference to Russia and Putin assisting us in retaining our freedom, was laughable. That said, the USA is the best of perhaps a bad lot. Their dealings with other nations not of their persuasion have often been disgraceful. The US is rather like the curate’s egg, in my opinion, but certainly vastly less troublesome to us than Putin’s Russia. China, I am less bothered by. Their meddling is in their own backyard, and not in the least surprising.

Last edited 3 years ago by Tom Fox
stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Fox

“Their backyard” is now apparently our homes and offices.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

They want ‘our’ seat at the Top Table of Humanity.

Trident will ensure they don’t get it, and remain in their natural station, the kennel.

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago

 You say US elites’ “data collection net is already spread very wide via the NSA, GCHQ and myriad nodes of Big Data including massive quantities via your cell phone, your credit cards, CCTV and the databases of the police, other security services and intelligence agencies. Almost everything about you is already known because you volunteered much of the data through your electronic connections delineated above and via your use of social media.”
True enough, but isn’t China a world leader in this too? 

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago

Duranty lives…