China's backing of Russia's war in Ukraine is just one piece on the Go board. For decades, they quietly built the architecture to make the rest of us dependent on its mercy.
I’ve chosen my side. Democracy is messy, frustrating, and imperfect, but it’s still worth defending. I’m tired of people pretending that all systems are the same or longing for “strong leaders” with easy answers to difficult problems. Freedom and democracy are worth standing up for.
I’m especially frustrated by people who promote the adoption of authoritarian models - including the Chinese one - simply because they visited Shenzhen twice and suddenly decided China is amazing.
One of the defining virtues of democracy is that you can leave it. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep West Germans out of East Germany; it was built to keep East Germans in. As a West German, you were free to leave and join the supposed communist utopia if you wished.
Yes, we have made mistakes - domestically and internationally. I’m not going to deny that. But by almost every meaningful metric, democracy and liberty are superior to authoritarian rule.
And there is another point: imposing our system does not always work, as we saw with Russia and, to some extent, China. But look at Saudi Arabia. For a long time, I hated the fact that the West engaged with the Saudis while Wahhabi influence remained so strong. Yet, fast-forward: after two generations of Saudi elites received higher education in the West and sustained contact with liberal societies, the kingdom began reforming in ways I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
Compare that with Russia, which uses any tool available to subvert other nations - including invasion and bombardment - if they dare to choose a system different than the Russian one.
Democracies are imperfect. They make grave mistakes. But they also contain the mechanisms for correction, dissent, reform, and exit.
So when people say I’m biased as an analyst, I say: good.
"Rather than risk direct warfare the Chinese developed economic strategies to control their foreign enemies.
[...]
Under the Emperor Ching (157-141 BC) the Han regime founded a series of large border markets near well-guarded gateways in the Great Wall. 52 A Chinese study called the Hsin Shu explains the operation of this policy which was designed to make the Xiongnu economically dependent on Chinese products.
[...]
Once this economic dependency was established then the Chinese could exert political pressure on the Xiongnu by threatening to withhold or limit their access to Han products. The Hsin Shu explains, 'if the Xiongnu kings and generals try to lead their people away, they will be defied by their followers. When the Xiongnu have developed a craving for our rice, stew, barbeques, and wine, they will have a fatal weakness.
[...]
The Discourse on Salt and Iron explains that 'a piece of plain Chinese silk can be exchanged with the Xiongnu for articles worth several pieces of gold and we can thereby reduce the resources of our enemy.' Silk was a renewable product for the Chinese economy and therefore 'new goods are received while the government retains abundant supplies. National wealth is not being dispersed into foreign countries and the people enjoy abundance."
From "The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes: The Ancient World Economy & the Empires of Parthia, Central Asia & Han China" (Chapter 3)
As always, I find your article/essay very good! In my view, I am missing one important point, namely the counter-reaction. I have tried to outline a possible counter-reaction architecture. I do not claim that it is complete and the correct one. But it could be the start of a broader discussion. In my opinion, I do not see a direct awakening of Europe and its European leaders in the near future. But who knows, perhaps I am wrong and there are visionary leaders I do not know yet. Again thanks for enlightenment on this important subject!
To effectively counteract and dismantle the structural dependencies engineered by China, the West cannot rely on ad-hoc sanctions or reactive trade disputes. It must construct a comprehensive "counter-architecture" that provides viable, systemic alternatives to Beijing's offerings while simultaneously defending against economic coercion.
Based on current geoeconomic strategies and recent multilateral developments, this Western architecture must be built upon four foundational pillars:
1. The Material Architecture: Supply Chain Resilience and "Friendshoring"
China's primary leverage lies in its monopolization of critical supply chains, particularly in rare earth elements. To dismantle this, the West is actively shifting from market-driven globalization to security-driven "friendshoring"—anchoring investments in trusted, allied jurisdictions.
The Minerals Security Partnership (MSP):
Launched to coordinate project finance, standards,
and supply chain development across allied nations, the MSP serves as the core multilateral vehicle to build sustainable supply chains entirely outside of China's ecosystem.
Enforceable Price Floors:
Because China frequently uses predatory pricing to bankrupt Western mining competitors, the U.S. has begun implementing price floors (such as the Defense Department's $110/kg price floor for NdPr permanent magnets). This is evolving into a broader plurilateral strategy to establish critical minerals trade zones with coordinated price stability, shielding Western producers from Chinese market manipulation.
IPEF Supply Chain Agreement:
Through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), the U.S. and regional partners have established the first multilateral agreement specifically designed to collectively monitor vulnerabilities, resolve disruptions, and reduce reliance on dominant supplying states.
2. The Physical Architecture: Values-Based Global Infrastructure
To counter the trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the West must offer the Global South a "better offer" rather than simply demanding they cease doing business with Beijing.
PGII and Global Gateway:
The G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) and the EU’s Global Gateway program represent a combined pledge of hundreds of billions of dollars to fund sustainable digital, transport, and energy infrastructure in developing nations.
Targeted Economic Corridors:
Instead of scattered projects, the West is focusing on layered, co-financed regional investments. A premier example is the Lobito Corridor—a massive railway project connecting the critical mineral-rich regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia to the Angolan coast, directly securing materials for Western tech and defense industries while offering local economic integration.
Reforming Development Finance:
To truly compete, institutions like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are being retooled to take on greater infrastructure risks in middle- and lower-income countries, directly challenging China's role as the world's largest official creditor.
3. The Defensive Architecture: Collective Economic Deterrence
China frequently uses the threat of market access denial to silence criticism and force political compliance. Dismantling this requires a unified shield.
Coordination Platform on Economic Coercion:
Established at the G7 level, this platform is designed to increase situational awareness, coordinate rapid responses, and mitigate the damage when Beijing targets a specific nation.
"Article 5" for Economics (Collective Resilience):
Strategists advocate for a mutual defense pledge against economic coercion. Under this framework, if China embargoes or sanctions one allied nation, it faces automatic, coordinated retaliation from the entire bloc. Because China is highly dependent on Western markets and raw materials, collective resilience shifts the balance of power, effectively deterring Beijing by ensuring the costs of weaponizing trade are prohibitively high.
4. The Security Architecture: Technological Fencing
To protect its foundational technologies and prevent them from being used in China's military-civil fusion programs, the West is re-engineering global export controls.
"Small Yard, High Fence":
This doctrine dictates that while broad trade can continue, a strictly defined "small yard" of critical technologies (like advanced semiconductors, AI, and quantum computing) must be protected by an impenetrably "high fence" of export controls.
Multilateral Enforcement:
Unilateral controls often backfire by incentivizing buyers to find non-U.S. suppliers. Therefore, the architecture relies on deeply integrated, multilateral export agreements—such as the recent coordinated restrictions on advanced lithography tools between the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands—to completely cut off China's pathways to critical technological nodes.
Ultimately, this architecture acknowledges that competing with China is a systemic clash. Success requires shifting the global paradigm away from transactional relationships and cheap labor toward a cohesive structure defined by geopolitical alignment, shared security, and collective economic defense.
Nice one.
I’ve chosen my side. Democracy is messy, frustrating, and imperfect, but it’s still worth defending. I’m tired of people pretending that all systems are the same or longing for “strong leaders” with easy answers to difficult problems. Freedom and democracy are worth standing up for.
Exactly.
I’m especially frustrated by people who promote the adoption of authoritarian models - including the Chinese one - simply because they visited Shenzhen twice and suddenly decided China is amazing.
One of the defining virtues of democracy is that you can leave it. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep West Germans out of East Germany; it was built to keep East Germans in. As a West German, you were free to leave and join the supposed communist utopia if you wished.
Yes, we have made mistakes - domestically and internationally. I’m not going to deny that. But by almost every meaningful metric, democracy and liberty are superior to authoritarian rule.
And there is another point: imposing our system does not always work, as we saw with Russia and, to some extent, China. But look at Saudi Arabia. For a long time, I hated the fact that the West engaged with the Saudis while Wahhabi influence remained so strong. Yet, fast-forward: after two generations of Saudi elites received higher education in the West and sustained contact with liberal societies, the kingdom began reforming in ways I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
Compare that with Russia, which uses any tool available to subvert other nations - including invasion and bombardment - if they dare to choose a system different than the Russian one.
Democracies are imperfect. They make grave mistakes. But they also contain the mechanisms for correction, dissent, reform, and exit.
So when people say I’m biased as an analyst, I say: good.
"Rather than risk direct warfare the Chinese developed economic strategies to control their foreign enemies.
[...]
Under the Emperor Ching (157-141 BC) the Han regime founded a series of large border markets near well-guarded gateways in the Great Wall. 52 A Chinese study called the Hsin Shu explains the operation of this policy which was designed to make the Xiongnu economically dependent on Chinese products.
[...]
Once this economic dependency was established then the Chinese could exert political pressure on the Xiongnu by threatening to withhold or limit their access to Han products. The Hsin Shu explains, 'if the Xiongnu kings and generals try to lead their people away, they will be defied by their followers. When the Xiongnu have developed a craving for our rice, stew, barbeques, and wine, they will have a fatal weakness.
[...]
The Discourse on Salt and Iron explains that 'a piece of plain Chinese silk can be exchanged with the Xiongnu for articles worth several pieces of gold and we can thereby reduce the resources of our enemy.' Silk was a renewable product for the Chinese economy and therefore 'new goods are received while the government retains abundant supplies. National wealth is not being dispersed into foreign countries and the people enjoy abundance."
From "The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes: The Ancient World Economy & the Empires of Parthia, Central Asia & Han China" (Chapter 3)
Wonderful clarity, convincing assertive analysis.
Much appreciated.
Weiqi(Go) is a board game that is actually more complex than Chess.
Extremely nice read
Western World wont wake up until Financial Engineering is dead
Or a Black Swan even threatens their survival
Welfare States Plus Financialisation Broke its back, now its loaded with an Unproductive Populace along with Useless Immigrants
Dont think they are coming back from this
West has gone too far down the rabbit hole
As always, I find your article/essay very good! In my view, I am missing one important point, namely the counter-reaction. I have tried to outline a possible counter-reaction architecture. I do not claim that it is complete and the correct one. But it could be the start of a broader discussion. In my opinion, I do not see a direct awakening of Europe and its European leaders in the near future. But who knows, perhaps I am wrong and there are visionary leaders I do not know yet. Again thanks for enlightenment on this important subject!
To effectively counteract and dismantle the structural dependencies engineered by China, the West cannot rely on ad-hoc sanctions or reactive trade disputes. It must construct a comprehensive "counter-architecture" that provides viable, systemic alternatives to Beijing's offerings while simultaneously defending against economic coercion.
Based on current geoeconomic strategies and recent multilateral developments, this Western architecture must be built upon four foundational pillars:
1. The Material Architecture: Supply Chain Resilience and "Friendshoring"
China's primary leverage lies in its monopolization of critical supply chains, particularly in rare earth elements. To dismantle this, the West is actively shifting from market-driven globalization to security-driven "friendshoring"—anchoring investments in trusted, allied jurisdictions.
The Minerals Security Partnership (MSP):
Launched to coordinate project finance, standards,
and supply chain development across allied nations, the MSP serves as the core multilateral vehicle to build sustainable supply chains entirely outside of China's ecosystem.
Enforceable Price Floors:
Because China frequently uses predatory pricing to bankrupt Western mining competitors, the U.S. has begun implementing price floors (such as the Defense Department's $110/kg price floor for NdPr permanent magnets). This is evolving into a broader plurilateral strategy to establish critical minerals trade zones with coordinated price stability, shielding Western producers from Chinese market manipulation.
IPEF Supply Chain Agreement:
Through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), the U.S. and regional partners have established the first multilateral agreement specifically designed to collectively monitor vulnerabilities, resolve disruptions, and reduce reliance on dominant supplying states.
2. The Physical Architecture: Values-Based Global Infrastructure
To counter the trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the West must offer the Global South a "better offer" rather than simply demanding they cease doing business with Beijing.
PGII and Global Gateway:
The G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) and the EU’s Global Gateway program represent a combined pledge of hundreds of billions of dollars to fund sustainable digital, transport, and energy infrastructure in developing nations.
Targeted Economic Corridors:
Instead of scattered projects, the West is focusing on layered, co-financed regional investments. A premier example is the Lobito Corridor—a massive railway project connecting the critical mineral-rich regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia to the Angolan coast, directly securing materials for Western tech and defense industries while offering local economic integration.
Reforming Development Finance:
To truly compete, institutions like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are being retooled to take on greater infrastructure risks in middle- and lower-income countries, directly challenging China's role as the world's largest official creditor.
3. The Defensive Architecture: Collective Economic Deterrence
China frequently uses the threat of market access denial to silence criticism and force political compliance. Dismantling this requires a unified shield.
Coordination Platform on Economic Coercion:
Established at the G7 level, this platform is designed to increase situational awareness, coordinate rapid responses, and mitigate the damage when Beijing targets a specific nation.
"Article 5" for Economics (Collective Resilience):
Strategists advocate for a mutual defense pledge against economic coercion. Under this framework, if China embargoes or sanctions one allied nation, it faces automatic, coordinated retaliation from the entire bloc. Because China is highly dependent on Western markets and raw materials, collective resilience shifts the balance of power, effectively deterring Beijing by ensuring the costs of weaponizing trade are prohibitively high.
4. The Security Architecture: Technological Fencing
To protect its foundational technologies and prevent them from being used in China's military-civil fusion programs, the West is re-engineering global export controls.
"Small Yard, High Fence":
This doctrine dictates that while broad trade can continue, a strictly defined "small yard" of critical technologies (like advanced semiconductors, AI, and quantum computing) must be protected by an impenetrably "high fence" of export controls.
Multilateral Enforcement:
Unilateral controls often backfire by incentivizing buyers to find non-U.S. suppliers. Therefore, the architecture relies on deeply integrated, multilateral export agreements—such as the recent coordinated restrictions on advanced lithography tools between the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands—to completely cut off China's pathways to critical technological nodes.
Ultimately, this architecture acknowledges that competing with China is a systemic clash. Success requires shifting the global paradigm away from transactional relationships and cheap labor toward a cohesive structure defined by geopolitical alignment, shared security, and collective economic defense.