47 pointsby MilnerRoute10 hours ago3 comments
  • TitaRusell8 hours ago
    America can't win this war nor admit it can't win. It will likely take the PRC to end this conflict. Xi winning the Nobel Peace Prize next year? What is "holding all the cards" in Mandarin.
    • klipt8 hours ago
      Expensive oil means more people buying Chinese EVs and Chinese solar panels. Good for the environment and good for China. Why would China want cheap oil?
      • mostlysimilar7 hours ago
        Their economy relies on exports that just got a LOT more expensive to ship, and the US economy destructing would likely take theirs down with it.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OETnuwwsv9U

        • porkshoe6 hours ago
          The US only represents about 3% of China's GDP. If the US economy declined 10 or 20%, it'd be basically just noise to them.
          • prewett6 hours ago
            The US is 150% of China's GDP (in nominal numbers) [1]. AI claims that China's "purchasing power parity" GDP is $44t compared to $32t for the US. There is no way that the US, which has been the world's largest economy for decades, is 3% of China's GDP.

            Exports to the US is about 20% of China's GDP [2].

            Regardless of any of China's contingency plans, US exports are well above noise-levels.

            [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268173/countries-with-th...

            [2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location...

            • raven123455 hours ago
              I think he means exports to the US as a percentage of China's GDP is 3%
            • NewJazz2 hours ago
              Isn't [2] exports in general, not exports to the US specifically?
          • carefree-bob5 hours ago
            That's not how you would want to measure this, as it doesn't much matter whether a good is directly exported from China to the US, or whether it is routed through a third country like Vietnam, or used as an intermediate input to a different good which is then exported to the US, etc.

            What you should take note of, is that China's trade surplus tracks the US trade deficit extremely closely, and this has been the case for the last 20 years.

            Said another way, most nations in the world run roughly balanced trade. There is only one nation on earth that can sustain large and prolonged trade deficits. Only one. That is the US. So if you are a nation whose entire economic strategy rests on running large and sustained trade surpluses, then you are going to be exporting your surplus to the US, directly or indirectly, and only to the US.

            Now in practice, some of that will be direct sales to the US, some will be indirect sales to the US, but at the end of the day, if you want to run a 1.2 trillion dollar trade surplus, then you have to hope to God that the US is willing to run at least a trillion dollar trade deficit, because no other country is going to do that for you, the entire rest of the world may be willing to accomodate a hundred billion or so, but for everything else, you will depend on the US, directly or indirectly, to absorb your surplus.

            • mindslight5 hours ago
              This is a good analysis, but coming full circle - having a trade surplus is not itself a vulnerability. Rather the actual vulnerability would be needing US dollars, to pay for imports (raw materials and whatever else they don't manufacture themselves). If China doesn't need more US dollars (because perhaps they are already holding plenty of treasuries), then they can simply prop up their internal economy with financial stimulus. And longstanding currency controls make it so they can manage this easily. Print yuan to buy that stream of goods that were previously being exported, and just bury them in a hole in the ground. Or more fruitfully, give that yuan away to their poor rural population to boost their standard of living, improving the country and shoring up support for the Party.
              • somenameforme3 hours ago
                I don't think things are so straight forward because everything is connected in ways that are sufficiently complex to defy any sort of straight forward thinking; when you change one thing, 10 other things change and in ways that will invariably end up with completely unexpected outcomes. For the most straight forward example - those things that are exported are not just buried, but end up being used in various processes. And China itself is also heavily dependent on imports, importing upwards of $3 trillion in goods and services. When your exports are no longer available, you may soon find that neither are your imports, and suddenly everything starts breaking.
        • jaggs7 hours ago
          Hmm...not really.
    • rayiner8 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • kalleboo4 hours ago
        But the cost of shipping that oil is up 25x https://edition.cnn.com/2026/10/09/business/oil-gas-diesel-t...

        > Last year, the daily cost of hiring an oil supertanker (known as a Very Large Crude Carrier, or VLCC) to sail from the Persian Gulf to China was just $65,000, according to Clarksons, a London-based research firm.

        > Now? It costs $1.6 million per day to hire a VLCC for that route, according to Clarksons.

      • Cyph0n6 hours ago
        Run through the objectives at the outset of this “war” (illegal and unprovoked attack on a sovereign state), and then compare that against “price of oil going back to pre-war levels”.

        Trust me, by almost any metric you can think of, this was a strategic defeat for the US.

      • porkshoe7 hours ago
        How would that represent victory?

        Iran's leadership was replaced with more extreme leadership and America has spent countless billions.

        Nothing is better.

        Only a hyperpartisan brain could refer to that as any sort of victory.

        • rayiner3 hours ago
          I was responding to the statement: “America can't win this war nor admit it can't win.”

          Getting the oil supply back to prewar levels isn’t winning by itself, and I didn’t say it was. But it does open a path to winning, because holding the oil hostage is the only leverage the Iranian regime has.

        • casey27 hours ago
          Iranian citizens couldn't handle their previous leadership, it's likely that after things cool down there will be some sort of rebellion.

          Can the hyperpartisan brain not count past 113?

          • cr18956 hours ago
            >it's likely that after things cool down there will be some sort of rebellion.

            Please support this statement.

          • Cyph0n6 hours ago
            Dude thinks this a game.

            Imagine that your country - whose rulers you do not agree with - is attacked by two states unprovoked in the middle of negotiations, not once, but twice in a single year.

            And how do they initiate this attack? They strike a number of targets, one of which the compound your head of state is living in along with members of his family, including a child (his granddaughter). Mind you, your head of state was not in a bunker, but was an 87 year old man living his life as normal. After executing this amazing operation, these two states then call on your people to rise up and overthrow the government.

            What would you do?

            • rayiner3 hours ago
              I strongly oppose the Iran war. But saying that any action against Iran is “unprovoked” is utter bullshit. Iran just gave Hezbollah $200 million while Iranians are in dire straits: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/lebanons-hezbollah.... Iran has been doing this shit for decades. Their commitment to “fucking around” is truly epic.

              Saddam, Maduro, Gaddafi, Assad—all those guys were mostly terrorizing their own people and shouldn’t have been taken out. I don’t think Khamenei should’ve been taken out either, but boy did he deserve it more than any of the others.

            • hollerith4 hours ago
              Also, how do you think the average non-wealthy Iranian, who because of US sanctions has been eating meat about once a month for many years and undergoing other privations thinks about the US government?
          • BoggleOhYeah6 hours ago
            You base this on?
          • Georgelemental5 hours ago
            That's what Putin believed about the Donbas. But, it turns out, people really really hate being bombed!
  • 8 hours ago
    undefined
  • codedokode7 hours ago
    I read today that US President temporarily lifted sanctions on Russia regarding diesel export. I hope it is just a part of a secret plan to persuade everyone that peace and trade is more profitable than war, and not US economy crumbling due to Russian sanctions against West. By the way, diesel in Russia is cheaper than in US, which means at least in diesel production Russian economy is more efficient (it makes more diesel per dollar spent).
    • 0dayz5 hours ago
      Everyone as in everyone in Russia considering they started the war?

      And I'm curious which sanctions by Russia are crippling "the west"?

      • somenameforme4 hours ago
        He's obviously referring to the Western sanctions on Russia which have had a far more detrimental effect on the West, and Europe in particular, than on Russia. And Russia is in a winning position in the war. They're not going to stop without concessions, but the West has bet everything on a victory which means they'd rather see it continue to the last Ukrainian. That's also probably just fine with Ukraine's leader, who has gradually turned into a classical dictator - paranoia, constant reshufflings and all, who will be out of power, and perhaps worse, as soon as it ends.
        • realusername2 hours ago
          > sanctions on Russia which have had a far more detrimental effect on the West, and Europe in particular, than on Russia.

          Considering we only see Russian bots talking about lifting sanctions nowadays and everybody else moved on to other subjects in Europe, it must have some effect of some sort, otherwise they wouldn't talk about it.

          > And Russia is in a winning position in the war.

          At best, even if they took the full country tomorrow, I don't think there's any way to save Russia from medium term collapse.

          They would need a Marshall plan of somebody giving them 300 billions for free and I don't see that happening and who would do that.

          > but the West has bet everything on a victory which means they'd rather see it continue to the last Ukrainian

          You have it backwards, Ukraine and Europe want a victory so that Russia doesn't continue to kill to the last Ukrainian. (And for Europe more importantly, not being the next one in line).

          That's what Russia's policy of destroying cities and killing civilians do.

          • rasz42 minutes ago
            >somebody giving them 300 billions for free

            Well, Iran was offered similar amount by certain somebody, so never say never

    • porkshoe7 hours ago
      > I hope it is just a part of a secret plan to persuade everyone that peace and trade is more profitable than war

      It's never 4d chess. it's just a guy desperately trying to get diesel prices to temporarily decline _without_ having to admit that he's a fucking idiot for having dragged America into Israel's war on Iran.

      And even then, it's only because of the mid-terms. The GOP does not give a single solitary fuck about the sorts of people who notice and are hurt by gas prices. The GOP despises American workers.

      • codeddesign6 hours ago
        Change GOP to all DC politicians and I am in full agreement with you.

        This is not GOP vs DNC. They are fully corrupted on both sides, and stopped representing their constituents a long time ago.

        • jdlshore6 hours ago
          "Both sides" is bullshit. There's only one party that's exhibiting the level of corruption, narcissism, and warmongering that we're seeing today. It's Trump and Republicans that got us into this mess.
          • somenameforme4 hours ago
            The US has been in basically never-ending war, and warlike actions, for most of its existence, and especially since the end of WW2. This isn't partisan. The only thing that's particular unique in this scenario is that drones have made the typical pattern of assassinate leadership + bomb the country into oblivion as being rather less than effective. Well that and we have a leader who no longer even pretends it's about democracy, freedom, and protesting students or whatever. But it never was. Look at the destruction and chaos in the places we 'bring democracy to'. It's always been, and will always be, about power.
        • BoggleOhYeah5 hours ago
          You mean the Democrats are the same as the party that has members and their families openly taking bribes from Russian oligarchs, gambling companies, etc, doling out pardons for political favors, enabling insider trading?