The post above is chock full of misinformation. Given the many times that I have countered George since he has been here, I'll spare you the details. Do your own searches on the details.
It's actually entertaining whenever GBM speaks. I always wonder how he's going to defend brutal dictatorships, and he always manages. I would like to have seen him defend the dictatorships back around 1940.
I wish websites like this would have a way we could block certain users from being seen by us. I know a few people would block me, but I think GBM would take top spot.
I don;t defend "brutal dictatorships".
But I do object to instigating totally unnecessary wars.
All we have to do is guarantee that NATO will not threaten Russia by moving into (another of) its neighbor(s).
But, we instead favor war. Economic war (at least for us). But still, war.
Who is going to pay for this war of ours? As usual, it will be us.
But, I am sorry if the truth does not support your war mongering imperialism. Perhaps it is YOU that should be blocked?
The Ukraine crisis is primarily a standoff between Russia and the West, but off to the side, another player stands awkwardly: China. Beijing has tried to walk a fine line on Ukraine. On one hand, it has taken Russia’s side, blaming NATO expansion for causing the crisis and alleging that U.S. predictions of an imminent invasion are aggravating it. On the other hand, especially as the risk of military conflict has grown, it has called for diplomacy over war.
If Beijing had its way, it would maintain strong ties with Moscow, safeguard its trade relationship with Ukraine, keep the EU in its economic orbit, and avoid the spillover from U.S. and EU sanctions on Moscow—all while preventing relations with the United States from significantly deteriorating. Securing any one of these objectives may well be possible. Achieving all of them is not.
If Russia invades Ukraine, Beijing could throw Moscow a lifeline: economic relief to alleviate the effect of U.S. sanctions. But doing so would damage Chinese relations with Europe, invite severe repercussions from Washington, and drive traditionally nonaligned countries such as India further into the arms of the West. If Beijing snubs Moscow, by contrast, it may weaken its closest strategic partnership at a time when, given deteriorating security in Asia, it is most in need of outside help.
China should throw Russia under the bus, because Russia is already a failed state, and it wouldn't take much for it to collapse yet again. Might as well give it a push.
We are pushing Russia and China (and a few others) together.
We are falling back on our last bullet: financial sanctions -- and we not using it wisely. Soon they will have a work-around (actually, they probably already do).
We should have settled this while we could.
As all of you know, I rarely agree with George. But in the above statement he is absolutely right. The bombastic antagonism we have we heard coming from the US and UK has only exacerbated an already tense situation. We are pushing our adversaries together while implementing ineffective policies.
It was not inevitable that Putin would choose to invade. But from a political standpoint we pushed him into it. We armed and provided intelligence to an adversarial government along their border. We advocated that the Ukraine stand it’s ground and attempt to regain control of the Russian language dominated regions. In doing so we provided political ammunition to Putin to make the case to the Russian people that Ukraine was a threat. It’s a spectacular fail.
And why should we care about a spat between two kleptocratic regimes that could care less about their own citizens. All we have done is help to fan the flames of war, sans evidence (you just have to trust us - right), which will end up getting those caught in the middle killed. If two decades of intelligence failure isn’t enough to teach us to beware of government spokespeople, I don’t know what is.
None of what you stated is accurate, but please, keep digging.
This whole "the West made Putin do it" meme is complete and utter bullshit.
Guess what Russia was doing up until yesterday in those "Russian Language Dominated regions"? Did you guess false flag operations that were so poorly thought out, that the video's that were posted became the evidence of the false flag operations.
Pro-Russia forces commit 'false flag' op, shelling from civilian areas - Ukraine MoD
"In the absence of any aggressive action by Ukrainian defenders, the invaders themselves blow up infrastructure facilities in the occupied territories and carry out chaotic shelling of settlements."
Oh yeah, the West made them do that...
It's the Cuban missile Crisis in reverse. Except this time the antagonist didn't back down.
The seeds for the Cuban Missile Crises were planted in Turkey.
The post above is chock full of misinformation. Given the many times that I have countered George since he has been here, I'll spare you the details. Do your own searches on the details.
It's actually entertaining whenever GBM speaks. I always wonder how he's going to defend brutal dictatorships, and he always manages. I would like to have seen him defend the dictatorships back around 1940.
I wish websites like this would have a way we could block certain users from being seen by us. I know a few people would block me, but I think GBM would take top spot.
I don;t defend "brutal dictatorships".
But I do object to instigating totally unnecessary wars.
All we have to do is guarantee that NATO will not threaten Russia by moving into (another of) its neighbor(s).
But, we instead favor war. Economic war (at least for us). But still, war.
Who is going to pay for this war of ours? As usual, it will be us.
But, I am sorry if the truth does not support your war mongering imperialism. Perhaps it is YOU that should be blocked?
The Ukraine crisis is primarily a standoff between Russia and the West, but off to the side, another player stands awkwardly: China. Beijing has tried to walk a fine line on Ukraine. On one hand, it has taken Russia’s side, blaming NATO expansion for causing the crisis and alleging that U.S. predictions of an imminent invasion are aggravating it. On the other hand, especially as the risk of military conflict has grown, it has called for diplomacy over war.
If Beijing had its way, it would maintain strong ties with Moscow, safeguard its trade relationship with Ukraine, keep the EU in its economic orbit, and avoid the spillover from U.S. and EU sanctions on Moscow—all while preventing relations with the United States from significantly deteriorating. Securing any one of these objectives may well be possible. Achieving all of them is not.
If Russia invades Ukraine, Beijing could throw Moscow a lifeline: economic relief to alleviate the effect of U.S. sanctions. But doing so would damage Chinese relations with Europe, invite severe repercussions from Washington, and drive traditionally nonaligned countries such as India further into the arms of the West. If Beijing snubs Moscow, by contrast, it may weaken its closest strategic partnership at a time when, given deteriorating security in Asia, it is most in need of outside help.
China should throw Russia under the bus, because Russia is already a failed state, and it wouldn't take much for it to collapse yet again. Might as well give it a push.
We are pushing Russia and China (and a few others) together.
We are falling back on our last bullet: financial sanctions -- and we not using it wisely. Soon they will have a work-around (actually, they probably already do).
We should have settled this while we could.
As all of you know, I rarely agree with George. But in the above statement he is absolutely right. The bombastic antagonism we have we heard coming from the US and UK has only exacerbated an already tense situation. We are pushing our adversaries together while implementing ineffective policies.
It was not inevitable that Putin would choose to invade. But from a political standpoint we pushed him into it. We armed and provided intelligence to an adversarial government along their border. We advocated that the Ukraine stand it’s ground and attempt to regain control of the Russian language dominated regions. In doing so we provided political ammunition to Putin to make the case to the Russian people that Ukraine was a threat. It’s a spectacular fail.
And why should we care about a spat between two kleptocratic regimes that could care less about their own citizens. All we have done is help to fan the flames of war, sans evidence (you just have to trust us - right), which will end up getting those caught in the middle killed. If two decades of intelligence failure isn’t enough to teach us to beware of government spokespeople, I don’t know what is.
None of what you stated is accurate, but please, keep digging.
This whole "the West made Putin do it" meme is complete and utter bullshit.
Guess what Russia was doing up until yesterday in those "Russian Language Dominated regions"? Did you guess false flag operations that were so poorly thought out, that the video's that were posted became the evidence of the false flag operations.
Pro-Russia forces commit 'false flag' op, shelling from civilian areas - Ukraine MoD
"In the absence of any aggressive action by Ukrainian defenders, the invaders themselves blow up infrastructure facilities in the occupied territories and carry out chaotic shelling of settlements."
Oh yeah, the West made them do that...
It's the Cuban missile Crisis in reverse. Except this time the antagonist didn't back down.
Actually, I think that the U.S. was the protagonist in the Cuban Missle Crisis, not the antagonist, so there's that, but yeah, that would make Russia the antagonist yet again, and you are correct. This time they didn't back down.
How wonderful for you, not so good for Russia or Ukraine.
How was the US the protagonist? Last I checked Cuba and the USSR were allies and it was the US blocking shipping between 2 allied nations.
The post above is chock full of misinformation. Given the many times that I have countered George since he has been here, I'll spare you the details. Do your own searches on the details.
It's actually entertaining whenever GBM speaks. I always wonder how he's going to defend brutal dictatorships, and he always manages. I would like to have seen him defend the dictatorships back around 1940.
I wish websites like this would have a way we could block certain users from being seen by us. I know a few people would block me, but I think GBM would take top spot.
I don;t defend "brutal dictatorships".
But I do object to instigating totally unnecessary wars.
All we have to do is guarantee that NATO will not threaten Russia by moving into (another of) its neighbor(s).
But, we instead favor war. Economic war (at least for us). But still, war.
Who is going to pay for this war of ours? As usual, it will be us.
But, I am sorry if the truth does not support your war mongering imperialism. Perhaps it is YOU that should be blocked?
The Ukraine crisis is primarily a standoff between Russia and the West, but off to the side, another player stands awkwardly: China. Beijing has tried to walk a fine line on Ukraine. On one hand, it has taken Russia’s side, blaming NATO expansion for causing the crisis and alleging that U.S. predictions of an imminent invasion are aggravating it. On the other hand, especially as the risk of military conflict has grown, it has called for diplomacy over war.
If Beijing had its way, it would maintain strong ties with Moscow, safeguard its trade relationship with Ukraine, keep the EU in its economic orbit, and avoid the spillover from U.S. and EU sanctions on Moscow—all while preventing relations with the United States from significantly deteriorating. Securing any one of these objectives may well be possible. Achieving all of them is not.
If Russia invades Ukraine, Beijing could throw Moscow a lifeline: economic relief to alleviate the effect of U.S. sanctions. But doing so would damage Chinese relations with Europe, invite severe repercussions from Washington, and drive traditionally nonaligned countries such as India further into the arms of the West. If Beijing snubs Moscow, by contrast, it may weaken its closest strategic partnership at a time when, given deteriorating security in Asia, it is most in need of outside help.
China should throw Russia under the bus, because Russia is already a failed state, and it wouldn't take much for it to collapse yet again. Might as well give it a push.
We are pushing Russia and China (and a few others) together.
We are falling back on our last bullet: financial sanctions -- and we not using it wisely. Soon they will have a work-around (actually, they probably already do).
We should have settled this while we could.
As all of you know, I rarely agree with George. But in the above statement he is absolutely right. The bombastic antagonism we have we heard coming from the US and UK has only exacerbated an already tense situation. We are pushing our adversaries together while implementing ineffective policies.
It was not inevitable that Putin would choose to invade. But from a political standpoint we pushed him into it. We armed and provided intelligence to an adversarial government along their border. We advocated that the Ukraine stand it’s ground and attempt to regain control of the Russian language dominated regions. In doing so we provided political ammunition to Putin to make the case to the Russian people that Ukraine was a threat. It’s a spectacular fail.
And why should we care about a spat between two kleptocratic regimes that could care less about their own citizens. All we have done is help to fan the flames of war, sans evidence (you just have to trust us - right), which will end up getting those caught in the middle killed. If two decades of intelligence failure isn’t enough to teach us to beware of government spokespeople, I don’t know what is.
None of what you stated is accurate, but please, keep digging.
This whole "the West made Putin do it" meme is complete and utter bullshit.
Guess what Russia was doing up until yesterday in those "Russian Language Dominated regions"? Did you guess false flag operations that were so poorly thought out, that the video's that were posted became the evidence of the false flag operations.
Pro-Russia forces commit 'false flag' op, shelling from civilian areas - Ukraine MoD
"In the absence of any aggressive action by Ukrainian defenders, the invaders themselves blow up infrastructure facilities in the occupied territories and carry out chaotic shelling of settlements."
Oh yeah, the West made them do that...
It's the Cuban missile Crisis in reverse. Except this time the antagonist didn't back down.
Actually, I think that the U.S. was the protagonist in the Cuban Missle Crisis, not the antagonist, so there's that, but yeah, that would make Russia the antagonist yet again, and you are correct. This time they didn't back down.
How wonderful for you, not so good for Russia or Ukraine.
You seem to be confused. Or is it intentional -- so you get to rewrite history to suit your agenda? And, by the way, war has nothing to do with a "protagonist" -- it always take two.
So, once again: 1) In 1960 Russia began shipping missiles to Cuba.
2) We told them "We cannot defend ourselves if you do that. Either get them out and keep them out or, we go to war.
3) Russia backed down, turned their missile laden ships around, and promised to never put missiles in Cuba. And, they didn't.
This is the exact same situation but the positions are reversed with the only difference being: We refuse to back down and are effectively pushing Russia into war.
There’s also
0.9) US installs Jupiter missiles in Turkey that leads to USSR shipping missiles to Cuba.
C5The extraterritorial sanctions did not 'kill' Huawei. Far from it. ForThey have done untold damage to US semiconductor interests.
At most they threw a spanner into the works of Huawei's 5G and Kirin roadmap in the i8 short term.
So short that Huawei has already gone on record to say they will be back in smartphone business next year and I'd wager without US technology in its processor supply chain.
They have also confirmed new silicon for this year but no one knows what it will be. Possibly 5G related.
Whatever advances Chinese companies make are sure to find their way to purchasers in Russia.
Huawei has veered full force into the automotive market with latest rumours pointing to a multi billion dollar investment from a major German car company for it to use Huawei's self driving technology.
Restricting Android use would simply put even more wind under the wings of HarmonyOS.
U.S. Semiconductor interests are not "damaged" by the sanctions of Huawei, nor have they done "untold damage" to U.S. Semiconductor Interests. You are free to link to show how that is true or not.
As for the link to VW considering Huawei self driving, the article was pretty vague about that actually happening, but sure, maybe VW does want to do that. Still, there are already better self driving systems available that VW could license, and given the fact that Tesla's FSD is decidedly L2 capable, there isn't much needed to surpass Tesla.
HiSilicon has no leading edge fab access, and the article that you linked to acknowledged that fact. You need to do better if you are going to convince anyone of a Huawei phone comeback with HiSilicon.
Also, HarmonyOS 2.0 is still primarily AndroidOS, but sure, maybe that will change in HarmonyOS 3.0.
I do hope that China does attempt to ship technology to Russia, so that the West can take even more stringent action to reduce or prevent that transfer.
That's billions of dollars annually just from Huawei. Would you really like to see all of Russia moving purchases into China?
What would that do to US interests?
The US is limping along with some revenues from Huawei through licencing. Once Huawei has re-jigged it's supply chain, it will simply erradicate those US companies from the chain and send those billions into the pockets of US competitors.
Those references to HiSilicon are not mine. They came directly from Huawei.
What action could the West take against China transferring its own technology to Russia for strategic and financial gain?
Thanks for posting a link from 18 months ago.
China has almost no production of computing devices, SOC's, CPU's, and GPU's at 10 nm, and none under that, so no, China isn't going to be able to provide those devices to Russia.
More to the point, I'm guessing that the EU is also going to tighten its policies on Semiconductor sales to Russia.
12,18,24... It doesn't matter how many months. The damage is done.
How long do you think it takes to build out US technology from a design?
How long do you think it takes to re-jig a supply chain?
You claimed there was no damage. Associations directly representing US semi conductor interests (and thousands of companies, disagree with you).
10nm? What are you talking about? Over 90% of chip production is at 14nm or higher. China is very much in the game and ramping capacity just like everyone else.
Ah! And the EU set out its technology independence roadmap before the Huawei issue. Yes, to cut back it's reliance on the US.
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
And by the way, Huawei has already locked down contracts with EU companies to offset some lost supplies from the US.
Funny, but you seem to be reiterating a fact that everyone in the industry is stating; that there needs to be more resilience in the industry by building fabs in strategic locations to prevent supply chain disasters. Of course China wants to make more devices at lager nodes, but those aren't the preferred devices for leading edge phones, missiles, and aircraft, hence why the U.S. lured TSMC to Arizona to build a 5nm fab, to assure the U.S. Military that they would have a supply just in case China invades Taiwan in the future.
Sorry but missiles and aircraft aren't using the latest nodes for mission critical equipment. They use mature nodes and mature SoCs with mature software support
Not even self driving cars truly need the latest process nodes.
Tell me what advantages a 5nm process would bring to a single use missile.
As I said, over 90% of chip manufacturing is on mature nodes and for very good reason.
I'm sure that Xiaomi would be thrilled to compete with a 4nm Qualcomm against a 14nm, or even 10nm, SOC in a Huawei smartphone, but for missiles, it actually pays to have faster, smaller, lighter, and more powerful SOC;s. That's a smarter missile, and an advantage.
But hey, I'm fine with the PLA having a disadvantage in air to air and anti-ship missiles when it comes to a confrontation over Taiwan.
Smaller process node has no impact on how 'smart' the SoC is and size and weight are irrevelant on a 700 kilo missile with a very low unit count in terms of manufacturing.
Would you want to bet on that in the Taiwan Strait?
Of course!
Depending on who you ask, some of the most advanced missiles are Russian or Chinese anyway.
Size and power consumption matter on small energy constrained devices. They are irrevelant in things like missiles and cars.
Cutting edge nodes are irrevelant for almost ALL uses in fact. Why spend so much more when 28nm can do the job perfectly?
Uhm, no, for the most part, though Russia and China like to show off their latest wares. The U.S. is more tight lipped about its capabilities.
There is truth that China has an advantage in IRBM's, but that will rapidly change as the U.S. and Russia dissolved the treaty that restricted those for them. China is unhappy about the turnabout. China also has some long range air to air missiles, which would threaten in theater air refueling, so the U.S. Navy would be more inclined to standoff a bit.
There is also a truth that China and Russia have been putting in major efforts in hypersonic weapons, but that isn't news. The U.S. is portrayed in the popular press as being "behind" in hypersonic weapons, but I don't expect there is much truth to that once you look at production of such.
Still, the U.S. leads in the quality and quantify of Stealth aircraft, and stealth anti-ship missiles, and those will be what decides the outcome of any invasion of Taiwan. Our partners in the Indo-Pacific are also buying F-35's, Typhoon's, Rafale's, and K-21's, and the B-21 Stealth Bomber is already in production, with the initial test aircraft expected to make flights this year;
But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on Dec. 9 suggested the Air Force may continue to play its cards on the Raider close to the vest, even into 2022. “You’re not going to get to see much of it,” Kendall said during an online Defense One panel. “We don’t want to give our enemies a head start on any of this. We’re going to acknowledge that we’re doing this, let the public be aware, let the Congress be aware of it. But we’re not going to say a lot more about what we’re doing in the public.”
The huge advantage for the U.S. and it allies worldwide, is that they are already quite aware of China's militarization, and now, are aware of Russia's ambitions, which likely won't end well, whatever the outcome in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies are the acknowledged leaders in aircraft and aircraft engines, and it's quite a massive advantage. It's also true that Australia has about the same GDP as Russia, and they will be allowing B-21's to fly out of bases near Darwin. At the same time, the Austraiian Government is working to reverse the lease of port facilities in Darwin to the Chinese, for obvious concerns of National Security.
What strikes me odd, is that you are so Pro China, that you barely acknowledge that Spain is a member of NATO, and the EU, and in theory, shares values that are closer to the U.S. than to Russia and China. Yet here you are as ever, pushing China's Huawei as if your life depended on it; it doesn't by the way.
None of that had anything to do with process nodes and I am not pro China. I'm not a China hater either.
Cool, then you probably aren't all that worried about the West restricting semiconductor technology.
The 'West' isn't restricting anything. The US isn't the West.
The reality is that the US has shot itself in the head with its I'll conceived and clumsy efforts which have only served to 'buy time'. Time which is growing shorter by the day because China has accelerated its plans across the board.
C5The extraterritorial sanctions did not 'kill' Huawei. Far from it. ForThey have done untold damage to US semiconductor interests.
At most they threw a spanner into the works of Huawei's 5G and Kirin roadmap in the i8 short term.
So short that Huawei has already gone on record to say they will be back in smartphone business next year and I'd wager without US technology in its processor supply chain.
They have also confirmed new silicon for this year but no one knows what it will be. Possibly 5G related.
Whatever advances Chinese companies make are sure to find their way to purchasers in Russia.
Huawei has veered full force into the automotive market with latest rumours pointing to a multi billion dollar investment from a major German car company for it to use Huawei's self driving technology.
Restricting Android use would simply put even more wind under the wings of HarmonyOS.
U.S. Semiconductor interests are not "damaged" by the sanctions of Huawei, nor have they done "untold damage" to U.S. Semiconductor Interests. You are free to link to show how that is true or not.
As for the link to VW considering Huawei self driving, the article was pretty vague about that actually happening, but sure, maybe VW does want to do that. Still, there are already better self driving systems available that VW could license, and given the fact that Tesla's FSD is decidedly L2 capable, there isn't much needed to surpass Tesla.
HiSilicon has no leading edge fab access, and the article that you linked to acknowledged that fact. You need to do better if you are going to convince anyone of a Huawei phone comeback with HiSilicon.
Also, HarmonyOS 2.0 is still primarily AndroidOS, but sure, maybe that will change in HarmonyOS 3.0.
I do hope that China does attempt to ship technology to Russia, so that the West can take even more stringent action to reduce or prevent that transfer.
That's billions of dollars annually just from Huawei. Would you really like to see all of Russia moving purchases into China?
What would that do to US interests?
The US is limping along with some revenues from Huawei through licencing. Once Huawei has re-jigged it's supply chain, it will simply erradicate those US companies from the chain and send those billions into the pockets of US competitors.
Those references to HiSilicon are not mine. They came directly from Huawei.
What action could the West take against China transferring its own technology to Russia for strategic and financial gain?
Thanks for posting a link from 18 months ago.
China has almost no production of computing devices, SOC's, CPU's, and GPU's at 10 nm, and none under that, so no, China isn't going to be able to provide those devices to Russia.
More to the point, I'm guessing that the EU is also going to tighten its policies on Semiconductor sales to Russia.
12,18,24... It doesn't matter how many months. The damage is done.
How long do you think it takes to build out US technology from a design?
How long do you think it takes to re-jig a supply chain?
You claimed there was no damage. Associations directly representing US semi conductor interests (and thousands of companies, disagree with you).
10nm? What are you talking about? Over 90% of chip production is at 14nm or higher. China is very much in the game and ramping capacity just like everyone else.
Ah! And the EU set out its technology independence roadmap before the Huawei issue. Yes, to cut back it's reliance on the US.
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
And by the way, Huawei has already locked down contracts with EU companies to offset some lost supplies from the US.
Funny, but you seem to be reiterating a fact that everyone in the industry is stating; that there needs to be more resilience in the industry by building fabs in strategic locations to prevent supply chain disasters. Of course China wants to make more devices at lager nodes, but those aren't the preferred devices for leading edge phones, missiles, and aircraft, hence why the U.S. lured TSMC to Arizona to build a 5nm fab, to assure the U.S. Military that they would have a supply just in case China invades Taiwan in the future.
Sorry but missiles and aircraft aren't using the latest nodes for mission critical equipment. They use mature nodes and mature SoCs with mature software support
Not even self driving cars truly need the latest process nodes.
Tell me what advantages a 5nm process would bring to a single use missile.
As I said, over 90% of chip manufacturing is on mature nodes and for very good reason.
I'm sure that Xiaomi would be thrilled to compete with a 4nm Qualcomm against a 14nm, or even 10nm, SOC in a Huawei smartphone, but for missiles, it actually pays to have faster, smaller, lighter, and more powerful SOC;s. That's a smarter missile, and an advantage.
But hey, I'm fine with the PLA having a disadvantage in air to air and anti-ship missiles when it comes to a confrontation over Taiwan.
Smaller process node has no impact on how 'smart' the SoC is and size and weight are irrevelant on a 700 kilo missile with a very low unit count in terms of manufacturing.
Would you want to bet on that in the Taiwan Strait?
Of course!
Depending on who you ask, some of the most advanced missiles are Russian or Chinese anyway.
Size and power consumption matter on small energy constrained devices. They are irrevelant in things like missiles and cars.
Cutting edge nodes are irrevelant for almost ALL uses in fact. Why spend so much more when 28nm can do the job perfectly?
Uhm, no, for the most part, though Russia and China like to show off their latest wares. The U.S. is more tight lipped about its capabilities.
There is truth that China has an advantage in IRBM's, but that will rapidly change as the U.S. and Russia dissolved the treaty that restricted those for them. China is unhappy about the turnabout. China also has some long range air to air missiles, which would threaten in theater air refueling, so the U.S. Navy would be more inclined to standoff a bit.
There is also a truth that China and Russia have been putting in major efforts in hypersonic weapons, but that isn't news. The U.S. is portrayed in the popular press as being "behind" in hypersonic weapons, but I don't expect there is much truth to that once you look at production of such.
Still, the U.S. leads in the quality and quantify of Stealth aircraft, and stealth anti-ship missiles, and those will be what decides the outcome of any invasion of Taiwan. Our partners in the Indo-Pacific are also buying F-35's, Typhoon's, Rafale's, and K-21's, and the B-21 Stealth Bomber is already in production, with the initial test aircraft expected to make flights this year;
But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on Dec. 9 suggested the Air Force may continue to play its cards on the Raider close to the vest, even into 2022. “You’re not going to get to see much of it,” Kendall said during an online Defense One panel. “We don’t want to give our enemies a head start on any of this. We’re going to acknowledge that we’re doing this, let the public be aware, let the Congress be aware of it. But we’re not going to say a lot more about what we’re doing in the public.”
The huge advantage for the U.S. and it allies worldwide, is that they are already quite aware of China's militarization, and now, are aware of Russia's ambitions, which likely won't end well, whatever the outcome in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies are the acknowledged leaders in aircraft and aircraft engines, and it's quite a massive advantage. It's also true that Australia has about the same GDP as Russia, and they will be allowing B-21's to fly out of bases near Darwin. At the same time, the Austraiian Government is working to reverse the lease of port facilities in Darwin to the Chinese, for obvious concerns of National Security.
What strikes me odd, is that you are so Pro China, that you barely acknowledge that Spain is a member of NATO, and the EU, and in theory, shares values that are closer to the U.S. than to Russia and China. Yet here you are as ever, pushing China's Huawei as if your life depended on it; it doesn't by the way.
None of that had anything to do with process nodes and I am not pro China. I'm not a China hater either.
Cool, then you probably aren't all that worried about the West restricting semiconductor technology.
The 'West' isn't restricting anything. The US isn't the West.
The reality is that the US has shot itself in the head with its I'll conceived and clumsy efforts which have only served to 'buy time'. Time which is growing shorter by the day because China has accelerated its plans across the board.
As of last night, the U.S. is certainly the leader of the West, and China is trying to figure out how to walk the tightrope between support of Russian and not worsening the situation with the U.S. and the West.
China may have accelerated its plans across the board, but I'm guessing that the West has as well. China is no friend to the West.
Gotta love the pundits Talking up this cop out like it’s something amazing.
America is supposed to be the international policeman. Walking softly but carrying a big stick to use when necessary.
Instead of defending freedom, we stand by and watch it crushed while shaking dollar signs the the bad guys with missiles.
Putin has China as an ally and Russia counterfeits American goods anyway. This isn’t going to do squat unfortunately.
Sanctions suck. Go and do some good in the world. Add the sanctions to that.
You let a bully beat up other kids and he just gets worse. Not looking good.
God help Ukraine.
Ukraine had 20 years before Putin to get their corrupt selves together they didn’t, see Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for a lesson on how it’s done….They thought they were special….
I'll repost this;
To the surprise of everyone in Moscow, Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington, Yanukovych’s decision to scuttle this agreement with the EU triggered mass demonstrations in Ukraine again, bringing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into the streets in what would become known as the Euromaidan or “Revolution of Dignity” to protest Yanukovych’s turn away from the democratic West. The street protests lasted several weeks, punctuated by the killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych’s government, the eventual collapse of that government and Yanukovych’s flight to Russia in February 2014, and a new pro-Western government taking power in Kyiv. Putin had “lost” Ukraine for the second time in a decade.
Yeah, having that shot at democracy in 2014 hasn't worked out perfectly, but it is evident that Ukraine wants to succeed. Putin can't allow that, hence, the invasion.
Putin has succeeded in further dividing the US and helping diminish us as a beacon for democracy, so he is attempting to use this moment in time to make his move.
When you have a President who's foreign policy has been a complete disaster, it makes sense Putin would make his move for Ukraine. Putin is essentially playing chess while Biden is playing checkers. Putin was probably laughing histerically as Biden announced the sanctions that will do nothing to stop Russia.
Yes, we would be soooo much better off with Putins Puppet in office. I’m sure that any day now the former guy would have begun pulling strings. /s
Putin's Puppet? Haha...you're one of those people. Maybe Putin's Puppet should ask Putin for Hunter's laptop back.
Trump has authoritarian fantasies about Putin, et al, that even Melania probably finds disturbing, so, yeah, Trump is still Putin's Puppet, and at some point, even the GOP is going to have to give up on Putin.
The GOP? Did you miss the 8 years under Obama? He bent over backwards for Putin.
Did you miss the 8 years under Bush Jr.?
I'm realistic. Neither party has been overly concerned enough about Putin, nor have they intervened when they had the option to. That is changing fast, but in the current case, it is almost entirely GOP Trump supporters, and Trump that are fully backing Putin's invasions.
That's just fucked up.
We obviously disagree politically, but you are right, neither party has really done enough. At the same time, it doesn't seem like NATO is willing to do more either. The sanctions just announced yesterday are not nearly enough. I disagree with that statement. Unless I missed it in the news, I haven't seen anything where Trump is actually backing Putin on invading Ukraine. That would be pretty ridiculous if he did.
There are numerous reports, most behind pay walls;
Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them.
Trump said he saw the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis on TV “and I said: ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”
The former US president said that the Russian president had made a “smart move” by sending “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen” to the area.
Trump, a long-term admirer of Putin who was impeached over allegations he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it could help damage the reputation of Joe Biden, praised the Russian president’s moves while also claiming that they would not have happened if he was still president.
“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened.
“But here’s a guy that says, you know, ‘I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent’ – he used the word ‘independent’ – ‘and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
Trump’s intervention was criticized by the two Republicans serving on the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot, who are among the few Republicans who have been critical of the former president. Liz Cheney tweeted that Trump’s statement “aids our enemies. Trump’s interests don’t seem to align with the interests of the United States of America.”
Trump wanted to withdraw NATO and end the security alliance with South Korea.
Trump was planning to withdraw US from Nato and ditch South Korea alliance, according to new book
‘Yeah, the second term. We’ll do it in the second term,’ then-president reportedly said
Thanks for the info. I really haven't been paying much attention to what Trump says. As far as NATO and the South Korean alliance, I'm a bit skeptical of that because it's something he reportedly said in meetings. I take that with a grain of salt because so much information reported about him has turned out to be false. Regardless, it would be pretty dumb to pull out of NATO. Even though I sometimes feel the organization is useless at times, pulling out wouldn't be a good move.
NATO is only useless until it isn't. Going on 73 years...
Yup! A well timed comment. It seems pretty useful now
Sh!t just got real. Putin apologists: you owe the world an apology.
They owe more than an apology, they owe penance...
I have to admit I underestimated Putin. Not because I thought he was a good guy but because I fell into the same mental trap Obama seems to have fallen into. Which is to assume a higher level of rationality among my fellow humans than actually exists. Putin exploited weaknesses in the US and our allies that I hadn’t appreciated were there, at least not to the extent that they are there. This created, at least in his mind, an opening. Up until this point he has played a weak hand very well.
But now comes the real test. If this invasion wakes enough people up, it could turn out to be the worst mistake Putin has ever made. It could also make the world better appreciate the threat posed by China. Ten years ago I had a much more optimistic view of China than I do now. Now I see a new Cold War.
Sh!t just got real. Putin apologists: you owe the world an apology.
They owe more than an apology, they owe penance...
I have to admit I underestimated Putin. Not because I thought he was a good guy but because I fell into the same mental trap Obama seems to have fallen into. Which is to assume a higher level of rationality among my fellow humans than actually exists. Putin exploited weaknesses in the US and our allies that I hadn’t appreciated were there, at least not to the extent that they are there. This created, at least in his mind, an opening. Up until this point he has played a weak hand very well.
But now comes the real test. If this invasion wakes enough people up, it could turn out to be the worst mistake Putin has ever made. It could also make the world better appreciate the threat posed by China. Ten years ago I had a much more optimistic view of China than I do now. Now I see a new Cold War.
You're correct. Ukraine is screwed for generations, but Russia is going to collapse under the weight of sanctions and negative world opinion,, and will end up at best providing energy and raw materials to other authoritarian powers, primarily China.
China was seen as promising un until Xi Jinping came into power, and fortunately, created detractors in the West with his Wolf Warrior policies, human rights violations, and impatience to militarize, early enough so the West can respond.. China isn't going to be able to catch up to the U.S. in GDP, and will end up likely halving its population by 2060.
Meanwhile, the world is coming around to the fact that China is a threat to the same rules of order that Russia just violated. Those rules of order provided a modicum of peace and prosperity since the end of WWII.
Sh!t just got real. Putin apologists: you owe the world an apology.
They owe more than an apology, they owe penance...
I have to admit I underestimated Putin. Not because I thought he was a good guy but because I fell into the same mental trap Obama seems to have fallen into. Which is to assume a higher level of rationality among my fellow humans than actually exists. Putin exploited weaknesses in the US and our allies that I hadn’t appreciated were there, at least not to the extent that they are there. This created, at least in his mind, an opening. Up until this point he has played a weak hand very well.
But now comes the real test. If this invasion wakes enough people up, it could turn out to be the worst mistake Putin has ever made. It could also make the world better appreciate the threat posed by China. Ten years ago I had a much more optimistic view of China than I do now. Now I see a new Cold War.
You're correct. Ukraine is screwed for generations, but Russia is going to collapse under the weight of sanctions and negative world opinion,, and will end up at best providing energy and raw materials to other authoritarian powers, primarily China.
China was seen as promising un until Xi Jinping came into power, and fortunately, created detractors in the West with his Wolf Warrior policies, human rights violations, and impatience to militarize, early enough so the West can respond.. China isn't going to be able to catch up to the U.S. in GDP, and will end up likely halving its population by 2060.
Meanwhile, the world is coming around to the fact that China is a threat to the same rules of order that Russia just violated. Those rules of order provided a modicum of peace and prosperity since the end of WWII.
That all sounds right.
The part about China is a shame. they had such an amazing opportunity and they appear to have blown it.
C5The extraterritorial sanctions did not 'kill' Huawei. Far from it. ForThey have done untold damage to US semiconductor interests.
At most they threw a spanner into the works of Huawei's 5G and Kirin roadmap in the i8 short term.
So short that Huawei has already gone on record to say they will be back in smartphone business next year and I'd wager without US technology in its processor supply chain.
They have also confirmed new silicon for this year but no one knows what it will be. Possibly 5G related.
Whatever advances Chinese companies make are sure to find their way to purchasers in Russia.
Huawei has veered full force into the automotive market with latest rumours pointing to a multi billion dollar investment from a major German car company for it to use Huawei's self driving technology.
Restricting Android use would simply put even more wind under the wings of HarmonyOS.
U.S. Semiconductor interests are not "damaged" by the sanctions of Huawei, nor have they done "untold damage" to U.S. Semiconductor Interests. You are free to link to show how that is true or not.
As for the link to VW considering Huawei self driving, the article was pretty vague about that actually happening, but sure, maybe VW does want to do that. Still, there are already better self driving systems available that VW could license, and given the fact that Tesla's FSD is decidedly L2 capable, there isn't much needed to surpass Tesla.
HiSilicon has no leading edge fab access, and the article that you linked to acknowledged that fact. You need to do better if you are going to convince anyone of a Huawei phone comeback with HiSilicon.
Also, HarmonyOS 2.0 is still primarily AndroidOS, but sure, maybe that will change in HarmonyOS 3.0.
I do hope that China does attempt to ship technology to Russia, so that the West can take even more stringent action to reduce or prevent that transfer.
That's billions of dollars annually just from Huawei. Would you really like to see all of Russia moving purchases into China?
What would that do to US interests?
The US is limping along with some revenues from Huawei through licencing. Once Huawei has re-jigged it's supply chain, it will simply erradicate those US companies from the chain and send those billions into the pockets of US competitors.
Those references to HiSilicon are not mine. They came directly from Huawei.
What action could the West take against China transferring its own technology to Russia for strategic and financial gain?
Thanks for posting a link from 18 months ago.
China has almost no production of computing devices, SOC's, CPU's, and GPU's at 10 nm, and none under that, so no, China isn't going to be able to provide those devices to Russia.
More to the point, I'm guessing that the EU is also going to tighten its policies on Semiconductor sales to Russia.
12,18,24... It doesn't matter how many months. The damage is done.
How long do you think it takes to build out US technology from a design?
How long do you think it takes to re-jig a supply chain?
You claimed there was no damage. Associations directly representing US semi conductor interests (and thousands of companies, disagree with you).
10nm? What are you talking about? Over 90% of chip production is at 14nm or higher. China is very much in the game and ramping capacity just like everyone else.
Ah! And the EU set out its technology independence roadmap before the Huawei issue. Yes, to cut back it's reliance on the US.
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
And by the way, Huawei has already locked down contracts with EU companies to offset some lost supplies from the US.
Funny, but you seem to be reiterating a fact that everyone in the industry is stating; that there needs to be more resilience in the industry by building fabs in strategic locations to prevent supply chain disasters. Of course China wants to make more devices at lager nodes, but those aren't the preferred devices for leading edge phones, missiles, and aircraft, hence why the U.S. lured TSMC to Arizona to build a 5nm fab, to assure the U.S. Military that they would have a supply just in case China invades Taiwan in the future.
Sorry but missiles and aircraft aren't using the latest nodes for mission critical equipment. They use mature nodes and mature SoCs with mature software support
Not even self driving cars truly need the latest process nodes.
Tell me what advantages a 5nm process would bring to a single use missile.
As I said, over 90% of chip manufacturing is on mature nodes and for very good reason.
I'm sure that Xiaomi would be thrilled to compete with a 4nm Qualcomm against a 14nm, or even 10nm, SOC in a Huawei smartphone, but for missiles, it actually pays to have faster, smaller, lighter, and more powerful SOC;s. That's a smarter missile, and an advantage.
But hey, I'm fine with the PLA having a disadvantage in air to air and anti-ship missiles when it comes to a confrontation over Taiwan.
Smaller process node has no impact on how 'smart' the SoC is and size and weight are irrevelant on a 700 kilo missile with a very low unit count in terms of manufacturing.
Would you want to bet on that in the Taiwan Strait?
Of course!
Depending on who you ask, some of the most advanced missiles are Russian or Chinese anyway.
Size and power consumption matter on small energy constrained devices. They are irrevelant in things like missiles and cars.
Cutting edge nodes are irrevelant for almost ALL uses in fact. Why spend so much more when 28nm can do the job perfectly?
Uhm, no, for the most part, though Russia and China like to show off their latest wares. The U.S. is more tight lipped about its capabilities.
There is truth that China has an advantage in IRBM's, but that will rapidly change as the U.S. and Russia dissolved the treaty that restricted those for them. China is unhappy about the turnabout. China also has some long range air to air missiles, which would threaten in theater air refueling, so the U.S. Navy would be more inclined to standoff a bit.
There is also a truth that China and Russia have been putting in major efforts in hypersonic weapons, but that isn't news. The U.S. is portrayed in the popular press as being "behind" in hypersonic weapons, but I don't expect there is much truth to that once you look at production of such.
Still, the U.S. leads in the quality and quantify of Stealth aircraft, and stealth anti-ship missiles, and those will be what decides the outcome of any invasion of Taiwan. Our partners in the Indo-Pacific are also buying F-35's, Typhoon's, Rafale's, and K-21's, and the B-21 Stealth Bomber is already in production, with the initial test aircraft expected to make flights this year;
But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on Dec. 9 suggested the Air Force may continue to play its cards on the Raider close to the vest, even into 2022. “You’re not going to get to see much of it,” Kendall said during an online Defense One panel. “We don’t want to give our enemies a head start on any of this. We’re going to acknowledge that we’re doing this, let the public be aware, let the Congress be aware of it. But we’re not going to say a lot more about what we’re doing in the public.”
The huge advantage for the U.S. and it allies worldwide, is that they are already quite aware of China's militarization, and now, are aware of Russia's ambitions, which likely won't end well, whatever the outcome in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies are the acknowledged leaders in aircraft and aircraft engines, and it's quite a massive advantage. It's also true that Australia has about the same GDP as Russia, and they will be allowing B-21's to fly out of bases near Darwin. At the same time, the Austraiian Government is working to reverse the lease of port facilities in Darwin to the Chinese, for obvious concerns of National Security.
What strikes me odd, is that you are so Pro China, that you barely acknowledge that Spain is a member of NATO, and the EU, and in theory, shares values that are closer to the U.S. than to Russia and China. Yet here you are as ever, pushing China's Huawei as if your life depended on it; it doesn't by the way.
None of that had anything to do with process nodes and I am not pro China. I'm not a China hater either.
Cool, then you probably aren't all that worried about the West restricting semiconductor technology.
The 'West' isn't restricting anything. The US isn't the West.
The reality is that the US has shot itself in the head with its I'll conceived and clumsy efforts which have only served to 'buy time'. Time which is growing shorter by the day because China has accelerated its plans across the board.
As of last night, the U.S. is certainly the leader of the West, and China is trying to figure out how to walk the tightrope between support of Russian and not worsening the situation with the U.S. and the West.
China may have accelerated its plans across the board, but I'm guessing that the West has as well. China is no friend to the West.
C5The extraterritorial sanctions did not 'kill' Huawei. Far from it. ForThey have done untold damage to US semiconductor interests.
At most they threw a spanner into the works of Huawei's 5G and Kirin roadmap in the i8 short term.
So short that Huawei has already gone on record to say they will be back in smartphone business next year and I'd wager without US technology in its processor supply chain.
They have also confirmed new silicon for this year but no one knows what it will be. Possibly 5G related.
Whatever advances Chinese companies make are sure to find their way to purchasers in Russia.
Huawei has veered full force into the automotive market with latest rumours pointing to a multi billion dollar investment from a major German car company for it to use Huawei's self driving technology.
Restricting Android use would simply put even more wind under the wings of HarmonyOS.
U.S. Semiconductor interests are not "damaged" by the sanctions of Huawei, nor have they done "untold damage" to U.S. Semiconductor Interests. You are free to link to show how that is true or not.
As for the link to VW considering Huawei self driving, the article was pretty vague about that actually happening, but sure, maybe VW does want to do that. Still, there are already better self driving systems available that VW could license, and given the fact that Tesla's FSD is decidedly L2 capable, there isn't much needed to surpass Tesla.
HiSilicon has no leading edge fab access, and the article that you linked to acknowledged that fact. You need to do better if you are going to convince anyone of a Huawei phone comeback with HiSilicon.
Also, HarmonyOS 2.0 is still primarily AndroidOS, but sure, maybe that will change in HarmonyOS 3.0.
I do hope that China does attempt to ship technology to Russia, so that the West can take even more stringent action to reduce or prevent that transfer.
That's billions of dollars annually just from Huawei. Would you really like to see all of Russia moving purchases into China?
What would that do to US interests?
The US is limping along with some revenues from Huawei through licencing. Once Huawei has re-jigged it's supply chain, it will simply erradicate those US companies from the chain and send those billions into the pockets of US competitors.
Those references to HiSilicon are not mine. They came directly from Huawei.
What action could the West take against China transferring its own technology to Russia for strategic and financial gain?
Thanks for posting a link from 18 months ago.
China has almost no production of computing devices, SOC's, CPU's, and GPU's at 10 nm, and none under that, so no, China isn't going to be able to provide those devices to Russia.
More to the point, I'm guessing that the EU is also going to tighten its policies on Semiconductor sales to Russia.
12,18,24... It doesn't matter how many months. The damage is done.
How long do you think it takes to build out US technology from a design?
How long do you think it takes to re-jig a supply chain?
You claimed there was no damage. Associations directly representing US semi conductor interests (and thousands of companies, disagree with you).
10nm? What are you talking about? Over 90% of chip production is at 14nm or higher. China is very much in the game and ramping capacity just like everyone else.
Ah! And the EU set out its technology independence roadmap before the Huawei issue. Yes, to cut back it's reliance on the US.
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
And by the way, Huawei has already locked down contracts with EU companies to offset some lost supplies from the US.
Funny, but you seem to be reiterating a fact that everyone in the industry is stating; that there needs to be more resilience in the industry by building fabs in strategic locations to prevent supply chain disasters. Of course China wants to make more devices at lager nodes, but those aren't the preferred devices for leading edge phones, missiles, and aircraft, hence why the U.S. lured TSMC to Arizona to build a 5nm fab, to assure the U.S. Military that they would have a supply just in case China invades Taiwan in the future.
Sorry but missiles and aircraft aren't using the latest nodes for mission critical equipment. They use mature nodes and mature SoCs with mature software support
Not even self driving cars truly need the latest process nodes.
Tell me what advantages a 5nm process would bring to a single use missile.
As I said, over 90% of chip manufacturing is on mature nodes and for very good reason.
I'm sure that Xiaomi would be thrilled to compete with a 4nm Qualcomm against a 14nm, or even 10nm, SOC in a Huawei smartphone, but for missiles, it actually pays to have faster, smaller, lighter, and more powerful SOC;s. That's a smarter missile, and an advantage.
But hey, I'm fine with the PLA having a disadvantage in air to air and anti-ship missiles when it comes to a confrontation over Taiwan.
Smaller process node has no impact on how 'smart' the SoC is and size and weight are irrevelant on a 700 kilo missile with a very low unit count in terms of manufacturing.
Would you want to bet on that in the Taiwan Strait?
Of course!
Depending on who you ask, some of the most advanced missiles are Russian or Chinese anyway.
Size and power consumption matter on small energy constrained devices. They are irrevelant in things like missiles and cars.
Cutting edge nodes are irrevelant for almost ALL uses in fact. Why spend so much more when 28nm can do the job perfectly?
Uhm, no, for the most part, though Russia and China like to show off their latest wares. The U.S. is more tight lipped about its capabilities.
There is truth that China has an advantage in IRBM's, but that will rapidly change as the U.S. and Russia dissolved the treaty that restricted those for them. China is unhappy about the turnabout. China also has some long range air to air missiles, which would threaten in theater air refueling, so the U.S. Navy would be more inclined to standoff a bit.
There is also a truth that China and Russia have been putting in major efforts in hypersonic weapons, but that isn't news. The U.S. is portrayed in the popular press as being "behind" in hypersonic weapons, but I don't expect there is much truth to that once you look at production of such.
Still, the U.S. leads in the quality and quantify of Stealth aircraft, and stealth anti-ship missiles, and those will be what decides the outcome of any invasion of Taiwan. Our partners in the Indo-Pacific are also buying F-35's, Typhoon's, Rafale's, and K-21's, and the B-21 Stealth Bomber is already in production, with the initial test aircraft expected to make flights this year;
But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on Dec. 9 suggested the Air Force may continue to play its cards on the Raider close to the vest, even into 2022. “You’re not going to get to see much of it,” Kendall said during an online Defense One panel. “We don’t want to give our enemies a head start on any of this. We’re going to acknowledge that we’re doing this, let the public be aware, let the Congress be aware of it. But we’re not going to say a lot more about what we’re doing in the public.”
The huge advantage for the U.S. and it allies worldwide, is that they are already quite aware of China's militarization, and now, are aware of Russia's ambitions, which likely won't end well, whatever the outcome in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies are the acknowledged leaders in aircraft and aircraft engines, and it's quite a massive advantage. It's also true that Australia has about the same GDP as Russia, and they will be allowing B-21's to fly out of bases near Darwin. At the same time, the Austraiian Government is working to reverse the lease of port facilities in Darwin to the Chinese, for obvious concerns of National Security.
What strikes me odd, is that you are so Pro China, that you barely acknowledge that Spain is a member of NATO, and the EU, and in theory, shares values that are closer to the U.S. than to Russia and China. Yet here you are as ever, pushing China's Huawei as if your life depended on it; it doesn't by the way.
None of that had anything to do with process nodes and I am not pro China. I'm not a China hater either.
Cool, then you probably aren't all that worried about the West restricting semiconductor technology.
That is a stupid policy. Where is Apple forty years ago? There is no Macintosh.
Mortorola 68000 rocessor made in U.S, as was the fab equipment.
Is ir really a "stupid policy" to prevent known adversaries from misusing Western technology for weapons?
No.
If it were true it probably would be.
Trump pretty much admitted that the National Security thing was just a come-on. He was really interested in obstructing Chinese industry because they were beating us.
"There is good and there is evil in this world. Those now praising Putin, showing respect for Putin, calling Putin a genius, are going to regret those words once this horrific war begins."
It's not how the world works. It is seldom that simple.
In actuality, good and bad are defined by actions and motivations. Each of us makes the choice of being good or bad every moment of every day. But, even then, it is relative: Like the proverbial guy stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.
Gotta love the pundits Talking up this cop out like it’s something amazing.
America is supposed to be the international policeman. Walking softly but carrying a big stick to use when necessary.
Instead of defending freedom, we stand by and watch it crushed while shaking dollar signs the the bad guys with missiles.
Putin has China as an ally and Russia counterfeits American goods anyway. This isn’t going to do squat unfortunately.
Sanctions suck. Go and do some good in the world. Add the sanctions to that.
You let a bully beat up other kids and he just gets worse. Not looking good.
God help Ukraine.
Ukraine had 20 years before Putin to get their corrupt selves together they didn’t, see Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for a lesson on how it’s done….They thought they were special….
I'll repost this;
To the surprise of everyone in Moscow, Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington, Yanukovych’s decision to scuttle this agreement with the EU triggered mass demonstrations in Ukraine again, bringing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into the streets in what would become known as the Euromaidan or “Revolution of Dignity” to protest Yanukovych’s turn away from the democratic West. The street protests lasted several weeks, punctuated by the killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych’s government, the eventual collapse of that government and Yanukovych’s flight to Russia in February 2014, and a new pro-Western government taking power in Kyiv. Putin had “lost” Ukraine for the second time in a decade.
Yeah, having that shot at democracy in 2014 hasn't worked out perfectly, but it is evident that Ukraine wants to succeed. Putin can't allow that, hence, the invasion.
Putin has succeeded in further dividing the US and helping diminish us as a beacon for democracy, so he is attempting to use this moment in time to make his move.
When you have a President who's foreign policy has been a complete disaster, it makes sense Putin would make his move for Ukraine. Putin is essentially playing chess while Biden is playing checkers. Putin was probably laughing histerically as Biden announced the sanctions that will do nothing to stop Russia.
Yes, we would be soooo much better off with Putins Puppet in office. I’m sure that any day now the former guy would have begun pulling strings. /s
Putin's Puppet? Haha...you're one of those people. Maybe Putin's Puppet should ask Putin for Hunter's laptop back.
Trump has authoritarian fantasies about Putin, et al, that even Melania probably finds disturbing, so, yeah, Trump is still Putin's Puppet, and at some point, even the GOP is going to have to give up on Putin.
The GOP? Did you miss the 8 years under Obama? He bent over backwards for Putin.
Did you miss the 8 years under Bush Jr.?
I'm realistic. Neither party has been overly concerned enough about Putin, nor have they intervened when they had the option to. That is changing fast, but in the current case, it is almost entirely GOP Trump supporters, and Trump that are fully backing Putin's invasions.
That's just fucked up.
We obviously disagree politically, but you are right, neither party has really done enough. At the same time, it doesn't seem like NATO is willing to do more either. The sanctions just announced yesterday are not nearly enough. I disagree with that statement. Unless I missed it in the news, I haven't seen anything where Trump is actually backing Putin on invading Ukraine. That would be pretty ridiculous if he did.
There are numerous reports, most behind pay walls;
Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them.
Trump said he saw the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis on TV “and I said: ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”
The former US president said that the Russian president had made a “smart move” by sending “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen” to the area.
Trump, a long-term admirer of Putin who was impeached over allegations he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it could help damage the reputation of Joe Biden, praised the Russian president’s moves while also claiming that they would not have happened if he was still president.
“Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened.
“But here’s a guy that says, you know, ‘I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent’ – he used the word ‘independent’ – ‘and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
Trump’s intervention was criticized by the two Republicans serving on the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot, who are among the few Republicans who have been critical of the former president. Liz Cheney tweeted that Trump’s statement “aids our enemies. Trump’s interests don’t seem to align with the interests of the United States of America.”
Trump wanted to withdraw NATO and end the security alliance with South Korea.
Trump was planning to withdraw US from Nato and ditch South Korea alliance, according to new book
‘Yeah, the second term. We’ll do it in the second term,’ then-president reportedly said
Thanks for the info. I really haven't been paying much attention to what Trump says. As far as NATO and the South Korean alliance, I'm a bit skeptical of that because it's something he reportedly said in meetings. I take that with a grain of salt because so much information reported about him has turned out to be false. Regardless, it would be pretty dumb to pull out of NATO. Even though I sometimes feel the organization is useless at times, pulling out wouldn't be a good move.
NATO is only useless until it isn't. Going on 73 years...
And NATO is only useful as long as it isn't misused. Then it becomes a liability.
C5The extraterritorial sanctions did not 'kill' Huawei. Far from it. ForThey have done untold damage to US semiconductor interests.
At most they threw a spanner into the works of Huawei's 5G and Kirin roadmap in the i8 short term.
So short that Huawei has already gone on record to say they will be back in smartphone business next year and I'd wager without US technology in its processor supply chain.
They have also confirmed new silicon for this year but no one knows what it will be. Possibly 5G related.
Whatever advances Chinese companies make are sure to find their way to purchasers in Russia.
Huawei has veered full force into the automotive market with latest rumours pointing to a multi billion dollar investment from a major German car company for it to use Huawei's self driving technology.
Restricting Android use would simply put even more wind under the wings of HarmonyOS.
U.S. Semiconductor interests are not "damaged" by the sanctions of Huawei, nor have they done "untold damage" to U.S. Semiconductor Interests. You are free to link to show how that is true or not.
As for the link to VW considering Huawei self driving, the article was pretty vague about that actually happening, but sure, maybe VW does want to do that. Still, there are already better self driving systems available that VW could license, and given the fact that Tesla's FSD is decidedly L2 capable, there isn't much needed to surpass Tesla.
HiSilicon has no leading edge fab access, and the article that you linked to acknowledged that fact. You need to do better if you are going to convince anyone of a Huawei phone comeback with HiSilicon.
Also, HarmonyOS 2.0 is still primarily AndroidOS, but sure, maybe that will change in HarmonyOS 3.0.
I do hope that China does attempt to ship technology to Russia, so that the West can take even more stringent action to reduce or prevent that transfer.
That's billions of dollars annually just from Huawei. Would you really like to see all of Russia moving purchases into China?
What would that do to US interests?
The US is limping along with some revenues from Huawei through licencing. Once Huawei has re-jigged it's supply chain, it will simply erradicate those US companies from the chain and send those billions into the pockets of US competitors.
Those references to HiSilicon are not mine. They came directly from Huawei.
What action could the West take against China transferring its own technology to Russia for strategic and financial gain?
Thanks for posting a link from 18 months ago.
China has almost no production of computing devices, SOC's, CPU's, and GPU's at 10 nm, and none under that, so no, China isn't going to be able to provide those devices to Russia.
More to the point, I'm guessing that the EU is also going to tighten its policies on Semiconductor sales to Russia.
12,18,24... It doesn't matter how many months. The damage is done.
How long do you think it takes to build out US technology from a design?
How long do you think it takes to re-jig a supply chain?
You claimed there was no damage. Associations directly representing US semi conductor interests (and thousands of companies, disagree with you).
10nm? What are you talking about? Over 90% of chip production is at 14nm or higher. China is very much in the game and ramping capacity just like everyone else.
Ah! And the EU set out its technology independence roadmap before the Huawei issue. Yes, to cut back it's reliance on the US.
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
And by the way, Huawei has already locked down contracts with EU companies to offset some lost supplies from the US.
Funny, but you seem to be reiterating a fact that everyone in the industry is stating; that there needs to be more resilience in the industry by building fabs in strategic locations to prevent supply chain disasters. Of course China wants to make more devices at lager nodes, but those aren't the preferred devices for leading edge phones, missiles, and aircraft, hence why the U.S. lured TSMC to Arizona to build a 5nm fab, to assure the U.S. Military that they would have a supply just in case China invades Taiwan in the future.
Sorry but missiles and aircraft aren't using the latest nodes for mission critical equipment. They use mature nodes and mature SoCs with mature software support
Not even self driving cars truly need the latest process nodes.
Tell me what advantages a 5nm process would bring to a single use missile.
As I said, over 90% of chip manufacturing is on mature nodes and for very good reason.
I'm sure that Xiaomi would be thrilled to compete with a 4nm Qualcomm against a 14nm, or even 10nm, SOC in a Huawei smartphone, but for missiles, it actually pays to have faster, smaller, lighter, and more powerful SOC;s. That's a smarter missile, and an advantage.
But hey, I'm fine with the PLA having a disadvantage in air to air and anti-ship missiles when it comes to a confrontation over Taiwan.
Smaller process node has no impact on how 'smart' the SoC is and size and weight are irrevelant on a 700 kilo missile with a very low unit count in terms of manufacturing.
Would you want to bet on that in the Taiwan Strait?
Of course!
Depending on who you ask, some of the most advanced missiles are Russian or Chinese anyway.
Size and power consumption matter on small energy constrained devices. They are irrevelant in things like missiles and cars.
Cutting edge nodes are irrevelant for almost ALL uses in fact. Why spend so much more when 28nm can do the job perfectly?
Uhm, no, for the most part, though Russia and China like to show off their latest wares. The U.S. is more tight lipped about its capabilities.
There is truth that China has an advantage in IRBM's, but that will rapidly change as the U.S. and Russia dissolved the treaty that restricted those for them. China is unhappy about the turnabout. China also has some long range air to air missiles, which would threaten in theater air refueling, so the U.S. Navy would be more inclined to standoff a bit.
There is also a truth that China and Russia have been putting in major efforts in hypersonic weapons, but that isn't news. The U.S. is portrayed in the popular press as being "behind" in hypersonic weapons, but I don't expect there is much truth to that once you look at production of such.
Still, the U.S. leads in the quality and quantify of Stealth aircraft, and stealth anti-ship missiles, and those will be what decides the outcome of any invasion of Taiwan. Our partners in the Indo-Pacific are also buying F-35's, Typhoon's, Rafale's, and K-21's, and the B-21 Stealth Bomber is already in production, with the initial test aircraft expected to make flights this year;
But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on Dec. 9 suggested the Air Force may continue to play its cards on the Raider close to the vest, even into 2022. “You’re not going to get to see much of it,” Kendall said during an online Defense One panel. “We don’t want to give our enemies a head start on any of this. We’re going to acknowledge that we’re doing this, let the public be aware, let the Congress be aware of it. But we’re not going to say a lot more about what we’re doing in the public.”
The huge advantage for the U.S. and it allies worldwide, is that they are already quite aware of China's militarization, and now, are aware of Russia's ambitions, which likely won't end well, whatever the outcome in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies are the acknowledged leaders in aircraft and aircraft engines, and it's quite a massive advantage. It's also true that Australia has about the same GDP as Russia, and they will be allowing B-21's to fly out of bases near Darwin. At the same time, the Austraiian Government is working to reverse the lease of port facilities in Darwin to the Chinese, for obvious concerns of National Security.
What strikes me odd, is that you are so Pro China, that you barely acknowledge that Spain is a member of NATO, and the EU, and in theory, shares values that are closer to the U.S. than to Russia and China. Yet here you are as ever, pushing China's Huawei as if your life depended on it; it doesn't by the way.
None of that had anything to do with process nodes and I am not pro China. I'm not a China hater either.
Cool, then you probably aren't all that worried about the West restricting semiconductor technology.
That is a stupid policy. Where is Apple forty years ago? There is no Macintosh.
Mortorola 68000 rocessor made in U.S, as was the fab equipment.
Is ir really a "stupid policy" to prevent known adversaries from misusing Western technology for weapons?
No.
There was no such stupid policy forty years ago. Not even four years ago.
Maybe if China wasn't militarizing at the rate it is, the West wouldn't need the restrictions. In a way, Putin screwed it up for Xi Jinping; now everyone in the West will have wised up.
C5The extraterritorial sanctions did not 'kill' Huawei. Far from it. ForThey have done untold damage to US semiconductor interests.
At most they threw a spanner into the works of Huawei's 5G and Kirin roadmap in the i8 short term.
So short that Huawei has already gone on record to say they will be back in smartphone business next year and I'd wager without US technology in its processor supply chain.
They have also confirmed new silicon for this year but no one knows what it will be. Possibly 5G related.
Whatever advances Chinese companies make are sure to find their way to purchasers in Russia.
Huawei has veered full force into the automotive market with latest rumours pointing to a multi billion dollar investment from a major German car company for it to use Huawei's self driving technology.
Restricting Android use would simply put even more wind under the wings of HarmonyOS.
U.S. Semiconductor interests are not "damaged" by the sanctions of Huawei, nor have they done "untold damage" to U.S. Semiconductor Interests. You are free to link to show how that is true or not.
As for the link to VW considering Huawei self driving, the article was pretty vague about that actually happening, but sure, maybe VW does want to do that. Still, there are already better self driving systems available that VW could license, and given the fact that Tesla's FSD is decidedly L2 capable, there isn't much needed to surpass Tesla.
HiSilicon has no leading edge fab access, and the article that you linked to acknowledged that fact. You need to do better if you are going to convince anyone of a Huawei phone comeback with HiSilicon.
Also, HarmonyOS 2.0 is still primarily AndroidOS, but sure, maybe that will change in HarmonyOS 3.0.
I do hope that China does attempt to ship technology to Russia, so that the West can take even more stringent action to reduce or prevent that transfer.
That's billions of dollars annually just from Huawei. Would you really like to see all of Russia moving purchases into China?
What would that do to US interests?
The US is limping along with some revenues from Huawei through licencing. Once Huawei has re-jigged it's supply chain, it will simply erradicate those US companies from the chain and send those billions into the pockets of US competitors.
Those references to HiSilicon are not mine. They came directly from Huawei.
What action could the West take against China transferring its own technology to Russia for strategic and financial gain?
Thanks for posting a link from 18 months ago.
China has almost no production of computing devices, SOC's, CPU's, and GPU's at 10 nm, and none under that, so no, China isn't going to be able to provide those devices to Russia.
More to the point, I'm guessing that the EU is also going to tighten its policies on Semiconductor sales to Russia.
12,18,24... It doesn't matter how many months. The damage is done.
How long do you think it takes to build out US technology from a design?
How long do you think it takes to re-jig a supply chain?
You claimed there was no damage. Associations directly representing US semi conductor interests (and thousands of companies, disagree with you).
10nm? What are you talking about? Over 90% of chip production is at 14nm or higher. China is very much in the game and ramping capacity just like everyone else.
Ah! And the EU set out its technology independence roadmap before the Huawei issue. Yes, to cut back it's reliance on the US.
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
And by the way, Huawei has already locked down contracts with EU companies to offset some lost supplies from the US.
Funny, but you seem to be reiterating a fact that everyone in the industry is stating; that there needs to be more resilience in the industry by building fabs in strategic locations to prevent supply chain disasters. Of course China wants to make more devices at lager nodes, but those aren't the preferred devices for leading edge phones, missiles, and aircraft, hence why the U.S. lured TSMC to Arizona to build a 5nm fab, to assure the U.S. Military that they would have a supply just in case China invades Taiwan in the future.
Sorry but missiles and aircraft aren't using the latest nodes for mission critical equipment. They use mature nodes and mature SoCs with mature software support
Not even self driving cars truly need the latest process nodes.
Tell me what advantages a 5nm process would bring to a single use missile.
As I said, over 90% of chip manufacturing is on mature nodes and for very good reason.
I'm sure that Xiaomi would be thrilled to compete with a 4nm Qualcomm against a 14nm, or even 10nm, SOC in a Huawei smartphone, but for missiles, it actually pays to have faster, smaller, lighter, and more powerful SOC;s. That's a smarter missile, and an advantage.
But hey, I'm fine with the PLA having a disadvantage in air to air and anti-ship missiles when it comes to a confrontation over Taiwan.
Smaller process node has no impact on how 'smart' the SoC is and size and weight are irrevelant on a 700 kilo missile with a very low unit count in terms of manufacturing.
Would you want to bet on that in the Taiwan Strait?
Of course!
Depending on who you ask, some of the most advanced missiles are Russian or Chinese anyway.
Size and power consumption matter on small energy constrained devices. They are irrevelant in things like missiles and cars.
Cutting edge nodes are irrevelant for almost ALL uses in fact. Why spend so much more when 28nm can do the job perfectly?
Uhm, no, for the most part, though Russia and China like to show off their latest wares. The U.S. is more tight lipped about its capabilities.
There is truth that China has an advantage in IRBM's, but that will rapidly change as the U.S. and Russia dissolved the treaty that restricted those for them. China is unhappy about the turnabout. China also has some long range air to air missiles, which would threaten in theater air refueling, so the U.S. Navy would be more inclined to standoff a bit.
There is also a truth that China and Russia have been putting in major efforts in hypersonic weapons, but that isn't news. The U.S. is portrayed in the popular press as being "behind" in hypersonic weapons, but I don't expect there is much truth to that once you look at production of such.
Still, the U.S. leads in the quality and quantify of Stealth aircraft, and stealth anti-ship missiles, and those will be what decides the outcome of any invasion of Taiwan. Our partners in the Indo-Pacific are also buying F-35's, Typhoon's, Rafale's, and K-21's, and the B-21 Stealth Bomber is already in production, with the initial test aircraft expected to make flights this year;
But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on Dec. 9 suggested the Air Force may continue to play its cards on the Raider close to the vest, even into 2022. “You’re not going to get to see much of it,” Kendall said during an online Defense One panel. “We don’t want to give our enemies a head start on any of this. We’re going to acknowledge that we’re doing this, let the public be aware, let the Congress be aware of it. But we’re not going to say a lot more about what we’re doing in the public.”
The huge advantage for the U.S. and it allies worldwide, is that they are already quite aware of China's militarization, and now, are aware of Russia's ambitions, which likely won't end well, whatever the outcome in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies are the acknowledged leaders in aircraft and aircraft engines, and it's quite a massive advantage. It's also true that Australia has about the same GDP as Russia, and they will be allowing B-21's to fly out of bases near Darwin. At the same time, the Austraiian Government is working to reverse the lease of port facilities in Darwin to the Chinese, for obvious concerns of National Security.
What strikes me odd, is that you are so Pro China, that you barely acknowledge that Spain is a member of NATO, and the EU, and in theory, shares values that are closer to the U.S. than to Russia and China. Yet here you are as ever, pushing China's Huawei as if your life depended on it; it doesn't by the way.
None of that had anything to do with process nodes and I am not pro China. I'm not a China hater either.
Cool, then you probably aren't all that worried about the West restricting semiconductor technology.
The 'West' isn't restricting anything. The US isn't the West.
The reality is that the US has shot itself in the head with its I'll conceived and clumsy efforts which have only served to 'buy time'. Time which is growing shorter by the day because China has accelerated its plans across the board.
As of last night, the U.S. is certainly the leader of the West, and China is trying to figure out how to walk the tightrope between support of Russian and not worsening the situation with the U.S. and the West.
China may have accelerated its plans across the board, but I'm guessing that the West has as well. China is no friend to the West.
This paper argues that it is high time for the European Union to adopt a proactive policy of managing the risks of sensitive technology transfer to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). On the basis of a common under- standing of the challenges of transferring dual-use technology, economi- cally, politically and security-wise, the European Union can optimise ben- efits from opportunities available in the promising and technologically rapidly advancing Chinese market.
China’s rise as a high-tech military power is central to US security con- cerns, while a European debate on the implications of a rising China be- yond the economic sphere is conspicuous by its absence. Concerns about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have prevailed in debates on high tech- nology transfers to the PRC, with less attention being paid to the ‘dual use’ nature of many of these technologies that can be utilised in both ci- vilian and military applications. Unlike the United States, the European Union has no overview on the amount and generation of sensitive tech- nology exported to the PRC. European policy on dual-use technologies is fragmentary at best, while conflicting export regimes and shrinking investments in research and education throughout the European Union are putting the EU’s technological lead at risk. This pressure further in- creases the need to find outside revenues to fund innovation and the next generation of technology – which could come from the expanding Chi- nese market. Given the central role of dual-use technologies in today’s information-based warfare, the EU’s traditionally high level of technology exports to China has become a sensitive topic across the Atlantic in recent years, as was highlighted by the clash over the potential lifting of the EU arms embargo in 2004/2005. In sum, dual-use technology transfers touch on aspects of competitiveness and innovative capacity, market access and security concerns.
A proactive policy needs to be based on a common understanding of Chi- na’s potential as a military superpower and of its likely impact on the European Union, the EU’s policies and its relationship with the United States. A proactive policy needs to merge security, economic and compe- tition aspects in order to sustain and extend the EU’s global influence. This influence, especially in the context of the currently intensifying arms race in space, can only be materialised by a political vision, in-depth knowledge of the other parties and a sound base of innovative technol- ogy within the European Union. In a post-Cold War world, countries like China represent the greatest opportunities and risks at the same time. The United States has responded to this ambivalent situation by trying out a system of balancing opportunities against risks in its ‘Validated End User’ regulation, first introduced in June 2007. The EU needs to follow with a proactive policy of ‘managing risks’ that helps encourage China to become a ‘responsible stakeholder’ while enabling European countries to continuously benefit from China’s development and at the same time remain vigilant regarding the security-related consequences of China’s economic ascent.
You have your China bias blinding you. The EU has very little to defend in the Indo-Pacific, but the U.S. and its Allies have a great deal to defend, including maintaining free and open navigation for the rest of the world.
Funny thing, I'm betting that the EU gets religion very quickly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Gotta love the pundits Talking up this cop out like it’s something amazing.
America is supposed to be the international policeman. Walking softly but carrying a big stick to use when necessary.
Instead of defending freedom, we stand by and watch it crushed while shaking dollar signs the the bad guys with missiles.
Putin has China as an ally and Russia counterfeits American goods anyway. This isn’t going to do squat unfortunately.
Sanctions suck. Go and do some good in the world. Add the sanctions to that.
You let a bully beat up other kids and he just gets worse. Not looking good.
God help Ukraine.
Ukraine had 20 years before Putin to get their corrupt selves together they didn’t, see Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for a lesson on how it’s done….They thought they were special….
I'll repost this;
To the surprise of everyone in Moscow, Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington, Yanukovych’s decision to scuttle this agreement with the EU triggered mass demonstrations in Ukraine again, bringing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into the streets in what would become known as the Euromaidan or “Revolution of Dignity” to protest Yanukovych’s turn away from the democratic West. The street protests lasted several weeks, punctuated by the killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych’s government, the eventual collapse of that government and Yanukovych’s flight to Russia in February 2014, and a new pro-Western government taking power in Kyiv. Putin had “lost” Ukraine for the second time in a decade.
Yeah, having that shot at democracy in 2014 hasn't worked out perfectly, but it is evident that Ukraine wants to succeed. Putin can't allow that, hence, the invasion.
Putin has succeeded in further dividing the US and helping diminish us as a beacon for democracy, so he is attempting to use this moment in time to make his move.
When you have a President who's foreign policy has been a complete disaster, it makes sense Putin would make his move for Ukraine. Putin is essentially playing chess while Biden is playing checkers. Putin was probably laughing histerically as Biden announced the sanctions that will do nothing to stop Russia.
Compared to the previous Trump administration, Biden's administration is hitting nothing but home runs. But of course, Biden did have to clean up the mess that Trump left...
Thanks for playing though.
That's a pretty low bar to clear.
And, to be honest, I doubt that Trump would have bungled the situation as badly as Biden has, so far, done.
(And, trust me! I am NOT a Trump fan)
George, you've now gone off the rails completely, and your posts are just rambling about.
Heck, I even remember you telling us here in the U.S. that China wasn't the problem, Russia was. So now, you're behind Russia, but you still have no understanding of what's going on.
Russia is weak militarily, save for their Nuclear weapons. China is the future threat, and so while this invasion of Ukraine is horrifying to the West and especially to the citizens of Ukraine, it is going to drain Russia of resources. That isn't strength, that's weakness.
Even China is aware of that.
What is the problem of China? Because China wants to reunite Taiwan but it is against our plan to control China using Taiwan? LOL
Only George cares about what you post; I don't, and save yourself the embarrassment of complaining that I am violating your first amendment rights, as if you even know what that means.
I agree with George. He is right. The West has promised Russia that NATO will not expand. The West broke its promise. Not only that, it attacked Yugoslavia and forcibly dismantled it into pieces.
The West never promised that NATO would not expand.
Hillary promised Ukraine a membership in NATO if they stiffed Russia and sided with the U.S.
... It's why Putin made sure she lost the election.
Now Biden can't walk away from the commitment -- even if it means pushing war in Europe.
Hillary didn't promise that, and couldn't if she wanted to, because of the rules of application and membership to NATO. I already posted the relevant information.
You don't even attempt to tell the truth, Tankie...
I believe a nation can apply for NATO membership and need NATO nations approval. It is like the membership of USA. Hilary lobbied Ukraine to apply for NATO membership.
What happened;
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the door to Nato remains open for Ukraine.
Speaking after arriving in the capital, Kiev, she said Ukraine had the right to choose its own alliances.
She will travel to Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan on a tour of former Soviet states, as well as visiting Poland.
The trip, announced over a month ago, is intended to reaffirm relations with ex-Soviet states, after a renewal of ties between Washington and Moscow.
What Hilary means is as a NATO member US will approve Ukraine to join NATO.
I don't know what Hillary means, but if the Ukraine applied, the US would likely consider membership for Ukraine.
Nope. According to Biden there is no decision. All they have to do is meet the qualifications.
I suspect you've misunderstood Biden, either purposefully or through ignorance. Or he could just be wrong I suppose.
I think I overstepped the case -- because BOTH seemingly opposing sides appear to be true:
-- NATO's "open door" policy states: NATO's “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance's founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949).
The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state
in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute
to the security of the North Atlantic area”.
In the reports I was reading, only the first of those two opposing points were mentioned. Sorry! It's a classic case of getting one side of the story -- something I abhor.
---------------------------
But, I strongly suspect that Putin knows that and is taking advantage of it by taking Ukraine's membership in NATO into his own hands by making Ukraine a poison pill to NATO: Letting Ukraine join a force dedicated to protecting "the North Atlantic area" would endanger that area by drawing it into an existing conflict rather than protect it.
Whether you love Putin or hate him, it is a mistake to underestimate him.
C5The extraterritorial sanctions did not 'kill' Huawei. Far from it. ForThey have done untold damage to US semiconductor interests.
At most they threw a spanner into the works of Huawei's 5G and Kirin roadmap in the i8 short term.
So short that Huawei has already gone on record to say they will be back in smartphone business next year and I'd wager without US technology in its processor supply chain.
They have also confirmed new silicon for this year but no one knows what it will be. Possibly 5G related.
Whatever advances Chinese companies make are sure to find their way to purchasers in Russia.
Huawei has veered full force into the automotive market with latest rumours pointing to a multi billion dollar investment from a major German car company for it to use Huawei's self driving technology.
Restricting Android use would simply put even more wind under the wings of HarmonyOS.
U.S. Semiconductor interests are not "damaged" by the sanctions of Huawei, nor have they done "untold damage" to U.S. Semiconductor Interests. You are free to link to show how that is true or not.
As for the link to VW considering Huawei self driving, the article was pretty vague about that actually happening, but sure, maybe VW does want to do that. Still, there are already better self driving systems available that VW could license, and given the fact that Tesla's FSD is decidedly L2 capable, there isn't much needed to surpass Tesla.
HiSilicon has no leading edge fab access, and the article that you linked to acknowledged that fact. You need to do better if you are going to convince anyone of a Huawei phone comeback with HiSilicon.
Also, HarmonyOS 2.0 is still primarily AndroidOS, but sure, maybe that will change in HarmonyOS 3.0.
I do hope that China does attempt to ship technology to Russia, so that the West can take even more stringent action to reduce or prevent that transfer.
That's billions of dollars annually just from Huawei. Would you really like to see all of Russia moving purchases into China?
What would that do to US interests?
The US is limping along with some revenues from Huawei through licencing. Once Huawei has re-jigged it's supply chain, it will simply erradicate those US companies from the chain and send those billions into the pockets of US competitors.
Those references to HiSilicon are not mine. They came directly from Huawei.
What action could the West take against China transferring its own technology to Russia for strategic and financial gain?
Thanks for posting a link from 18 months ago.
China has almost no production of computing devices, SOC's, CPU's, and GPU's at 10 nm, and none under that, so no, China isn't going to be able to provide those devices to Russia.
More to the point, I'm guessing that the EU is also going to tighten its policies on Semiconductor sales to Russia.
12,18,24... It doesn't matter how many months. The damage is done.
How long do you think it takes to build out US technology from a design?
How long do you think it takes to re-jig a supply chain?
You claimed there was no damage. Associations directly representing US semi conductor interests (and thousands of companies, disagree with you).
10nm? What are you talking about? Over 90% of chip production is at 14nm or higher. China is very much in the game and ramping capacity just like everyone else.
Ah! And the EU set out its technology independence roadmap before the Huawei issue. Yes, to cut back it's reliance on the US.
Can you see a pattern emerging here?
And by the way, Huawei has already locked down contracts with EU companies to offset some lost supplies from the US.
Funny, but you seem to be reiterating a fact that everyone in the industry is stating; that there needs to be more resilience in the industry by building fabs in strategic locations to prevent supply chain disasters. Of course China wants to make more devices at lager nodes, but those aren't the preferred devices for leading edge phones, missiles, and aircraft, hence why the U.S. lured TSMC to Arizona to build a 5nm fab, to assure the U.S. Military that they would have a supply just in case China invades Taiwan in the future.
Sorry but missiles and aircraft aren't using the latest nodes for mission critical equipment. They use mature nodes and mature SoCs with mature software support
Not even self driving cars truly need the latest process nodes.
Tell me what advantages a 5nm process would bring to a single use missile.
As I said, over 90% of chip manufacturing is on mature nodes and for very good reason.
I'm sure that Xiaomi would be thrilled to compete with a 4nm Qualcomm against a 14nm, or even 10nm, SOC in a Huawei smartphone, but for missiles, it actually pays to have faster, smaller, lighter, and more powerful SOC;s. That's a smarter missile, and an advantage.
But hey, I'm fine with the PLA having a disadvantage in air to air and anti-ship missiles when it comes to a confrontation over Taiwan.
Smaller process node has no impact on how 'smart' the SoC is and size and weight are irrevelant on a 700 kilo missile with a very low unit count in terms of manufacturing.
Would you want to bet on that in the Taiwan Strait?
Of course!
Depending on who you ask, some of the most advanced missiles are Russian or Chinese anyway.
Size and power consumption matter on small energy constrained devices. They are irrevelant in things like missiles and cars.
Cutting edge nodes are irrevelant for almost ALL uses in fact. Why spend so much more when 28nm can do the job perfectly?
Uhm, no, for the most part, though Russia and China like to show off their latest wares. The U.S. is more tight lipped about its capabilities.
There is truth that China has an advantage in IRBM's, but that will rapidly change as the U.S. and Russia dissolved the treaty that restricted those for them. China is unhappy about the turnabout. China also has some long range air to air missiles, which would threaten in theater air refueling, so the U.S. Navy would be more inclined to standoff a bit.
There is also a truth that China and Russia have been putting in major efforts in hypersonic weapons, but that isn't news. The U.S. is portrayed in the popular press as being "behind" in hypersonic weapons, but I don't expect there is much truth to that once you look at production of such.
Still, the U.S. leads in the quality and quantify of Stealth aircraft, and stealth anti-ship missiles, and those will be what decides the outcome of any invasion of Taiwan. Our partners in the Indo-Pacific are also buying F-35's, Typhoon's, Rafale's, and K-21's, and the B-21 Stealth Bomber is already in production, with the initial test aircraft expected to make flights this year;
But Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on Dec. 9 suggested the Air Force may continue to play its cards on the Raider close to the vest, even into 2022. “You’re not going to get to see much of it,” Kendall said during an online Defense One panel. “We don’t want to give our enemies a head start on any of this. We’re going to acknowledge that we’re doing this, let the public be aware, let the Congress be aware of it. But we’re not going to say a lot more about what we’re doing in the public.”
The huge advantage for the U.S. and it allies worldwide, is that they are already quite aware of China's militarization, and now, are aware of Russia's ambitions, which likely won't end well, whatever the outcome in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies are the acknowledged leaders in aircraft and aircraft engines, and it's quite a massive advantage. It's also true that Australia has about the same GDP as Russia, and they will be allowing B-21's to fly out of bases near Darwin. At the same time, the Austraiian Government is working to reverse the lease of port facilities in Darwin to the Chinese, for obvious concerns of National Security.
What strikes me odd, is that you are so Pro China, that you barely acknowledge that Spain is a member of NATO, and the EU, and in theory, shares values that are closer to the U.S. than to Russia and China. Yet here you are as ever, pushing China's Huawei as if your life depended on it; it doesn't by the way.
None of that had anything to do with process nodes and I am not pro China. I'm not a China hater either.
Cool, then you probably aren't all that worried about the West restricting semiconductor technology.
That is a stupid policy. Where is Apple forty years ago? There is no Macintosh.
Mortorola 68000 rocessor made in U.S, as was the fab equipment.
Is ir really a "stupid policy" to prevent known adversaries from misusing Western technology for weapons?
No.
There was no such stupid policy forty years ago. Not even four years ago.
Maybe if China wasn't militarizing at the rate it is, the West wouldn't need the restrictions. In a way, Putin screwed it up for Xi Jinping; now everyone in the West will have wised up.
Nonsense! China is the largest nation in the world. If the US needs such strong military, China needs even more.
No, unlike the U.S. trying to police the world and, increasingly trying to impose its form of government on the world, China's military is designed as a regional force not global. They make that clear when they say that they will never again let a foreign power dominate them.
Sh!t just got real. Putin apologists: you owe the world an apology.
They owe more than an apology, they owe penance...
I have to admit I underestimated Putin. Not because I thought he was a good guy but because I fell into the same mental trap Obama seems to have fallen into. Which is to assume a higher level of rationality among my fellow humans than actually exists. Putin exploited weaknesses in the US and our allies that I hadn’t appreciated were there, at least not to the extent that they are there. This created, at least in his mind, an opening. Up until this point he has played a weak hand very well.
But now comes the real test. If this invasion wakes enough people up, it could turn out to be the worst mistake Putin has ever made. It could also make the world better appreciate the threat posed by China. Ten years ago I had a much more optimistic view of China than I do now. Now I see a new Cold War.
That view is what creates war. A losing war. It is based on two misconceptions:
1) That we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. Once you go there, you can justify anything.
2) That we are all powerful and our opponents weak. That's a recipe for disaster.
It's best to stick to reality where both are true and neither is true.
It's that realization and understanding of reality that kept us from mutual annihilation throughout the cold war.
Gotta love the pundits Talking up this cop out like it’s something amazing.
America is supposed to be the international policeman. Walking softly but carrying a big stick to use when necessary.
Instead of defending freedom, we stand by and watch it crushed while shaking dollar signs the the bad guys with missiles.
Putin has China as an ally and Russia counterfeits American goods anyway. This isn’t going to do squat unfortunately.
Sanctions suck. Go and do some good in the world. Add the sanctions to that.
You let a bully beat up other kids and he just gets worse. Not looking good.
God help Ukraine.
Ukraine had 20 years before Putin to get their corrupt selves together they didn’t, see Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for a lesson on how it’s done….They thought they were special….
I'll repost this;
To the surprise of everyone in Moscow, Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington, Yanukovych’s decision to scuttle this agreement with the EU triggered mass demonstrations in Ukraine again, bringing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into the streets in what would become known as the Euromaidan or “Revolution of Dignity” to protest Yanukovych’s turn away from the democratic West. The street protests lasted several weeks, punctuated by the killing of dozens of peaceful protestors by Yanukovych’s government, the eventual collapse of that government and Yanukovych’s flight to Russia in February 2014, and a new pro-Western government taking power in Kyiv. Putin had “lost” Ukraine for the second time in a decade.
Yeah, having that shot at democracy in 2014 hasn't worked out perfectly, but it is evident that Ukraine wants to succeed. Putin can't allow that, hence, the invasion.
Putin has succeeded in further dividing the US and helping diminish us as a beacon for democracy, so he is attempting to use this moment in time to make his move.
When you have a President who's foreign policy has been a complete disaster, it makes sense Putin would make his move for Ukraine. Putin is essentially playing chess while Biden is playing checkers. Putin was probably laughing histerically as Biden announced the sanctions that will do nothing to stop Russia.
Compared to the previous Trump administration, Biden's administration is hitting nothing but home runs. But of course, Biden did have to clean up the mess that Trump left...
Thanks for playing though.
That's a pretty low bar to clear.
And, to be honest, I doubt that Trump would have bungled the situation as badly as Biden has, so far, done.
(And, trust me! I am NOT a Trump fan)
George, you've now gone off the rails completely, and your posts are just rambling about.
Heck, I even remember you telling us here in the U.S. that China wasn't the problem, Russia was. So now, you're behind Russia, but you still have no understanding of what's going on.
Russia is weak militarily, save for their Nuclear weapons. China is the future threat, and so while this invasion of Ukraine is horrifying to the West and especially to the citizens of Ukraine, it is going to drain Russia of resources. That isn't strength, that's weakness.
Even China is aware of that.
What is the problem of China? Because China wants to reunite Taiwan but it is against our plan to control China using Taiwan? LOL
Only George cares about what you post; I don't, and save yourself the embarrassment of complaining that I am violating your first amendment rights, as if you even know what that means.
I agree with George. He is right. The West has promised Russia that NATO will not expand. The West broke its promise. Not only that, it attacked Yugoslavia and forcibly dismantled it into pieces.
The West never promised that NATO would not expand.
Hillary promised Ukraine a membership in NATO if they stiffed Russia and sided with the U.S.
... It's why Putin made sure she lost the election.
Now Biden can't walk away from the commitment -- even if it means pushing war in Europe.
Hillary didn't promise that, and couldn't if she wanted to, because of the rules of application and membership to NATO. I already posted the relevant information.
You don't even attempt to tell the truth, Tankie...
I believe a nation can apply for NATO membership and need NATO nations approval. It is like the membership of USA. Hilary lobbied Ukraine to apply for NATO membership.
What happened;
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the door to Nato remains open for Ukraine.
Speaking after arriving in the capital, Kiev, she said Ukraine had the right to choose its own alliances.
She will travel to Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan on a tour of former Soviet states, as well as visiting Poland.
The trip, announced over a month ago, is intended to reaffirm relations with ex-Soviet states, after a renewal of ties between Washington and Moscow.
What Hilary means is as a NATO member US will approve Ukraine to join NATO.
I don't know what Hillary means, but if the Ukraine applied, the US would likely consider membership for Ukraine.
Nope. According to Biden there is no decision. All they have to do is meet the qualifications.
I suspect you've misunderstood Biden, either purposefully or through ignorance. Or he could just be wrong I suppose.
I think I overstepped the case -- because BOTH seemingly opposing sides appear to be true:
-- NATO's "open door" policy states: NATO's “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance's founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949).
The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state
in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute
to the security of the North Atlantic area”.
In the reports I was reading, only the first of those two opposing points were mentioned. Sorry! It's a classic case of getting one side of the story -- something I abhor.
---------------------------
But, I strongly suspect that Putin knows that and is taking advantage of it by taking Ukraine's membership in NATO into his own hands by making Ukraine a poison pill to NATO: Letting Ukraine join a force dedicated to protecting "the North Atlantic area" would endanger that area by drawing it into an existing conflict rather than protect it.
Whether you love Putin or hate him, it is a mistake to underestimate him.
Putin's poison pill was invading Crimea in 2014. Since that territory is disputed, Ukraine was not eligible to join NATO. He didn't need this invasion at all to do that.
Comments
0.9) US installs Jupiter missiles in Turkey that leads to USSR shipping missiles to Cuba.
The reality is that the US has shot itself in the head with its I'll conceived and clumsy efforts which have only served to 'buy time'. Time which is growing shorter by the day because China has accelerated its plans across the board.
China may have accelerated its plans across the board, but I'm guessing that the West has as well. China is no friend to the West.
China was seen as promising un until Xi Jinping came into power, and fortunately, created detractors in the West with his Wolf Warrior policies, human rights violations, and impatience to militarize, early enough so the West can respond.. China isn't going to be able to catch up to the U.S. in GDP, and will end up likely halving its population by 2060.
Meanwhile, the world is coming around to the fact that China is a threat to the same rules of order that Russia just violated. Those rules of order provided a modicum of peace and prosperity since the end of WWII.
The part about China is a shame. they had such an amazing opportunity and they appear to have blown it.
The West is not restricting China's technology ambitions. It is the US and whoever it can stongarm into supporting it. That isn't the West.
Don't try to mix in the wider political situation with your anti-China rhetoric.
If you're talking about technology, keep it to technology.
I haven't seen the West trying to reign in China's ambitions. It's business as usual from where I'm sitting.
And NATO is only useful as long as it isn't misused. Then it becomes a liability.
Do you always blame the victim?
https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/op80.pdf
You have your China bias blinding you. The EU has very little to defend in the Indo-Pacific, but the U.S. and its Allies have a great deal to defend, including maintaining free and open navigation for the rest of the world.
Funny thing, I'm betting that the EU gets religion very quickly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.