Conflict in Ukraine disrupts fragile supply chain recovery The pandemic revived the fortunes of PC makers but now another crisis, the gut-wrenching invasion of Ukraine by Russia, threatens to disrupt the supply chain in Western Europe and beyond. Trang Pham, an analyst at tech market analyst Canalys, points out the conflict that started a fortnight ago is already being felt by the …
It would seriously hurt the Chinese economy if they did such a thing.
Why would they limit the products they sell to countries with GDP's higher in orders of magnitude to help one of their customers with a tiny economy?
Why? Because once Russia is done, US will turn their attention on them. I'm pretty sure China is taking notes and already started thinking of a future where Western world will turn against them. It would be foolish to do otherwise.
even if it is just simple supply and demand - China will get the business that went from Russia to the West. That also means less capacity to supply the west - forcing up prices generally of Chineese stuff.
It would likely be more than just that though. A little skim here and there will crank up Western prices.
Eg Nickel - russia will still sell it - though now pretty exclusively to china. China will gobble it up over the production - and sell batteries and electronics back to the West. Meanwhile Western manufacturers have to buy it at exorbitant prices from the remaining countries producing refined element - some from unpleasant regimes like indonesia and the Phillappines..
There's just been news that Russia is sanctioning the EU,US and UK by banning exports in some categorys. Not sure whether that's symbolic, or will add to supply chain disruption. If the EU sanctions trade with Russia so the EU can't import stuff, Russia not exporting seems bit pointless.
Right now, Russia needs China more than China needs Russia. But China also needs The Rest Of The World.
Russia is in a weak position with China and China is walking a fine line between supporting Russia and not pissing off TROTW.
The second thought I had about reports of the Russian bombing of a maternity hospital was "how do you feel about staying 'neutral' now?" (the first thought involved language not suitable for a family audience). I understand that some countries need to preserve trade relations with Russia and will hesitate to upset that apple cart. But how atrocious do Russia's actions have to get before "staying neutral" is simply ... hard to believe? While it helps Bloodimir Putin to keep his citizens in line with obfuscation, that will not help his trade with TROTW who can see for themselves what is actually happening.
I wouldn't believe anything anyone says about the bombing of the hospital right now. It might have been an outright accident. It might have been deliberately targeted as a result of bad intelligence. It might have been deliberately targeted as a result of accurate intelligence. You can be pretty sure the Russians didn't just say, 'I know, that's kill a load of Ukrainian children in this hospital.'
You can be pretty sure the Russians didn't just say, 'I know, that's kill a load of Ukrainian children in this hospital.'
Well no but Russian leaders chose to invade another country. Russian leaders chose to use weaponry that destroys, maims and kills. Russian leaders chose to have that weaponry used against population centres. They don't have to have deliberately aimed at a hospital to be culpable. Citizens were always going to be harmed and killed and Russian leaders must have known this.
There are no valid excuses. Any time you use a weapon when other people or their property are in range you are implicitly culpable for the results.
I don't disagree with that but I do think there is a difference. Saying that the Russians DELIBERATELY targeted the hospital is mainly about inciting hatred of Russians, which is only going to make things worse. Accepting that sometimes these things happen accidentally, in the fog of war, goes some way to humanize the situation and allows for the possibility of reconciliation.
Yeah, Xi Jinping played Putin like a fiddle. He read Putin's hand and his tells, and told him exactly what he needed to get Putin to make a move. Virtually every way this plays out China can play for gains. Xi wanted to test the west to judge the reaction he could expect when he tries the same for Taiwan. He played the weakest of the major players against the US, hoping that in either case a weakened and isolated Russia could be made dependent on China, or that the west would blink and give him a green light to invade Taiwan.
As to how much they need us, Xi has been moving China away from the US orbit for years, just like Russia has been laying the groundwork for it's piecemeal invasions since the mid 2000's. What he can't afford is to have the entire free world polarized against them like we are seeing in Russia.
We will have to watch as this plays out to tell how well Xi predicts and understands the forces at play here. Like Putin in Russia, he is stuck in his own reality bubble, and hubris may well be his undoing if he plays his cards wrong.
That said, if we collapse the Russian government again, can we at least try to step in with a Marshall plan style recovery package this time. We left the Russians twisting in the wind for decades after the fall of the soviet union, and we got Russian mafia exported world wide, oligarchy, and Putin for our trouble. Until this stumble the worlds was on a track to see dictators and tyrants in ascendance all over the world.
I'd rather see a world where a free Russia joins Germany on a better path.
You do know that Russians are not fond of the peoples from the East? (See Huns, Mongols, etc.)
You do know that Russia fought over the border with China for centuries, and then 'agreed' to economic Concessions during the Qinq weaknesses. Heck, last almost-war was in 1969!
Xi and China just love the idea of Russia in weakness and economic need. Cue much 哈哈笑笑
I agree this is a master stroke at testing the waters of the Taiwan Strait.
But you don't quite get it when you say moving "away from the US orbit". China is establishing its own planet, and aliens aren't welcome.
And future Russia? Russia has no future. It will always have Tzars. Just as China will always have emperors. The best people simply leave, and have for centuries.
Oh I get that China wants to be the new center of the universe, I was more trying to point out that they started that move quite a while ago. I also agree that Russia's prospects as a Chinese vassal state aren't very good, and the Russians know this so these alliances will probably be ones of necessity.
I have a less fatalistic view of the future of both Russia and China in the long view, but I am not on the side that viewed Orwell as a plan instead of a cautionary tale. The governments of great powers always attract people like Putin and Xi, and in absence of better co-ordination, China and Russia were successful in exporting their style of government to many countries while the US has been consumed with it's own leadership issues since 9/11. The pendulum swings when left on it's own. The authoritarians have been trying to push it, and for the time being, it is swinging back right now.
The futures of all of these nations will be brighter if their toxic leadership is replaced, their governments more accountable, and corruption a little less fashionable.That is a long and difficult road, but Putin's massive stumble opened up a track to see that happen. For the sake of the Russians, I hope his regime collapses and the country can chart it's own course. If not, his government may fade into further decline as it sits trapped in the vice of sanctions and yet another Pariah state.
The US has it's own issues to face, and it seems you have some opinions on the future of China. The next few years are going to involve a lot of shoveling for all of us I think.
I wouldn't be so sure.
China isn't supporting Ukraine or the sanctions, but they've passed over multiple opportunities to throw their support behind Russia. They seem to be trying to walk some sort of "its not our concern" middle ground.
Those Chinese PC companies won't want to support Russia too overtly lest e.g. Intel and AMD cut off their supply of x86 CPUs. Then they can't sell PCs to either Russia or internally. They've seen what happened to Huawei, and don't want that fate for themselves. I'll bet they ship around the same quantities they did previously, but if asked for more tell them "sorry".
Apparently German politicians are already trying to spin their lack of gas. Instead of 'your going on rations' its 'reduce your usage to hurt Putin'. They are even considering putting back online their coal and nuclear power plants. Hopefully the green madness is coming to an end but I doubt the faithful will ever apologise for the damage they have caused.
You're an idiot if you think getting rid of coal plants is "green madness". The quicker we stop burning coal the better.
Getting rid of their nuclear plants in response to Fukushima was a dumb idea though. Its like if I quit driving cars because I know someone who crashed a 1960s era deathbox and died, even though that's not applicable to a modern car.
@DS999
"You're an idiot if you think getting rid of coal plants is "green madness". The quicker we stop burning coal the better."
You may have missed reading part of my comment. Because of the green madness the Germans are looking at turning back on their coal generation because they need electricity! Interestingly the Germany coal generators are more efficient and less polluting than the lignite power plants they rely on after turning off nuclear. Aka they have gone back to coal because the green madness left them desperate.
Remember the same happened here in the UK where we actually needed electricity being generated and we relied too much on green madness (increasing reliance on gas) so we went back to coal. Green madness did that.
"Getting rid of their nuclear plants in response to Fukushima was a dumb idea though"
Agreed. They really blew off their own foot with a shotgun
@ravenviz
"Yes, things were much better in the olden days when pollution didn’t matter!"
Are you saying we have a future where electricity doesnt matter? Otherwise its gotta be produced somehow and green madness has left us producing less, being reliant on gas and turning back on coal power plants because we are desperate to keep the lights on.
Think about it- developed countries so desperate to generate electricity we have to go back to turning on coal to make up for electricity not provided by dreams and wishes!
Actually we could do with being much less indulgent and manage our energy use *much* more than we do now. In my work I visit many public buildings and am constantly amazed / disgusted about all the lights and heating on *all the time* more often than not when there's not even anyone there. We are very wasteful, and our energy use is massively over the top. So, yes, a lot of the electricity we use now actually doesn't matter!
@ravenviz
"Actually we could do with being much less indulgent and manage our energy use *much* more than we do now."
Such as LED lighting, Increased efficiency of white goods, increased efficiency of computing equipment, etc.
"In my work I visit many public buildings and am constantly amazed / disgusted about all the lights and heating on *all the time* more often than not when there's not even anyone there"
A lot of effort was put into getting people to turn off lights and turn down heating, and people are people. So those who care are more careful than others, and thats always going to be the case. Interestingly you say public buildings, there is little amazement that there is more waste where they dont pay the bills. I know this from people I have lived with and the difference when they pay their own bills.
So how do we stop people from being people? How do we balance making people energy poor and making energy the preserve of the elites?
"We are very wasteful, and our energy use is massively over the top"
And only predicted to increase as our population and reliance on energy increases. And yet a vast amount of progress in countries comes from having a stable and reliable energy provision. Simple basics of heating and eating were solved in the developed world until prices shot up for no good reason than making monuments to a sky god instead of power generators.
Add to this how some people argue for manufacturing to return, which requires energy. Increased energy costs increases tax bills as we pay for the energy used by the public sector/services. Some people seem to believe electric cars are a solution to some problem. Some people think we need to stop using fossil fuels completely so that would be the end of gas for cooking/heating. Your 'idea' is entirely against every single one of those people as well as people like me who believe a developed country has no good reason to have people energy poor.
Asking for a burn there codejunky, obviously!
But yes, really the only short term solution is to burn Coal in the few plants that are left, Gas, maybe restart the German nukes if they aren't too far mothballed at this stage. Persuading OPEC members to increase supply is also important. The latter have mostly been resistant; because they are as "against" another European petrochemical state being formed as Russia is. Remember that Ukraine was on course to become a major supplier in it's own right to Europe before the annexation of Crimea.
Either that or accept supply shortfalls for the duration. Britain accepted a lot of supply shortfall in the 1970's if you recall. Brought down the government in fact and gave us Thatcher. (Also, hyperinflation, high unemployment, yada).
Medium term; slapping up many more windmills, panels and addressing grid stability concerns over distributed gen (probably with lots of storage systems) is viable.
Coal can at least be sourced in large quantities from strategic allies (notably Australia).
Environmentally disastrous? Not overnight. It's not good, and I am the last person to think that we should be burning coal at all. But short term pain to close down the Gremlin in the Kremlin is probably worth it.
And in the meantime we have to do our damnedest to get unhooked from fossil full stop, because doing so unhooks the geopolitical power over us that the oil states have.
@Binraider
"Asking for a burn there codejunky, obviously!"
Always happy to upset people with the truth.
"Medium term; slapping up many more windmills, panels and addressing grid stability concerns over distributed gen (probably with lots of storage systems) is viable."
The issue with this is its a technology that doesnt really work without a technology that doesnt exist. Millions are being paid to stop near 50% of wind energy production due to grid instability and thats just in Scotland. These technologies just aint viable for grid deployment. That is one of the major reasons for European countries being dependent on gas.
"Coal can at least be sourced in large quantities from strategic allies (notably Australia)."
As a short term solution its probably the best one for now. It works, and works well. Its also affordable which is greatly important right now especially as the green madness has shot prices up. Long term I am not fussy, I can see nukes, coal, gas, etc working but I would like to see the costs of the green madness borne on those who inflicted it on us while working on making it viable if possible.
"And in the meantime we have to do our damnedest to get unhooked from fossil full stop, because doing so unhooks the geopolitical power over us that the oil states have."
I think the idea of unhooking ourselves from fossil fuel is a dream far away. There is a fertilizer problem currently as gas is needed to produce it. Plastics are not going away however much that upsets environmentalists. And we need energy which we have yet to find a viable alternate source. As for supply we do have a fair amount of gas and coal in the country we could access but also we source globally. The green madness cut down our gas reserves and phased out power generation.
Geopolitical power was damaged when green madness pushed Germany and others to rely on Russian gas to keep the lights on. Now Germans are being told to freeze to hurt Putin instead of the truth that they just dont have the gas required. Thats geopolitical weakness
I have to disagree with you on the belief that windmills etc can't be made to work, in bulk.
They absolutely can be, but require storage facilities on large scale to balance out load. And you need an excess of wind generation to demand - just as you need an excess of "all" generation to demand to cover for failures.
Plastics etc yes yes - can't get away from them entirely. But reducing dependency is a good thing. Most energy burned here is burned on either heating or transport. Manufacturing is a tiny proportion by comparison.
So we have a choice, get on and do it, or slowly watch the economy die as supply shrivels up.
Doing it "now" rather than later is preferable, because the scale of change needed is so large it'll take 20 years to make it happen.
On the cost front, capital cost of wind is cheaper than all other generation forms right now. And opex is also lower. That's not a function of the cost of the hardware, but rather the overhead involved in putting it on the ground (think 10-years of planning permission delay yada). Nobody cares if we slap up another offshore windmill.
It's only sad that it takes another bloody war over oil to get some people to wake up.
@Binraider
"I have to disagree with you on the belief that windmills etc can't be made to work, in bulk."
Sorry I might not have been clear, they dont work as it is but that doesnt mean stop research to try and make them work. The technology to make them work may or may not be possible so worth looking into, but deploying before we can support it has left us in this very visible mess.
"So we have a choice, get on and do it, or slowly watch the economy die as supply shrivels up."
The good news is supply is far from any form of shrivelled up, we now have even greater access to gas and oil than previously. And markets are good at adapting while this green push has been a political project with the usual failings.
"On the cost front, capital cost of wind is cheaper than all other generation forms right now."
I dont believe that for one second. Paying to stop ~50% production because the grid cant handle it, global stilling and generating at the wrong time of day work against it and does that include any subsidy? Green energy was sold on making energy cheaper and became 25% of our ever increasing energy bills and increased reliance on gas. The result is having to turn back on the coal power plants to keep the lights on.
"It's only sad that it takes another bloody war over oil to get some people to wake up."
I know we dont necessarily see eye to eye on this but I hope people wake up now there is a bloody war
"Millions are being paid to stop near 50% of wind energy production due to grid instability and thats just in Scotland."
Scotland calling Planet Codejunkie, Scotland calling Planet Codejunkie, come in please! Whit the fyook ur ye spraffing aboot?
Scotland is a net exporter of both electricity and energy due to our early implementation in off shore and on shore wind. No supply failures, our biggest coal station just demolished, nuclear being decommissioned due to cost of replacement more than safety, pumped hydro storage and hydrogen generation going great guns.
Admittedly Shell and BP are profiteering, war profiteering, but even Tories are calling for a windfall tax on them. Our housing stock is woefully under-insulated, but apart from that we are fine.
You should really speak to a Scot before spouting the pollution that comes from the Trump organisation.
@Danny 2
"Scotland calling Planet Codejunkie, Scotland calling Planet Codejunkie, come in please! Whit the fyook ur ye spraffing aboot?"
Just because you dont know doesnt mean you gotta sound like a moron about it- www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/19/wind-farms-paid-not-generate-half-potential-electricity/
Your gonna give scots a bad image spaffing aboot like a moron.
No matter how oft repeated.
That talking point does rounds by every every place the generation plants fight over who goes on or offline(also a part of who gets the bigger pile of cash on any given day). It doesn't mean the system does not work, or that as the other poster pointed out, that they aren't doing well selling the surplus beyond what Scotland is actually using on any given day.
The same broken argument was thrown around on the west coast decades ago before wind and solar were anything more than a research project. Then it was Hydropower, gas and nuclear (and few coal plants too) all fighting over who had to idle and when. Because most of those types of power have long ramp up times and expensive startup and shutdown costs, the operators may have to idle output from the ones that CAN surge to keep the grid stable.
@AC
"It doesn't mean the system does not work"
Actually even amongst those who believe in wind/solar admit it doesnt work. They believe it can work they just need energy storage. A technology we do not have and is yet to be developed. We do have some ways to store energy currently but have limited deployment ability (pumped hydo dams) but nothing that works with current unreliables.
Until it works it doesnt work, which means its a problem that might be solved but until it works it doesnt. If your in the UK you might note your electricity bill had been ever increasing before the gas prices and the reliance on gas is a direct result of deploying unreliables that dont work.
We are currently paying for deploying a technology that didnt and still doesnt work on the hope of fixing it later but we dont know how.
I believe (so only my opinion) that the intention was fracking and keeping the gas instead of selling it (or selling and using the money) to reduce the insane costs of supporting the technology that doesnt work. That way people wouldnt see how expensive it really is.
That also leaves out the option of increasing interlinks to other nations power grids and shifting additional power from places with a bigger power surplus. It's a little less efficient, but the bigger grids can shuttle a lot of power to the other side of a continent when they need to (or there is a buck in it). That work can be completed faster than putting up new plant capacity, and in a national crisis the German power companies may just have to hold their nose and go along with it for a season or two.
It's something they will probably need to do to support their long term shift in power generation anyway, and it will be more prone to variation if they make the shift. They wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't plausibly feasible to do so.
@AC
"That also leaves out the option of increasing interlinks to other nations power grids and shifting additional power from places with a bigger power surplus."
For the UK that is relying on nuclear power from the ageing power generators in France. First that means trusting the French (not smart), Second the ageing generators need replacing to keep our lights on. Third the parts of Europe that deployed the green tech are increasingly reliant on French nukes to keep their lights on too.
After betting the house on green energy Germany is trying to find a way to save face and go back to technology that works. World wide countries wanting electricity are building technology that works. There is no good reason for the UK to continue with a failed policy and backing a lame horse.
Where does AMD and the like who have "stopped" sales to Russia stand with regards Chinese OEM's selling stuff with their equipment in the box over the border to Vladivostok?
And, even if they object, could they do anything to stop it? AMD halt shipments to OEM's in China? Possible, but means moving supply chains elsewhere on an already very constrained supply chain.
On the international diplomacy front; shutting out Russia can only 100% work if China plays ball. What's the diplomatic carrot or stick to get them onside?
I don't think there is one. Professional diplomats might have ideas. Recall that American diplomacy drew uncertainty between Russia and North Vietnam; such that the SA-3 Goa was not exported to the NVA during the period of the war.
The measure of the world's response to a likely Chinese attempt on Taiwan is in the balance here, and maybe even the Norks too.
The world only had itself to blame. Companies putting profit and growth above all else as they all shifted to a just-in-time ordering method where they held little stock (to save money of course) and relied on a super-slick, cheap supply chain as they shifted manufacturing to cheaper and cheaper countries (mostly China) has now massively backfired. Covid exposed this fragile system and now the Ukraine war is making it worse, and who pays most of the costs when this all goes tits-up? The consumer of course, as all costs are passed down the chain to the lowest common point. Companies still have to show growth and profit by selling more and more products (got the keep those shareholders happy), but if you squeeze the consumer too much, they don't have the money to spend anymore, and the big risk is everything will come tumbling down, which leads to redundancies and ultimately recession. Stockmarkets also need to shoulder part of the blame, because a lot of price increases are only down to 'fear, panic and uncertainty', and mostly nothing 'real'.
A European tyre expert reported that the Russian trucks stranded in mud due their tyres coming off were using cheap rip-off Chinese versions of Michelins.
A US tyre expert on Channel 4 news said the same thing last night, highlighting a stranded air defence vehicle. "If they aren't fitting decent tyres on a $20 million truck then they won't be fitting them on the ordinary trucks".
Napoleon said infantry march on their stomachs, emphasising logistical support as crucial - well, mechanised infantry need decent tyres.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
