US officials said that China provided more than 70% of the $900m (£723m) in machine tools – probably used to build ballistic missiles – imported in the last quarter of 2023 by Russia.

They also said that 90% of Russia’s microelectronics imports – used to produce missiles, tanks and aircraft – came from China last year.

  • psvrh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    So China gets to make money while Russia does all the dirty work, with both Russia and the West falling into economic peril.

    Win-win for the Chinese.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Don’t worry, US will respond by being held hostage by Putin’s insurrectionist puppet

    • eardon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean, it’s the same thing with the West giving weapons to Ukraine.

      Somebodies getting rich off of that, it’s just not any of us.

      • exanime@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not quite… It it’s the same thing the West did in WWII

        The USA did not get directly involved until funds from France and later the UK were complete depleted

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        It is not. We are supplying them with unused weapons that have expired.

        • eardon@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Not true. We have increased production of shells in order to send them to Ukraine.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      so did the us with ukraine…

      and that just pushed russia straight to the arms of the chinese

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    While I don’t ever want to see WW3, I’ll get some small satisfaction after getting downvoted to hell last year for saying Russia and China were teaming up.

    🙄

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Its not a team up. Its one state consolidating power over the other and converting them into a vassal state. Russia had power and influence around the world. They traded all of that to be China’s pet.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      This isn’t China sending aid. This is China just not sanctioning Russia on dual-use goods.

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        My bits are firmly placed on an eventual military team up. It may not be acknowledged by either country, but they’ll share all the same enemies, and have many of the same goals.

        • DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Exactly. Iran and NK will join that side for WW3, whenever it may be. When the conflict is done, the world will have prosperity and cooperation for a couple decades - history repeats.

  • cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Chinese companies do business with whoever pays them. Ukraine, for example, is heavily reliant on Chinese drones and has been buying over half the global supply of DJI’s Mavic quadcopters.

    And Chinese companies aren’t alone in this. Lots of developing economies don’t feel they gave a stake in the conflict and have continued to do business. Most of Russia’s oil exports have been going through India. The fact that the US has been so muted in its response to this, because they feel like India is “on-side” in the confrontation against China, makes the singling out of China seem hypocritical.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    China is helping Russia undertake its biggest military expansion since Soviet times, ramping up sales of machine tools, microelectronics and other technology that Moscow is using to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft and other weaponry for its war against Ukraine, according to a US assessment.

    US officials are hoping the release of the intelligence will encourage European allies to press China, as the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, heads to Beijing this weekend and G7 foreign ministers meet next week in Italy.

    “Our view is that one of the most gamechanging moves available to us at this time to support Ukraine is to persuade the PRC [People’s Republic of China] to stop helping Russia reconstitute its military industrial base,” the official said.

    The secretary of state, Antony Blinken, is expected to make the case on China’s ties with Russia as he meets top diplomats of other industrial democracies at the G7 talks in Capri, Italy.

    The administration hopes that such dialogue, including a recent telephone call between Biden and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, can help contain tensions between the world’s two largest economies but US officials have stressed they will still press on concerns.

    Also on Friday, the US and UK prohibited metal-trading exchanges from accepting new aluminium, copper and nickel produced by Russia and barred the import of the metals in the latest effort to disrupt Russian export revenue.


    The original article contains 583 words, the summary contains 229 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    7 months ago

    US officials said

    Unnamed US officials said, without providing any evidence, …

    Fixed that for them

      • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Accountability. If there was a name they would have to provide some kind of evidence or justification for the claims. As it is we just have to take their word for it.

        • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I want to argue, but you’re absolutely right - I cannot for the life of me find any source information whatsoever besides that it was from 2 senior Biden administration people.

          I’m wondering if this something they do to prevent foreign adversaries from identifying which information complex (cia, fbi, nsa, dhs, etc) actually figured out what was going on.

          It would make sense in this specific case but they kinda lose credibility when hiding behind anonymity and it certainly raises red flags with the people regarding propaganda.

          Won’t let another Afghanistan happen with my vote

          • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            7 months ago

            Read your news carefully. Western news media almost never give a name unless there is real evidence. You will frequently see things like “according to experts familiar with the matter”, or “speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to talk to the press”, or any number of other permutations.

            And yet, when quoting Putin, Xi or any of their other favourite pantomime villains they always qualify their statements with “without citing any evidence.”

            • SMillerNL@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              They could very well get evidence without wanting to name someone. Protecting sources is pretty normal in journalism

              • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                That does not and should not extend to US government officials or their press releases. Ask a credible journalist. This story was sent to Agence France Press who redistribute it, without without verifying anything, to hundreds of news outlets worldwide in the knowledge that many will just print it as is because they don’t have the resources to follow any of it up.

                You should probably educate yourself on how the news industry works, although you wont like it.

            • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              7 months ago

              Sure, any sources should be checked. That said, do you have any particular reason to doubt the figure?

              The two countries have declared a “no limits” partnership, have they not?

              The Intel seems to be about CNC machine tool exports from China to Russia, and FT has also reported (here) on the increase, citing Russian customs data.

              Are there any Russian or Chinese sources you know of that are reporting contradictory information?

            • TheFonz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Were you born yesterday? Protecting sources in journalism has been standard practice since the dawn of time. Media literacy is in the gutter here smh

            • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              If you truly think this is a problem that could only ever be on the “western side”, you’re a fool and a hipocrit.

              I get you might not like western practices, but if you truly care about truth honesty and respect for your fellow people, and aren’t a racist POS, you’d choose your words more carefully next time friend. You ruined the entire conversation we just had because you had to make a shallow point like this.

              Just a thought.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    7 months ago

    Is only the US allowed to supply countries with tools used for military purposes?

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      When the US supplies arms for countries committing genocide, it’s wrong. When China does it, it’s also wrong. There is no contradiction here so there’s no need to immediately clutch your whatabouts. Maybe we can try engaging with the issues instead.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        What issue is there to engage in? The US screams about other countries arming up in order to justify its own military industrial complex. In other words, it’s the US clutching its pearls on whatabouts in the first place.