Cost is not the only consideration. I fear for people who only focus on one issue and ignore the rest. Rarely do we see congressional leaders agreeing on this scale. I would say they find that reliance on China to be a threat to National Security. US and China communications is zero and even lower than it was during the Cold War. Pelosi story on visiting Taiwan should give you an idea of the stakes that are play. China siding with Russia should be the final consideration of the United States commitment to Democracy and people. Cost is really just one data point and should not be the only consideration. This concept can be applied to many more things, and I think you should rethink.
You can't wave the magic wand of national security and justify any inefficient or ineffective attempt at stealing from the future to goose the present.
The short term goal should be to diversify critical US supply chains away from a country that is currently considered by the US to be an competitor. I'm sure you remember that US official policy since the 70s is the "One China Policy" which admits that Taiwan is a part of China and that only attempts to reunify by force will be responded to(*). So the US needs to move supply chains out of PRC/ROC, but moving them to S. Korea, Japan, or dozens of other friendly nations is an acceptable goal from a national security standpoint.
* - I'm not a fan of this, but it is what it is. I didn't realize it until recently.
One of the most pernicious myths about this situation out there is that there is a single "One China Policy" shared by everyone on earth. This is not the case. The One China Policy of the US is different to that of the PRC. And I quote:
- The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982.
- The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
- U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;
- U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and
- U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled.
Next time you read a news story about this issue, take note of the fact that PRC officials use the term "the One China policy" while US officials use the term "our 'One China' policy".
Correct. I was still surprised to see how far the US OCP goes towards appeasing the PRC though. In spirit, it seems well out of line with how Taiwan policy is proceeding these days. As far as I understand it, there is no outcome where the US will recognize a permanently independent Taiwan. That's unfortunate.
> Rarely do we see congressional leaders agreeing on this scale.
There has been widespread bipartisan support for the military-industrial complex for as long as Eisenhower (correctly) warned about the military-industrial complex.
Partisan disagreements just tend to make the headlines more often.
China has the best chance of ending the war by aligning itself with the western world and imposing sanctions. They are trading partners and could threaten and stop to buy gas/oil/goods from Russia and Putin would have no choice but to retreat. By turning a blind eye, it certain China is supporting Russia.
They are imposing sanctions - they have pulled of from some strategic investments, they limited electronics sales, they just don't make much fuss about it, because they aren't Americans.
As for the gas - it's quite probable that even before the war Russians were selling it at loss, purely to stay relevant. Which means China buying it hurts Russian economy more than keeping away. And of course it benefits China.
Besides - what exactly would be the point of isolating Russia altogether? A new USSR? Because that's precisely what Rashists want. China wants a pacified, but functioning vassal state instead. Or perhaps states, because there's no reason really for anything east of Ural to remain with Russia.
