Good afternoon or Good evening. Today we are back with Pavel Shchelin and today we want to continue the theme of our first Meeting, we want to try to look at these global grand processes, which are now taking place in the world, take theme, known by the English title Decoupling. It is an attempt To divide, to disconnect the economies of the West and the economy of the People's Republic of China. For reasons that, I think, There is no point in retelling it in detail now, the need for such a divorce, a breakup, The term "uncoupling" is, I believe, the most correct name for it.
The idea of uncoupling was first introduced by American elites even now, at the present time, they seem to have succeeded in infecting this idea and Japan, and South Korea, pretty much the entire conditional West to one degree or another. That it needs to be done early or late. It just happens, that I know the problem decoupling very well, which is linked to high technology. Specifically with fifth-generation mobile networks.
Attempts to, let's call it bluntly, stifle no longer in the cradle, but already big Chinese champions. in this area (Huawei in the first place) are the first, best known, and most developed, in a sense, an episode of this global one, I believe it is appropriate to say The Cold war between the United States and China on the one hand and the U.S. Allies, the notional West, which is still in many ways is drifting toward the American position.
Again, I'm familiar with the this story firsthand, not of the latter, third hand. The fact of the matter is that, as a market consultant of telecommunications, I am directly involved in this story. For my clients, for Ukrainian companies it's a very big problem, perhaps, overdependence on Chinese vendors. It is quite relevant.
A few numbers: in mobile networks of Ukrainian operators over 80 percent base stations are made in China - Huawei and ZTE. Huawei equipment dominates in many segments of fixed networks. Beginning in about 2015, the United States are sending increasingly insistent signals to Ukraine about the need to get rid of Chinese equipment. Since 2015, there have been processes where the equipment was first removed from the networks of power structures and government agencies. And in 2017, 2018, it was about mobile networks.
I am counting down the anti-Chinese campaign In the United States since 2017, which means that she is already about five years old. Sorry to interrupt. Let me put it this way, just technically: as far as possible to replace the Chinese manufacturers in that area, that you're talking about? Although this is a private question, but I think it will be very important marker for the general problem of decoupling. As far as is possible according to two criteria. Is it possible by technical criteria (are there any companies, which are capable of reproducing what the Chinese firms are doing now). Second, is it economically feasible? That is to say, Wouldn't this substitution lead to The increase in the cost of the service, conventionally, in 10 times that could turn the whole market upside down, disrupt the entire European market.
I think it will give context to the overall complexity of the issues. Today the so-called basic equipment market for mobile communications (these are base stations, these are equipment for the so-called core network), between Four companies: two Chinese and two European. On the Chinese side it is Huawei and ZTE, and the European one is Ericsson and Nokia. On one side and on the other there is one the champion is Huawei and Ericsson. And there is a player of the second echelon are, respectively, ZTE and Nokia. In addition, there are with
a very small fraction of a few percent Japanese companies. Samsung is trying to pick up share, but market of four. On the one hand, of course, the glory God, it's not a monopoly, it's not even oligopoly. Therefore Erickson, and Nokia would be happy to replace the Chinese. But the problems become, first of all, time.
In fact both time and money - they are meaningful factor, and in many ways it is the decisive factor. Again, back to Ukraine. In order to, to replace 80 percent of the base stations on several tens of thousands of sites, towers, according to various estimates. It depends on how you think, what kind of project.
I have been told numbers from two and a half up to $4 billion. To compare whether it is a lot or a little, based on the results of the 2021 all Ukrainian operators earned about a billion dollars. That's revenue, that's gross revenue. This is no means a profit. Ukrainian operators will need to invest several year's worth of proceeds. Proceeds, Once again, not income. In order to replace the Chinese equipment.
Naturally, the operators don't have that kind of money. and never will be. That is to say, right away the question: how can be compensated for these costs? For European operators to the forefront another problem comes out. For example, for
German ones. Huawei today is the undisputed leader in this market. Yes, there was a time, when the Chinese started by, so to say, borrowed someone else's solutions. When Chinese-made routers looked exactly like Cisco routers and in their documentation there were typographical errors that were made by somewhere in the States. But that stage has passed. at least ten years ago.
Today, Huawei might be happy for someone to have To copy, but from no one. Simply because he is the leader. I think, It already owns most of the patents in this area. And most importantly, in many ways the chinese went ahead. Significant moment, which needs to be understood: For years now, the Chinese have been able to offer optimal balance price-quality? It's very simple, the answer is very simple. At the expense of a gigantic, simply
of the colossal domestic market. A few more numbers. If in Europe, in the entire The European Union counts something about half a million base stations? then In China, there are about half a million base stations, while there are about 10 million base stations. And by the end of the year there will be about two millions of fifth-generation base stations. That is, Chinese manufacturers rely on a completely giant marketplace. Relying on which,
they can survive anything, by the way. If something happens that want The United States, that is, the entire European Union, the entire West, and a large part of the rest of the world will give up on Chinese equipment, then neither Huawei nor ZTE will die. They will continue to live off the domestic market, which is gigantic.
It is doubtful that because of the attractive prices of Chinese equipment will be abandoned India, will refuse potentially... I mean, there is a market, No one has control over him... Again, it is very revealing in this regard our Ukrainian tragedy. As of today Unfortunately, today, all attempts at economic isolation Russia, economic sanctions against Russia failed. It can already be stated.
If we look at the map, Who participates in economic sanctions against Russia? Members of the European Union, members of NATO, Japan, South Korea. That is, NATO plus a few closest allies in the world. Everything. Even with Japan there are very big questions. For example, regarding Sakhalin 2. From time to time with Ukrainian diplomats I have arguments. All of Latin America, all of Africa, all of southeast Asia, India, the entire Middle East refused to sacrifice, to lose money.
When it comes to symbolic steps, For example, condemning the aggressor or, as For example, the most recent vote for support the idea of reparations, then, yes, most countries are ready. But if right now to lose a dollar, much less a million or two, ten billion, then it turns out that no. All the rhetoric, all the Calls to choose the right side stories end up going nowhere. With Chinese equipment happens basically the same thing. Yes, as of today,
In spite of the absolutely The tremendous efforts of the States, they have failed to to convince... Very interesting, in my own time, was to observe Who are of the allies, who are of the NATO members and the EU which sanctions introduced against Chinese companies. It was very clear. the structure of the Western world. At the center is the States.
Their closest ally is Great Britain. Then comes the Five Eyes Alliance, the Anglo-Saxon of the genesis of the country. Then comes the The European Union, then comes Eastern Europe, Old Europe. And already, for example, Turkey, is not part of this circle. Also South Korea, Japan, who refused... I mean, even they fall out of this circle.
As of today, the West consists of several, one might say, concentric circles. It should be understood that this West... Just to understand for context, this a huge part of the world market, but it's less than half. Yes, that's the global part. It's already less than half. So no, that's why it's painful, but The room for maneuver is preserved.
There is this important to understand in context. The topic is actually, it is very, very is varied, there are many aspects of which would like to talk. All of us certainly don't can cover, but something, so to speak, can hurt.
Over the past five years, you can already draw conclusions. There are preliminary conclusions. Let me retell them now. What has become evident in these five years? Let's start with the results of this anti-Chinese campaign in the States. Conclusion number one, or rather the result: In all these years, the United States has never been able to provide a single documented confirmation availability in Chinese equipment of the proverbial "backdoors," i.e.
loopholes specially left for the secret services. Not a single instance. The revelations, that have been voiced, at the closest review turned out to be, at best, a fake, and at worst disinformation. Moreover, the disinformation sometimes just comical in nature, very strange. Model, I believe, example are the stories of the sacred, crusading Bloomberg's campaign against Taiwanese company Supermicro.
A few years ago, at the end of, I think, 2018... Bloomberg is, let me remind you, one of three or four not just information agencies, it specializes in business audience. That is, they are themselves are obliged to observe particularly carefully, because the information they trade, it has a direct impact on stock prices, on money. That is, there is a direct.
The connection: news is money. And here's Bloomberg, Tore up the Internet, as they say the news, citing a dozen traditionally nameless, but traditionally dedicated, very knowledgeable employees intelligence services and unnamed experts. They all asserted with one voice that maternal server boards manufactured by Supermicro, Taiwan are infected. Tiny ones are placed on them, the size of a grain, of rice chips with which the information from these servers directly was sent somewhere almost to the Politburo of the Chinese company, to the special services. Bloomberg claimed that it was about a mass problem, about being infected entire product lines, That is, we are talking about tens of thousands of devices. There was a long list right in the text U.S. companies, including the Top 10
like Apple, Alphabets, better known as Google, Microsoft and Amazon. Thunder rumbled, because all these companies, This news was taken very unequivocally by them, as a blow to the reputation of American business. They first asked, and then, since These are large companies with a tradition of very hard PR and government relations, they literally on the second day, they already started demand proof. Again,
The agency argued that there was more than just some software bugs, namely chips, physical objects that are not may evaporate. This is a real problem, because often to document some kind of spy code, some kind of software vulnerability is impossible, because when you try to trace It just self-destructs, erases itself. A physical object cannot nowhere to escape. That's why the companies demanded present at least one motherboard, at least one example of this hack, spyware chips. For some reason, the agency started messing around, Let's face it. A few days later it comes out with a sequel that There were twice as many. There were about twenty
sources, many under their own name, who didn't swear on their mothers, claiming that either they saw it themselves or know guys who have seen these microcircuits. That is, they are period. Ended in The general reason for this is that the victims of declared a boycott. The agency Bloomberg was boycotted due to the fact that which is at the very least, unprofessional behavior.
Oddly enough, the agency did not leave this story. The last two years, The last time, if I'm not mistaken, was in the winter of this year already. Again, I have a separate article where it's all detailed, that's just why I don't keep it in my head. The link in the description. Detailed description
of this story. So it's not just a fake. It happens that the intelligence services used a respected agency to leak some misinformation. In this case, the agency, obviously, participated in an entire campaign to disinformation, sacrificing their reputations. And this is a significant point. Third, very important. In the networks of state agencies, U.S. government agencies
Chinese equipment has already been eliminated several years. It has been eliminated, withdrawn from them. In accordance with the precepts Donald Trump they are Clean networks - clean from Chinese equipment. It had no effect at all on the cybersecurity situation. Agsain and again, agency networks, commercial companies in the States suffer from extortion, from destructive attacks, like the story of the The pipeline, which was taken out of service at the short time, which led to a very serious consequences. That is, the elimination of Chinese equipment is not at all has had an impact on cybersecurity in States. This confirms that the problem is, a real problem that exists, In the scientific language, it is not vendor-specific, it is not specific to any manufacturer, it is not specific to some state. And finally, I by myself
was surprised when it turned out that... There is a particular aspect of this problem in States. The U.S. cell phone market is structured The way in which we are dealing with this issue is fundamentally different from that of European countries. In addition, if I'm not mistaken, three major operators with nationwide coverage, there are a whole zoo of several dozen regional companies. Often this is not at all small companies that are only a few counties cover. Anyway,
are commercial companies. all entirely on Chinese equipment, because they are price sensitive. The federal government could take it and order it to be disposed of, because it stands up the question of compensation. Amount
compensation was originally stated in the One billion eight hundred million dollars, I mean, by the standards of the States, it's nothing. Especially if we're talking about The problem, which was presented as simply a giant-sized vulnerability, like a hole through which The Communist Part, the "Reds" are sucking out gigatons of information. It's not money. Nevertheless, this problem has been discussed for a long time. third year. The operators are still not got that money. As a result, CNN
published in the spring of this year material, where they say with tears, "How is it possible, in the The regions where our nuclear facilities are located missiles, it turns out there are towers mobile communications, where until now there is Huawei equipment. Not only that, there are set up to monitor the traffic cameras, also made in China, which means that... Anyway, the next thing is "highly likely". and a whole bunch of conclusions, which again In my opinion, however, are devalued the question: what exactly prevented them from being replaced? What got in the way? What kept you from finding money in the budget? the size of trillions of dollars? This is a separate problem, Which I think we will come to.
We’ll talk about it. What are the driving forces behind this idea with decoupling, this idea of the Chinese aggression? Which is not there right now, but in any moment it can turn around, so you have to be vigilant. That's the thing about the States. Watching as this problem is not In words, like this, say... what it looks like the transition from rhetoric to practical matters, I saw a number of contradictions, and serious ones at that, fundamental. This allowed me to
First of all, ask the question: What is the actual The States really want? What does it really is the driving force? What are the true aims of this rhetoric, of this anti-Chinese company? Then I wondered what the real driving forces might look like. On the results as applied to Ukraine, because it's also very revealing. Then we'll go back to the States and move on. Ukraine is about nine months away is at war with a state that It is generally recognized that the closest a military and political ally of the PRC.
The Russian Federation and the PRC are the two closest allies. During this time, the cell phone networks of Ukrainian Operators, first of all, demonstrated very high degree of sustainability. I can tell you as a person, associated with telecommunications, it is generally accepted Opinion, Ukrainian operators simply beautiful, their nets behave very steady.
Everything is perfect, perfect. To the Chinese equipment, no remarks on this side. Secondly, in all this time There has not been a single successful cyberattacks on mobile operators' networks, No one was able to break in, take out subscriber data. In 2014, there were one incident where Russians succeeded in the networks of Ukrainian operators a little housekeeping. In the intervening time the operators made all the necessary conclusions, invested in protective mechanisms and No incidents are known this year. At the same time, again for comparison, in the networks of the authorities, in the networks of power structures, where Chinese equipment is long gone, Unfortunately, there have been cyber incidents in large quantities with bad consequences. This confirms it once again,
that the problem of cybersecurity is relevant, But it is not... it is not vendor-specific. It is not vendor-specific, it is not to the manufacturer or to a specific country. Have taken place this year in April, if not I'm wrong, attempts to blame the PRC, the Chinese government groups that they attacked the nets ukrainian mobile operators. It was in the publication of the Times. I noted that there was a momentary professional response Ukraine, a community of cybersecurity specialists. And both wings at once, and state, and non-state.
The "Xacktivist" movement is very developed in Ukraine, of people from non-state entities who on their own, at their own risk, under their responsibility to deal with cybersecurity issues. In including in relation to the Russian Aggressions lead their sacred war without coordinating with the state. These are not government people in every sense of the word. And here it is. and representatives governments, and hacktivists in one voice said: no, that's a lie, that's Misinformation, the Times has none of the fact supporting these statements.
There was an attempt at misinformation, which in this case was rejected by the professional community. Already finishing this topic, no signs of Chinese support. It is the military efforts of the Russian There is no Federation as of today. I'll just tell you what if Speaking of China and Russia, of course, their The attitude is not that of a classical alliance. It is more of a relationship friendly neutrality, which in principle, such a strategic the goal of China and Russia. If you look at
the prototype of this BRICS as the new structures as opposed to NATO, then they are betting on a network-centric structure. That is, all the members of the alliance are not obliged to actively help, but they undertake not to actively interfere. That's the difference. Western-type alliances, even according to the story, just builds on the unity of position, on allied obligations. It's more of a
tradition already in the 20th century. All of the structures in which China participates in one way or another operate In a way, it's more flexible. I'm going to tell you, because I think it's The view, and it attracts a huge number of willing from Latin America, from Africa, from the Middle East. This pattern gives a framework for interaction, it gives a certain sense of a common shoulder. But It does not, however, impose on you. No obligations other than the tech, that you are willing to take on yourself.
In this vein, it's a big problem because it gives just this huge flexibility, against which Western-type alliances nothing can't oppose it, because formally, apart from appeals and buzzwords There is nothing to charge them with. In the course of our conversation with the we're always going to be stuck with that. It is very difficult to pressure institutions and organizations that are not here these rigid, hierarchical, in which the participants themselves do not require one hundred percent consent from each other. A classic example is Turkey's behavior, which is essentially pursues a bilateral policy with each of the participants. Such a perfect balance on everything,
what they can, and China just does the same thing. And our listeners like it or not, but at the world level it a much more attractive style than style of the United States of America. I don't know, Whether or not you've seen it, they've recently adopted The new concept of the national security, in which essentially unobtrusively destroyed the difference between foreign and domestic policies within the US. In my opinion this is
a counterproductive measure in the long run. once controlled 50 percent of the global GDP and global technology, but in today's conditions you make yourself competitively unattractive to any how much of a subjective actor. In that sense, a little off-topic, the whole OPEC thing, it's like has shown the current limits American influence. Stepping on these the same rake again, it seems to me that this is not the most adequate strategy. Let's see, what you are going to tell by example Decoupling, maybe even more. Very good,
that you remembered about the American strategy, because recently in one of my telegram channels, which is devoted to this problem of the "Great fracture," as I called it, that is, a global of changing the picture of the world, we with the commentators were sorting this one out strategy. A very interesting point about this Strategies - which once again voices the fundamental problem of relationships States with China. They can't afford to allow open conflict by virtue of over-dependence.
However, they cannot conflict, they do not can simply compete because compete with China in many relationships is no longer possible. For example, with networks proper Fifth generation technologies are case in point. The states in their own time had their own manufacturers: Motorola and Lucent. Next to them in the Canada was Nortel. At some point, in the late noughties, guided, as I understand it, by the ideology financial capital, the states got rid of their "national champions”. As a result, they now have no producers equipment, not a single developer fifth-generation networks. And
How long did it take? Give it to me, please, chronological picture. You say they had this technology. This is was how many years ago? And how long will it take? 2005 and 2008 they had it all, they had their own manufacturers, developers. It's a matter of. of the last 15 years? Yes. In fact, it's
pretty quick story. It's very fast, and then it's gone. And that's it, there's nowhere to take it. That's why the States for a year now have been going around in circles around Ericsson, apparently trying to just to buy with guts, because the money not everything is solved anymore, and even time does not solve everything. There is too many factors.
A question from a man who is a little out of the subject of details. You can't just take... Well that there is if these technologies are known to the United States, You can't just take, I don't know, conventionally 10 billion and build the plant in two months? Technically there is one possibility? No, that's impossible, because, First of all, every manufacturer... What we see is what sells, What is available on the market is the proverbial one tenth, the tip of the iceberg promising developments that have a very great depth, a minimum of five and more years. That's why you need to first develop, you need to accumulate a huge portfolio of developments, From which, over time, you can Something to commercialize. So no, it's not.
It's a matter of time, not even It's a matter of money. Exactly, not even a question of time. I guarantee that this is about the size of ours. listeners would ask: Can't we just to take it and buy it? We can see, with Many factories are willing... We see how are assembled from these, I don't know, boxes for I don't know, a month, two, three.
You say it is the technology itself that is the problem, that is, the research and development. Yeah, so, going back... For the last 15 years, it turns out, China has been doing all this. Invested in all of this gigantic funds. Again, The Chinese market is very important. Not only is it very big, it very advanced. Fifth Generation Networks,
I will remind or tell those who are not in course, they are, in general, not for us, not for regular subscribers. Fifth Generation Networks are designed to be the backbone of so the so-called fourth-generation industry, of the New Industrial Revolution. They are very important, integral component must be to become a fifth-generation network. This is for industrial, for industrial applications, for all sorts of sensors, for manipulators and the like. That's a separate topic. Now, in China... No, this is important.
It's very important for context, Because then it's clear - if you don't were betting on industry the previous 20 years, then it makes sense, Why do you have... It's very important because, In China, by comparison, as of August of the so-called industrial networks, i.e., the networks of the fifth generations that have deployed specific businesses for their industrial needs, such networks about 6,000 have been registered. In Europe they are Less than 500 for the entire European Union. Of these half in Germany. With all due respect
to small Eastern European countries They just don't have one. industry that is willing to invest. In the States these networks are even smaller, a few tens. Let us not forget that China is the workshop of the world, it is an assembly the workshop of the world. From this, there are many, many consequences. Roughly speaking, for me today the problem, the main defect of the idea with The reason for the uncoupling is that Chinese and American economy are not even in symbiotic relationships. It is actually one organism.
It's kind of like Siamese twins, which are critically fused. I can agree that in a sense The Chinese economy is outward-looking, to another jurisdiction part of the American economy. Money and a very large part of key developments on the side States. And the production and part of the
developments, but a smaller one in China. There has been a disintegration geographic. But in essence. This is not even a symbiotic relationship, it is Siamese twins. Trying to just take and to divide would lead to their collapse, to their death.
But I'll tell you what's here. just this shows the fundamental problem. Within the framework of economic logic that the scenario you describe, really looks like insanity, like the self-destruction of the two largest economies. But in terms of logic financial, political and even philosophical, everything becomes clear. I think both China and America in a few years will be willing to go to this destruction for the reason that neither China nor America can't hold the global structure. It must be understood that the symbiote is a product of globalization, a product of economics of globalization, he is right on top of this globalization is tied to it. Globalization, in
In turn, especially for the United States The states, it is a kind of payment for political hegemony. Globalization is American project, is an Alliance of a unique type when America essentially bought itself an alliance. This has never happened before in history, alliances were usually generated in the logic of military-political, even military and ideological. America has created for itself the military alliance, America bought it, took control of the maritime transportation and created a system of global trade where globalization has evolved. What do we see now? We see that America is now already is not pulling on her own, she doesn't want to keep this globalization in the form of which she was, because these are huge Resources. It is forced to pay
enormous resources for maintaining the entire global system, not really getting in return and, in fact, for Americans. Hence all this conflict within of the United States, which we are witnessing between the conventionally nationalist camp, which is focused on America and conditionally a globalist camp. For the time being. Until now, it seemed that globalism will win in the end because it has more resources and more ambition.
But now it turns out that it is not. Firstly, because the philosophical basis of globalism was undermined. It turned out that countries are not ready to get involved in globalism. As soon as they have possibility of not being included in it, in the way they wanted it, it turns out right away... Again, the examples of the Middle East are clinical simple case. And the second is that even economically the effect of globalization makes everyone extremely vulnerable to the effects of intra-American political decisions. Here, of course,
We're up against a key problem, which, I think this globalization is burying it. It's logical next step would be, indeed, the adjudication of financial, fiscal, emission functions into a kind of global supra-centers, but this no longer will go within the American elite. It almost sounds like the problem of the European Union. By the way, what we see inside European Union on a small example, And it works out on a global level. The U.S., conventionally speaking, can afford, in
pandemic time, to print 40 percent money supply, the inflationary effect of which is shockingly hitting all the economies of the world. And so, Within the logic of globalization, this has simply become no longer possible. I think that in many countries, because of the political, philosophical, and other logics, they will be willing to go to including the dreaded economic the cost of decoupling, of the collapse of the global system and global structures. It's important in your story, That much has been created in the course of globalization Work is in progress. There are questions about who has the best Workings, so that it can enter (may be at a lower level, with less Efficiency) a new, shall we say, era. Here we see what China has, For example, in some areas there are even advantage.
The U.S. has its own advantages. I can easily imagine that within a few years Authorities... In China they have already come to power. Xi is a nationalist President and already We can see a shift in the rhetoric from economic prosperity to Chinese greatness.
It means that, in theory, it is possible to to sacrifice well-being for the sake of some, let's say, goal (the return of Taiwan). How simple. mental scenario, but in the States it will happen, especially in the case of some another stock market crash. I can calmly imagine, that they will be ready to go to the decoupling. You're absolutely right. It would be the downfall of the whole global system, this one symbiotic state, and the consequences of It are hard to predict. Sorry about the a long digression, but it is important to give the global context.
You touched several important topics. Let me say right now that I was originally thinking like you. I assumed, that the States are pursuing quite rational, understandable goal of preparing for full-scale military conflict with China. A conflict where China takes every opportunity to Include its own equipment, but this only in the events of war. If you prepare for war, I thought that it makes sense to get rid of chinese equipment at home and make sure that Allies got rid of it too. However, now I have come to the conclusion that there are several other logics, and they're not on the surface. But if you think about it...
I will, after all, end with the American strategy. Colleagues have pointed out to me a very important Momentum. This strategy explicitly states, That the United States find themselves in a situation with China where they Can’t conflict with them, and they can't compete with them. They need to find a strategy on how to deal with them, How to behave. I mean, by and large. this document, called "strategy," simply poses the question, but it doesn't have that strategy in it. it's so bad nowadays with the provision of the processes taking place, that even the document, called "national strategy" is not strategy at all. it is only explaining
How everything is complicated and puts question: what do we need to find? Yes, that's it. Now, I have came to the conclusion that it is not necessary pursue, move in the logic of the military. Immersed in the material, reading by the need for a multitude of articles, I came upon a problem that can be described as the emergence in the States... Within the American state at the federal level September 11, 2001 was the origin of a new essence. It can be defined as military-intelligence or just reconnaissance complex. Very briefly, because this topic is well known. Just
no one has looked from this angle. The events of September 11, 2001 gave The impetus for the emergence of a truly state within a state, including such a monster as The NSA, against which the CIA simply is lost, and dozens more of the most various organizations that are involved in the security. Giant budgets, visible part of last year, if I'm not mistaken, 75 billion dollars and everyone says that there is at least much more, The budget is not as clear as it should be.
About 200,000 employees, if I'm not mistaken. A giant machine that deals with... There is a very important point here. All of us are more or less familiar with how the military-industrial complex looks like.
What does it do? Military-industrial complex can be described as some aspect of the existence of traditional industrial capital, which produces specialized products in very special markets. In monopolized markets, protected from competition, where you can draw any price tag if you know how to do it right. It's a very sweet piece. Very important: The military-industrial complex produces some artifacts, physical objects. Planes that should fly. Rockets that are supposed to deliver. The bombs that should hit. Yes,
you have the ability to draw any figures, rowing money with a shovel, selling an ordinary bolt, made, by the way, in China, $600 or $2,000 each. Just a quick comment. I will remind you that the Pentagon is America's only agency, which can still be audited. At no time at all was it possible to conduct an audit of this agency's expenditures. The same is recognized for two more years Back. In my opinion, Congress demanded an audit. As of today,
its results are unknown, the case is at a standstill. Yes, well, if the MIC produces sophisticated machinery, which must function, and its quality, its functioning is checked all the time in the endless military conflicts, then intelligence community, in full compliance with the with the canons of postmodernism, produces information. Reports, documents, Papers and nothing but that. It's deals with security. The other
verb. If you have made and sold to Israel or Saudi Arabia An airplane flies and you can feel it. The intelligence community is doing something, writes some documents, secret, top-secret. But to feel this "safety" is impossible. It is never absolute. It is always possible
to say that there were some emergencies, some unforeseen circumstances. Where is it popping out? Why am I telling all this? When discussing problems specifically with the networks of the fifth Generation. with Huawei all the time a characteristic trick occurs, about which we remembered when spoke in relation to the situation with gas in Europe. All the time there is substitution of several theses, are mixed in a bunch of completely different problems. Problem number one: this is the question of the presence of backdoors in chinese Equipment. About the presence of specially left
vulnerabilities for their intelligence services. Problem number two: this is pro-Chinese activity, pro-government Chinese cyber forces. Destruction, spying in American networks, in the States. And the third - this is the problem of the classic agency espionage. Industrial, military,
anyone who implements the Chinese People's Republic in the United States. Now, if we are talking about the first problem there is not a single piece of evidence. If we are talking about the second Yes, it is massive, but so far Chinese hackers exploit vulnerabilities in any equipment from any manufacturer.
Nevertheless, all the time blends in. When you read carefully another revelation, another publication, you're always tuck in a problem from another domain. All the time there is this substitution thesis. In particular, I pointed out, reading this year's "revelations”, CNN, so to speak, about regional operators.
FBI officials said that we each We open dozens of production related to Chinese espionage, up to 20,000 per year. I wondered What is the output of this gigantic activity? Just a couple of dozen sentences per year. And so that with serious deadlines, these are isolated cases. It's not even the mouse that generates the mountain all the time. cockroach. Completely incomparable the scale of the threat, the money invested, and results.
After becoming acquainted with the fact that going on in the intelligence community American, I found that all or most The authors unanimously say: the situation is out of control. This is pure bureaucratic power. The situation is developing in full accordance with the laws of Parkinson's, when offices generate themselves themselves. They divide, they multiply on commission, subcommittees and things like that. I thought that, quite possibly the driving force behind specifically these claims, The anti-Chinese company in the technological The natural need of the multitude of people to get a job, to have permanent, stable, predictable job where it is very difficult to prove that something not finished where it doesn't even need to be demonstrate some measurable result. That's one logic. And that's another logic,
Which surfaced when I took the plunge into the material. I will remind you that the anti-Chinese company against Huawei and the Chinese The manufacturers began during the Trump presidency. When I looked at who and how does it, I saw something familiar. First, all the stylistics, the vocabulary, rhetorical moves - they were simply taken in chunks from the materials of the fifties and sixties, from the time of the Cold War. All the rhetoric against communism, this vocabulary is kind of like "reds", "red danger" and the like, it, To be honest, it looked a little Inorganic. I'm a little familiar with modern China. I will give my opinion,
This is definitely not Soviet-style communism, This is not Maoism. It is something... In general, i'm not ready to put a sign of equality between Stalin or Brezhnev and Xi Jinping. Everything is back to normal. places when I mmersed myself and in publications U.S. media has learned who was behind the origins of this very rhetoric, of this PR campaign. It is appropriate to say the PR campaign. They turned out to be from
the Soviet Union, who left early from Soviet Ukraine in particular. And right there in the articles so-and-so it is written that having suffered, having searched themselves, they found themselves as experts on the Soviet Union. At The time of the Cold War it was small, but quite comfortable niche. An influential group, yes. An influential group. And most importantly, it was comfortable in domestic, in every sense, niche expert on the Gulag, the KGB, and "Soviet totalitarianism". People have been hanging for decades, let's face it.
noodles. Kremlinologists, Sovietologists were doing all sorts of nonsense. Again, I have a separate article describing all of this in detail. They reproduced this pattern already in new conditions. It's gone Trump's way, it's went to Mike Pompeo, by virtue of their...
Again, it was youthful for them. Yes, The 50s and 60s, when everything was green, everything was just "wow". There must have been something at They were triggered, and they bought this bullshit, let's face it. And they did, they put it at the core of their anti-Chinese campaign. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the qualitative decline of all U.S. expert analysis
The invasion of Iraq simply showed the limits of Incompetence, so to speak, of ideology. We have to talk about a global project. There is consecutive groups, the most key group of influence in the States is The so-called globalists, who explicitly want to create a unified system of global governance, global economic of management, one might even say his own kind of convergence, and so on and so forth. Conventionally, we call them globalists. They are associated with financial institutions, the entire structure, from the U.N. to the
World Economic Forum. The guys are not hiding the fact that they have a goal, at least as they see, to enter this new technological order through coordinating efforts. That's why you Are absolutely right. It's for themselves. ideology is seen there.
This is the ideology of transhumanism, this overcoming The human being in a human being is passed on to the immortality is for the chosen few. There's, shall we say. So, its own big ideological premise, but it is not the ideological a premise that, conventionally, the Cold War era wars. It should be understood that these are ideologies
qualitatively different plan. China for this entire group is problem. Members of this group of globalists realize that without China, they would have to do all of this model cannot be implemented. But problem is
that they even psychologically couldn't offer China an equal place at the table. This is the fundamental point. bureaucrats think in terms of the past, Russian, U.S., and
actually Chinese bureaucrats. American bureaucrats, it seems to me, still think like after World War II, when America controlled 50% of global GDP and its the word was the law. You might say, that this is roughly the position of America together with their allies found themselves after of the collapse of the USSR in the nineties. Could we have imagined confrontation, all these processes that you described in technical detail, Could we imagine them in the '90s? Simply no. These people's memories are formed, I think, then, and for this reason, that this is his chance to put China behind the negotiating table by offering him an equal status, by offering him a share (let's to put it bluntly, a certain share) in this global future - they decided not to do. It's still manifests itself. Look, even how
Biden's visit to Arab countries this summer. It would seem that there is already a war going on, already it is clear that the old scheme does not work. That's the attitude, that top-down look is very well read by all the other participants. That's why this
global structure, this global Project- it outplayed itself. And what you said about bureaucrats - that's for sure. And again, esteemed listeners, understand, this is by virtue of for very natural reasons. Imagine, That you are a person who needs to accept solutions, whatever you want. You have
a limited amount of knowledge, a limited number of information. In a perfect world, you call yourself an expert on this one The situation. But here you run into one a very simple problem. And who is the an expert? An expert is someone who will appoint an expert community. And this is
the problem of cyclic feedback, it can last for decades until it goes completely off the rails. And you suddenly have the tanks of your enemy under the window. Then you will reflect on the fact that The experts told you a lot of nonsense, but they were absorbing the budgets. However, as long as this will happen, you, as the person receiving, are proactive in your decisions.
buy those memos, the reports that are presented to you. Simply because you are not better In this. How would you know? That's impossible. And traditionally these expert environments, they had to be much less closed, had to constantly practice ideally. This was the case when about
100 years ago, America began to actively create think tanks. It's like an insight. They were just working on a very meritocratic principles.
They really weren't just built as power projects, they were building interacting with reality, evaluating it before transformation and acceptance quality solutions. But this is where Parkinson's law takes effect. There is the well known iron law of Michels' oligarchy; any structure, which begins even as the most democratic, within 20 years transforms into an oligarchy in which 20% of of the upper echelon make all the decisions. The only goal they have is the preservation of its overbearing bureaucratic institution. From your story, I agree with that it is quite possible that by virtue of being quite bureaucratic, very human and understandable reasons, that we can see in the organization, A huge number of intelligence offices were filing poor quality information. Right here. I'm going to disappoint my listeners. The decisions still
will be taken on the basis of this Information. Most likely it will be Like in the joke: "the hedgehogs cried, but kept on Eating a cactus." There is no basis for decoupling, so to speak, There is no technical possibility, but it will happen anyway, because That's what the expert community told you.
This is the brief conclusion I draw from based on your story. I would now like to move from the States to Europe. For the States, it is still possible to somehow think, at least to invent, Imagine the logic within which they should try to strive for decoupling, at least within the framework of the military scenario. But what motivation could Europe have to participate in the war? I don't understand europe. I'm totally genuinely amazed, on the one hand it Amazes me, and on the other hand it no longer surprises me.
the decision of most American allies to join the anti-Chinese campaign. In doing so, they express their willingness, first of all, to consent to war. They admit that there will be war. It's big, it's hot, it's probably hot, war between the states and China. "We are in this war we choose the right side of history with the States. I don't understand it, it's logic to me is suicidal. It is defective and
The main reason in this case is the presence of substandard expertise. This is a problem of The oppression of the expert community, which imposes defective solutions on politicians. It's complicated with Europe in general. It is already clear to everyone that Europe is the main victim of the unfolding process of globalization. I can safely say now that in the Worst-case scenario, the U.S. can handle it. It
will take them maybe ten years. There will be a total internal crisis. This is terrible time, but they have everything material and technological resources. Despite
to what he was telling me. I am now. less sure that they have enough technological grounds, but they will compensate where They can do so. Maybe just in ten years they will create. It is possible to create such a thing with the proper investments. That is, the U.S. has Resources, they have technical resources. Finally, there is the military component, they have military components, to protect its interests. Europe has no
neither demographics nor resources, very limited technological sphere and, Let's just say the state of the armed forces Europe we have more or less seen for the last nine months. That is, Europe has fully relied on the inclusion of the global world. It was trying to realize a very interesting strategy that Also on the subject of quality expertise. That is, so that you understand, ingenious, in quotes, strategy The European Union before the war was that, a global world is now being created, and Europe will be the moral arbiter in it. That is, Europe will condemn everyone, make moral judgments on everyone. From It will hurt everyone so much that Europe will Get The goodies with it. I'm
Simplifying, but about this was the strategy of the entire European Union. The magnitude of the stupidity of this I think everyone understands the strategies, but it was present in everything from the energy market and ending with the technology market, ending with the market sales. This is not an unimportant fact. We mentioned Germany a little, in passing. Just so you understand,
Germany's symbiotic relationship with China is many times more ambitious in its consequences than the relationship between China and United States. Both the PRC and the FRG have a dense domestic market and so on. In the case of disintegration chains between Germany and China The German industry can... it is in a semi-comatose state condition. Now on the background of the energy transition, in the case of decoupling with China's German industry will take flight In tatters first in Europe. What is flying in tatters
of German industry in Europe? This is the flight of the entire European Industry. In the dry residue. Europe doesn't have any... Even if there is ideological desire, I can even understand, some kind of moral grounds. But they don't have real reason to even hope for favorable outcome. However, politically, Europe of the last eight months shows us that she will do it.
Expert Opinion is at such a low level, that under beautiful slogans they will make any decision without thinking about strategic implications. Everything Says that there is no strategy. Asyou correctly said, you can at least come up with a strategy for the USA. If it's not there yet, it's at least can be made up. There are groups,
who can make it up. Me, let's just say, I know, they're still in the counter-elites There is a $500,000, but they are out there. Those who can come up with alternative strategies. In Europe I don't even see counter-elites who have a strategic mindset. And that is. problem. We can discuss it now, what it looks like technically but on a philosophical level, strategically it just looks like a complete black hole. And they're going to pay for it
Europeans will. Let me be blunt, of course, decoupling is possible. Everything possible, but at the cost of this would be the downfall of the standard of living of Europeans somewhere in the areas of the fifties of the last century. All in all, there you go.
Another logic, is the logic of ideologizing. Observing that, where Germany, for example, is going, where the United States is moving, I see pronounced signs of transformation into that, which can be described as an ideocracy, as a political regime, who is guided not by pragmatic considerations, but by is guided by dogma. That is, a certain set of dogmas, which is perceived as an absolute imperative. Not as some
benedictions, instructions, no. As an absolute imperative. It's called magical thinking. Pure magical thinking, which is based on What is magical thinking? When you sincerely believe that if to pronounce the right words for a long time, then reality magically will be changed and transformed according to with your desires. This is an ancient philosophical, literally magical principle. The principle of magic, of alchemy. Just so you understand, postmodernism is all about magical thinking. Then, in principle, it is possible to to say that we see what kind of policy The elite, brought up in the postmodern, conducts it.
As a reminder, postmodernity comes in universities to the masses in the 1970s and 1980s, then there is just then, 30 years ago, when the current The leaders were students. Here you go, please, the first of this generation postmodern politicians. But it's pure. magical thinking, so they believe in that if one pronounces the right rhetoric... Psychologically it has been in the last 20 years enhanced by social media.
In social media, it's very important to pronounce the right rhetoric, you get positive feedback. Now this logic is very faces reality harshly, but It's probably not tough enough yet. Right away I wanted to add, I want to voice an important thought for me, perhaps a key one. Of course, the problem of cybersecurity exists, the problem of espionage exists. These are all real existing ones, but in a way trivial problems. Countering them has long been not art, it's long-established practices.
Decade after decade of accumulated procedures, instructions and regulations. Take and do. However, when I look with my eyes professional on how rhetoric is practically embodied confrontation with specific threats from China, I see steps, that do not lead to a solution to the problem at all. That is, between the general intension, the stated goals and the practical There is a gulf in the activity. The steps that are offered, they are just from a different field. They don't solve anything a priori, they don't solve anything.
In this case, ideologizing can be another explanation for why why this is happening. Because within the framework of an ideocracy it doesn't matter: what's there, who's there, Oceania, Ostasia... If there should be no red China, its just shouldn't be.
You look at the experts, and they just are tossed around with characteristic clichés, characteristic blocks of phrases. Obviously, not thinking about how it all relates to reality. Well, that's the way it is.
My comment: I am addressing to all those, Who will watch this video. if It is still important to you to rely on reality, including people who have some kind of business interests that are related to technology, I recommend you to Contact with Roman. Including in private order, because he is one of those experts (especially in the environment of technological and communications systems) that look at the problem, at the material as it is. If you notice, there's no ideologies in his reasoning. there is none at all. Only the analysis of documents and clear numbers. Let's just say that in the coming
storm especially to you, European viewers, the expert opinion of a person who does not contaminated by this groupthink on maintenance of personal bureaucratic interests, can become The key to at least minimizing your losses. I think that the example of especially this ether is very good in showing the scale of the abyss that threatens all inhabitants of the European continent, in especially those attempting in one way or another to to preserve its resources in the years to come. That's a small appeal. I believe we have covered the problem sufficiently, well enough. Just like last time,
A transcript will be prepared on three languages: in Russian, in English, in German. Subtitles will be made, so I encourage you to share this material with people you know, with people for whom it's easier to understand in English, in German. I would be grateful for help, for feedback and communication. Thank you and see you again! All the best!