China Archives - Zeihan on Geopolitics

Which BRIC’s Member Will Survive?

The future for most of the BRIC countries is not – as Rihanna so eloquently put it – “shining bright like a diamond.” If I had to choose between Brazil, Russia, India and China, my money is on India outlasting the others.

Most of you know where I stand on China, and its collapse is inevitable. Russia has been shooting itself in the foot for ages, and its recent war on Ukraine is only going to bring them closer to that final bell. Brazil has a better demographic outlook than China and Russia, but geographic constraints and dependence on China will catch up to the Brazilians sooner or later.

Thanks to a stable demographic picture and growing need for self-sufficiency, India stands out as the most resilient. As long as these factors remain, India is set to do very well…even if they have to do everything on their own.

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Maine. That’s New Hampshire over there. Because, you know, what? You state. Today I’m taking an entry from the Ask Peter Forum, specifically of the original BRIC countries: which one do I think is going to do the best and stand the test of time and why? And it’s always… there’s no boat.

The waves can’t be good anyway. Well, let’s do a process of elimination. First and foremost, China — let’s dispose of that. Demographically, China is facing national dissolution. The birth rate has now been lower than the United States since the early 1990s, and it’s already at a point where it has about the same number of people over age 50 as under.

So, we are looking at ethnic dissolution of the Han ethnicity before the end of this century. To think that there can be a country that comes out of a place with no people? No. It’s just a question of how China dies. And that’s before you consider that this is a country that imports almost all of its energy, imports almost all the components that allow it to grow its own food, imports almost all of its raw materials, and is completely dependent upon exports to the wider world in order to absorb all of its manufacturing capacity.

It is the country on the planet that is most dependent in absolute terms on globalization, and that means on the U.S. military to make sure that its ships can travel without being molested, no matter where in the world they go. That is a bad business strategy. And we’re going to be seeing the end of the Chinese system and probably of the Chinese state within ten years. So, not them.

Russia second. Very exposed geography: 5,000 miles of external border that really doesn’t have an anchor in any sort of geographic barrier. They have to defend the whole thing. Part of the logic of the Ukraine war is to get closer to the old exterior crustal defense they had during the Soviet period, where they could rely on things like the Tension Mountains or the Carpathians to shorten that external barrier.

So, they’re in a weird situation that if they don’t expand, they can’t actually shorten their external borders. Russia today actually has longer external borders, even just by drawing on a map, than the Soviet system did, despite losing all 14 of the constituent republics. So, geographically, that’s a bad situation. Demographically, we don’t have nearly as good of a picture of Russian demography as we do of the Chinese because the Russians stopped collecting census data 17 years ago and just started making up the data.

But at the time, they had one of the worst demographic structures in the world, and even by their official fabricated data, they’re in the bottom ten. So yes, Russia is not long for this world. The question is whether it dies this decade, next decade, or the decade after. There are some things they can do to buy themselves more time. They’re not nearly in as poor of a situation as the Chinese are, but they’re certainly not an economic power, and they can’t even maintain their raw materials exports without external help.

Third up: Brazil. Demographic situation is much better. Brazil didn’t really begin industrializing and urbanizing in fervor until the 1990s. Now the birth rate has dropped by almost three-quarters since then. But even if they keep aging at their current rate, they’re not going to face a Chinese or a Russian situation before at least 2070. So there’s still a demographic dividend to be had.

Their problem is more geographic. Think of Brazil as a table that has lost two of its legs, but the two legs that fell off are the ones to the interior. So if you want to start from the coast and get into interior Brazil, you first have to go up an escarpment and then gradually down into the interior. That means it has very, very high infrastructure costs because everything requires going massively uphill from these tiny little flat plains in the cities that are on the coast.

That makes Brazilian cities dramatic and beautiful, but it also means that everyone’s living on a postage stamp in a slum, and the only real city that they have that you would recognize anywhere else in the world is Sao Paulo. Up on top of that escarpment, which is a normal city, and so the economic hub. But it makes its interaction with the rest of the world very, very difficult and expensive.

So it’s not that Brazil is flirting with failed state status like China or Russia, but it’s very difficult for it to operate unless somebody is going to underwrite its development. Now, since roughly 1990, that country has mostly been China because the Chinese are not price-sensitive when it comes to getting raw materials, and so they will basically fund the development of infrastructure in Brazil in order to get to the farms and the mines that are in the interior and bring it out.

But in doing so, they also built joint ventures with a lot of Brazilian companies — joint ventures, which was Chinese for stealing all the technology that the Brazilians had so painstakingly developed over the last 40 years, taking those technologies back to China, mass-producing them, and forcing all the Brazilian companies out of business. So Brazil is actually less advanced now than it was 30 years ago. And that’s a really tough road to hoe.

The final country, of course, is India, and that is the default winner. But they probably would have won on their own anyway. Like Brazil, they had a demographic moment, and they’re now aging. And like Brazil, they didn’t really start to industrialize until after 1990 because they were basically pro-Soviet and didn’t want to participate in something that was U.S.-led, like globalization.

And so they are aging very quickly. But again, like Brazil, this isn’t going to be a real problem till at least 2070. In addition, India has never had a manufacturing pulse like, say, Brazil did. So there’s no place to fall. There was no place for the Chinese really to cannibalize these. What they need to do now, what the Indians need to do now, is more or less the same thing we need to do here in North America.

If they still want stuff in a post-China world, they’re going to have to build up their own industrial plant. And that is a growth story, but it’s going to be a more complicated one than it is here in the United States because the United States has partners in this. We’ve got Mexico and Canada and trade deals with Japan and Colombia and Korea, a solid relationship with Taiwan. And if the Brits can ever figure out what the hell Brexit means, I’m sure the Brits will be brought along for the ride as well.

That means that we have help in building out our supply chains, and we can all specialize in the things that are the best. India doesn’t have that. Every country that India borders hates India, and India hates every country it borders. So India is going to have to do all of this by itself, and that will make it more expensive. And that means it can’t get any help. And that means it has to build up the infrastructure with its own system in a way that we just don’t have to do in the United States.

There’s a pro and a con for that. The con is obvious. The pro is that this is an Indian story. With India doing this for its own reasons, on its own time schedule, in its own way, for its own needs. Yes, it will take longer. Yes, it’ll be a little ugly. Yes, it’ll be a little dirtier than it could have been otherwise. But it means that India will be globally significant even if it’s not globally involved.

And in a globalizing world, that’s just fine.

China Faces Deflation as Economy Stutters

China is facing an economic downturn reminiscent of Japan’s struggles in the 90s. Actually, I take that back…China’s outlook is much worse.

The core of China’s problem is declining demographics. This crushes demand and leaves industrial production as the only path forward. Issuing debt and spending more on real estate, bailing out local governments and boosting industrial capacity isn’t going to do much, in fact, it will lead to deflation…a particularly nasty economic phenomenon which occurs when oversupply drives prices down into a reinforcing spiral of dysfunction involving recession, industrial busts, mass unemployment and general mehness.

If the Chinese want to avoid deflation, they’ll need to cut industrial capacity, but that’s not risk-free either. And to round out China’s list of issues, Chairman Xi’s chokehold on Chinese power adds another layer of complexity to successfully navigating this economic headwind.

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

If you sign up for our Patreon page in the month of October, the proceeds from your subscription for the remainder of 2024 will be donated directly to MedShare. So, you can get our all of the perks of joining the Patreon AND support a good cause while you’re doing it.

We encourage you to sign up for the Patreon page at the link below.

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from New Orleans. It’s like 6 a.m., but this is the only time I have today to record, so here we are. The news in the last few days is that the Chinese are doing another, another, another stimulus program. It’s starting to feel a lot like what happened in Japan in the 1990s, where they throw more money into the situation, hoping to generate economic growth.

But it never did, because their problem at its core is demographic. Unless you can get people to spend more, to consume more, all that’s left is industrial development. In the case of Japan, they used that for real estate, and so the bottom fell out of the market, and it took 25 years to recover. You could argue it’s only in the last five years that Japan has gotten back to some version of normal.

In the case of China, the demographic decline is way more advanced than it ever was in Japan 20 years ago. In fact, you could argue that in terms of the collapse of numbers of people under age 50, it’s actually much worse today in China than it is in Japan, even now, even though Japan’s the world’s oldest society.

It’s that lopsided. Anyway, back to the topic. The Chinese indicate that they’re going to issue a lot of debt, which is something they’ve never really done before, with the numbers being floated somewhere in the low hundreds of billions to the mid hundreds of billions. So by any measure, even for an economy China’s size, this is potentially a huge amount of capital.

So the question, though, is what are you going to put it towards? Three things have been floated. Number one, buying up property that hasn’t been finished so it can be finished. Well, that will exacerbate the oversupply of condos, which is already more than enough to house over a million and a half people, so that does nothing except for maybe generate a little bit more public goodwill because that’s where 70% of private savings is.

So that’d be a political decision, not an economic one. The second one is to bail out the debt of local governments. Local governments can sell land and issue bonds, but they can’t raise taxes, so they have no way of really generating an income. And once they issue debt, they have really no way of paying it back.

So that’s like a $4 trillion asset class that’s completely bunked. And while, you know, we throw half a billion at it, that’s not nothing, but it really doesn’t move the needle in any appreciable way. And the third idea that the Chinese have floated is, shocker, building more industrial capacity. So we’re in this weird situation where the Chinese are kind of damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

I mean, if they do nothing and consumption continues to wither and tariffs against them for their overproduction continue, then their industrial case fails and the population basically falls into impoverishment. This new idea of throwing a lot more money against industrial output actually generates potentially a worse outcome called deflation. Now deflation sounds nice, but it is not. We’re all familiar with inflation, when prices rise, either because there’s an insufficient supply or too much demand.

Eventually, you get spiraling prices that hurt everybody and eventually eat away at the value of economic assets. Based on who you are, that’s different levels of disastrous. But deflation in many ways is significantly worse. Deflation comes from a similar imbalance between supply and demand, but it’s when there’s too much supply compared to demand. In those circumstances, prices start dropping because there’s too much stuff.

People can’t possibly consume it all. And eventually, people become used to the prices going down, so they put off their purchases, which increases the disparity between supply and demand even more. Eventually, it gets so bad, and the oversupply becomes so much relative to demand that the industrial base starts to collapse and people start to lose their jobs because nothing is profitable anymore.

And then all of a sudden you’re hitting it on the demand side as well. The demand is collapsing because people have lost their jobs. Some version of this, in a persistent but mild form, happened in Japan starting in the late 1990s and continued all through the 2000s and through most of the 2010s. We also had a version of this in the Great Depression.

The problem we have in dealing with deflation is, ultimately, you have to get supply and demand back into whack so that they’re actually aligned with one another again. The two ways to do that are to increase demand or decrease supply. In China, it’s difficult to imagine being able to increase demand because there are now more people over age 50 in China than there are under age 50 in China.

And generally, it’s people under age 40 that are doing most of the consumption, and that is the class that has been completely gutted by the one-child policy, in addition to the world’s fastest industrialization process. It’s only been a generation since Chinese folks were having, on average, five and six kids, to now having one. In fact, in the metros where the majority of Chinese now live, we’re now looking at the birth rate being one quarter or less of replacement levels.

We’re talking about 0.5 children per woman. There aren’t enough people to even think about a meaningful consumption rebound. Well, that leaves destroying supply. And in this, the Chinese face two problems. Number one, oversupply has been the state mantra for the last 40 years, and that is the Chinese development model. You look around the world, you figure out something that’s in demand.

You produce it. You use subsidies, you use cheap labor. You produce, produce, produce, produce, produce—not for your domestic market, for the foreign market. You export it. And over the last 40 years, this has moved from product to product to product, from steel to cement and now increasingly electronics products. Now they’re trying to get into electric vehicles.

And it’s just on and on and on and on. Well, in a world where those who are experiencing breakneck economic and demographic growth, there’s some strength to that model. And especially in the 1990s, in the 2000s, we had the developing world kind of getting in the act of industrialization and urbanization. But a couple things to keep in mind. Number one, you only urbanize once, and once you do that, your demand for those sorts of products drops.

Second, when you urbanize, your birth rate collapses. And if you’re, say, Brazil, that means you had a demographic moment in the 90s and the 2000s, but now you’re actually aging faster than the European countries, and your demand has kind of hit a plateau. And you’re also looking at the Chinese, who are basically doing product dumping at scale. You’re like, you know what? I don’t want to play this game. And so it’s not just the United States and the European Union and Japan and Canada that have put all these tariffs on things like electric vehicles from China. It’s also Indonesia. It’s also Brazil. It’s also Turkey. Most recently, Russia. The Chinese have produced all this stuff with the intent of swamping markets to save their social model.

And in doing so, they basically encouraged everyone to block the markets of Chinese products. So if the Chinese were to add more industrial capacity now as part of a stimulus program, all that’s going to do is exacerbate the oversupply. And now there’s nowhere for it to go. So I would argue that a year ago, before this really got serious, the Chinese probably had about twice the industrial plant that they needed because so much of it was geared to service the foreign market.

Well, now a lot of that is being shut out of foreign markets, and the Chinese are having to deal with it at home. Any stimulus will be on top of that. So the only way that the Chinese can avoid deflation at this point is to basically gut half or more of their industrial plant, and then you’ve destroyed the employment program for the entire country.

And if there’s one thing the Chinese government is obsessed about, it’s making sure that people have jobs so they don’t get together in large groups and go on long walks together. So there are any number of reasons how the Chinese economy can ultimately collapse. Demographics are at the heart of most of it, but it could be a trade war.

It could be a deflationary spiral, or it could be any sort of resource restriction. That’s not a short list, but we’re now in a situation where they could theoretically make it all about internal miscalculations and trying to rationalize their economic model for a world that can no longer support it. So this has become very real, very fast, and the Chinese are struggling mightily.

The question is whether or not they can come up with enough policy creativity to try something new. And since Chairman Xi has basically gutted the entire system of all decision makers but himself, I don’t think the chances of that are very high. All right, you guys take care.

China, Navy, Nukes, Tech, and Politics

Photo of a submarine emerging out of the water

You’re receiving this video a week after its initial posting on Patreon. If you’d like to get access to this content as soon as it’s released, along with a number of other exclusive perks, click the link below.

Our focus turns toward China today, specifically at the technological struggles facing the Chinese military and manufacturing industry. And yes, we’re starting with the nuclear submarine that sank in port…

The Chinese have been looking to make some upgrades to their technological capabilities across the board, but they’re not gaining much traction. As evidenced by the nuclear submarine that sank near Wuhan, China’s nuclear deterrent system is one area that could use some love. Unlike the US nuclear triad that provides redundancy and security, the Chinese really only have ICBMs to bail them out of nuclear troubles.

While the sinking of that sub is embarrassing, it’s far from the only area that the Chinese could use some help in. China is a manufacturing hub for low-tech stuff, including less advanced semiconductors. However, China has struggled to make much (if any) progress on the chip front, because they lack the expertise and access to operate the necessary machinery.

And things aren’t likely to improve anytime soon. US-China trade tensions are on the rise, and the coming US election isn’t likely to change that…regardless of who wins. With sanctions, tariffs and technological controls limiting China’s capabilities, it will be difficult for them to achieve technological parity with the US.

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are free and we will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Salt Creek Beach, just outside of L.A., in California. Today, we’re going to talk about beacon policy, technology, China, and the U.S. elections. Yeah, that’s going to get me in trouble pretty much everywhere.

Okay, so the new news that leaked out over the last few days is that back sometime in the spring, the Chinese new nuclear attack submarine sank at a dock via Wuhan. It was a first-in-class ship, and first-in-class ships are notoriously buggy, but they usually don’t just, you know, sink. They had to fish it out of the river with a bunch of floating cranes.

Now, I don’t want to suggest that submarine engineering is easy, especially nuclear submarine engineering, but I gotta say, like, the definition of a submarine is something that doesn’t sink unless there’s a torpedo in it. So getting the basics wrong on this sort of thing is beyond embarrassing. And if you can kind of put this in context, imagine if in San Diego, a nuclear-powered vessel sank in harbor and the government tried to hide it from everyone. That’s basically what’s gone down here.

So, very, very sloppy engineering work, a sloppy propaganda campaign. But from a strategic point of view, I think it’s really important to understand what the Chinese do and do not have when it comes to nuclear deterrence. They have silos—ICBMs that would launch mostly from western China. They don’t have a functional sub arc, and they certainly don’t have a bomber arc.

So we’re talking about one type of deterrence, not the three that the United States has for redundancy. Now, whether that’s good, bad, or indifferent depends on what you care about, but the whole reason the United States maintains the triad is so that no matter what flavor of attack hits the United States, it always has at least one, probably two, backup plans. That sort of deterrence means countries aren’t going to nuke the United States, even before you consider things like missile defense. China is nowhere close to that, not in number of warheads, and certainly not in delivery methods.

This brings us to the general topological issues that the Chinese are trying to crack here. China has a lot of ambitions, and they say they’re planning on going into this, that, or the other thing. But desire is not the same as performance. So, consider, for example, semiconductors. The Chinese have something called deep ultraviolet technology that they’re pretty decent at, and chips that are in the 80-90 nanometer range or dumber, they can make themselves. But when the chips get more advanced—and that’s like what you put into most automotives, for example—they need not just foreign equipment, but foreign staff and foreign software.

Most of the chips being made today—things that are, as a rule, 20 nanometers and smaller—don’t use that technology unless you want to be wildly inefficient with it. Instead, they use something called extreme ultraviolet lithography, which is a technology basically completely controlled by the Dutch company ASML. Even if the Chinese were able to get their hands on some of those more advanced machines, it’s not like they could operate them. There are staffing issues, experience issues, and software issues. Plus, the Dutch have built their machines with remote kill switches, so they have to be involved in the process.

I don’t mean to say this to insult the Chinese. I mean to say this to insult everyone. No country controls enough of the semiconductor supply chain for anything that’s mid- or high-tier chips to do it themselves. You’re talking about a constellation of thousands of companies and dozens of countries, and it really does take a village. So, the Chinese desire to do all of this in-house? It’s just not going to happen, or at least not without a significant shift in how this technology works. It’s more likely to get more complicated in the future rather than less, which means we pretty much know what’s going to happen with U.S. politics and trade relations, because the parameters of what can and cannot be done with the technology are already known.

So, regardless of who wins the American presidential election—and we all have our own ideas on that—we’re looking at a situation where, on the Trump side, we know that tariffs are the plan. But the Biden administration has never repealed any of the tariffs that Trump put into place. On the Harris side of the equation, we know that technological controls are the preferred tool. But I can’t imagine a President Trump ever repealing those.

So, we’re looking at a tightening technological noose as the United States does something that China just can’t call on other countries for. Because, even at the depths of the Trump administration, when relations with allies were at their lowest, you still had countries that needed the United States for this, that, or the other thing. And so the United States was able to do technological sanctions on things like lithography that basically stalled the entire Chinese technological push.

They were able to use older technology like that deep ultraviolet I mentioned in order to brute force through some relatively low-quality chips that hit a couple of technological markers but were huge energy hogs, took up a lot more space, and generated a lot more heat. Not the kind of thing you’re going to use to reset the technological tables, especially when you start talking about some of the newer things ASML is trying to work on, like high numerical aperture, getting down to a one-nanometer chip. The Chinese don’t even have a finger in that world yet.

It takes everyone, played out across the economy, and there’s only so much the Chinese can do. They just don’t do the high-end stuff at all. They do the low end; they do the assembly. And that’s a multi-trillion-dollar operation—that’s not something to be scoffed at. But that’s not the same thing as parity, nuclear or otherwise.

China Will Soon Lose the Title of “World’s Manufacturer”

Globalization led to the rise of China as a manufacturing powerhouse, since finding the lowest cost producer was the priority. However, deglobalization, coupled with China’s demographic decline and aging workforce, has both eroded that competitive advantage and changed everyone’s priorities about cost. So, what happens next?

With China fading from the spotlight, Western countries will become more protectionist, which means manufacturing will be coming back home to places like the US and Europe. But that’s going to bring a while slew of problems with it.

While this transition will create significant job growth and increase the political power of labor, it will also bring high inflation and inefficiencies. This will force highly skilled workers to take on tasks that were historically outsourced to cheaper labor markets. So, if you thought inflation was bad now, just wait…

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Hey everyone. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Yosemite. This is an unnamed lake behind me, so I’m going to claim it. This is Peter Lake and there’s Peter Island right in the middle of it. Great for laps. I built a summer home here. Any who? I wanted to talk a little bit today about the global structure of employment.

Looking forward and back, if you could sum up the concept of globalization into a single phrase, it would be lowest cost producer. The idea is, whoever can produce the product or the step in the supply chain at the lowest cost in a reliable manner pretty much gets the business. And when the Chinese built it up to the bar in the 1980s, they brought a billion industrial workers with them.

And that’s before you consider the fact that it’s a single legal structure, such as it is, or that they subsidize the bejesus out of everything to drive any competition out of business. Basically, they took all the assembly and the low-end stuff from the rest of the developing world, where no region was probably suffering more than Latin America.

Where the geography is much more difficult for infrastructure. And so the Chinese could outcompete them there as well. For the first world countries, and most notably, the United States, we got out of that sort of business because if you pay an American $50,000 a year to assemble a car, it’s going to be a really expensive car.

And so we doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on design work. And there are few industries where this shows up more than technology. The Chinese may make some low-end semiconductors and do a lot of assembly, but it’s the Americans who design most of the chips and make a lot of the high-end chemicals that are necessary for Chinese fabrication facilities to work.

So when someone tells you that the Taiwanese or the Chinese or the Koreans or the Japanese stole our industry in semiconductors, you know, no, we still do the high-value added stuff. The Chinese do the low-value added stuff. Anyway, this has been the state of affairs in increasing intensity for the last 30 to 40 years.

And now we’re entering a new world where the Chinese are aging out. And so they’re losing their economic competitiveness, even at the low end. And their workforce is collapsing because their population is in demographic decline, actually, demographic decline is too kind—demographic collapse. They now have more people aged 60 to 75 than 0 to 25, if I remember my math correctly. Anyway, it’s close.

Sorry, I can’t fact-check out here anyway. Lots of old people, very, very few young people, and even fewer people coming into the workforce in the future.

Okay, so what happens now? Well, the Chinese are no longer competitive. It’s only because of the sunk cost of the industrial plant that we still think of China as an industrial power.

And, you know, 30-odd trillion dollars in sunk cost in industrial plant. That’s not nothing, but it’s not enough without a workforce.

That’s before you consider the trade wars that are intensifying, regardless of who wins the American presidential election, regardless of who wins in various European elections. Both the American and the European blocs have turned very sharply protectionist, specifically versus China, and so we’re probably going to see significant crunches in the trade portfolio of products coming from China very, very soon.

What we’ve seen with the electric vehicles is really only the beginning. What that means is if the Europeans, and especially the Americans, still want stuff, they’re going to have to make it their damn selves. And there is the problem, because the United States has geared its educational system, its infrastructure, and its capital structure over the last 30 years to do more and more higher and higher value-added work, not a lot of assembly.

And so we’re going to have to take highly paid, highly skilled American workers and put them to work doing things that, under normal circumstances, they’d have people in another country do. Now, this will generate a lot of employment. This will generate a lot of political power for labor, organized or otherwise. But it comes at a cost, because if you’re going to pick one word to sum up globalization, it was efficiency.

And there is nothing about having people do jobs that they weren’t trained for, or that they’re overqualified for, that’s efficient. So yes, we will get huge growth, and yes, we will get huge inflation to go along with it. The 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7% that people have been bitching about these last 3 or 4 years, that’s just the start.

What Are China and Russia Doing in Africa?

*This video was recorded during my backpacking trip through Yosemite in the end of July.

China and Russia seemingly enjoy having their fingers in the African pie, but what are they doing there? And should we be worried?

The Chinese have carried out infrastructure projects advertised as free, and later tried to collect payment on those “free” projects. As you could imagine, much of that Chinese infrastructure in Africa fell into disrepair; we’re not just talking about pennies here either…

But that’s not the only thing China is up to in Africa. They are also heavily investing in minerals like manganese, cobalt and copper. While the investments are real, they are overpaying due to corruption and Chinese bureaucrats seeking to move money out of the country.

Now, onto the Russians. The Russian involvement is bit more sinister, as they are using the Wagner Group (a paramilitary organization) to destabilize regions, instigate regime changes, and secure gold mines. This has been highly effective in places like the Sahel region, and is expressly designed to amplify regional risks and create a stateless zone that will cause headaches for everyone else for years.

These activities all have varying degrees of impact, and while the Chinese might be pouring more money into Africa, I would keep your eyes on the Russian involvement.

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from just above Sister Lake. That’s Volunteer Peak in the background.

I am finishing up my high country traverse from Rock Island Lake to Doe Lake to here, then back on the trail for, you know, an hour, then another traverse. Anyway, going through the Ask Peter forum, we’ve had a question come in about what I think about everything that the Russians and the Chinese are doing in Africa specifically.

It kind of falls into three general categories. Let’s start with the Chinese. First, we’ve got the old stuff, the One Belt, One Road initiative, where the Chinese basically came in, said, “We’ll build this piece of infrastructure, or a building, or whatever it is for you, and it’s free. We just ask you to be our friends.”

Well, a few years later, the Chinese came back. It’s like, “Oh, when we said free, what we really meant is this is a loan, and you have to start paying us back right now.” They were laughed out of the room in a lot of places. So, a lot of these projects were things that the locals didn’t need or can’t operate themselves. Once the Chinese actually started demanding payment, a lot of this stuff just fell into disrepair.

I’m not really concerned about that. There are a couple of exceptions here and there, but only a couple.

How much did the Chinese waste on this? I don’t have a specific number for Africa alone, but on a global basis, we’re talking easily north of a trillion. It’s not the dumbest thing we’ve seen the Chinese government do, but it’s certainly one of the dumbest things they’ve done that the rest of the world has gotten all up in arms about. Anyway, let’s see what’s next.

The second big thing is the mineral acquisitions that the Chinese are doing in Africa. This is all stuff that, from a technical point of view, is pretty easy. They’re not doing any deep offshore oil, for example, because they don’t have the technology to do it themselves.

But these are much more real, if that’s the right term. The Chinese are getting manganese, cobalt, copper, and all the rest. A couple of things to keep in mind: it’s not that this isn’t real—this is very real—but whenever you see the Chinese spending $4 billion for something that’s only worth $1 billion, it’s not just about resource acquisition.

It’s about capital flight. It means that someone in the Chinese bureaucracy has figured out a way to get a lot of cash out of the country and disguise it as investment. So, this is real investment. It is actually taking minerals and bringing them back to China. Whether it’s cost-effective needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

I’d argue that probably half of them are not, but there is a bribery and corruption effect in play here that you can’t overlook when you’re looking at everything else.

The third issue is the Russians, who have a very different sort of strategy. What the Russians are doing is taking Wagner, their paramilitary group, sending it over there, and literally kicking over the anthills.

The goal here is not to provide stability; the goal is to enact regime change. And then, as a bonus, the new regime, whatever that happens to be, typically gives the Russians a gold mine. They’re not interested in other types of mineral extraction because gold is just easier to smuggle. And that’s how the Russians are getting around sanctions these days.

They’re literally flying planes full of gold to places to pay for things that they can’t get otherwise. The place where the Russians have been most successful with this is the hellish area just to the south of the Sahara, just to the north of the wetter areas like Nigeria or Congo. So, you’re talking about places like Mauritania, Niger, Chad—those kinds of places.

A number of them have had coups in the last few years, especially since the Ukraine war started. This has ejected what used to be a lot of French influence and, to a much lesser degree, American influence. The Americans were there to fight the final chapter of the War on Terror. The French were there because it was their old colonial holdings.

Anyway, the territory here is pretty much worthless. I mean, you’re talking about something that’s barely a step above desert, even before you consider things like climate change, which suggests that the Sahara is going to be marching south here for a while. The problem, of course, is that when you take an area where the state was weak and you destroy it, you turn an entire band of Africa into a stateless zone.

The last time the world was a little obsessed about a stateless zone, it was Afghanistan. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the next al-Qaida is going to form here or that the next major terror attack is going to erupt from this area, but it’s a very similar series of conditions. You have a weak population that can’t fend for themselves, and you’ve got warlords who are basically running amok and, with Russian help, knocking over anyone who might want to impose a little order on the area.

So, of the three categories, this is probably the one with the lower dollar amount attached but probably the highest transcontinental significance. Three very different circumstances going on here, all with different outcomes.

Okay. See you next time.

The Garbage Time of History: China’s Economic Decline

*This video was recorded before Peter’s backpacking trip in mid-July.

Lesson of the day: if the Chinese government starts censoring a topic, it’s probably time to start looking into that. Today, we’ll be examining China’s economy heading into ‘garbage time’.

For the non-athletes that follow me, garbage time is a sports term that refers to the final minutes of a play when there is no chance for the losing team to recover, yet play must continue. So, if we apply that to the Chinese economy, it would suggest that China has crossed the point of no return.

If you trust the data coming out of China, the economy is stagnant and the demographic picture is grim. If you take your Chinese data with a grain of salt, the economy and demography of China are in a unrecoverable nose dive. So, to say that China is ‘laying flat’ and in ‘garbage time’ is no exaggeration.

If there was anything that might help China hold on, it would be strong international trade. Unfortunately, many countries are stepping away from deals with China and removing that last sliver of hope for the Chinese.

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Lost Valley in Colorado, just above Denver. Today we’re going to talk about a bit of Chinese censorship and the general downward spiral the Chinese find themselves in. I keep an eye on what the Chinese are banning because it gives you an idea of what Xi Jinping and the CCP in China are nervous about.

A couple of new terms have popped up on the ban list that I think are worth discussing because they put a few things into context. The first term is “garbage time.” For those of you who are sports enthusiasts, you might have heard of this term. It refers to the final minutes of a game when one team is so far ahead that it’s impossible for the underdog to catch up. They still have to play out the rest of the game before officially losing. In geopolitical terms, it’s a concept that emerged in the 2000s and 1990s, referring to the period after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 when it became clear that the system was broken and it was just a matter of time before the inevitable end.

The Chinese government doesn’t like this term because it implies that their system is fundamentally broken and that it’s just a waiting game until the end.

The second term is “laying flat.” This idea is that things are so broken and hard work will get you nowhere in a dysfunctional system, so you might as well do the least amount of work possible because there’s no reward for anything else. Again, this term is problematic for the Chinese government because it reflects widespread disillusionment.

These terms are indicative of the economic situation in China. The Chinese recently released new data, showing annual growth once again coming in under 5%. This has been the trend since 2019. Most experts believe that China’s government overestimated their GDP growth by about five percentage points since the 2010s, suggesting that for the past five to six years, China really hasn’t grown much at all. This is reminiscent of Japanese-style stagnation but with an economy that hasn’t advanced as far.

Recent demographic data from China indicates that they’ve lost another 8 million people under age five. The data now publicly admits that there are roughly the same number of people aged 50 to 70 as there are aged 0 to 25. This is significant because, ideally, the younger age group should be two to three times as large as the older group.

Independent demographers argue that China has overstated its population by 100 to 250 million people, particularly under age 40. This suggests that the 0 to 25 age group may be overstated by at least 80 million people, possibly closer to 150 or even 200 million. Most consumption in an economy is driven by people under age 40, who are the ones buying homes and raising children. If this next generation doesn’t exist in significant numbers, China can never achieve consumption-led growth again.

This makes China increasingly dependent on international trade, which is in the process of cutting China out of the global system. This started with Donald Trump in the United States and has now expanded with recent sanctions on things like electric vehicles to Europe, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and Brazil. The effort is going global. So, the last best hope the Chinese had for recovery is now over six years old, and it looks like there won’t be another one. People are beginning to notice.

China’s Tariff Wars: The EU Opens a New Front

*This video was recorded in June of 2024.

We’re talking about a different kind of war today – Trade Wars. Specifically, we’ll be looking at attempts by the US and EU to limit Chinese involvement in their electric vehicle markets.

With 100% tariffs from the US and around 50% from the EU, the Chinese EV industry is being backed into a corner…and its only going to get worse. China’s retaliatory measures are limited by their dependence upon foreign imports and attempts to restrict exports of other materials like gallium have backfired. Heck, the Chinese even tried to slap some tariffs on bacon.

China’s myriad of other issues (demographics, post-COVID decline, low value add, etc.) have only exacerbated the problems brought about by these tariffs. The semiconductor industry is a good example of the inefficiencies in the Chinese system and how reliant on foreign expertise it is.

Don’t get me wrong, China is the world’s manufacturer and that’s no small thing, but its dominance will be challenged by these ever-growing wars on trade.

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the top of Frazier Peak in New Mexico. Back behind me, you can see Mount Walter and just a little bit of Wheeler.

Today, we’re going to talk about trade wars shaping up with the Chinese and why the Chinese don’t have too much leverage. The issue is that the United States and the European Union have both put heavy tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles—100% in the United States, about 50% in the case of Europe.

This is just the first round. Expect these tariffs to at least double over the next couple of years. The goal is to keep everything that involves any part of a Chinese EV out of the system, starting with the finished vehicles. This will extend to parts and especially batteries in the near future.

This is the beginning of the process, not the end. Regardless of what you think about electric vehicles, there’s a belief in the governing systems of both the U.S. and the EU that this is the future, and they don’t want another country or economic bloc to dominate it. Obviously, there’s a lot of subtext there, but that’s the core of the issue.

The Chinese are looking for things to retaliate against. The problem is, when you’re a major manufacturing country that imports all of your raw materials and relies upon foreign markets for all of your sales, there’s not a lot you can do. If you impede trade, you’re destroying the trade system you rely on for your economic model.

The demographic situation in China has gone from bad to horrific. Since the beginning of Covid, we’ve discovered that not only did they overcount their population by well over 100 million people, but people have aged out of the block that does most of the consumption.

We only got our first decent look at Chinese demographics a little under a year ago. The Chinese are now starting to understand why retail sales have not rebounded post-Covid—they’re not going to rebound because they no longer have enough people to generate a rebound. So, foreign sales are all they have. China is also not the technological leader, which means it can’t withhold technology from its trading partners to get market access.

So, the question is, what can they reach for? In the United States’ case, if you retaliate with tariffs on anything, it immediately triggers a second round of tariffs on you, which hurts you more. Even with things where the Chinese might seem to have an advantage, like gallium and germanium (two rare metals they dominate in production), they restricted access to Japan and the U.S. after previous sanctions rounds. The problem is, these metals are just byproducts of aluminum manufacturing. The U.S. is getting back into aluminum smelting, solving that problem, and leaving China without leverage.

In Europe, this is the first significant trade dispute between the EU and China, and it’s not likely to be the last. Europe is known as Fortress Europe for a reason, and China is ripe to be cut out of the European market. Right now, however, the Chinese don’t feel the same danger in doing retaliatory tariffs against Europe as they do with the U.S. The problem again is finding leverage, and they’ve gone after pork.

Back before Covid, China was hit by a massive outbreak of African swine fever, decimating their herds. America and other swine exporters stepped in to fill the gap. Then, the Trump administration cheesed off the Chinese government, leading China to decide to never buy American foodstuffs again unless there was no other option. They switched to European supplies for pork, mainly from Denmark, Spain, and to a lesser extent, Italy.

Fast forward a few years, and China’s swineherd has recovered, creating overproduction. Now, they’re sticking it to the Europeans on pork. It’s not nearly as impactful as targeting semiconductors, but the Chinese don’t have much leverage there either.

No one makes high-end semiconductors by themselves. Making chips better than 28 nanometers involves over 9,000 firms globally. China can make chips of about 90 nanometers, suitable for smart light bulbs, but anything more sophisticated requires significant outside help. The idea that having a fab plant means you can run with it is false. It takes a village for specialty chemicals, design work, and lithography.

If the Chinese ever find something to retaliate with, the EU and U.S. can hit back in ways that impact core Chinese interests very quickly. This leaves the Chinese with limited options, like going after pork. Unless you’re raising pigs in Spain, this isn’t a big deal yet. Sooner or later, Chinese demographics will cause their system to collapse, revealing how much of the lower-end manufacturing the rest of the world can do without. China is the workshop of the world for mid to low-quality products and the king of assembly, but that’s not the tool you use to fight a trade war.

Is Chinese Nuclear Tech Better Than the US?

Photo show three nuclear power plant reactors

*This video was recorded in mid-July, prior to Peter departing on his backpacking trip.

I’ve been asked to address the claim that China has surpassed the US as a nuclear power. On paper, China might have the upper hand, but that doesn’t always translate to real life.

China has been busy building the world’s largest nuclear fleet, and the US hasn’t built a plant since the 70s (even if they have had more recent expansions). However, the technology being used in the Chinese plants is dated and ignores major safety concerns. The US has struggled to keep a labor force large enough to operate new plants, but there’s potential for modular reactors and new tech to shift the tides in favor of the US in the coming decades.

Now onto the explosive stuff. The US nuclear arsenal is top-notch, well tested and maintained. The Chinese are expanding their arsenal, but precision manufacturing and testing are limiting that growth.

So, the Chinese may have the numbers leaning their way for nuclear power, but in the areas that really matter (like nuclear weapons) the US is still sitting comfy.

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a stormy day in Colorado. Hopefully, we won’t have a lightning strike close enough to make things too exciting. Anyway, today we’re taking a question from the Ask Peter forum. The question is about recent reports suggesting that the United States is falling behind China in nuclear technology. What are my thoughts on that?

This is a complex issue with both yes and no aspects. Let’s start with where China is doing well, which primarily concerns nuclear power generation and the deployment of new nuclear power facilities. Since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, the United States has only built one nuclear facility, the Vogtle plant, constructed by Southern Company. A major issue they faced was talent and labor. When you haven’t built new nuclear power facilities for nearly 50 years, there aren’t many people entering that field, and those who were in it have mostly retired. As a result, the U.S. has had to reinvent certain skill sets and recruit former Navy nuclear engineers, like those who worked on submarines, to fill the ranks. This is a very costly process.

In contrast, China is building out what will easily become the world’s largest nuclear fleet. This means there’s a whole generation of nuclear engineers and construction workers in China who are experienced in this field. So, it’s not that Americans can’t do it or that we’ve lost the technology; we’ve lost the labor force. From a practical standpoint, that’s almost as bad. But it’s important to note that the type of nuclear reactors used in both the U.S. and China are typically light water reactors, a technology dating back to the 1950s. While China is developing a more robust and redundant labor force for 1950s and 1960s technology, this doesn’t necessarily mean they’re getting ahead in innovation.

If the United States decides to re-enter the nuclear power generation field, the likely approach would be through small modular reactors (SMRs). The advantage of large nuclear facilities is that they can generate over a gigawatt of power, enough to supply many cities. However, the problem with light water reactor technology is the potential for meltdowns, like a lighter version of the Three Mile Island incident. Public resistance to having these reactors near cities is a major reason why the U.S. hasn’t built more. In China, where public opinion and safety concerns are less of an issue, they’re building them rapidly.

The advantage of SMRs is their small size—they can fit on the back of a truck and be plugged into existing systems, like decommissioned coal plants. They are mobile and can be moved to where they’re needed. This makes them a good partner for renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which are intermittent, or for decarbonizing energy production. You can take an SMR to a decommissioned coal plant that already has all the infrastructure and simply set it up and run it. This technology could be a real game-changer.

However, building the prototype is a significant challenge. A company that was trying to break into this space faced setbacks last November when contracts fell apart, setting the effort back to the drawing board. While other companies are working on it, none are likely to have a working prototype within the next 3 to 5 years. Without a prototype, mass production of the technology is unlikely within the next decade. While SMRs are an interesting concept, they’re not progressing rapidly at the moment. As far as I know, China isn’t focusing on this direction either, as they’re more concerned with building large reactors.

There is also the possibility of using fourth-generation reactors, such as pebble-bed reactors. The French are working on this, but we’re not yet at the stage of having a functional prototype, so it’s too early to draw any conclusions. Even if the prototype is perfect, actual construction might not begin until 2035 to 2040.

Now, let’s talk about nuclear weapons. Nuclear materials aren’t just used for generating electricity; they can also make very dangerous weapons. The United States was not only the first country to build and use an atomic bomb but also the first to develop a hydrogen bomb. American nuclear weapons are likely still the best in the world, although we haven’t used one in quite some time. We’ve developed ways to use computer simulations to ensure our arsenal is effective and safe. The U.S. remains the world leader in maintaining and refurbishing nuclear reactor cores to ensure they don’t degrade.

However, the only way to know for sure how well these systems work would be to engage in a full-scale international intercontinental nuclear missile exchange—a test that, thankfully, we don’t want to conduct. But I’m confident that American weapons are still the most advanced. From the last time we had insight into Russia’s nuclear capabilities, they’ve likely slipped from being the second-best to something like ninth in the world. They still have many warheads, but the question is whether these warheads have degraded. Considering the poor performance of other Russian military equipment in Ukraine, it would be surprising if their nuclear arsenal were the one thing still functioning perfectly. This doesn’t mean we should provoke Russia into a nuclear conflict, but if such a situation arose, the blast radius of their bombs might be less than expected. It would still be a disastrous event.

As for China, they currently have only a few hundred deliverable nuclear weapons. They’re working on expanding this force and aim to reach some form of numerical parity over the next 15 years. This goal involves overcoming significant challenges, primarily related to precision manufacturing. Building a plutonium bomb requires creating an explosive core with a series of synchronized explosions around the core to force it to collapse and trigger a reaction. The Chinese can do this, but scaling it up is a challenge. They also need to miniaturize the warhead and ensure it can survive the forces of launch and re-entry. While the Chinese are not lagging in these areas, achieving all these requirements together is complex and untested in real-world conflict scenarios.

If they fail, it won’t be for lack of trying.

China After Xi

TECHNOVATION INTERVIEW

Here is a link to my interview with Peter High on Technovation. We covered topics intersecting demography, economics, energy, politics, technology, and security.

I get a lot of “what if…” and “what happens next…” style questions and most of them suck, but today’s question takes us down a fairly interesting rabbit hole – what happens to China if Chairman Xi Jinping dies or steps down?

Remember, I didn’t say that this rabbit hole was going to be a happy one, just that it was interesting. So instead of the headlines reading “China Flourishes Following the Death of Xi Jinping”, I would expect something more along the lines of “China Moves One Step Closer to Collapse”.

Between the gutted political system that Xi would leave in his wake and a faltering economy, China wouldn’t exactly be set up for success. The Chinese would likely have to scrap their current state structure and develop an entirely new system.

The bottom line is that Xi Jinping has caused plenty of problems during his time leading the country, but removing him from the picture isn’t going to magically solve those problems overnight.

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado’s lost wilderness. This is a lost canyon. A little bit of a bushwhack, but it’s been a good day. anyway, I’ve started my backpacking season, so we’re going to be taking a lot of entries from the ask Peter Files. I’ll try to do some current event ones, but, you know, I’m not going to be able to upload every day, so, you know, it is what it is.

Anyway, today’s entry is what happens to China when Xi dies. So, you know, that’s a great question. a couple things to keep in mind. A number one has, imprisoned and executed his way into being a cult of personality. There is no successor. There is no potential successor. There is no up and coming cadre of people with talent.

He is basically purge the entire system of any within of ambition or competence. And so it is just him and the bureaucracy now is going after things like patents and college dissertations, so that no one who is under age 25 can even get into the system in the first place. So it is just Xi, it is Xi alone, and he will ride the system into the ground.

It’s so much worse than that sounds because China is not a normal country. So there are different sorts of governing systems. confederal federal and unitary, confederal. Your regions have more power than the center. So think Switzerland or Canada. In a federal system, there’s a shared competence, among the national government, the regional government and the local governments think Germany or maybe the United States.

And then there are unitary systems where, the national government basically sets all policy and everyone just has to go along with it. that’s Russia, that is France, that is Argentina. technically,

China’s federal, but because of the purges and because of the control of the Communist Party, it is basically become super unitary, where everything that happens in Beijing is the only thing that matters, because she is purged all of the regional local governments of anyone who has any capacity.

There’s additional problem here. and that’s just the geography of China itself. it is not an easy place to rule. You have a lot of varied geographies that look to different parts of the world, much less different parts of the country for leadership and economic growth. So, for example, if you’re in the series of cities on the southern coast, roughly from Fujian to Gwangju, you don’t have an interior, you don’t have access to local agricultural product, and you don’t have access to one another.

What infrastructure exists in this area has been built just in the last 30 years, and I don’t mean to suggest it’s not impressive by any standards it is, but it’s nothing like, say, being in the Midwest or in northern Germany, where the land is flat and infrastructure is easy. And so all these cities have their own individual identities.

And historically speaking, all of them have gotten the majority of their calories going back 1500 years from somewhere not on the Asian mainland. Then you got the center section from Shanghai up to,

Chongqing. There we go. Oh, the one province. this is kind of the. This is the area of the Yangtze River. This kind of the Mississippi of China.

Think of it. It is Detroit and Minneapolis and Saint Louis and New Orleans and Houston all in one. definitely a discrete economic unit with discrete political and cultural identity. And then you’ve got the North, the north China playing around, the yellow River. This is an area that is pretty flat. And the problem is, is it’s just it’s been too big, historically speaking, to be all under one power until the industrial era.

And so you would generally have warlords trying to take over individual chunks of the territory. And because this is also a flood and drought prone area, the waterworks were necessary to maintain the population. So when a warlord thought he was going to lose or wanted to launch an attack on a neighbor, he’d go after the waterworks anyway. So you get this nationalistic, militaristic north.

You get kind of a corporatist industrial financial center. And then what has traditionally been a secession of South and keeping these all under the same rubric, under the same governing system is hard. And so you have to basically look at Chinese history from this point of view and that there’s kind of two models. Model number one is each region has as much autonomy as it can stomach.

And the whole thing spins apart. In the north in particular falls into civil war. There’s a reason why all of China’s dynasties never last very long. It’s hard to hold this all together, or you overcompensate the other direction and hyper concentrate authority in Beijing under the Emperor, or now under the Communist Party general secretary, and hold everything as tight as possible.

Neither of them last for long, and unfortunately, there’s nothing in between that works really well either. Kind of a confederal system would just lead to friction and eventually conflict among the various sections. Well, at the moment we are clearly having a hyper centralized system. So we have a hyper centralized system in a geography that is difficult to govern.

But now everything is being all the decisions being made in Beijing, we have a unitary system because the party is eliminated. Everyone who isn’t Xi and Xi himself is not a spring chicken. I mean, he’s not like Biden or Trump old, but the dude can’t be around for much longer and there’s no one in the wings waiting to take over. So when this breaks, you take the most hyper centralized

Iteration of China we have ever had? And you cut off the head at a time when the country is facing financial overextension and a demographic collapse. So when Xi dies, however, that happens, there will not be another government of China.

We will be facing state dissolution because the demographic situation is so bad, it’s entirely feasible that we have a collapse in the country’s ability to generate any economic activity. Of note, before such time as something can theoretically rise on the other side of this. So we could we probably are looking at the end of the Han ethnicity as a player in international affairs, because by the time we get to the end of the century, there aren’t going to be a lot of them left. So when Xi goes, that’s it, the party’s over. All right, so you guys from the next canyon.

What Is the Future of Chinese Expansion and Energy? || Ask Peter

WEBINAR – Peter Zeihan’s Risk List: What Keeps a Geopolitical Strategist Up at Night

Please join Peter Zeihan for a webinar on June 5th at 12:00 PM EST on a topic that is near and dear to the hearts of the Zeihan on Geopolitics team: geopolitical risk. This webinar will feature Peter’s reasonable-fear list, focused on issues that in his opinion have the most potential to impact market outcomes.

We’ve got some more interview style questions for you today! We’ll be focusing on China, specifically looking at the potential for Chinese energy independence and if any countries surrounding China should be worried about an invasion/resource grab.

While it may appear that the Chinese have access to significant shale oil deposits, the reality of their energy outlook isn’t so pretty. Most of the Chinese lake bed shales are waxy and produce only a fraction of the energy that American deposits produce. In addition, the location of these deposits just so happens to be in a historically secessionist region, so that helps limit development.

On the Chinese expansion front, the prospects aren’t looking too hot. With limited military capabilities and geographical constraints, expansion towards resource-rich neighbors isn’t feasible. My bigger concern is what happens after Chinese demand for these resources falls off and the countries sending this stuff to China lose that stream of income…

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

On paper, China has considerable, shale oil deposits. One of the Chinese, especially given their history of, massive state expenditure, doing more of their shale deposits, especially contrasted with their massive energy import dependance. Technically, China has the world’s second largest shale deposits. so potentially it’s very, very cool. And that’s certainly the failure hasn’t been from a lack of trying.

The problem is it’s not very shale. Sovereign shale is shale that comes out, former ocean beds. so saltwater pressure, that sort of thing. Most of China’s shales are, I can’t pronounce word of some, like, extremely stringent. Thank you. Lake bed shells. so a lot more debris in them, if you will. And as a result, are kind of waxy.

Well, when you frack a maritime shale, it’s hard and it cracks and you get the energy out. If you frack wax, it just kind of sloshes around a little bit and nothing happens. So it turns out that even if the petroleum density and China shales are the same as American shales, they can only get about 5% the energy out for every dollar that they put into the effort, even assuming that they were really good at the technology and they’re at best so-so.

So only about 5% of the wells that the Chinese have drilled at this point even remotely approach break even. And all of those shales are in Sichuan and Sichuan. It has in the past been a secessionist region in China. So the last thing that the hyper centralized Communist Party is China is going to do is to exploit a new type of energy in a part of the country that might one day go the wrong way.

and even within that, the volume that they’ve been able to get just warrant does not seem to justify a large scale expenditure. So they’ve steadily revised down their estimates. I think they’re now down to less than 2% of what they thought they were to get 15 years ago. I think for most people who follow you regularly, or read the news, it’s no surprise that China, mainland China has its sights on, if one day possible, securing the island of Taiwan, bringing one of these, an errant province back under the influence of the central government.

Taiwan by itself, though, is a relatively resource poor place. And we look at China’s import needs, economic development plans. There are neighboring regions closer to home Mongolia, parts of Central Asia, parts of southern Russia that have a lot of the resources that they’re importing. Anyways. Is there a risk to these areas of a future Chinese land grab occupation, cross-border, conflict, kind of like you see between, India and China, the Himalayas.

But obviously without a mountain range in between them. I think there’s a lot of risk, but not necessarily China. China can’t go north. Will get the Russians have made that very clear. They don’t have the Navy to conquer a place like Japan or the Philippines or Indonesia. Taiwan is theoretically a possibility. But if they pick a fight over that, the chances of another naval power interrupting their energy and their food inflows and the merchandise exports would destroy China’s industrial estate.

it can’t go meaningfully southwest because of the Himalayas. And if they go south, you know, they tried that in 79 with Vietnam. They got their ass handed to them just as much as we did it. So there’s nowhere really for China to go and break a country in a meaningful way. I mean, there’s Mongolia, but special case, there’s not enough people there for really the matter.

And they’re not a huge player in international markets. but I’m more concerned that if you remove China from the equation and Chinese demand for a lot of these minerals crash, you get two things going on at once. Number one, you got the gutting of the income that a lot of these mid-tier countries rely and on to do everything that they do.

And then number two, it’s unclear where the United States was going to be a lot more narcissistic and focused on its own industrialization. We’ll need all of them. And we’re certainly going to preference specific partners like the Philippines, like Canada, like Mexico, like Australia, like Chile. And so if you’re not on that short list where you kind of get under the American security, your at worst economic umbrella, you need to find a new, for lack of a better word, daddy.

And if it can’t be China, it’s not going to be the United States. Your list of other options have baggage. Japan might be related to the business. And if you’re an East Asia, you remember how that went last time. It’s not that I think that the Japanese are looking to go bonzai on everybody again, but it’s going to be lingering there in the back of your mind.

As for the other countries that have projection power, Turkey for it. France. You know, these are all countries with a lot of baggage when it comes to former colonial relationships. Now, I wouldn’t expect it’s to be a neo colonial conquering because the power difference between these states and their former colonies, it’s not nearly as lopsided as it used to be.

I think it would be more of a partnership, but everyone is going to have to find a friend, and you’re going to have to keep the friend interested. And you don’t have to negotiate every step of that process. Go. It’s a much more complex world than what we had during the Cold War. Even during the colonial era. It’s it’s going to be messy, and not everyone is going to be able to pull it off.

The End of the World is Just The Beginning

Disunited NAtions

The Absent Superpower

The accidental superpower

The End of the World is Just The Beginning

Disunited Nations

The Absent Superpower

The Absent Superpower

The End of the World is Just The Beginning

Disunited NAtions

The Absent Superpower

The accidental superpower

The End of the World is Just The Beginning

Disunited Nations

The Absent Superpower

The Absent Superpower

The End of the World is Just The Beginning

Disunited NAtions

The Absent Superpower

The accidental superpower

The End of the World is Just The Beginning

Disunited Nations

The Absent Superpower

The Absent Superpower

The End of the World is Just The Beginning

Disunited NAtions

The Absent Superpower

The accidental superpower

The End of the World is Just The Beginning

Disunited Nations

The Absent Superpower

The Absent Superpower

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Join 150,000 other subscribers

Stay Social

GEOPOLITICAL INSIGHT STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX