Point one.

What is going on between United States of America and China is not a trade war but a technological one. The fear of the United States of America is that China could overwhelm them. That’s why a tech cupremacy is a military supremacy.

Point two.

One more problem is about the fact that China did not have a mutual behaviour with the west. This was especially clear from trhe day after the World Trade Organization signature. But, you know, the main problem for the westerners is about Chinese market. Westerners want, deeply want without clearly saying that, Chinese market by two hundred years, and maybe before, if you think about the soul market China represented during the middle ages for the christians and their will to christianize China.

Point three.

The One Belt One Road initiative is a sort of Chinese answer to the american attitude aiming to close off China. The One Belt One Road initiative is going on in some countries, for instance Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and others, instead of, say, Thailand . Thailand is geo-politically less interesting than other countries can be. However, not all the countries which, say, will be touched by the One Belt One Road project will receive in the future a true benefit. Best benefits will be on the table where actual prices to build infrastructures are not so high and revenues can be quite easily obtained. So, the eastern part of Europe seems to be more suitable for Chinese investments in infrastructures. We talk about Hungary, Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and so on. On the contrary, western Europe is not. For instance Italy is not on the way of Chinaes interests: costs, rules, bureaucracy and law limits are so huge and unsustainable that no one is going to project big deals in that country. France is not Italy, anyway, something similar is happening there, despite its diversity, if compared with Italy.

However, China needs by the One Belt One Road initiative  to connect a huge market for its goods, for its factories. That’s not new and it’s not a hidden need. We could say it is a one way road, because mainly based on Chinese interests. Furtherly; how much money do China have to spend in order to realize this epochal project? Is it really the first aim for China or is one of a multilined bunch of priorities it has to face, a sort of manifold program of modernization which has to be reached out, but not easily to be achieved?

So, my point is: how much of the One Belt One Road initiative is political propaganda and how much of it is a future that’s going to happen?

Point four.

It’s a difficult moment. Frictions between USA and China are getting, step by step, worser, day by day. As you probably noticed China devaluated its renmingbi to counterattack Trump’s policy. What is the foreseeable future telling us?
It says there will be no peace in the social and economic fields, likely for the next years. Even the Hong Kong dollar (of course!) is going down.
Last January the European Central Bank cut its Quantitative Easing, so one more problem for the international economy will affect us. The European Central Bank says European economies have to settle their problems and become able to walk alone, with no financial helps. This is the contrary of what is going on in China. So, this is not a balancing issue.
It is too early for a political balance, anyway we can say right now everybody will pay for that behaviour.

Point five.

We are trying to understand if the OBOR initiative is really boosting a development in economies and political links around or along the far path from China to the rest of the world. As we said, there is an economic issue and a propaganda issue going on at the same time. Reality is always a matter of percentage and a matter of balance among different issues and directions. If Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Myanmar, Malaysia had troubles in financing the initiative (actually they were nearly dafaulting and Pakistan was at the door of the International Monetary Fund) what is wrong about that? Is this great and wonderful project (mainly a sort of utopic program, when it is not financed by China itself and in its interests) economically sustainable?

Point six.

The present world is, from East to West, closing itself and rising barriers. It’s not good. The old good days (if any of those were) are over and illusions have been definitively cleared up. By this point of view, Trumpism has already win.

Point seven.

Chinese government says it does not care about Trump and his bully attitude. Chinese go straight. How is it possible to credit a person like Trump?
On the other side Americans say Chinese are not fair (they haven’t ever been, they say) in trade i.e. in competition: they were wrong since the day after WTO-Agreement sign, the Americans repeat. And they add: they stole, copied and bought from the West to be what they are now, without repaing it in terms of reciprocity. But I’m saying now: didn’t we do the same or worse with China in the past? Didn’t we occupied, as westerners, that country exploiting it for our needs? Didn’t we destroy Peking to avenge the killing of some clergymen and the birth of a national movement? The past is always among us, acting in the present. That’s why two supply chains are forming under our eyes.

Point eight.

The decoupling is going on and is reality: India is substituting China, soon.