Excellent thread. I think a lot of the quick analysis in the US is misreading what happened here - IMHO this isn't a story about the UK hardening on China, it's about the persistent regulatory power of the US in global supply chains 1/
For example this description from the NYT suggests this is about the UK opting to confront China, views it as a threat, etc. 2/ 
But the UK gov'ts own explanation for the move doesn't suggest anything like this. They're quite clear: new US sanctions announced in May are going to make it difficult for Huawei to maintain its supply chains, which creates risks about reliability. 3/ ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/a-di…
The UK isn't updating policy in response to new information/beliefs about China, it's in response to change in US policy. Because the US has such a central role in high tech global supply chains, its decisions impact third countries (like UK) 4/
Of course, the broader political background matters too, and is probably also a contributing factor. But the prima facie explanation is that this is a story of US power in #weaponizedinterdependence, not of the UK picking the US' side in Cold War 2.0 5/
Finally, worth noting that even if not the *cause* of the decision, the *result* of UK banning Huawei may well be a hardening of UK-China ties. But it's worthwhile untangling the two. 6/end.
Postscript - see also this excellent thread from @SamuelStolton last week, which previewed a lot of these same arguments
The big takeaway for me is that it appears the US never actually succeeded in convincing other governments Huawei was a risk.
Instead the US made the decision for them by exercising its network power. (Though other governments may be happy to let the US shoulder this.)
Instead the US made the decision for them by exercising its network power. (Though other governments may be happy to let the US shoulder this.)
