Thread by @LongShortTrader

I’m not sure which surprises me more:

(1) the # of basic factual inaccuracies in that Soros China op-ed

(2) fintwit (even soros haters) oooing and ahhing over it… unaware how uninformed they look when they quote incorrect info…

Fact check this: “never went abroad”

https://twitter.com/trmcdonald/status/1426910262452436995

Mistakes like that make you wonder who ghost wrote for Soros edition.cnn.com/2016/12/07/asi…

“He didn’t receive a proper education”

Does that suggest Tsinghua University was an “improper” education?

Tsinghua who?

The Xi Jinping = bad China, and Deng Xiaoping = good China, that they were somehow personal/ideological enemies seems at best a cartoonish caricature, if not just incorrect.

Which is too bad because the op Ed does present some good points.

The mistakes undermine them.

The sad + comical irony of the China commentary is that it comes at the eve of the failed Afghanistan occupation.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result”

So much for self reflection and learning from mistakes.

At least know thy enemy!

https://twitter.com/ValueHao/status/1427120105289396224

Is it a surprise, then, that I come to the exact opposite conclusion, all else being equal ?

Fintwit praising Soros op Ed think chance of China invasion of Taiwan rises.

I couldn’t disagree more. The risk/cost of invasion for China increases BECAUSE US exit from Afghanistan.

https://twitter.com/trmcdonald/status/1427032293881880577

Because USA departure from Afghanistan frees up both tangible as well as psychological resources, attacking or counterattacking China in the event of Taiwan invasion becomes less difficult.

Moreover, Afghanistan is a neighbor, and regime changes are almost always messy.

Because regime changes are always messy, Afghanistan’s neighbors - including but not limited to China - have MORE responsibilities, more need to allocate resources, and thus all else being equal, diverts resources away from other potential foreign policy actions.

Yes, this might be a nice symbolic/PR victory for US rivals/enemies. But other than that, US departure from Afghanistan both

(1) frees up US military/foreign ops
(2) tied up US rivals’

Which in my book is not exactly a “win” for our rivals/enemies.

One of China’s strengths in recent decades:

China has had minimal to no foreign entanglements to worry about. So while we got entangled with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya,

China focused on domestic.

US departure forces China to deal with Afghanistan, one way or the other.

And if you get 4D/5D chess over this, Russia, India, Pakistan, China all have to worry over how Afghanistan fares in the absence of the US.

Things may go smoothly. Or not. Point is, this is one more thing for all the above to worry about. And all the above are poor countries.

The Last Jedi

followed by

The Return of the Jedi

Oops, wrong order

So I caught up with my friend, who is actually versed in China matters, and has tended to get a lot right:

1) we both agree USA leaving Afghanistan is good for 🇺🇸 interests long term, just should’ve been sooner, & with better execution.

2) on China, we have diverging views:

2) what USA leaving Afghanistan means for China: “This is good for China, since USA was enabling the East Turkestan terrorists to destabilize China. With USA leaving, China has one less thing to worry about in Afghanistan.”

I saw it differently:

https://twitter.com/LongShortTrader/status/1427128270143725572

what USA leaving Afghanistan means for China/Taiwan:

“As you know, I was one of the first to raise the possibility of China/Taiwan, but China isn’t basing the decision on what the US does in Afghanistan or the Middle East.”