Wednesday, July 31, 2024

China is slowly joining the economic war against Russia

I recently shared a chart on Twitter showing Chinese exports of ball bearings to Russia. Here it is:


Having accelerated after Putin's invasion of Ukraine to a run-rate of around US$5-7 million per month in 2023, Chinese ball bearing exports to Russia have been ratcheted down to the $2-3 million level in 2024, about where they stood prior to the invasion.

What's going on here? As Russia's closest ally, shouldn't China be sending Putin all the ball bearings he  wants? Russian tanks are being destroyed every day and ball bearings are a crucial component for building replacements.

Before answering this question, we need a bit of background.

We can think of the economic response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine as progressing in two stages. The first stage of the economic war involved a coalition of liberal democracies (U.S., the EU, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, South Korea, Norway, the UK, and more) reducing their own economic linkages to Russia. Europe drastically scaled down its imports of Russian natural gas. Imports of Russian crude oil into Japan and Germany were slashed to bare bone levels. Western corporations like Coke and John Deere decamped. And the U.S. made an effort to cut down on exports of military goods and so-called dual-use items, which have both commercial and military applications. Ball bearings fall into this category, since they are useful not only for civilian vehicles but also artillery and tanks.

The second stage of the economic war has only recently ramped up, and involves the coalition exerting its influence on non-coalition countries like Turkey, United Arab Emirates, China and India in order to get them to cut down on their economic linkages with Russia.

A key component of this next stage are the U.S. secondary sanctions that were introduced in December 2023 by the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC"). I've written about them here, here and here

In short, if OFAC catches a foreign bank in Shanghai, Delhi, or Dubai facilitating transactions involving Russia's military-industrial complex, including dual-use goods, then that bank risks being cut off from the U.S. banking system. Because the U.S. banking system is so vital, foreign banks prefer to cease all offending Russian trade. This effectively stops Turkish or Chinese ball bearing manufacturers (as well as any other businesses that deals in dual-use goods) from dealing with Russian buyers, since these manufacturers are reliant on their local banks for cross-border payments.

Along with OFAC's introduction of secondary sanctions, there has also been a big step-up in U.S. export controls, which are overseen by a different agency, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security ("BIS"). The BIS maintains a list of U.S.-produced dual-use items. American and foreign entities are required to get a license from the BIS before exporting, reexporting, or importing certain items on its list.

In March 2024, the BIS broadened the criteria that triggers a licensing requirement. The criteria now includes any involvement of entities listed under fourteen different OFAC sanctions programs, the majority of which are linked to Russia and Ukraine. So for example, if a Hong Kong-based wholesaler intends to re-export a BIS-listed item to a country like Armenia, or transfer that item within Hong Kong, and they fail to realize that the recipient is an actor on one of OFAC's Russia-related sanctions list, then that Hong Kong wholesaler has now violated U.S. export controls. To prevent violations, intermediaries like our Hong Kong wholesale must sharpen their screening requirements.

These new rules, which have been described as a BIS "force multiplier" of OFAC's sanctions program, are intended to assert influence over a broad cross-section of dealers that specialize in indirectly re-exporting goods to Russia. These indirect routes often proceed through a labyrinth of pit-stops in jurisdictions like UAE, Hong Kong, and Kyrgyzstan.

Back to ball bearings. How is the second stage of the economic war progressing? The chart at the top of the page suggests the new measures may be working. Recall too that in February I wrote a post tracking what seemed to be some initial anecdotal indications of success. In the rest of this article I want to use another four or five months of data to provide a more complete picture of how China's interactions with Russia have being affected.

China is crucial to Russia because it has a become a key source of goods destined for the battlefield. According to a report from the KSE Institute, some 44% all Russian parts destined for the Ukraine battlefield were linked to producers in coalition nations, primarily the U.S. These include parts that have been branded by American stalwarts like Intel and Analog Devices. Mainland Chinese producers accounted for 47% of battlefield goods (see chart below). However, progressing further down the value chain to country of dispatch, around 56% of all battlefield partsincluding the U.S.-produced onesget to Russia by way of China, and another 22% via Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China. Together, almost 80% of Russia's battlefield parts are dispatched from these two Chinese sources.

Source: KSE Institute

In other words, not only is China producing its own battlefield goods destined for Russia, but it is also responsible for the final re-routing to Russia of most U.S. produced battlefield goods, at least in the period starting in January 2023 and ending that October.

The items that make up the battlefield goods cited by the KSE Institute are derived from the coalition's Common High Priority List, which includes 50 dual-use items that Russia seeks to procure for its weapons programs, one of which is ball bearings. For the rest of this article I will focus my analysis on the four most important goods on the Common High Priority list: Tier 1 items. Tier 1 items consist of microelectronic circuits (processors, memories, amplifiers, and other circuits) that the BIS says play a "critical role" in the production of advanced Russian precision-guided weapons systems. Russia lacks the ability to produce these items and is reliant on a limited number of global manufacturers, according to the BIS, which only amplifies their importance to Russia.

The chart below shows Chinese exports of Tier 1 items to Russia as reported by China's customs authority. Prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, these exports typically came in at around $5 million per month. Post-invasion, they rose to a range of $10 million to $34 million per month, suggesting significant military diversion. 


With the arrival of secondary sanctions in December, monthly Tier 1 exports have fallen below the pre-invasion watermark of $5 million.

The above customs data does not include Hong Kong, which along with mainland China has become a major Chinese source of Tier 1 exports to Russia. To provide a more complete picture, the chart below adds Hong Kong customs data to the mainland customs data. Running between $25-$60 million during most of the war, Tier 1 exports to Russia from the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong have collapsed to sub-$15 million levels this summer, lower than at any point in 2021.


That's quite a big plunge, and certainly suggests that the coalition measures are working with respect to China. Skeptical readers may suggest that China has stopped exporting Tier 1 items directly to Russia only to re-route them via third party nations. According to this theory, the $40-$50 million decline in monthly Chinese exports is being made up by a $40-50 million rise in Chinese exports to, say, Kazakhstan, which eventually make their way to Russia.

Below, I've plotted all Tier 1 exports from the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong to a group of Russian neighbours that includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.


China's Tier 1 exports to Russia's neighbours rose after the invasion, suggesting significant diversion of exports to Russia, and in March 2024 hit $7 million, their second-highest level over the entire 2021-2024 period. However, over the last three months Tier 1 exports to Russia's neighbours have plunged below even pre-invasion levels.

So no, the theory that third-parties have replaced direct China-Russia trade is not borne out in  the data.

In sum, a variety of U.S. economic tools including secondary sanctions, bolstered export controls, and other types of moral suasion seem to be prying China out of the arms of Russia and into the coalition's effort to economically strangle the Russian war machine.

But there's more to be done. China's exports of high priority goods like circuits and ball bearings have fallen in 2024, but they haven't yet hit zero. That will require more pressure on the Chinese government as well as enforcement against Chinese and Hong Kong companies that violate sanctions and/or exchange controls, as well as against intermediaries in third-party nations like Kazakhstan. To further tighten the screws, the coalition will need to constantly broaden the range of economic activity between China and Russia that it deems off-limits. For now, the coalition says that it is perfectly fine for Chinese companies to export cars and vacuum cleaners to Russia, but there may be a time at which that permissiveness will have to change.

In fact, one of the coalition's biggest escalations in the sanctions war occurred in June, with the U.S. secondary sanctions program being extended to include Russian banks. (I wrote about this here.) In effect, Russian financial institutions are now off-limits for Chinese banks (and banks elsewhere, too), unless these Chinese banks want to lose their access to the U.S. banking system. This blacklisting of Russian banks will make it very difficult for Chinese exporters to continue doing business with their now-unbanked Russian counterparts, further eating into the trade relationship between the two nations.

The trade data in the above charts does not yet include the effects of the extension of sanctions to Russia's banks, but I suspect the effects will be significant.

Welcome to the economic war against Russia, China. We hope you continue to do your part. 

13 comments:

  1. Analyzing trade date is always tricky (wrong invoicing, inventory effects, substitution, etc.)
    Picking some obscure components from trade data without context and without looking at the overall picture to support your argument looks like cherry picking to me.
    After all, we know from Robin Brooks for a fact that overall trade with China for the first half doesn't show any impact (as predicted by me in December) from secondary sanctions and thus the first quarter slowdown was a Chines new year effect - as correctly analyzed by Mr. Brooks and myself back then. (again, these things are tricky, notably so in China)
    (https://x.com/robin_j_brooks/status/1817576744595140946)


    I mean, the reason imports of these components have been falling are manyfold:
    - the Russians do not need them anymore, as its army is bigger (?!?) than before the invasion according to this reputable source (https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/24/i-know-we-will-win-and-how-ukraines-top-general-on-turning-the-tables-against-russia)
    - it simply might reflect the inventory cycle
    - Russians have found a new supplier (North Korea comes to mind)
    - etc.
    This is why you never analyze these things without context...


    You further write:
    "...Welcome to the economic war against Russia, China. We hope you continue to do your part..."

    Look at this newspiece: (https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-did-china-and-russia-stage-joint-bomber-exercise-near-alaska#:~:text=On%20July%2024%2C%20the%20North,Canadian%20CF%2D18%20fighter%20jets.)
    A quote from the article:
    "...This is the first time China and Russia have conducted a joint patrol near Alaska and in the northern Pacific. It is also the first time that Chinese and Russian aircraft have taken off from the same Russian air base.

    The bombers came within 200 miles of the coast of Alaska. While staying within international airspace, they did fly through Alaska’s ADIZ—airspace that is controlled for national security reasons, where aircraft are required to identify themselves..."

    So China and Russia are demonstratively INTENSIFYING their military cooperation, trade is at record highs, but secondary sanctions (in place for over 6 months) are going to change that.....



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "After all, we know from Robin Brooks for a fact that overall trade with China..."

      The problem with Robin's approach to secondary sanctions is that he doesn't use the proper measurements to analyze their effectiveness. The secondary sanctions are targeted against Russia's military-industrial complex, with a specific focus on a 50 harmonized system (HS) codes. So the appropriate measurement is those precise HS codes, or as I've done, the four most crucial of those 50 HS codes. Robin either uses all Chinese exports as his measure, which includes a huge range of goods that are not members of the group of prohibited goods (i.e. cars, dish washers, clothes, etc), thus muddying his analysis, or he focuses on a single category (transportation goods) which doesn't include a single prohibited HS code. Either way his approach is wrong, and so is yours by association.

      " the reason imports of these components have been falling are manyfold..."

      I don't find any of those to be very convincing.

      "So China and Russia are demonstratively INTENSIFYING their military cooperation..."

      You may be right, but my post is about the economic front of the overall conflict, and the data suggests that China is slowly shifting to the coalition side on that particular front.

      Delete
    2. "...but my post is about the economic front of the overall conflict, and the data suggests that China is slowly shifting to the coalition side on that particular front..."
      You are contradicting yourself: above you state that Robin's approach is wrong, since it doesn't single out militarily relevant goods, but looks at overall economic cooperation. Which is it?
      Also: how do you know that the militarily sensitive goods you have singled out (btw. I do not think that bell bearings are critical, i.e. the Russians are perfectly capable of producing them) are not simply relabeled as "barbie dolls" - nothing simpler than that.

      Ofc. the Chinese military could simply decide to gift (no payments, no secondary sanctions right?) to their beloved ally. The amounts in question are peanuts, afer all (bell bearings less than 100 million bucks per year)..

      "I don't find any of those to be very convincing."
      Puzzled by the comment. Please read General Syrski's interview. The Russian army is big enough - it doesn't need more bell bearings.

      Delete
    3. "Which is it?"

      That's why I was careful to include in the title of this post "slowly joining." China has only begun to add its weight to the economic campaign against Russia, starting with high-priority goods, which follows because those are the specific items targeted by the first round of secondary sanctions. As the secondary sanctions net widens, and an ever broader array of goods & services fall under the definition of prohibited, the broader indexes that Robin tracks will show more of an effect; for now they don't because the secondary sanctions have remained narrowly focused, at least until June.

      "I do not think that bell bearings are critical, i.e. the Russians are perfectly capable of producing them"

      The coalition considers them to be critical because Russia's military requires them for things like tanks and artillery. I agree that Russia can produce ball bearings, although it is apparently far behind the rest of the world in ball bearing technology. Notice that I focused my analysis on Tier 1 goods, which is comprised of microelectronics, not ball bearings. Ball bearings fall under the Tier 3b category, which is of lower concern according to the BIS. Tier 1 items are of the highest concern due to their critical role in the production of advanced Russian precision-guided weapons systems. Furthermore, Russia lacks domestic production of these items and there are limited global manufacturers.

      Delete
    4. What prevents the Chinese Military to gift all these critical components to Russia?
      The Russians hava lot to give: experience with modern drone warfare, world class air defense, experience how to disturb the best US weapons with EW...
      I am sure the Chinese miliary, which is intensifying the cooperation with Russia, would be interested in such a deal..

      Delete
  2. Wait, isn't there at least ONE bank in these countries that has no business with the USA, and which could therefore handle these transactions without risking sanctions? What about creating one just for this purpose ?

    Also, China is known for manipulating a lot of its economic data. What makes you think that this isn't the case here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That'll happen, the Bank of Kunlun being an example I mentioned in my previous post:

      https://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-intensifying-effort-to-isolate.html

      But none of the biggest and best banks want to be that bank, so the task inevitably falls to poorly run and smaller institutions without scale. And at some point the U.S. can close this loophole by beginning to ban any Chinese bank from the U.S. correspondent banking system that itself deals with the lone Chinese bank dedicated to handling sanctioned trade.

      It's entirely possible that the mainland and Hong Kong customs data is manipulated. I'm operating on the assumption that it isn't.

      Delete
    2. > And at some point the U.S. can close this loophole by beginning to ban any Chinese bank from the U.S. correspondent banking system that itself deals with the lone Chinese bank dedicated to handling sanctioned trade.

      And how would USA know? Chinese Domestic Interbank relations are most likely private to China.

      Another thing might also happen, an Chinese bank is set up purely to deal with USA in the way that only foreigners can do international transfers in and out of it whilist domestic Chinese banks transfer money to that bank, and if need be set up accounts, for the foreigners.

      That way USA looses the 'corrisponding banking nexus' argument their whole sanctions regime is built on. And it moves the entire sanctions compliance burden on the USA entities and persons that have actual political weight onto the USA government.

      Delete
    3. "And how would USA know? Chinese Domestic Interbank relations are most likely private to China."

      The U.S. might be able learn from whistleblowers somewhere along the transactions chain, who are encouraged by monetary rewards.

      "...Chinese bank is set up purely to deal with USA..."

      I suppose that's possible in theory, but does it really change anything? The U.S. can still apply pressure on the single bank to offboard any Chinese banks that make transactions involving Russian military-industrial goods.

      Delete
    4. > The U.S. might be able learn from whistleblowers somewhere along the transactions chain, who are encouraged by monetary rewards.

      Those rewards then need to be quite high, paid to multiple such 'whistleblowers' via untracable means. Why? To gain accuracy and to overcome resistance due to Chinese anti-bribery law enforcement.

      > The U.S. can still apply pressure on the single bank to offboard any Chinese banks that make transactions involving Russian military-industrial goods.

      Then you misunderstood how that bank would work. The customers of that bank would only be foreigners, such as USA entities. This bank then has an account with the Chinese central bank for reserve and domestic transferences purposes. But it can operate purly cash-only for the latter. Sure that OFAC could sanction this bank but it would only inconvience the USA entities that would hammer the OFAC with sanctions bypass license requests and bring political pressure to bear against that sanction.

      Delete
  3. Reminds of WW2 when ball bearing factories in Germany were targeted. Germany's response was to rationalize the use of bearings so as to reduce the number of sizes and types used.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hear your enthusiasm about secondary sanctions, but i don't feel that sino-russian relations have worsened, en revanche, they have intensified their economic and military relationship. China has a strategic and technological war ahead with US and the Taiwan issue will be escalating in the coming years. For the USA empire, the real enemy is China, which is the real power that can challenge the U.S. hegemony. Busting Russia's balls with NATO enlargement is a diversion by that leadership group called “neocons” (after all “con” means asshole in French, maybe we underestimate our francophone friends) that are still following Brzezinski doctrine but you will see that shortly the U.S. will reopen relations with Russia to break those dangerous ties with China--it seems to me that some presidential candidates have been very vocal about that. In short, your work is admirable -I am not being ironic at all- but I think it lacks the geopolitical vision. Ah, one last thing about economic sanctions: if these were a serious tool of the international community and not just another constituent of the “pax americana,” well then we should have seen them applied against the United States after their illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, at least. Unless you're telling me that we have a double standard, my friend. ;)

    ReplyDelete