The Malacca Dilemma frame makes a lot of sense, I did not think of that. One chokepoint can throttle the whole Chinese economy, which is exactly why Beijing has been quietly building alternatives i.e. Russian pipelines, Belt and Road ports across the Indian Ocean, now the Canadian Pacific route. Belt and Road reads as exit-building rather than trade expansion I think.
I wonder if the exits are being built fast enough to matter, knowing the efficiency Chinese building, they probably are!
Thank you. I think that's exactly how China sees it as well. The Belt and Road Initiative is often framed as a trade project, but it can also be understood as an effort to reduce dependence on vulnerable maritime chokepoints. The real question is whether these alternative routes can scale sufficiently to offset the volume that still flows through Malacca. That remains a very high bar to clear.
A clever historical connection between the Allied landings in World War II and the way an encirclement is currently taking place in the Pacific. I hadn’t realized the immense geostrategic importance of the Strait of Malacca on this scale. Well done, Atlas!
Thank you for the kind words! The Strait of Malacca is one of those chokepoints that rarely makes headlines, yet it sits at the center of global trade and energy flows. Glad you enjoyed the piece.
We are trying to replicate the Strait of Hormuz chokepoints around the world. But BRICS+, in the long-term, has a really interesting play. With the Belt and Road Initiative and related projects, you can create a de facto self-contained economic zone (the Heartland) reaching from China to Russia to Iran (even down to Africa) and back to Southeast Asia.
Once in place, we can sanction or block to our heart's content—they could just ignore us and say, "Trade with us as equals if you like; otherwise, have a nice life." Not tomorrow, but long-term.
The more energy the better. That is an absolute.
I applaud Canada’s willingness to make China dependent on her energy. Er, sovereignty something something, yes.
Your analysis of this is fascinating, as always.
The Malacca Dilemma frame makes a lot of sense, I did not think of that. One chokepoint can throttle the whole Chinese economy, which is exactly why Beijing has been quietly building alternatives i.e. Russian pipelines, Belt and Road ports across the Indian Ocean, now the Canadian Pacific route. Belt and Road reads as exit-building rather than trade expansion I think.
I wonder if the exits are being built fast enough to matter, knowing the efficiency Chinese building, they probably are!
Thank you. I think that's exactly how China sees it as well. The Belt and Road Initiative is often framed as a trade project, but it can also be understood as an effort to reduce dependence on vulnerable maritime chokepoints. The real question is whether these alternative routes can scale sufficiently to offset the volume that still flows through Malacca. That remains a very high bar to clear.
A clever historical connection between the Allied landings in World War II and the way an encirclement is currently taking place in the Pacific. I hadn’t realized the immense geostrategic importance of the Strait of Malacca on this scale. Well done, Atlas!
Thank you for the kind words! The Strait of Malacca is one of those chokepoints that rarely makes headlines, yet it sits at the center of global trade and energy flows. Glad you enjoyed the piece.
Great article.
We are trying to replicate the Strait of Hormuz chokepoints around the world. But BRICS+, in the long-term, has a really interesting play. With the Belt and Road Initiative and related projects, you can create a de facto self-contained economic zone (the Heartland) reaching from China to Russia to Iran (even down to Africa) and back to Southeast Asia.
Once in place, we can sanction or block to our heart's content—they could just ignore us and say, "Trade with us as equals if you like; otherwise, have a nice life." Not tomorrow, but long-term.