Support NeoGAF

[DynamoJack]

Rule number of Western apologists and their media:

1. Every country that opposes the United States aggressiveness has an economy that is in shambles.

Yep, stay with the petro dollar or get rubblized

Apparently China and Russia have spent a decade trying to finalize this deal and the recent US sanctions on Russia sort of rushed or forced Russia into making this deal with China finally.

China and Russia have been negotiating the deal for more than a decade but had been hung up over the price.

 

[East Lake]

Funny a pro-Western media saying Russia's economy is in poor climate. This is western media 101:



http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-iranian-economy-it-is-in-shambles.html



http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2014/04/weeks-after-russia-became-foe-of-us-it.html

The Angry Arab commentary on this perfectly sums it up.

Yes shame on the pro western media for quoting Putin's predictions! Maybe we can submit your fanfics to Bloomberg instead.

 

[spwolf]

Yeah, about that...

so they got lucky with gas prices going up 4x-5x since 15 years ago. Nothing else.

Similar countries with large oil/gas sales would be Norway and Canada, which have 3x more GDP per capita than Russia.

So once that evens out, we can say that their political leadership is doing well... Who cares about overall GDP, or who has bigger *... it is all about the people and their quality of life.

 

[params7]

Propaganda, propaganda everywhere. Someone setup a news agency in the Antarctic so they'll be the least affected by political allegiances.

Also expect more Russia-India deals with the new PM in India.

 

[Piecake]

Or it could be the result of good leadership, and the resource boom is simply a great bonus. Clinton left Washington in great shape, what happened when bush left? again an economy is only as good as the leadership of said economy, one could have easily made the argument that "bush succeeded because he came in at a right time" but he didn't succeed so what it ultimately comes down to is leadership.

Yes, Putin was so great that he convinced the world to start buying energy and ever increasing and fantastically high prices that Russia just happened to have a lot of and is a HUGE part of their economy. Once that sort of stopped in 2008, it is purely just coincidence that the Russian economy basically stalled and has continued to stall. Clearly, his leadership simply wasnt as good as it was during the commodities boom of 2000-2008

 

[Chumly]

Funny a pro-Western media saying Russia's economy is in poor climate. This is western media 101:



http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-iranian-economy-it-is-in-shambles.html



http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2014/04/weeks-after-russia-became-foe-of-us-it.html

The Angry Arab commentary on this perfectly sums it up.

Is this a joke post?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Ummm what?
There is definitely something like that.
Politicians, even ones as strong as Putin only have limited control over the economy.

To claim that an economy is only as good as the leadership of the country is silly, especially in a country which its economy is heavily dependent on natural resources.
I mean shit, you're not going to argue that Saudi Arabia is great leadership, right?

Now I'm not saying Putin is as bad as the some of gulf states leaders, he could've done worse for sure, he probably could've done better, but at the end of the day Russia GDP correlate pretty well with energy prices.

It is a bit of an exaggeration for me to say that there is nothing like "taking over at the right time", but the poster i was replying to said this

Putin just happen to take over at the right time. We would likely have seen a similar upward trend in GNP regardless of the leader.

which is complete utter bullshit. On the topic of politicians control of the economy, we all know that Putin is not running around from firm to firm dictating how they should run their companies. However what happens under any administration is attributed to that current administration, so if the economy is doing bad guess who takes the blame, so why not give the same person praise for a well performing economy.

Yes, Putin was so great that he convinced the world to start buying energy and ever increasing and fantastically high prices that Russia just happened to have a lot of and is a HUGE part of their economy. Once that sort of stopped in 2008, it is purely just coincidence that the Russian economy basically stalled and has continued to stall. Clearly, his leadership simply wasnt as good as it was during the commodities boom of 2000-2008

Funny thing, Putin left the presidency in 2008. So maybe Medvedev's leadership contributed to the stalling of the economy, or can you disprove that.

 

[Architect]

Or it could be the result of good leadership, and the resource boom is simply a great bonus. Clinton left Washington in great shape, what happened when bush left? again an economy is only as good as the leadership of said economy, one could have easily made the argument that "bush succeeded because he came in at a right time" but he didn't succeed so what it ultimately comes down to is leadership.

Putin's stewardship is now good economic leadership? Have you any idea what you are saying?

There is nothing like "taking over at the right time", an economy is only as good as the leadership of the country. The fact remains that he steered the country towards prosperity, 1998 didn't become suddenly more favorable than 1997.

Putin most definitely took over at the right time, it's called a commodities bull market. Without it, Russia would not look much better than it did in the 1990s.

The country's achievement during Putin's era is limited to being an oil and gas station for the world, a successful one, which has very little to do with its economic leadership and very much to do with a decade long commodities rally fueled primarily by China's formerly double digit growth rate.

 

[akachan ningen]

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Propaganda, propaganda everywhere. Someone setup a news agency in the Antarctic so they'll be the least affected by political allegiances.

Also expect more Russia-India deals with the new PM in India.

Seriously, i roll my eyes whenever i see news from both western and eastern sources. The propaganda both engage in is disgusting, unfortunately many don't see the world that way.

 

[kess]

natural resources should be under the control of a government agency

While I agree with this, Russia isn't really a great example of it.

 

[Chichikov]

It is a bit of an exaggeration for me to say that there is nothing like "taking over at the right time", but the poster i was replying to said this
which is complete utter bullshit. On the topic of politicians control of the economy, we all know that Putin is not running around from firm to firm dictating how they should run their companies. However what happens under any administration is attributed to that current administration, so if the economy is doing bad guess who takes the blame, so why not give the same person praise for a well performing economy.

Speculative history and what ifs are wild guesses at best, but I think any half competent government would've have seen dramatic economic growth during this period.
Look at what Venezuela, Brunei or the Gulf countries did at the same time -

Very different countries, very different regimes, and I don't think anyone would claim all of those government are super great at their job, and yet they all show similar pattern.
It was a really good time to be an energy exporter.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

Yes, Putin was so great that he convinced the world to start buying energy and ever increasing and fantastically high prices that Russia just happened to have a lot of and is a HUGE part of their economy. Once that sort of stopped in 2008, it is purely just coincidence that the Russian economy basically stalled and has continued to stall. Clearly, his leadership simply wasnt as good as it was during the commodities boom of 2000-2008

The dip in 2008 likely had to do with the recession. Also, while you can argue that Putin wasn't necessarily responsible for Russia's economic recovery, I've yet to see an argument as for why he's a bad leader in that respect. Remember, the original poster claimed that Russia would "continue to underperform" until Putin left, even though economic growth was strong under his rule. The original point of posting that GDP growth chart was to demonstrate that Russia's economy was not "underperforming" under Putin's reign.

You can debate whether or not the economy would be better off under another leader, but it's hardly underperforming.

 

[SRG01]

Income from this Chinese deal won't be immediate as it will take time to build infrastructure to deliver gas to China. In all honesty, this seems more like a deal out of desperation as Russia has fewer and fewer markets to export to.

 

[DynamoJack]

While I agree with this, Russia isn't really a great example of it.

Ya I think this is bad all around

The younger son of Vice President Joseph Biden has taken the position of member of the board of directors and legal adviser to Burisma Holdings Ltd., the largest private natural gas production company in Ukraine. Hunter Biden joins another American who recently became a director of the firm, Devon Archer, a top fundraiser for Secretary of State John Kerry during Kerry's 2004 presidential bid and the college roommate of Kerry's stepson.

You also have Victoria Nuland speaking infront of Chevron and Exxon signs back in December and speaking of how billions went into Ukraine to support democracy and supporting EuroMaidan

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm

We urge the government, we urge the president to listen to these voices, to listen to the Ukrainian people, to listen to the Euro-Maidan and take Ukraine forward.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Speculative history and what ifs are wild guesses at best, but I think any half competent government would've have seen dramatic economic growth during this period.
Look at what Venezuela, Brunei or the Gulf countries did at the same time -

Very different countries, very different regimes, and I don't think anyone would claim all of those government are super great at their job, and yet they all show similar pattern.
It was a really good time to be an energy exporter.

Like i said the resource boom was a great bonus to everyone really, but Russia really took advantage of it and exploded into the 6th largest economy from the 23rd largest only a decade earlier, if that is not as a result of good leadership i don't know what is.

 

[Heshinsi]

so they got lucky with gas prices going up 4x-5x since 15 years ago. Nothing else.

Similar countries with large oil/gas sales would be Norway and Canada, which have 3x more GDP per capita than Russia.

So once that evens out, we can say that their political leadership is doing well... Who cares about overall GDP, or who has bigger *... it is all about the people and their quality of life.

We just piss away our resources. No way should we be put in the same sentence with Norway in that regards. Unless it's to contrast how shitty we are in comparison to them

 

[Architect]

Speculative history and what ifs are wild guesses at best, but I think any half competent government would've have seen dramatic economic growth during this period.
Look at what Venezuela, Brunei or the Gulf countries did at the same time -

Very different countries, very different regimes, and I don't think anyone would claim all of those government are super great at their job, and yet they all show similar pattern.
It was a really good time to be an energy exporter.

Thank you for gathering the charts. There isn't even a need to superimpose them on each other to see the correlation coefficient is almost perfectly positive.

It is quite scary to think of where Russia, a country armed to the hilt, would have been politically were it not for the economic boom that the last commodities rally brought.

 

[Chichikov]

Like i said the resource boom was a great bonus to everyone really, but Russia really took advantage of it and exploded into the 6th largest economy from the 23rd largest only a decade earlier, if that is not as a result of good leadership i don't know what is.

You think Brunei has good leadership?
And Saudi Arabia?

And just so we clear, that doesn't mean Russia didn't have good leadership (and let's get real, you can't really assess a government on such a simple basic scale), I'm just rejecting the idea that economic growth means automatically means good leadership, especially in a country that rely on natural resource exports (though not exclusively by any stretch of the imagination, for example, I think Clinton gets way too much credit for the high-tech boom, he had very little to do with it).

 

[Showaddy]

Russia are actually getting a pretty poor deal out of this; they'll be selling the stuff at a loss for 3-4 years and they've got to spend about 40-50 billion building the pipeline first.

Putin doesn't want this deal at all, he'd much rather be raking in the cash by selling Gas to Europe but he's screwed that pooch now.

 

[Madness]

What no one seems to be talking about, beyond Putin's desperation, is that China has secured perhaps one of the largest gas deals in history and is securing an energy future for itself. With Russia, they get two things that the West has long denied them. Weapons and military hardware and some form of energy security. I wouldn't be surprised once they have the infrastructure set up, they don't sign more deals as well.

If the US refuses Canada's Keystone pipeline, there is huge talk in Canada in then looking towards China to provide them with oil they'll readily accept.

 

[braves01]

What no one seems to be talking about, beyond Putin's desperation, is that China has secured perhaps one of the largest gas deals in history and is securing an energy future for itself. With Russia, they get two things that the West has long denied them. Weapons and military hardware and some form of energy security. I wouldn't be surprised once they have the infrastructure set up, they don't sign more deals as well.

If the US refuses Canada's Keystone pipeline, there is huge talk in Canada in then looking towards China to provide them with oil they'll readily accept.

I'm wondering if it will help ease tensions in the South China Sea a bit. Obviously China would never just give up whatever claims it thinks it has to the territory, but with this deal, maybe its not worth it diplomatically to push the status quo.

 

[Piecake]

The dip in 2008 likely had to do with the recession. Also, while you can argue that Putin wasn't necessarily responsible for Russia's economic recovery, I've yet to see an argument as for why he's a bad leader in that respect. Remember, the original poster claimed that Russia would "continue to underperform" until Putin left, even though economic growth was strong under his rule. The original point of posting that GDP growth chart was to demonstrate that Russia's economy was not "underperforming" under Putin's reign.

You can debate whether or not the economy would be better off under another leader, but it's hardly underperforming.

And I was responding to a post that claimed the status of the economy was basically due to the leadership, which is ridiculous. I think Russia could do a lot better economically because the economy is pretty much completely reliant on energy and other raw materials, and has very high inequality and corruption. Basically , if you replaced him with a sock puppet, the Russian economy would have probably done about the same since Russian business was reaping the rewards of the commodities boom.

You aren't going to fix that with a leadership change though. That requires significant structural changes in society.

 

[Architect]

What no one seems to be talking about, beyond Putin's desperation, is that China has secured perhaps one of the largest gas deals in history and is securing an energy future for itself. With Russia, they get two things that the West has long denied them. Weapons and military hardware and some form of energy security. I wouldn't be surprised once they have the infrastructure set up, they don't sign more deals as well.

If the US refuses Canada's Keystone pipeline, there is huge talk in Canada in then looking towards China to provide them with oil they'll readily accept.

Canada is as against building pipelines to ship oil to China as the Obama administration is against Keystone, likely more.

As for the deal between Russia and China, it was expected and the 30 year price tag sounds far bigger than it is when we break it down to yearly Russian exports to China.

About weapons, Russia has always been reluctant to sell China its highest end weaponry and expertise. The partnership between the two militaries has always been rocky and full of distrust.

The biggest news story here is that Russia likely got a considerably worse deal due to the precarious economic situation it is in, both because of economic mismanagement by Putin's administration and the crisis in Ukraine, along with the slowdown in world economic growth and its effect on commodity prices.

I'm wondering if it will help ease tensions in the South China Sea a bit. Obviously China would never just give up whatever claims it thinks it has to the territory, but with this deal, maybe its not worth it diplomatically to push the status quo.

It is unlikely that this deal with ease tensions in the South China Sea. The Chinese were banking on this gas deal for a long time yet they continued to raise tensions in that area.

 

[Raonak]

As someone who lives in NZ.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

You think Brunei has good leadership?
And Saudi Arabia?

And just so we clear, that doesn't mean Russia didn't have good leadership (and let's get real, you can't really assess a government on such a simple basic scale), I'm just rejecting the idea that economic growth means automatically means good leadership, especially in a country that rely on natural resource exports (though not exclusively by any stretch of the imagination, for example, I think Clinton gets way too much credit for the high-tech boom, he had very little to do with it).

There is a difference between good economic leadership and a good political (or social? one of those) leadership, China has shown us as much. Nevertheless lets agree to disagree shall we, continuing the conversation will only lead us round and round.

 

[Pedrito]

What no one seems to be talking about, beyond Putin's desperation, is that China has secured perhaps one of the largest gas deals in history and is securing an energy future for itself. With Russia, they get two things that the West has long denied them. Weapons and military hardware and some form of energy security. I wouldn't be surprised once they have the infrastructure set up, they don't sign more deals as well.

If the US refuses Canada's Keystone pipeline, there is huge talk in Canada in then looking towards China to provide them with oil they'll readily accept.

Was there ever any doubt China would find energy? If it's not Russia it's gonna be Kazakhstan or Australia. Then there's Africa where they're building entire port cities to get oil.

 

[leroidys]

The dip in 2008 likely had to do with the recession. Also, while you can argue that Putin wasn't necessarily responsible for Russia's economic recovery, I've yet to see an argument as for why he's a bad leader in that respect. Remember, the original poster claimed that Russia would "continue to underperform" until Putin left, even though economic growth was strong under his rule. The original point of posting that GDP growth chart was to demonstrate that Russia's economy was not "underperforming" under Putin's reign.

You can debate whether or not the economy would be better off under another leader, but it's hardly underperforming.

Putin did commendable work in repairing certain sectors of the economy, especially the financial sector. He deserves credit. His decisive actions essentially saved the country from a deathspiral into a true 3rd world nation.

However, his autocratic turn since ~2005 is severely stifling Russia's ability to grow and diversify. Foreign investment is way down, and capital flight has skyrocketed, at its worst even more dramatic than the financial crisis of the '99.

Russia has vast potential, but without skyrocketing oil prices, Putin's plans of state-capitalism are flailing. He needs to go.

 

[East Lake]

I thought this was a weird article.

Sechin is the leading exponent of Putin’s stated determination to restore the state’s role in the Russian economy. Putin used Rosneft, through its acquisitions, to return Russian oil to state control. The company, 69.5 percent government owned, controls about 40 percent of Russia’s crude output.

Of Putin’s relationship with Rosneft, Peskov says, “The president can’t get involved in the affairs of a company.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...giant-rosneft-to-tighten-grip-on-economy.html

Putin my bro, you're administration is the biggest shareholder. Maybe take a look to see what's up, unless you already know what's going on wink, wink.

 

[ЯAW]

And at the same time this happens: U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%

Federal energy authorities have slashed by 96% the estimated amount of recoverable oil buried in California's vast Monterey Shale deposits, deflating its potential as a national "black gold mine" of petroleum.

Just 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted with existing technology, far below the 13.7 billion barrels once thought recoverable from the jumbled layers of subterranean rock spread across much of Central California, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said.

The new estimate, expected to be released publicly next month, is a blow to the nation's oil future and to projections that an oil boom would bring as many as 2.8 million new jobs to California and boost tax revenue by $24.6 billion annually.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil-20140521-story.html

 

[Piecake]

And at the same time this happens: U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil-20140521-story.html

Probably good news for California. They avoided turning their whole state into a parched desert. Well, unless you can use sea water for that...

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Yeah, about that...

Putin's gunna Putin

 

[GCX]

Russia and China's relationship is very interesting. On one hand, Russia needs China to boost its stagnating economy but on the other hand, Russia is scared of China's rising power.

If anything, China's government is really really good at playing this world politics game. They waited a decade to make this deal so they'd get the gas for tens if not hundreds billions less than what it originally was. They're also great at staying fairly neutral between the west and east to retain trade relations in every direction. China has mastered Putin's wet dream aka having a ever-growing economy with all the power concentrated to one party.

 

[Architect]

Russia and China's relationship is very interesting. On one hand, Russia needs China to boost its stagnating economy but on the other hand, Russia is scared of China's rising power.

If anything, China's government is really really good at playing this world politics game. They waited a decade to make this deal so they'd get the gas for tens if not hundreds billions less than what it originally was. They're also great at staying fairly neutral between the west and east to retain trade relations in every direction. China has mastered Putin's wet dream aka having a ever-growing economy with all the power concentrated to one party.

China's South China Sea aggressiveness does not exactly show great realpolitik skills on the world stage, among many things (such as their lack of allies). They are forcing their entire neighborhood into the arms of the U.S.

As for Putin's dream being realized by China, I'm afraid not. China has those pesky term limits for its senior leadership.

 

[Neo C.]

China wins, Russia is rushed to a bad deal. I wonder how long it needs to take until we see the effects of reduced air pollution (by switching from coal to gas) though.

China's South China Sea aggressiveness does not exactly show great realpolitik skills on the world stage, among many things (such as their lack of allies). They are forcing their entire neighborhood into the arms of the U.S.

China has several countries by the balls though: Burma, African countries... This fact allows them to push their neighbours to the edge, because "friends" and rivals are in balance.

 

[perfectchaos007]

China wins, Russia is rushed to a bad deal. I wonder how long it needs to take until we see the effects of reduced air pollution (by switching from coal to gas) though.

Not the first time they did that. USA bought Alaska from Russia for US$ 7.2 million, or $119 million in today's dollars. Alaska is rather oil rich, and they gave that up for a measly 119 mil. lol

 

[rokkerkory]

Sooner we become oil independent the better

 

[benjipwns]

Not the first time they did that. USA bought Alaska from Russia for US$ 7.2 million, or $119 million in today's dollars. Alaska is rather oil rich, and they gave that up for a measly 119 mil. lol

They needed some quick cash and it wasn't seen as that valuable at the time.

Some contend it was a bad deal for the US: http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2009/november/David Barker-Alaska.pdf

tl;dr: costs for exploiting alaska's resources and living there > benefits

 

[luckygodzilla]

Well, that was quick.

Not really, they've been going back and forth on this deal since the mid 90's.

 

[perfectchaos007]

They needed some quick cash and it wasn't seen as that valuable at the time.

Some contend it was a bad deal for the US: http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2009/november/David Barker-Alaska.pdf

tl;dr: costs for exploiting alaska's resources and living there > benefits

It is tl;dr, but I did catch this snippit.

estimates that the value had fallen to $334.8 billion in 1986. Assuming that value is
proportional to oil prices, and using the current (as of this writing) oil price of $50 per
barrel produces a 2009 estimate of $850 million.25 Alaskan GDP in the oil and gas
sectors has averaged 6.2% of United States oil and gas GDP since 1997, which would
imply a 2008 value for Alaskan oil and gas rights of $93.6 billion, or $6.1 billion in 1867
dollars.

A barrel is currently trading at $104/barrel. I wonder if that would alter his conclusion

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

It's all about the quality of life. If your people have a shitty life, then the size of your economy really doesn't matter.

 

[benjipwns]

It is tl;dr, but I did catch this snippit.

A barrel is currently trading at $104/barrel. I wonder if that would alter his conclusion

It might.

I don't know about it being a bad deal for the U.S. but I'm not sure it's a bad deal for Russia. They needed the money and you have to wonder if they would have really ever had the capability to exploit the resources there to the extent the U.S. has.

 

[numble]

China's South China Sea aggressiveness does not exactly show great realpolitik skills on the world stage, among many things (such as their lack of allies). They are forcing their entire neighborhood into the arms of the U.S.

As for Putin's dream being realized by China, I'm afraid not. China has those pesky term limits for its senior leadership.

Many argue that their South China Sea tactics have largely been successful:
http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/why-did-china-set-up-an-oil-rig-within-vietnamese-waters/

Looks like they prefer to stake claims now, as it would be even more difficult later on, with ASEAN more united and a US pivot in play anyway. Right now, you just get verbal denunciations and an ASEAN that can't put out a joint statement.

 

[linsivvi]

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew appealed to China to avoid action that might hurt recent Western sanctions against Russia. But China’s booming economy has brought with it a ravenously growing need for energy, especially clean alternatives given its current pollution struggles and reliance on coal.

LMAO who the fuck are we kidding here, Jack?

 

[Boom Boom Pow]

is this 400 billion amortized? cuz if it's not...in 30 years, it'll be worth a lot less than 400 billion

 

[IchigoSharingan]

There is nothing like "taking over at the right time", an economy is only as good as the leadership of the country. The fact remains that he steered the country towards prosperity, 1998 didn't become suddenly more favorable than 1997.

Leadership has little to do with an economic ebb and flow. Econ 101. Even Bernanke knows this.

 

[jimi_dini]

Why isn't anyone talking of this, its easily the biggest business deal signed so far this century.

Ehh, the most important thing is missing.

They will not use US dollars. They will either use yuan or ruble.

What's even more important is that state-controlled companies like Gazprom will require payment in Ruble for oil + gas in general:
http://www.bernerzeitung.ch/wirtsch...wang-fuer-auslaendische-Kunden/story/28230448

 

[GCX]

is this 400 billion amortized? cuz if it's not...in 30 years, it'll be worth a lot less than 400 billion

In the deal the price of gas is tied to the price of oil aka it'll go up as time passes.

It's probably the best thing in the deal for Russia.

 

[Architect]

Many argue that their South China Sea tactics have largely been successful:
http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/why-did-china-set-up-an-oil-rig-within-vietnamese-waters/

Looks like they prefer to stake claims now, as it would be even more difficult later on, with ASEAN more united and a US pivot in play anyway. Right now, you just get verbal denunciations and an ASEAN that can't put out a joint statement.

I disagree. China could stake their claim while biding its time economically and militarily, or it could foster a cooperative atmosphere in the region in an effort to make the U.S. far less relevant to South East Asia, as was the case just a few years back when the U.S. was focusing on Afghanistan, terrorism and the financial crisis.

Instead, China has taken provocative actions which have single handedly legitimized U.S. military presence in the region for most ASEAN states. It has ensured the U.S. Asia pivot is being welcomed, and given more power and say to nationalists in a number of rival states, among other things.

We are seeing rising military budgets by China's rivals in response, improved security cooperation between a number of ASEAN states and the U.S., including substantially better American military base access and support, etc... Similar actions with Japan made it easier for Shinzo Abe to come to power and push forward with re-militarizing Japan, which if successful could by itself be a huge and unnecessary geopolitical cost to China.

I sincerely doubt all of this is worth it for the middle kingdom, especially given its lack of allies, risk of triggering an unintended war with its actions, and uncertain payoff from exploiting the claimed sea.

 

[numble]

I disagree. China could stake their claim while biding its time economically and militarily, or it could foster a cooperative atmosphere in the region in an effort to make the U.S. far less relevant to South East Asia, as was the case just a few years back when the U.S. was focusing on Afghanistan, terrorism and the financial crisis.

Instead, China has taken provocative actions which have single handedly legitimized U.S. military presence in the region for most ASEAN states. It has ensured the U.S. Asia pivot is being welcomed, and given more power and say to nationalists in a number of rival states, among other things.

We are seeing rising military budgets by China's rivals in response, improved security cooperation between a number of ASEAN states and the U.S., including substantially better American military base access and support, etc... Similar actions with Japan made it easier for Shinzo Abe to come to power and push forward with re-militarizing Japan, which if successful could by itself be a huge and unnecessary geopolitical cost to China.

I sincerely doubt all of this is worth it for the middle kingdom, especially given its lack of allies, risk of triggering an unintended war with its actions, and uncertain payoff from exploiting the claimed sea.

All their actions have taken place in places the US is officially neutral in. They are not anywhere as provocative as Russian actions, which haven't hurt Russia much anyway.

Chinese actions have still not fostered further ASEAN integration, and it has in fact heightened their differences as their rising nationalism moves them away from further ASEAN integration. Many of these countries aren't united because they're bickering over the same islands as well.

Fostering cooperation amongst ASEAN would've just led to a regional bloc to challenge China, many of whom already had strong relations with the US. Playing them off one another has been much more successful.

If China does not seek a war, then it's actions have been successful; having regional neighbors and the US expend more money on military budgets is a reasonable cost. I don't see any of the nations wanting to go to war over rocks in the sea that the US is officially neutral on, especially with their dependence on the Chinese economy.