One of the big background issues as to China's hard attitudes as to these trade disputes with the USA is that China wants to be see as the greatest economic power, to regain a self-pride in that they believe was destroyed by the UK, Japan, in their 1800's colonialism. From little children they are taught 'modern' China's history with a strong bias of the 'evils' of 'West' from those times, how they 'lost face', an important cultural factor from those colonial invasions, control of their lands, government and economy.

Now China sees the USA attacking them like in the same colonial way, that won't be controlled by others, they will stand up and will get their way. Sadly the WTO hurt the USA and helped China, Pres. Trump attacked the USA's trade policies with China as a major point that won him the election on the grounds of the lost industrial jobs in 'rustbelt' America. Much of the WTO deals took place under Pres. Bill Clinton, so the issue has a long history.

China is going to demand that they be respected by the USA, that they don't have to listen to our demands for 'democracy', human or labor rights as none of our business and keep their factories busy for internal job creation and profits.

Dutchy wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

The USD losing its reserve status will force the USA to live within its means

And Boeing will sell more airplanes as a significant portion of Boeing's value chain is in USD.

Perhaps, but it will not be a pretty picture for the US citizens.

It means the USA won’t be able to run large budget and trade deficits anymore as the rest of the world won’t hold USD indefinitely. What would happen would be similar to what happened to Canada in the early 1990s. Canada was living well beyond its means and came very close to a failed bond salei. 1994. It forced Canada to cut spending and raise taxes.

Bobloblaw wrote:

It means the USA won’t be able to run large budget and trade deficits anymore as the rest of the world won’t hold USD indefinitely. What would happen would be similar to what happened to Canada in the early 1990s. Canada was living well beyond its means and came very close to a failed bond salei. 1994. It forced Canada to cut spending and raise taxes.

Good luck raising even 0.00000000000000001% tax in US, though.

US can certainly go full austerity, but that's not a pretty picture, either. Even a small sequestration a few years back create all these people crying around. Imagine a total austerity 10-20x the scale.

After recent exchange I think the chance that America and China can reach a deal is less than 1%.

Reuters published a report saying the reason for the change in Trump's attitude was because China backtracked many promises they have made. Then China published some sort of message to all the citizens similar to call for preparation for a fight via the state TV. Then when they talk about the topic on the ministry of foreign affair meeting, China rebutted that "The agreement still haven't been reached which mean there were no promises being broke" which seems to indirectly confirmed that they backtracked during the decision making process. Now they have already send out the message to the entire nation and then facing the 1 month deadline from America, China have no reason to back down and America have no reason to back down either, so I think it is extremely unlikely for a trade deal to be reach in any foreseeable future.

c933103 wrote:

Reuters published a report saying the reason for the change in Trump's attitude was because China backtracked many promises they have made.

Did they really promise anything, or was that Trump's interpretation of what was said in his usual need to be seen to be "winning"?

scbriml wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Reuters published a report saying the reason for the change in Trump's attitude was because China backtracked many promises they have made.

Did they really promise anything, or was that Trump's interpretation of what was said in his usual need to be seen to be "winning"?

Well we won't know what was going on behind the doors, but before that incident, news on both sides were reporting that most of the negotiation have been done and there were only a few aspects like exact wording of the final agreement that are not yet decided yet. So while they are not necessarily "promises" per se, both sides should have already discussed and agreed on numerous things in order to reach that status

This is not only a problem for Boeing but for the supply chains. Companies that make the wires and upholstery and carbon fiber and so forth. Is America great yet so we can get rid of this guy?

seb146 wrote:

This is not only a problem for Boeing but for the supply chains. Companies that make the wires and upholstery and carbon fiber and so forth. Is America great yet so we can get rid of this guy?

I don't think his most major opponents in the democrats, namely Biden, is in a position to take over Trump especially when it come to the issue about trade with China. Dismissing China's threat is going to buy some peace for American businesses but the cost of it will be like appeasement.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

It means the USA won’t be able to run large budget and trade deficits anymore as the rest of the world won’t hold USD indefinitely. What would happen would be similar to what happened to Canada in the early 1990s. Canada was living well beyond its means and came very close to a failed bond salei. 1994. It forced Canada to cut spending and raise taxes.

Good luck raising even 0.00000000000000001% tax in US, though.

US can certainly go full austerity, but that's not a pretty picture, either. Even a small sequestration a few years back create all these people crying around. Imagine a total austerity 10-20x the scale.

You are correct. But when the USD loses reserve status bond markets will dictate what the govt has to do.

c933103 wrote:

Well we won't know what was going on behind the doors, but before that incident, news on both sides were reporting that most of the negotiation have been done and there were only a few aspects like exact wording of the final agreement that are not yet decided yet. So while they are not necessarily "promises" per se, both sides should have already discussed and agreed on numerous things in order to reach that status

That is about mutual agreements over tit for tat actions after a treaty has been signed and is effective.
( Who wants to be trapped like Iran or little Kim Kong ? both have learned.)

WIederling wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Well we won't know what was going on behind the doors, but before that incident, news on both sides were reporting that most of the negotiation have been done and there were only a few aspects like exact wording of the final agreement that are not yet decided yet. So while they are not necessarily "promises" per se, both sides should have already discussed and agreed on numerous things in order to reach that status

That is about mutual agreements over tit for tat actions after a treaty has been signed and is effective.
( Who wants to be trapped like Iran or little Kim Kong ? both have learned.)

Kim didn't promise anything they are not willing to do yet but that's for another discussion

c933103 wrote:

Kim didn't promise anything they are not willing to do yet but that's for another discussion

You are thinking (very) short term.
N / S Korea had a rather satisfactory peace treaty in the works. ... Which the US trashed.

WIederling wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Kim didn't promise anything they are not willing to do yet but that's for another discussion

You are thinking (very) short term.
N / S Korea had a rather satisfactory peace treaty in the works. ... Which the US trashed.

The current South Korea government is okay and prefer normalizing their relationship with North Korea as soon as possible, even before North Korea take concrete steps to denuclearize, as long as they claim they are working toward the goal. That is not going to be a proposition that USA will accept.

c933103 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Kim didn't promise anything they are not willing to do yet but that's for another discussion

You are thinking (very) short term.
N / S Korea had a rather satisfactory peace treaty in the works. ... Which the US trashed.

The current South Korea government is okay and prefer normalizing their relationship with North Korea as soon as possible, even before North Korea take concrete steps to denuclearize, as long as they claim they are working toward the goal. That is not going to be a proposition that USA will accept.

Looking at activities the US will for ever oppose any peace treaty that will not bring full control over NK and
thus access to China's borders. (only reason why the US actually takes note/interest on things NorthKorea).

WIederling wrote:

c933103 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

You are thinking (very) short term.
N / S Korea had a rather satisfactory peace treaty in the works. ... Which the US trashed.

The current South Korea government is okay and prefer normalizing their relationship with North Korea as soon as possible, even before North Korea take concrete steps to denuclearize, as long as they claim they are working toward the goal. That is not going to be a proposition that USA will accept.

Looking at activities the US will for ever oppose any peace treaty that will not bring full control over NK and
thus access to China's borders. (only reason why the US actually takes note/interest on things NorthKorea).

What you proposed will not just be opposed by North Korea but will also be opposed by China, thus I think it is unlikely for the America to even suggest that

Bobloblaw wrote:

US companies do very little business in China.

Please elaborate if you could with facts and figures, because that seems a comical statement without a point of comparison or broader context. Yes, China typically mandates that foreign companies partner with a Chinese company in a joint venture in order to fully access the Chinese market, but to say that US companies do very little business in China is absurd without a point of reference.

Bobloblaw wrote:

US-China trade should be driven to ZERO.

... right... okay good luck with that.

winginit wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

US companies do very little business in China.

Please elaborate if you could with facts and figures, because that seems a comical statement without a point of comparison or broader context. Yes, China typically mandates that foreign companies partner with a Chinese company in a joint venture in order to fully access the Chinese market, but to say that US companies do very little business in China is absurd without a point of reference.

Bobloblaw wrote:

US-China trade should be driven to ZERO.

... right... okay good luck with that.

Most US companies in China use China as part of their supply chain to export back to the USA. You forgot to mention that US campanies have to partner with Chinese companies in order to STEAL their IP. As for zero trade, the USA did well prior to 2001 when the USA erroneously gave China PMFN status

Bobloblaw wrote:

Most US companies in China use China as part of their supply chain to export back to the USA.

Most yes, but to say that because that's prevalent that US companies don't do business in China is foolish. Been to China recently? Seen all of those predominantly US chains everywhere?

Bobloblaw wrote:

You forgot to mention that US campanies have to partner with Chinese companies in order to STEAL their IP.

Without question it's an issue, but it's also well known that that's a product of doing business in China. You'll find that countless American companies still setup joint ventures in China because even though their IP is at risk as it's still financially worthwhile to access the Chinese market. No one is forcing those US companies to do business with or in China.

Bobloblaw wrote:

As for zero trade, the USA did well prior to 2001 when the USA erroneously gave China PMFN status

One could read from your post here that the USA did essentially no business with China before 2001, which is of course a comically false statement. Trade between the US and China was banned only up until the early 1970s, and by 1986 the US became China's second largest importer and third largest overall trade partner. And no, I'd rather not go back to pre-1970s trade policy. It sounds like you might?

winginit wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Most US companies in China use China as part of their supply chain to export back to the USA.

Most yes, but to say that because that's prevalent that US companies don't do business in China is foolish. Been to China recently? Seen all of those predominantly US chains everywhere?

Bobloblaw wrote:

You forgot to mention that US campanies have to partner with Chinese companies in order to STEAL their IP.

Without question it's an issue, but it's also well known that that's a product of doing business in China. You'll find that countless American companies still setup joint ventures in China because even though their IP is at risk as it's still financially worthwhile to access the Chinese market. No one is forcing those US companies to do business with or in China.

Bobloblaw wrote:

As for zero trade, the USA did well prior to 2001 when the USA erroneously gave China PMFN status

One could read from your post here that the USA did essentially no business with China before 2001, which is of course a comically false statement. Trade between the US and China was banned only up until the early 1970s, and by 1986 the US became China's second largest importer and third largest overall trade partner. And no, I'd rather not go back to pre-1970s trade policy. It sounds like you might?

Could you link me to China being US 3rd largest trade partner? I’d have thought that it would have been Canada, Japan, German in 1986.

Bobloblaw wrote:

winginit wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Most US companies in China use China as part of their supply chain to export back to the USA.

Most yes, but to say that because that's prevalent that US companies don't do business in China is foolish. Been to China recently? Seen all of those predominantly US chains everywhere?

Bobloblaw wrote:

You forgot to mention that US campanies have to partner with Chinese companies in order to STEAL their IP.

Without question it's an issue, but it's also well known that that's a product of doing business in China. You'll find that countless American companies still setup joint ventures in China because even though their IP is at risk as it's still financially worthwhile to access the Chinese market. No one is forcing those US companies to do business with or in China.

Bobloblaw wrote:

As for zero trade, the USA did well prior to 2001 when the USA erroneously gave China PMFN status

One could read from your post here that the USA did essentially no business with China before 2001, which is of course a comically false statement. Trade between the US and China was banned only up until the early 1970s, and by 1986 the US became China's second largest importer and third largest overall trade partner. And no, I'd rather not go back to pre-1970s trade policy. It sounds like you might?

Could you link me to China being US 3rd largest trade partner? I’d have thought that it would have been Canada, Japan, German in 1986.

Read what I said carefully. I said that in 1986 the U.S. became China's third largest trade partner not that China was the U.S.' third largest trade partner.

winginit wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

winginit wrote:

Most yes, but to say that because that's prevalent that US companies don't do business in China is foolish. Been to China recently? Seen all of those predominantly US chains everywhere?



Without question it's an issue, but it's also well known that that's a product of doing business in China. You'll find that countless American companies still setup joint ventures in China because even though their IP is at risk as it's still financially worthwhile to access the Chinese market. No one is forcing those US companies to do business with or in China.



One could read from your post here that the USA did essentially no business with China before 2001, which is of course a comically false statement. Trade between the US and China was banned only up until the early 1970s, and by 1986 the US became China's second largest importer and third largest overall trade partner. And no, I'd rather not go back to pre-1970s trade policy. It sounds like you might?

Could you link me to China being US 3rd largest trade partner? I’d have thought that it would have been Canada, Japan, German in 1986.

Read what I said carefully. I said that in 1986 the U.S. became China's third largest trade partner not that China was the U.S.' third largest trade partner.

In 1986 China was the usa’s 14th largest trading partner. So yes the USA did little trade with China. US companies want to do business in China because they believed the siren song of 1.3 billon customers. Many are finding the promise of access to a large Chinese market to be a myth. Few US companies are making any money in China.

c933103 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Looking at activities the US will for ever oppose any peace treaty that will not bring full control over NK and
thus access to China's borders. (only reason why the US actually takes note/interest on things NorthKorea).

What you proposed will not just be opposed by North Korea but will also be opposed by China, thus I think it is unlikely for the America to even suggest that

I proposed nothing.
This was an observation.

Bobloblaw wrote:

Few US companies are making any money in China.

This is a general US problem ( no suitable products ) and not a "China" problem.

Germany makes quite a bit of money in China. Same for other nations that have market leading products and services.
( If you just look at export transfers. More from partnerships. From a Chinese viewpoint it was a good thing (TM) to limit
foreign entities to less than 50% ownership.) Majority US ownership really is destructive.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

It means the USA won’t be able to run large budget and trade deficits anymore as the rest of the world won’t hold USD indefinitely. What would happen would be similar to what happened to Canada in the early 1990s. Canada was living well beyond its means and came very close to a failed bond salei. 1994. It forced Canada to cut spending and raise taxes.

Good luck raising even 0.00000000000000001% tax in US, though.

US can certainly go full austerity, but that's not a pretty picture, either. Even a small sequestration a few years back create all these people crying around. Imagine a total austerity 10-20x the scale.

Tariffs are taxation on the American people though, it's just that the idiots who support them are too dense to understand how they work.

Jouhou wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

It means the USA won’t be able to run large budget and trade deficits anymore as the rest of the world won’t hold USD indefinitely. What would happen would be similar to what happened to Canada in the early 1990s. Canada was living well beyond its means and came very close to a failed bond salei. 1994. It forced Canada to cut spending and raise taxes.

Good luck raising even 0.00000000000000001% tax in US, though.

US can certainly go full austerity, but that's not a pretty picture, either. Even a small sequestration a few years back create all these people crying around. Imagine a total austerity 10-20x the scale.

Tariffs are taxation on the American people though, it's just that the idiots who support them are too dense to understand how they work.

It is a fa now that’s is easily avoidable.

Bobloblaw wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Tariffs are taxation on the American people though, it's just that the idiots who support them are too dense to understand how they work.

It is a fa now that’s is easily avoidable.

Unfortunately - idiots in power aren’t always possible to avoid. All these tariffs and sanctions attacks are fascinatingly dumb ideas. Until today, the rest of the world pretty much trusted USA to make available things that are a necessity in any modern society - CPUs, core OS software, airplanes, financial industry - many other things like this. And now - everyone sees that there will always be idiots who will want to cut someone out.

Now - it’s perfectly natural for China, Russia and nearly any other nation to want to produce such things themselves, and keep significant chunks their market for their domestic manufacturers. Even if their products aren’t as good or efficient - governments and major businesses will be advised to use those anywhere they are good enough. Hence - it’s not only Boeing that will be asked to free some space. We can see Intel, AMD, Google, Nvidia and others to move a bit.

anrec80 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Tariffs are taxation on the American people though, it's just that the idiots who support them are too dense to understand how they work.

It is a fa now that’s is easily avoidable.

Unfortunately - idiots in power aren’t always possible to avoid. All these tariffs and sanctions attacks are fascinatingly dumb ideas. Until today, the rest of the world pretty much trusted USA to make available things that are a necessity in any modern society - CPUs, core OS software, airplanes, financial industry - many other things like this. And now - everyone sees that there will always be idiots who will want to cut someone out.

Now - it’s perfectly natural for China, Russia and nearly any other nation to want to produce such things themselves, and keep significant chunks their market for their domestic manufacturers. Even if their products aren’t as good or efficient - governments and major businesses will be advised to use those anywhere they are good enough. Hence - it’s not only Boeing that will be asked to free some space. We can see Intel, AMD, Google, Nvidia and others to move a bit.

You left out that China steals IP, uses slave labor and ignores WTO trading rules.

Jouhou wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

It means the USA won’t be able to run large budget and trade deficits anymore as the rest of the world won’t hold USD indefinitely. What would happen would be similar to what happened to Canada in the early 1990s. Canada was living well beyond its means and came very close to a failed bond salei. 1994. It forced Canada to cut spending and raise taxes.

Good luck raising even 0.00000000000000001% tax in US, though.

US can certainly go full austerity, but that's not a pretty picture, either. Even a small sequestration a few years back create all these people crying around. Imagine a total austerity 10-20x the scale.

Tariffs are taxation on the American people though, it's just that the idiots who support them are too dense to understand how they work.

We know how they work. Tariffs reduce consumption. That means you in China produce and sell less.

Bobloblaw wrote:

We know how they work. Tariffs reduce consumption. That means you in China produce and sell less.

Everyone knows China will be hurt - no questions about that. The question is (and as I've said multiple times) - does this helps US, especially your "average Americans"? The answer is also no.

1. Reduction in consumption is a death knell for the retail industry. Retail (especially "brick and mortar") had not been doing great for awhile, and the tariff will only hurt them even more.
2. Industry like automotive will get hurt also - i.e. if people buy less cars (Good news for "green" people, though), that means a reduction in production = more layoffs as you now have excess labors.
3. There are places where China currently relied heavily on US, i.e. software, ICs, or even airplanes. Well, China is certainly rethinking that, and will definitely want to have the power to make their own stuff. What does that mean for US? You lost a customer = less money flowing into US = making the "trade imbalance" worst (or at best, remain at the current level, i.e. Right now China buy 50 dollars of US goods while US buy 100 dollars of Chinese goods; if China buy less from US (and v.v.) all it means is something like China buying 20 dollars and US buying 70 dollars, essentially the differential is still -50)
4. You can argue that eventually production will shift back to US, but then what? Labor cost will always be higher in US (Which means things are more expensive), and those US-made product still have to be sold to somebody other than Americans (mainly for profit maximization). Plus can your "average American" stand to be hurt for almost a decade before things will (theoretically) gets better? Oh, meanwhile things like automation will only improve.

It's a VERY intertwine dynamics, and definitely not as simple as "I win, you lose" mentality that IQ45 has.

Bobloblaw wrote:

You left out that China steals IP, uses slave labor and ignores WTO trading rules.

Then what are those sanctions and blacklists? Just means of dishonest competition. After all these tariffs and sanctions wars - you can pretty much forget about WTO; its concept is essentially down the drain.

And next step - China might say “Intel, Boeing, GE and Microsoft are sanctioned in China and have lost their rights to intellectual property protection”. Just that. If before there were some occasional things, now it will be looting on large, world-wide scale. Pretty much all of the work by Americans on American technological leadership - will be on fire-sale.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

We know how they work. Tariffs reduce consumption. That means you in China produce and sell less.

Everyone knows China will be hurt - no questions about that. The question is (and as I've said multiple times) - does this helps US, especially your "average Americans"? The answer is also no.

1. Reduction in consumption is a death knell for the retail industry. Retail (especially "brick and mortar") had not been doing great for awhile, and the tariff will only hurt them even more.
2. Industry like automotive will get hurt also - i.e. if people buy less cars (Good news for "green" people, though), that means a reduction in production = more layoffs as you now have excess labors.
3. There are places where China currently relied heavily on US, i.e. software, ICs, or even airplanes. Well, China is certainly rethinking that, and will definitely want to have the power to make their own stuff. What does that mean for US? You lost a customer = less money flowing into US = making the "trade imbalance" worst (or at best, remain at the current level, i.e. Right now China buy 50 dollars of US goods while US buy 100 dollars of Chinese goods; if China buy less from US (and v.v.) all it means is something like China buying 20 dollars and US buying 70 dollars, essentially the differential is still -50)
4. You can argue that eventually production will shift back to US, but then what? Labor cost will always be higher in US (Which means things are more expensive), and those US-made product still have to be sold to somebody other than Americans (mainly for profit maximization). Plus can your "average American" stand to be hurt for almost a decade before things will (theoretically) gets better? Oh, meanwhile things like automation will only improve.

It's a VERY intertwine dynamics, and definitely not as simple as "I win, you lose" mentality that IQ45 has.

3.4 million jobs in the USA have been lost since China joined the wto. It is sophistry to argue that cracking down on China will hurt the US economy. It’s already been hurt.

“””China might say “Intel, Boeing, GE and Microsoft are sanctioned in China and have lost their rights to intellectual property protection”.””

They have no rights to IP protection. That’s the point.

anrec80 wrote:

And next step - China might say “Intel, Boeing, GE and Microsoft are sanctioned in China and have lost their rights to intellectual property protection”. Just that. If before there were some occasional things, now it will be looting on large, world-wide scale. Pretty much all of the work by Americans on American technological leadership - will be on fire-sale.

Really a poorly conceived hope you have there. First off, nothing they steal would or could be sold outside China as any country allowing that would see immediate retaliation far outweighing cheap Chinese copies. Then imagine no more Boeing planes or any US technology/aviation product sold in China - goodbye Airbus, but of course, there is COMAC. Oh wait, US avionics, and lots of other things...

Bobloblaw wrote:

3.4 million jobs in the USA have been lost since China joined the wto. It is sophistry to argue that cracking down on China will hurt the US economy. It’s already been hurt.

Yes, it's currently (sort of) a win-lose situation (where China wins). I guess IQ45 can make people feel good by making it a lose-lose situation. I mean, if US can't win, China can't win either. That's the "fair" deal for you.

Bobloblaw wrote:

3.4 million jobs in the USA have been lost since China joined the wto. It is sophistry to argue that cracking down on China will hurt the US economy. It’s already been hurt.

So, who's to blame for this? Did China steal these jobs? Or they were moved to China by the US businesses?

zakuivcustom wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

3.4 million jobs in the USA have been lost since China joined the wto. It is sophistry to argue that cracking down on China will hurt the US economy. It’s already been hurt.

Yes, it's currently (sort of) a win-lose situation (where China wins). I guess IQ45 can make people feel good by making it a lose-lose situation. I mean, if US can't win, China can't win either. That's the "fair" deal for you.

So your solution is........?

Dogman wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

3.4 million jobs in the USA have been lost since China joined the wto. It is sophistry to argue that cracking down on China will hurt the US economy. It’s already been hurt.

So, who's to blame for this? Did China steal these jobs? Or they were moved to China by the US businesses?

A good portion was the latter. But they should face trade barriers on their imports into the USA

Bobloblaw wrote:

Dogman wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

3.4 million jobs in the USA have been lost since China joined the wto. It is sophistry to argue that cracking down on China will hurt the US economy. It’s already been hurt.

So, who's to blame for this? Did China steal these jobs? Or they were moved to China by the US businesses?

A good portion was the latter. But they should face trade barriers on their imports into the USA

A good portion? What portion was the former? As for the trade barriers, I would start with barriers to outsource jobs. May be after that there will be no need for trade barriers. Unless they insist on forced transfer of technology.

mham001 wrote:

Really a poorly conceived hope you have there. First off, nothing they steal would or could be sold outside China as any country allowing that would see immediate retaliation far outweighing cheap Chinese copies. Then imagine no more Boeing planes or any US technology/aviation product sold in China - goodbye Airbus, but of course, there is COMAC. Oh wait, US avionics, and lots of other things...

This is not a hope, this is the direction where things are moving. Yes, now COMAC uses US avionics - and I am sure when they looked at ZTE and Huawei adventures they admit now that that was the wrong bet. You need your own ideally, or need to get one from Russians, along with engines. Recent histories demonstrated well enough that in areas as critical as aviation, you cannot depend on any US suppliers, and need to have your own (or have a supplier whose country you trust). This is a great way to lose markets and grow competitors.

MS-21 is an example. They used to buy their composites in the USA, which was creating US jobs and tax revenues. After sanction round #55 or so Irkut is no longer able to do so, hence they developed what they need in-house. Who's at loss? USA, and not only. Before, Russian government had a lot of difficulty convincing Russian airlines to buy Russian planes. Now convincing is no longer required - SU is can't wait to start getting their MS-21, S7 wants 70-100 of "Russified" SSJs, though they really liked E190. Trump in a matter of weeks did what Putin was struggling to do for 2 decades. Everyone sees that some idiotic blacklisting or a sanction round can strike at any time.

And last but not least - last year Putin finally allocated funds for R&D on PD-35 - an engine similar to the one on A35J, and Russians got COMAC sold on it for their wide-body under development (also A359-35J sized). Before even he was not sure that this is really necessary.

Same with China - Chinese airlines now will strongly prefer COMAC over A and B, obviously, without any government directives. And both COMAC and Irkut can even make this pitch to their potential customers - "look at those idiots in White House, sanctions can strike at any time, you cannot trust them". And this is true not only in aviation, but pretty much anywhere - high-tech, CPUs, finances, software.

One concern of China's policy will be to have their aircraft regulatory agencies make it very difficult to certify the return to of the 737MAX for flying in their airspace.
China has a government policy and culture that says they will never be like they were in the 1800's and into the mid-1900's, a colony of the western countries, that they are the biggest power in the world, no one can stop them and if they do, they will get blood revenge.