SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Reuters' coverage of NRC Handelsblad's interview with ASML's CEO Peter Wennink regarding U.S. export restrictions on China:
following U.S. pressure, the Dutch government has already restricted ASML from exporting its most advanced lithography machines to China since 2019, something he said has benefited U.S. companies selling alternative technology.
He said that while 15% of ASML's sales are in China, at U.S. chip equipment suppliers "it is 25 or sometimes more than 30%".
Wennink said it seemed contradictory that U.S. chip manufacturers are able to sell their most advanced chips to Chinese customers, while ASML is only able to sell older chipmaking equipment.
Meanwhile, "it is common knowledge that chip technology for purely military applications is usually 10, 15 years old. (Yet) the technology used to make such chips can still be sold to China," he added.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Saturday December 17, @07:24PM (10 children)
To be fair, the US is backing the EU and Ukraine against Russia so there's a bit of a tradeoff there.
Regardless, when I posted the story my focus was on the fact the export rules aren't targeting military grade silicon. Combined with how the CHIPs act is also focused on high-end chips instead of incentivizing low-end fabs, it seems pretty clear the whole thing just ended up as a golden parachute for Intel & co..
More practically speaking, seeing how the Russian sanctions aren't working, I doubt export rules on China will.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 17, @08:30PM (2 children)
> seeing how the Russian sanctions aren't working
They aren't? I thought the sanctions on Russia were working OK (not great, just OK). Shutting down trade doesn't have immediate effects, and in the meantime, Russia is finding alternate suppliers--like Iran for drones.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday December 17, @09:43PM (1 child)
Nope: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ukraine-crisis-russia-tech-middlemen/ [reuters.com]
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, @03:49AM
Good link. That about matches what I expected when I wrote that the sanctions were just working OK. For example, the sanctions on other parts of the economy like the movement and foreign investments of oligarchs may be doing better than the chip sanctions?
While it looks like Russia is still getting a lot of chips through the gray market, they are probably paying through the nose for all the middlemen. Oddly the link didn't say anything about the end user costs in Russia.
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Saturday December 17, @11:53PM (3 children)
To be fair, the US is encouraging Europe to spend more on American weapons, to expand NATO to increase American influence, and to hurt themselves economically to make themselves less competitive against American exports.
With backers like that, who needs enemies.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday December 18, @01:00AM
Military backing for preferential rates in trade and an alliance in a trade war is fair deal.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, @07:11PM
As long as you have enough wars to make the deal fair and balanced.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Monday December 19, @04:53PM
At the same time they don't like Europe making European Army and buying/making weapons as a block and this is exactly what is starting to happen. I guess that is one thing they agree with Russia on?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/11/15/eu-purchase-weapons-jointly-step-towards-military-integration/ [telegraph.co.uk]
I thought Russia was doing this all by itself? You did realize that NATO was on life-support before this Putin's Special Adventure in the Neighbourhood?
I think you missed the entire thing with Putin's war against Ukraine. Maybe Biden told Putin to start that war too to weaken Russia, make NATO relevant again, accelerate EU's migration away from fossil fuels and allow China to have another economic satellite state?
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday December 18, @01:09AM (2 children)
You do realize that a big part of the reason why Putin chose to invade the Ukraine is because he's feeling cornered by an expanding US-backed NATO right?
Meaning most likely the whole Ukraine disaster wouldn't have happened in the first place without the US' imperialistic moves in Europe.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday December 18, @02:27AM (1 child)
The Russians been trying to put the bloc back together since it fell apart as they stabilized their economy. They took over Chechnya first. Moved against Georgia 2nd. And then started working on Ukraine. If NATO and the US is at fault at anything, it's dragging their heels since 2004 and especially around 2008 ( yet another gift-that-keeps-on-giving from the Bush administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#Presidency_of_Viktor_Yanukovych_(2010–2014) [wikipedia.org] ) when they blocked Georgia and Ukraine from entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Adriatic_Charter [wikipedia.org]
compiling...
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday December 18, @02:33AM
p.s. mixed up the anchor in first link. It's this part:
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#Bucharest_summit:_2008–2009 [wikipedia.org] )
compiling...