How China's Belt and Road Initiative became a Disaster

China's Belt and Road Initiative was once lauded as the most ambitious and groundbreaking infrastructure projects the world had ever seen. With well over 1 trillion dollars being spent across 150 countries. However, it now seems to be turning a little sour. Projects are over budget, not needed or abandoned. So lets examine what went wrong and what it means for China

Follow us on other platforms

[waffle_burger]

It's almost like lending billions of dollars to poor countries with no chance of paying it back is a bad idea. Who would have thought?

[williamchow]

The old adage of being in trouble if you can’t repay a $20, 000 loan to your bank, but the bank being in trouble if you can’t repay a $20 million loan.

[blackbelt]

Did he just claim that Forrest City in Malaysia as successful?!??! It is like 90% abandoned. 😅😂

[ralphmueller]

So the pooh bear got his hands stuck in too many honey pots.

[martinchow]

Let's have another perspective ... on how the US Government spend their money and the Chinese Government spend their money. One spend to destroy and the other spend to build. Which spending would be right spending in the future?

### US Military Spending Over the Last 30 to 40 Years

The United States has spent significant amounts on its military over the past several decades. Adjusted for inflation, defense spending has increased by 62% since 1980, from $506 billion to $820 billion in 2023. The peak in inflation-adjusted defense spending occurred in 2010 at $964.4 billion, largely due to operations in the Middle East. The U.S. consistently allocates a substantial portion of its federal budget to defense, with the 2023 defense budget making up 13.3% of total federal spending.

The total U.S. military spending after World War II, based on the available historical data, is approximately $5.92 trillion (adjusted for inflation). This calculation includes selected years with significant changes in military spending.

### Impact on Local Populations

U.S. military spending is intended to address strategic threats, ensure national security, support global stability, and protect allies. However, the direct benefits to local populations in countries where the U.S. operates can be mixed. While military presence can stabilize regions, contribute to humanitarian aid, and bolster local economies through base-related jobs and infrastructure, it can also lead to unintended consequences such as civilian casualties, displacement, and long-term dependency on military aid.

### Comparison with Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Spending

The $1.3 trillion Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by China aims to build infrastructure in developing countries, often where Western financiers are reluctant to invest. Critics argue that BRI projects frequently lead to debt dependency and do not always benefit local populations due to issues such as corruption, mismanagement, and environmental degradation. A significant portion of BRI loans has led to financial distress in recipient countries, with around 60% of loans considered to be in default or in need of restructuring.

In contrast, U.S. military spending focuses on defense and strategic interests rather than direct economic development. While both forms of spending have their justifications and criticisms, the U.S. approach emphasizes security and geopolitical stability, whereas China's BRI focuses on infrastructure development, albeit with considerable financial and operational challenges.

### Justification of Spending

The justification for U.S. military spending is often framed around national and global security, deterrence of strategic threats, and protection of international order. The effectiveness and ethical implications of this spending can be debated, particularly regarding the long-term impacts on local populations and the global balance of power.

In comparison, BRI spending is justified by China as a means to enhance global trade, economic development, and regional connectivity. However, the financial strain on participating countries and the mixed outcomes of many projects raise questions about the long-term sustainability and benefits of the initiative.

In conclusion, both U.S. military spending and China's BRI have complex impacts and face scrutiny regarding their true benefits and costs to local populations and global stability. Each approach serves different strategic goals and is subject to its own set of challenges and criticisms.

Only time would tell ... I hope I will be still alive to see who is right and who is wrong. How much good does the $1.3 trillion spending by CCP (Chinese Communist Party) does as compared to $6 trillion spending by USA?

[buck]

I always thought chinas plan is not to get reimbursed rather seize whatever they could in these countries in stead of payment the way the Dutch did to Indonesia jn 17th/18th century

[syl-drre]

Understandable, most of the BRI projects related to countries that have natural resources with raw energy and minerals abundancy. The projects payback might not be profitable in the short term however from the bilaeral trades between these countries', the projects capitals invested can easily be overcomed as a result of cheap energy and minerals used in their industrial sectors. Its better than creates wars all over the world. Thats BRI vision and mission for a peaceful world. You have just missed out some of the BRI projects in ASEAN(LAOS, CAMBODIA, THAILAND, MALAYSIA, etc). The information is a bit outdated!.

[robhappe]

Why should you pay for a failed project?

[samfrancisco]

These projects are typical tofu dreg disasters and predatory lending.

[pablosskates]

Forest City was a success?! Sure it got finished (talk about lowering the bar) but because it’s close to empty and not being maintained, long term it will cost many times that to fix or keep from falling apart.

[thejoyofreason]

Forest city is having a lot of empty apartments and closed or never opened shops. In the long run Chinese speculators will not have the money to pay for the upkeep to the management company and it will end up as forest slum

[DavidCooper-vhnr]

You stated "hundreds of countries" were rushing to take advantage of the BRI
Probably more like dozens, at best.
Such exaggeration only undermines your credibility.

[hydroac]

Sounds like Japan in the 1980s, when Japan seemed unstoppable. In fact, in the 1980s Japan was slated to eclipse the USA by the end of the 1980s.

This was followed by Japan experiencing 3 decades of no growth.

Now we see the exact same problem afflicting China: a demographic implosion. Japan experienced this starting in the 1980s after the birth rate dropped as people rightly moved into the cities and tiny apartments. The countryside in Japan was hollowed out. Now the same problem is afflicting China, with the same demographic collapse because of the same reasons. While Japan can weather the storm through bending the knee to the US as a security guarantor and since it was already wealthy, China is still a middle income country and is now unlikely to progress further.

[davidmeyers]

Even blind Freddie can see what this was all about. Dominates and ease of invasion.

[dliu]

The Belt is also a method China uses for discipline. Don't believe me, ask, ask any Chinese person. For me, it was a mah-jong ivory stick

[budisuwandhi]

All BRI members are doing well, a few with slow phase but hading the right path. That why BRI is success story.

[NX.]

Honey, come quick! China is failing again! 😄

[FlyxPat]

Forest City isn’t a success. It’s mostly empty.

[hydrogen]

Is this an american sponsored propaganda? If china was doing bad you wouldn't need this propaganda 😂

[NickJaime]

It may seem like they just picked, but the defaults give the CCP the land for 90 years. So now they own and use ports for military.