This "Pax Silica" initiative is so obviously a trap that it's extraordinary any country would fall for it. Insane this isn't being discussed more openly.

 https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2017057376810275303

Arnaud Bertrand

@RnaudBertrand

This "Pax Silica" initiative is so obviously a trap that it's extraordinary any country would fall for it. Insane this isn't being discussed more openly. Like it or not, we live in a world where China now leads research in 90% of crucial technologies (fact: https://nature.com/articles/d41586-025-04048-7). As such, I completely understand why "Pax Silica" makes sense for the U.S.: they're obviously panicked about getting so dominated technologically and want to lock in countries into dependencies while they still can. That's completely rational: when you can't preserve your lead through innovation, you seek to institutionalize loyalty. But for other countries, be it technologically or economically, joining it makes just about zero sense. Why would you tie your technological future to the U.S. for "the next generation" given these conditions? You're literally condemning your country to technological obsolescence, and therefore to be economically behind All the more so given the U.S. is making it crystal clear this is zero-sum, and for the long-term. As Helberg is implying below , members commit for a generation and joining means committing to keep China out of your infrastructure. So it's a demand to reduce ties with the world's rising technological and industrial powerhouse in exchange for... what exactly?

Quote

Ken Moriyasu

@kenmoriyasu

·

3h

Replying to @kenmoriyasu

2/ Because Pax Silica represents a "generational decision" about supply chain integration, @jacobhelberg said its members must be countries the U.S. trusts. "We want to make sure we're not going to wake up tomorrow and read a headline that their biggest port is now owned by a

Show more

1:08 PM · Jan 30, 2026

·

9,248

Views

https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2017057376810275303