Is Li Ka-shing's sale of the port a capital hedge or a strategic layout?

As the BTC ETF is approved, our world and the centralized world are getting closer and closer, with BlackRock becoming an important representative linking blockchain and the macro world. The impact of the macro situation on blockchain will also become increasingly severe, and it is often one-sided. (Bad things will definitely have repercussions, but good things may not.)

Let's start with the conclusion:

If it is just global capital seeking refuge, it indicates that capitalists like Li Ka-shing are not optimistic about the future economic situation and choose to cash out and exit early, while the U.S. takes the opportunity to layout control over key infrastructure. Be cautious of a financial crisis.

If geopolitical tensions escalate in the future, especially with more non-market political interventions (such as sanctions, blockades, and controls) appearing in the global maritime trade system, then this transaction is likely part of a war layout. Be aware of the war risks.

It is indeed quite astonishing to engage in a one-time transaction of such a large amount of strategic resources (ports). Below, we will refer to history and use AI to interpret the potential strategic layout involving global powers, especially in terms of key maritime shipping routes and control over supply chains.

1. The U.S. strengthens global port control through financial capital, weakening China's maritime influence.

BlackRock has taken over 42 ports worldwide, including key ports at both ends of the Panama Canal, which means that the United States and its allies have gained greater influence over important global trade routes.

For a long time, China has invested heavily in ports under the "Belt and Road" initiative, including Gwadar Port in Pakistan, Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka, and Piraeus Port in Greece, gradually establishing a global maritime logistics network. This transaction may be a direct countermeasure by American capital against China's "Maritime Silk Road" strategy, using financial capital means to restrict China's layout in global shipping.

In the future, once a large-scale conflict or economic war occurs, the ports controlled by BlackRock may be used to block shipping routes for specific countries, cutting off the supply of strategic materials, similar to the naval blockade tactics used by the UK and the US against Germany and Japan in history.

2. Does Li Ka-shing's withdrawal of capital represent a proactive adjustment of pre-war assets by Chinese capital?

The investment style of the Li Ka-shing family is known for its forward-thinking predictions, often with deeper considerations behind each large-scale capital transfer. For example, he gradually withdrew from the real estate business in mainland China and Hong Kong in his early years, shifting towards defensive assets such as energy infrastructure in Europe and the UK.

If he sells global port assets at this time, does it mean he believes that global trade or war risks are rising, and that logistics networks may face disruption?

This move may also indicate that some Chinese families are repatriating funds to Asia or other safer regions to avoid potential global turmoil.

3. Dollar Hegemony vs. Dollarization: Economic Balance Before the War

Currently, countries such as China, Russia, and Iran are promoting "de-dollarization" by establishing new payment systems (such as CIPS), increasing gold reserves, and promoting the internationalization of the Renminbi in an attempt to reduce dependence on the dollar system.

Is the U.S. controlling global ports through financial giants like BlackRock also a way to "consolidate dollar trade settlement channels" before the war?

Once the global situation deteriorates, the United States may leverage the settlement systems of these ports to mandate payments in USD, thereby restricting the process of dedollarization.

4. Pre-war Drills for Global Conflict Supply Chains

Historically, before large-scale wars, the control of logistics and energy corridors is often a key strategic point before the war.

Before World War II, the UK and the US limited Japan's war capabilities by controlling the oil resources in the Middle East and Indonesia, ultimately leading Japan to choose to launch a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and be forced to start the war earlier.

During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union ensured the stability of wartime supply lines by controlling key logistics nodes.

If global conflicts escalate, will the ultimate use of these ports shift from "commercial logistics" to "strategic material transshipment"?

Of course, these are all speculations, and we need to seek more clues to help us improve the accuracy of our predictions. In this way, the key observation points for the future are as follows:

Will there be military intervention by the U.S. military or U.S. allied forces after BlackRock takes over the port?

Will these ports strengthen freight restrictions on specific countries such as China, Russia, and Iran?

Will China accelerate the layout of alternative ports and logistics channels in other regions, such as the China-Europe Railway Express, Arctic shipping routes, and South American trade routes?

Finally, I sincerely hope for world peace, whether for our wallets or for our children.