> less than legal means.

This is an absurd concept when it comes to international trade. Even intellectual property is mostly meaningless outside a state. Of course people will evade sanctions; what is the us going to do, invade singapore or malaysia?

> This is an absurd concept when it comes to international trade.

In this case it's just wrong. I don't know what people think "e-waste" recycling actually is or what happens to their "unrepairable" units after they rid themselves of them.

> Even intellectual property is mostly meaningless outside a state.

Interestingly the Dollar is most definitely meaningful outside of our state. I think the assumption becomes, that if this is true, then using it's power to enforce trade sanctions isn't that big a stretch.

> Of course people will evade sanctions

What's less clear if they should expect their government to actively help them in this evasion or not. I think the Chinese citizens are in unique international territory here.

> what is the us going to do, invade singapore or malaysia?

Deny our exports to them. This will cost the political donor class a lot of profits. So this is why it doesn't get done.

None of this is a fait accompli. This is the result of years of intentional corruption of the core systems involved.

Just because something is hard to enforce doesn't mean it's absurd.

Embargoes aren't impossible to enforce against the foreign importer. If a foreign entity is found to have placed orders with false documents, they can be sanctioned, which can be enforced against any of their international operations. It makes it hard for them to do future business in global markets. I would not recommend violating US sanctions no matter where you are.

The companies it "stole" from broke the law in their own country while acquiring the training data; frankly sanction avoidance is lesser and arguably not even their (it's the people in US that smuggle them, nothing breaking china law afaik) crime