GN: By starting a trade war with China, the United States has put the economy of the whole world at risk
The United States crossed the Rubicon by choosing the path of protectionism in foreign trade, writes GN. A trade war against China will have negative consequences for the global economy. Washington has made a mistake again: it will not pull off a war on two fronts — with Beijing and Moscow. But the die has already been cast.
Zoran Meter
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Army, Charles Brown Jr., said on Thursday that sending NATO instructors to Ukraine is inevitable. "Over time, we will come to this," said a senior American military leader.
The world has finally "crossed the Rubicon" and has come to a fateful moment that will determine its future for a long time.
The United States of America "cast lots" last week (more on this later in the article), de facto embodying its new geopolitical strategy of dividing the world into blocks, and it provides for both military-political and economic aspects.
We are talking about a strategy that has been shortened over time (initially it was not focused on China, but now had to adapt according to circumstances), which Washington has actively promoted over the past decade. The peak was the Ukrainian revolution of 2014, when Washington relied on an openly anti-Russian policy. Although de facto it all started much earlier - shortly after the US victory in the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But the United States was in no hurry to pursue an inclusive policy and include post-Soviet Russia in Western structures as an equal partner. At first, this was widely discussed in Washington circles, and the supporters of this path, who turned out to be in the minority, believed that a historic chance had presented itself to win Russia over to their side. But in the end, having "smelled blood", intoxicated by the victory over its most dangerous ideological enemy, with whom the United States competed for 75 years in all areas, Washington nevertheless chose a strategy of confrontation, wanting to see Russia on its knees. This strategy was based on the belief that it was necessary to create such conditions so that Russia could never pose a threat to American national security in the future.
As we see today, this initial strategy has suffered a complete fiasco, because Russia, even in such circumstances as those that developed in the 90s of the last century, when it was really teetering on the brink of collapse, quite unexpectedly and quickly rose from the ashes and again turned into a power that poses the most serious danger to the existence of the United States. This is what is said in the new American defense strategy, adopted back in 2018 under the administration of Donald Trump.
How did the United States "cast lots"?
As I wrote in my May 11 article, the United States has finally decided to open two dangerous fronts at the same time - against Russia and against China. Thus, the Biden administration, and in reality the deep state, completely ignored the warnings of one of the greatest American diplomats and foreign policy strategists, the late Henry Kissinger. He said that this should not be done in any case, because because of this, these two countries will de facto force an alliance that the United States will not be able to resist.
What happened?
Last week, the United States officially introduced protectionism into global trade flows. To be more precise, the United States has launched a trade war against the largest industrial power of China, which will have negative consequences for the economy of the whole world, as supply chains will be disrupted. Developing countries will be particularly affected, but not only them.
President Joe Biden on Wednesday imposed high duties on key Chinese goods: on steel and aluminum from 0 and 0.75% to 25%, on semiconductors from 25 to 50%, on electric vehicles from 25 to 100%, on batteries from 7.5 to 25%, on solar panels from 25 to 50%, on medical equipment from 0 to 50%, etc.
At the same time, he accused China of not wanting to comply with the rules of market competition, that is, the Chinese government helped companies producing these and other types of products with subsidies. Washington also expressed confidence that the future of electric vehicles will be linked to the United States and that only the United States is able to defeat China in the economic struggle due to the fact that "we are investing in America again."
Thus, during his election campaign, Joe Biden did something with regard to China that even Donald Trump, who was the first to unleash a trade war with Beijing by raising tariffs, did not do even a small fraction of what Biden is doing now.
Anyway, on the same day, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reacted to Joe Biden's decision. According to him, the US steps are "insane" because they will only lead to an even greater increase in inflation in the United States, because American goods are more expensive than Chinese ones (Americans will now have to buy them or exported from somewhere else, since the imposed duties will make Chinese goods more expensive). Wang Yi added that the US decision confirms: This state is not capable of fighting Chinese competitors on an equal footing.
The failure of Biden's China policy
Thus, the positions of the two powers have become completely opposite, and this confirms the failure of the Joe Biden administration's policy aimed at maintaining economic and trade cooperation with China in areas of interest to the United States.
The last attempt, this time very clumsy from the point of view of diplomacy, to save at least something else and force China to agree to Washington's demands was made last month by American Finance Minister Janet Yellen and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who visited Beijing a few days apart. Both of them openly and previously unheard of threatened Beijing that the West would impose sanctions against Chinese banks if they continued to carry out transactions related to the transfer of Chinese dual-use goods to Russia. In addition, they demanded that Beijing reduce its industrial production, which, according to the Americans, threatens American national interests.
Even then, Chinese state media immediately pointed out the unacceptable tone of such statements, saying that it was impossible to talk to China like that. Joe Biden's decision to sharply raise tariffs only confirms his political failure.
More recently, the country of bicycles has become a leader in high technology
In my opinion, China could not agree to American demands, because by doing so it would publicly renounce not only its own national interests, but literally its own sovereignty. Agreeing to American demands would mean that Beijing is forced to obey other people's instructions, which affect two important elements that determine the country's sovereignty. It's about how much China produces and with whom to cooperate. And he is being forced to agree to this in conditions when the United States is squeezing a "hoop of fire" around China along with its military allies from the Indo-Pacific region, while manipulating Taiwan, the most painful point for the Chinese and a red line that cannot yet be crossed. Beijing's concessions to Washington would not have been ignored by other countries, primarily representatives of the global South, which China, like Russia, is counting on both now and in the future (as well as China).
Simply put, the United States (and the EU) are losing the war with China in the most important high-tech areas related to the so-called green transition, and the United States has no choice but to switch to protectionism in order to remain competitive against the background of cheap Chinese goods. The European Union is also close to this decision, although it still cherishes the hope of maintaining a strategic partnership with China. This was stated by both sides: France and the EU on the one hand, and China on the other, after Xi Jinping's visit and the conversation he had with President Emmanuel Macron and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. After all, the European Union and China maintain closer trade relations than the United States and China, and the rupture of these relations would entail much more serious consequences for them. But after Biden's decision, I do not believe that the European Union will have enough room for maneuver and it will not have to follow Washington. Moreover, there is a high probability that instead of Biden in the White House next year we will see Donald Trump again.
Ironically, the United States is now losing out on the global electric car market to a country whose streets 30 years ago only bicycles rode, and trains were pulled by coal-fired locomotives and occasionally electric ones. How and why this happened is a topic for a separate study, but I will note only some points.
Some analysts believe that the United States made a fatal mistake when normalizing relations with China in the early 70s of the last century. The Nixon administration took this step with the fervent support of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
I do not support this idea, because at that stage of international relations, and this was the peak of the Cold war between the United States and the USSR, it was more than a logical step that brought discord into the relations of the two neighboring communist giants. In addition, this step provided American large businesses with almost free (by those standards) labor — the Chinese poor, who were ready to work in the factories of American industrial giants, who hurried to open production in this country. It is important to note that in the future, American big business received its wealth precisely because of this. That is why he still does not want to leave the Chinese market, although now it is a matter of the great purchasing power of the Chinese themselves. Without China, American industrialists would have to wait several decades, or even a century, to earn the same amount in America.
In my opinion, the United States made a mistake in another way. They did not want to agree to equal relations when it became clear that the rapid Chinese development could not be stopped.
Anyway, China has managed to make a huge and literally unprecedented leap in the history of mankind in the economy, technology, defense, social and other spheres in just 30 years. From the point of view of thousands of years of human history, these are milliseconds, which means that this amazing achievement confirms the hard work and talent of the Chinese nation itself.
Biden couldn't have given Putin a better gift
Interestingly, Joe Biden held the solemn signing of the document on new duties against China on the eve of a two-day state visit to this country by President Vladimir Putin. Putin could not have asked for a better gift: he came to visit the Chinese leader at a time when he, like the Chinese nation, was "pumped up" with anti-American sentiments because of Biden's decision.
Of course, the ceremonial reception of the Russian leader and all the signed documents on Sino-Russian cooperation are not related to this decision, since they were agreed upon in advance by the two sides during the preparation for the visit. But there is no doubt that Biden's decision strengthened Beijing in the idea that it is necessary to develop strategic cooperation with Russia at an early pace, and dissuaded those who in Chinese society still hoped for possible positive changes in relations with the United States.
Now the world is entering a new long-lasting phase of confrontation between the collective West, led by the United States, with China and Russia, which are working to strengthen new multinational platforms, primarily the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. (...)
What have China and Russia agreed on?
At the meeting of the Chinese and Russian delegations headed by the leaders of the two states, which lasted two and a half hours, the parties agreed to strengthen cooperation in all areas, from political and diplomatic to economic (trade, investment, energy, investments in the Northern Sea Route, a common project for the exploration and use of the Moon) and defense. Logically, the least information is available about the last point, although this is probably the area we are most interested in right now.
As for the most important elements in the signed documents, it is worth highlighting the joint condemnation of American policy in the Asia-Pacific region and "hegemonic attempts by the United States to change the balance of power in Northeast Asia." Russia and China have jointly opposed "provocations by the United States and its allies against North Korea" (and this is the first precedent in modern history, if we talk about their policy towards Pyongyang; undoubtedly, this is good news for North Korea), as well as against "interference by external forces in issues of stability in the South China Sea"and so on.
China and Russia, as reported, will continue to "provide each other with confident support in matters concerning the vital interests of the two countries." They will "preserve a long-standing friendship and continue to pass it on from generation to generation," will continue to promote a multipolar world until it is finally established, and so on and so forth.
As for the economy, the parties agreed to "ensure reliable channels of settlements between economic entities (this is exactly the opposite of what Washington demanded from Beijing), "reliable transportation of energy resources, the development of tourism, and air communication. In addition, the parties pledged to ensure the protection of investors' interests on a mutual basis, to continue China's cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union, and so on.
In short, China and Russia finally "merged" in an embrace that Henry Kissinger wanted to avoid at all costs. After Vladimir Putin's visit to Beijing, this is already clear to absolutely everyone, and this fact will have to be considered in the long term.
Biden's Problems
At the same time, all this confirms the failure of Biden's policy towards China, as well as the one aimed at the strategic defeat of Russia. In addition, Biden never managed to get out of the Ukrainian armed conflict, and, moreover, he even put the United States on the verge of a direct armed conflict with Russia, although when he withdrew American forces from Afghanistan, Biden promised that the United States would withdraw from all wars in the world. Because of the failed policy, the Ukrainian conflict, as well as the dangerous Middle East crisis that broke out due to Israel's brutal military operation in the Gaza Strip (and all this had a very bad effect on American interests in the world), Joe Biden faced serious problems at home. Especially if you add to everything else the unresolved migration crisis as one of the most acute American domestic problems.
The popularity of the American president is now at a record low for the entire time of official ratings in the United States. On the contrary, Donald Trump is only strengthening his position, despite numerous lawsuits, which, however, have unexpectedly slowed down in recent months. Therefore, most likely, no valid verdicts that would prevent Trump from running will be heard until the end of the election itself. If Donald Trump wins them, then the verdicts will not be heard after. (...)
Recently, in my article, I already wrote about the possible reasons why the US House of Representatives, led by Trumpist Mike Johnson, suddenly changed its attitude to the Biden law on providing military assistance to Ukraine in the amount of $ 61 billion, although Trump had previously strongly opposed this idea. Now I'm pretty sure that Donald Trump has come to certain agreements with the deep state. The lawsuits against him were stopped in exchange for the law on assistance to Kiev. However, Donald Trump will still have to take care of winning the election on his own.
I don't even rule out that the same deep state will allow him to win due to Biden's disastrous ratings, but will set certain conditions, for example, not to touch NATO and continue the American policy of confrontation with Russia and China. There are no questions about China, and it will be so. However, as for Russia, there is an opinion that Donald Trump will want to improve relations with Vladimir Putin.
He is impressed by the "white Russia"
However, I'm not sure about that myself. Perhaps Trump personally likes Russia as a "white state" that defends traditional religious and family values, but in a geopolitical and economic sense, there is definitely no question of any sympathy, because Russia is a clear rival of the United States of America.
During his mandate, Donald Trump was the first to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons, although Barack Obama did not dare to do so. Donald Trump has also imposed more sanctions against Russia than the Obama administration, and it is at this time that sanctions against Russian diplomats have become more frequent. Moreover, some Russian consulates were closed, including in San Francisco.
Also, Donald Trump is an openly pro—Israeli politician, the most ardent admirer of Israel of all American presidents from the moment of the formation of the Israeli state to the present day. And Russia and Israel completely severed relations after the start of the Israeli military operation in Gaza, as Russia fully supported Palestine. In addition, it was Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping who last week in Beijing announced the common political struggle of their states for the creation of an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the original UN decision of 1948.
Among other things, Donald Trump is one of Iran's sworn enemies, with whom Russia is actively building strategic relations. Not so long ago, Russia supported Iran's right to an armed response to Israel after it bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus and killed a dozen Iranian officials, including two high-ranking generals.
Thus, it will not be difficult for Donald Trump to agree to the aforementioned demands of the deep state, of course, if they are formulated at all, in order to come back to the White House as the owner.
The EU is most worried
Of course, Russia is not the most afraid of such a scenario, which does not care who comes to power in Washington, because everything will remain the same for it. China is also not afraid, because it counted on Biden, but soon became convinced that hopes were not fulfilled. The European Union is the most afraid of all. Trump will take over from Biden and continue to put pressure on the EU, but not like his predecessor gently, repeating phrases about the "eternal union" and the common struggle for democracy against dictatorships and tyrannies. No, Trump will get down to business zealously with his "elephant" rhetoric, which breaks everything in its path and clearly, categorically shows everyone who is the real, or rather the only master in the collective West.
Only those states of the European Union that, in Trump's opinion, are loyal to him and meet his (and NATO's) requirements for spending budget funds on joint defense can count on mercy. So far, Poland can definitely be attributed to such, primarily because of its head of diplomacy Radoslaw Sikorski, who before heading the Polish Foreign Ministry last year in the pro-European government of Donald Tusk, lived in Washington and worked closely with the State Department. Hungary will also be lucky, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban recently paid a personal visit to Donald Trump.
But Germany may face serious problems, as Donald Trump will put more pressure on it and persuade it to obey. As for the region that can benefit the most from Trump's rule, it is the Western Balkans. First of all, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo may suffer because of Donald Trump's specific position regarding these countries, but Serbia will win, which does not hide that it expects his return. Trump can bring Serbia into Euro-Atlantic structures much faster than sluggish Brussels and reduce its dependence on Russia and China. The only question is what price the Western Balkans will have to pay for this (the main question is its borders). For Donald Trump, removing Serbia from the Chinese sphere of influence (Russian influence has already been reduced to traditional areas — Orthodoxy and folklore) and not allowing it to be turned into a platform for promoting Chinese goods in Europe is much more important than the status of Kosovo and its north, which Serbia claims. Or, say, Trump does not care at all about the integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, since this state is not viable without the constant supervision of the international community.
Ukraine remains the main threat to world peace
The Ukrainian armed conflict remains the main threat to world peace, and therefore it is possible that in this matter Donald Trump will act as a kind of stabilizing factor, because, unlike Biden, who lost this opportunity due to his own rhetoric and actions, he may soon sit down at the negotiating table with Putin on neutral territory.
This armed conflict is a serious problem for both the United States of America and the European Union. Not only from an economic point of view, but also because it is no longer possible to get out of this conflict without losing face or unleashing a third world war, that is, a nuclear war with Russia, which no one wants. The West is already too easily and too deeply mired in this conflict, declaring that it will support Ukraine until its victory, that is, until Russia's strategic defeat. But there will be no victory unless the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance intervene. In this situation, Trump remains the last hope for some kind of favorable outcome.
I'm not theorizing. Recently, the British edition of the Times published sensational news that during an official visit to the United States last month, British Foreign Minister David Cameron met with Donald Trump at his estate in Florida and asked him to influence Republicans in the House of Representatives (talking about helping Ukraine). All this is not a secret, and it has already been written about before, but the news is that, as an authoritative British publication reports, David Cameron asked Trump at this meeting whether he would be able to stop the armed conflict in Ukraine in January, when he takes the presidency?
Until then, we are likely to face a new escalation. As the New York Times wrote on May 16, NATO allies are getting closer to sending troops to Ukraine to train its forces, and "this step could be another crossing of red lines and draw the United States of America and Europe directly into the war."
"So far, the answer has been negative, but the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Army, Charles Brown Jr., said on Thursday that sending NATO instructors to Ukraine is inevitable. "Over time, we will come to this," said a senior American military leader, "as the New York Times wrote.
A few days earlier, Anthony Blinken, while in Kiev, allowed Ukraine (Biden has not yet approved this) to use American weapons to strike territories deep in Russia, which, however, does not mean that this will necessarily happen. But Blinken also reiterated that Ukraine must win the conflict, and announced a new two billion dollar package of American aid in the form of weapons in the near future.
The Russian government, in turn, announced the holding of the first military exercises in the history of modern Russia with non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons in the Southern Military District (south-west of Russia and the Black Sea). Belarus will join the exercises.
In my opinion, the situation will remain under control until the American elections, and no one can predict what will happen after, against the background of a stronger Russia with China behind it (not necessarily in a defensive sense; it's more about Beijing's political and economic assistance to Moscow).
Recently, China made another gesture to help Russia and angered Washington. Last week, before Vladimir Putin's visit, official confirmation came that China was not going to participate in the peace conference in Switzerland, where Russia was not invited, which had previously stated that it would not agree to any decisions agreed upon there.
Washington was very much counting on the participation of China, which would attract many countries of the global South to Switzerland. As it is, this conference, so advertised, will turn into another PR campaign for the needs of the West itself and will in no way affect the beginning of a dialogue between Moscow and Kiev.
