U.S.-China relations after the start of the war in Ukraine

The great affairs of the warrior country are also important, and the way of survival in the land of the dead and the living must not be ignored. War is not that it cannot be fought, but before fighting, think well and be prepared.

The past two decades have been an era of U.S.-led globalization. Today, the most important bilateral relationship in the international community is undoubtedly the Sino-US relationship. China and the United States have also been the biggest beneficiaries of globalization over the past two decades. In the decade 2000-10, China and the United States contributed 30 percent of global GDP growth, or about 15 percent each. In 2010-2020, nearly 80% of the global GDP increase was contributed by China and the United States, with China accounting for 46.9% and the United States accounting for 32.3%. It is not surprising that the Rules of Globalization were made and led by the United States, and the United States benefited. However, China has also adapted very well to this set of rules.

The United States says every day that China and Russia are revisionists, but in fact, China and Russia are completely different. China has never intended to change this set of rules of globalization set by the United States, and it believes that it can still gain the greatest benefits under this set of rules set by the United States, and even beat the United States in competition.

China has always wanted to have good relations with the United States and hopes to continue to gain benefits under this set of US-led rules. Why did China always believe that "economy and trade are the ballast stone of Sino-US relations" and that "Sino-US relations are not much better, and bad is not bad." "It is because of the stable Sino-US relationship that the benefits to both countries are too great." The deterioration of Sino-US relations will cause huge losses to both countries.

China is too optimistic. In carrying out reform and opening up, China has always focused on economic construction and attached too much importance to the economy. This is not the case in the United States, where politics is widely regarded as more important than economics. The United States believes that economic sacrifices are tolerable in order to guarantee national security and political interests. Then, Sino-US relations entered the stage of free fall.

If Sino-US relations deteriorate, whose responsibility is greater? It is also not objective to say that 100% is the responsibility of the United States. In recent years, China's efforts to safeguard its own interests have become more determined than in the past, undoubtedly arousing greater doubts and precautions in the United States. But there is no doubt that the Chinese side prefers to maintain good Sino-US relations and get along with the United States in a friendly manner. The United States, on the other hand, sees China as a strategic competitor that needs to be contained.

Since the beginning of the trade war in 2018, I have written several articles, arguing that no matter what China does, Sino-US relations will never be able to return to the chimerica era more than a decade ago, and everyone must give up their illusions, prepare for a protracted war, and prepare for a hard life.

The fundamental contradiction between China and the United States is the contradiction between the United States maintaining its hegemonic status and the pursuit of a better life in the developed countries by the Chinese people. Chinese how can the per capita GDP of the United States reach 50% of the us if they want to achieve the standard of living in the developed countries? At that time, China's total GDP will be twice that of the United States, which is unacceptable to the United States under any circumstances. The problem between the eldest and the second is the most difficult to deal with, and the contradiction between China and the United States is an unsolvable problem.

China does not want to make the United States an enemy, but the United States already regards China as an enemy. The future of Sino-US relations will never go back to the past. China will continue to try to repair U.S.-China relations and will continue to try not to decouple from the United States. However, it is useless to shave your head and pick a hot head. Whether Sino-US relations can improve depends on the attitude of the United States, not China.

Those brainless people who blame China for the deterioration of Sino-US relations every day, think about it yourself, what does China have to do to make the United States give up its suppression of China? Or more specifically, what does Huawei have to do to get the United States to lift the ban on Huawei's chips?

In 2019, Ren Zhengfei said in an interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times: "The United States cannot grasp the details of the slightest detail and want to put Huawei to death, if you feel that we have any problems, you can discuss it with sincerity, and the two sides make a reasonable solution, which I think is acceptable..... Huawei is willing to transfer all the technology and process secrets of 5G to American companies to help the United States establish a 5G industry. Cisco, Amazon, and Apple can all obtain Huawei's entire 5G production process and software through licensing. U.S. companies can use Huawei technology to build U.S. 5G networks based on licenses. ”

Huawei's sincerity in order to continue to cooperate with the United States is obvious. However, the United States did not respond at all, but continued to increase sanctions.

In 2020, Ren Zhengfei helplessly said: "The United States hit us with a big stick, knocked us unconscious, and at first thought that there was something wrong with our compliance system, and was reflecting; the result was the second stick, the third stick, the fourth stick... After the fight, we understand that some politicians in the United States want us to die. The desire to survive lifts us up and looks for a way to save ourselves. ”

The attitude of the United States towards Huawei is also the attitude of China. China is willing to do its best to establish good relations with the United States, but at least some American politicians just want China to die.

At this time, does it make sense for China to see the United States as a friend or an enemy? The United States has regarded China as an enemy, and some big vs are still advocating that China regard the United States as a friend. Are these people stupid, or bad?

In December 2018, I wrote an article about how the United States has dealt with its enemies from The history of the United States:

Take a look at the history of the United States and see how the United States dealt with its enemies

The United States has always practiced very similarly, when facing the enemy, through various means to suppress, step by step to approach the core interests of the enemy, and then the enemy is forced to the situation of having to act, and then through a war to obtain the greatest benefits.

The consistent practice of the United States is not to act first, but to force the enemy to the point where it has to do it, so that it can become famous and appear to be on the side of justice.

On the Ukraine issue, the United States has a similar line of thinking, through NATO's eastward expansion, it is pressing Russia step by step. Many American strategists have pointed out that if Russia is forced to continue like this, war will be a high-probability event, but the United States still insists on going its own way. In the end, Russia took great risks, suffered huge losses, and played the role of a thousand aggressors.

If there were no nuclear weapons in the world now, the United States would have won the war with Russia.

Nato's military power is already far stronger than Russia's, which has invested half of its military power in Ukraine, and the country is empty. Russia is again an aggressor, and there is no big congress to side with Russia. Without nuclear weapons, NATO would certainly intervene or even attack Russia itself.

What Russia can deter NATO is the 1,500 active nuclear warheads. Without the deterrence of these nuclear warheads, NATO would have sent troops to Ukraine long ago, pointing directly to Moscow.

The difference between Putin and Saddam Hussein is that Putin really has weapons of mass destruction.

The war in Ukraine has not yet been won or lost, but it can already give us a lot of lessons.

Militarily, we see that Russia deterred the United States. The United States is indeed reluctant to risk a full-scale nuclear war in World War III to intervene militarily in Ukraine.

But economically, the United States has no concerns about sanctions, and has imposed unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia.

If it is not Russia, it is China, what is the result? Economically, we are stronger than Russia, but at the same time more dependent on international markets. Militarily, can we deter the United States?

Returning to Sino-US relations, China's national security is now at a very dangerous juncture. The United States has regarded China as an adversary and an enemy, but China lacks the military means to deter the United States.

For the United States, if the Threat of China can be eliminated once and for all, the United States is willing to pay a great economic price.

The easiest way for the United States to completely eliminate China's threat to the United States is to fight an all-out conventional war with China. In all-out conventional warfare, the geographical advantage of the United States is too obvious. In an all-out conventional war, China can hardly pose any threat to the U.S. mainland, and the United States can use the U.S. military bases around China to launch an all-out attack on China and destroy China's military and industrial forces.

If China and the United States fight an all-out conventional war, most of the weapons of the United States can hit China, and most of China's weapons cannot hit the United States. China's losses will be far greater than those of the United States. This loss ratio is something that the United States is completely willing to bear.

Throughout World War II, Europe and East Asia were in ruins, but hardly a single bomb fell on the U.S. mainland, and industry suffered almost no losses.

Will China use strategic weapons to load conventional warheads to hit the U.S. mainland? Definitely not. The Americans can't tell if your warhead is a conventional or nuclear warhead, and firing strategic weapons against the U.S. mainland would mean all-out nuclear war.

And if the United States wants to fight this war, it can easily find an excuse and position China as an aggressor. The grip of the United States is Taiwan.

If the United States instigates Taiwan's independence behind its back, or if the United States and Taiwan sign a defense agreement, Chinese mainland will be in an embarrassing situation of having to reunify Taiwan by force. The government and people of the Chinese mainland will not accept Taiwan's independence.

Once the armed reunification begins, the United States can, on the one hand, position China as an aggressor in the world, hold high the big chess piece of defending freedom and democracy, and launch an all-out conventional war against China to completely eliminate the threat of China.

Taiwan is too close to China, and in Taiwan, China and the United States are fighting a limited war that restricts the war zone, which is very unfavorable to the United States militarily and cannot destroy China's war potential. If the United States is determined to intervene in Taiwan, full-scale conventional war is a more plausible military option.

Taiwan is a dagger on China's chest, held in the hands of the Americans. The United States can stab at any time.

Taiwan independence, armed reunification, and then a full-scale conventional war between China and the United States. This outcome is undoubtedly very unfavorable to China. China cannot pin its national security on the peace-loving and unwillingness of U.S. politicians to bear the losses of war. You know, the idea of completely eliminating the Chinese threat through a preventive war has been repeatedly discussed in American political elite circles.

How to break this game, in fact, Russia has given us the answer.

If the United States does not intervene militarily, Chinese mainland reunify Taiwan by force is only a question of how long it will take to fight. The victory of the continental side is unsustainable.

How can Putin deter NATO and make NATO dare not intervene militarily? It is the three principles of deterrence. 1) The strength of the 1,500 nuclear warheads in active service, 2) the determination to use it, and 3) the strength and determination to show the United States.

Russia has no commitment not to use nuclear weapons first. If Russia's important countries or military facilities are attacked and subjected to conventional weapons aggression, they can use nuclear weapons to fight back. Russia's nuclear weapons are enough to inflict unbearable losses on the United States.

As far as China is concerned, the most urgent task at present is to deter the United States, so that the United States will not dare to launch an all-out war with China, so that the United States will not dare to play with the Taiwan issue and use Taiwan as a fuse for war against China.

The nuclear warhead that can hit the United States is the only language that the United States can understand and is a guarantee of world peace.

China's immediate priority now is to prepare 1,000 nuclear warheads that can hit the United States and then adjust its nuclear deterrence strategy. Using a deterrent strategy similar to Russia's, If you dare to attack Chinese targets, China retains the power to strike back.

First, we must have the strength of strategic deterrence, second, we must have the determination to use it, and third, we must show this determination. Only in this way can we deter the United States and make this war-loving country dare not take the risk of launching an all-out war against China.

Until this preparation is completed, do not fall for the United States and rush to war. We cannot take any chances, we cannot think that the United States will not interfere in the armed reunification of Taiwan, or that the United States will only dare to fight a limited war.