We can glorify the 250 years of history of the United States. We can be proud of the U.S. being a superpower, winning numerous wars, including the two World Wars. We can claim victory in the Cold War, as the hegemonic Soviet Union collapsed. But we cannot deny the fact that China has risen peacefully without declaring war against another country. China has advanced in all aspects in the past three decades, approaching the size of the U.S. economy, matching U.S. military power and space technology, and surpassing the U.S. in manufacturing and national infrastructure. We must admit, in a relative sense, China has risen, and the U.S. is in decline in the international arena. This phenomenon is owing to the difference in political systems, historical heritage, and cultural background, not because of what China has done to the U.S. Despite politicians’ rhetoric, the U.S. should face its problems, like government inefficiency, reduction of productivity, mounting national debt, educational issues, etc. which have nothing to do with China or Russia but the U.S. itself.
China’s rise has been persistent despite many continuous predictions of ‘China’s collapse’ by China haters. China has consistently shown that it can fulfill its five-year development plans cycle by cycle, maintaining a healthy GDP growth (China had double-digit growth but is slowing down to a single digit of 5% at GDP=$18.9Trillion in 2024) China is projected to overtake the U.S. in GDP within a decade or so assuming it can maintain a growth rate higher than three percentage points over the U.S. growth rate. Russia’s GDP is much smaller, $1.5-2.5 trillion in the past five years (2020-2024), with an up-and-down growth rate. Therefore, it is understandable why the U.S. is targeting China as its competitor. However, the U.S. has maintained its NATO alliance strategy (‘uniting European nations against Russia’). Russia had tried to join NATO to be a part of Europe (removing hostile relations), but NATO rejected Russia and continued to expand to add new member countries surrounding Russia. Russia eventually awakened from its European dream. The continuous expansion of NATO and Russia’s insecurity led to the Ukraine War to stop Ukraine from joining NATO. During the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia realized that it needed Asian nations to buy its oil and gas to support its economy.
The Biden Administration of the U.S. (2021-2024) supported Ukraine in to fight against Russia. To the U.S., the Ukraine-Russia conflict is a proxy war to wear down Russia (A long-term U.S. strategy). Unexpectedly to the U.S. and NATO countries, Russia did not get worn out by the war. Russia sold its oil and gas to India, China, and other Asian countries to finance its war. Eventually. It was Ukraine that got worn out. The U.S. and NATO nations had exhausted their spare weapons in the Ukraine-Russia war. The European countries were not wholeheartedly united in supporting Ukraine for fear of escalation into a nuclear war. The U.S. is limited in money to foot the entire war bill. Hence, it is understandable that Trump took the opposite position, wanting to stop the war and recuperate the aid money to Ukraine with Ukraine’s natural resources, such as minerals.
Trump won the 147th U.S. presidency with his MAGA slogan and a grassroots movement. However, so far, Trump’s strategy seems to be short-term oriented with no clear long-range plan. Yet MAGA is a big goal requiring long-term commitment with a sound strategy and concrete plans transcending beyond one term of the U.S. presidency. Trump may have a plan to use tariffs to bluff, bargain, and gain surplus for the U.S. in trade and investment to help reduce the U.S. national debt. But MAGA means more than that (modernizing infrastructure, transforming industries, especially manufacturing, strengthening the economy, and gaining international respect and cooperation); it requires a strategy shift to engage international collaborators to participate and contribute to MAGA objectives. Therefore, the Trump administration should not target or create adversaries, a negative force to the MAGA goals. Stopping other nations’ growth does not translate into achieving MAGA goals. A tariff strategy alone cannot attract collaborators.
China may have an economic slowdown, but it is not entirely correlated with the U.S. technology or trade sanctions imposed on China. China’s trade with the U.S. (and others) is still growing; its economy is softened mainly due to over-regulation triggered by the COVID pandemic, most notably in the real estate development and sales and off-campus education businesses, which dampened the citizens’ confidence in spending. The money went into savings, not consumption or investment. The U.S. sanctions helped China accelerate and focus on innovative and advanced technologies. One can safely say that China’s economy is quite resilient; trying to suppress China’s development does not necessarily translate to any healthy growth for the U.S., since many industries in the U.S. need China’s market to maintain profit and growth. Russia essentially has won the Ukraine war, but it is stressed and fatigued by the prolonged sanctions. Russia has become dependent on China to sustain its economy and future development. This adds another reason that targeting China and/or Russia as enemies is not a wise strategy, especially if MAGA is the real objective of the U.S. in the next couple of decades.
The U.S. may wish to woo Russia to counter China’s rise (a replay of engaging China against the Soviet playbook), but it may be wishful thinking for three reasons. One is that Russia has learned from the Cold War that the U.S. self-centered exceptionalism is ever stronger, far more so than the ‘Russian Pride.’ Second, from the Ukraine war, Russia has realized that Russia can never be a part of Europe or join NATO to become a harmonious EU partner. Thirdly, Russia has accepted the fact that China is no longer a weak nation easily bullied by any Western power, including the U.S., the EU, or Russia. So long as China is strong and growing, Russia will maintain a friendly China policy in the future for Russia’s benefit.
China’s future will be more determined by itself as it has learned its way of becoming a truly independent and strong nation. It has gained confidence in its political system and learned experience in managing its economy in a complex world. China is neither aggressive nor invasive in its diplomatic relations, but it is firm in protecting and defending its interests. Militarily, China has developed sufficient deterrent force against any potential enemy, close neighbors, or far away foes (If the U.S. so chooses). The U.S. has been a hegemon since it won and benefited from the two World Wars. Naturally, it assumed world leadership since WW II, even though the communist Soviet Union denied its leadership. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 further enhanced the U.S. hegemonic behavior; not accepting a rapidly rising China that emerged with a different political and economic system (cannot be simply labeled as a communist system) is an example. This blindsight and its hegemonic exceptionalism have led the U.S. to adopt an erroneous anti-China policy. However, the U.S. is likely to abandon that policy in the future based on realism.
The U.S. has essentially tried to organize and use its allies, from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines, to form an island chain choking China’s commerce route to the outside world. This strategy may have had an effect in the last century, but today, China has grown so strong that its military capability not only can deter threats but also can directly attack the American continent for retaliation. China is not blind to the above U.S. military strategy; the U.S. allies are aware of the U.S. strategy, putting them in a vulnerable position. Hence, the island-chain strategy will not work; retreating to Guan is proof. From the recent China-Japan-S. Korea ministerial meeting, one can see that all participants are aware of the U.S. strategy. Of course, how Japan and South Korea will behave hinges on the wisdom of their people, electing their politicians to take a peaceful path away abandoning the selfish U.S. strategy. The Philippines and Taiwan are also subject to the denial of the people, who prefer peace over war. Enduring the threat of mutual destruction only to benefit the U.S. hegemony does not make sense, especially seeing that China can lead Russia (in BRICS) and the world (in the BRI initiative) to global peace and prosperity. Hence, we may expect that the future of the new relations of the U.S., China, and Russia is a complex but amenable one.