Not only was he unable to come to Beijing to watch the military parade, Trump also made three demands on China. China got straight to the point and rebelled against the United States.

After the third round of China-U.S. economic and trade talks, the short-term tariff risks of the two sides again subverted, and the United States began to make various demands on China.The Trump, who did not come to Beijing to see the parade, put forward three demands this time, but the Chinese side opened the door to meet the mountain in response to the US military.

The Trump administration recently proposed to China that, first, it requires China to meet the needs of the United States for rare earth permanent magnets; second, it requires China to purchase large quantities of American soybeans, at least four times the current purchase volume; and third requirement is that the United States requires China to intervene in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and prevent Russia from continuing the war.

So what is China's response? At an event in Washington, our ambassador to the United States, Xie Feng, mentioned that China and the United States worked side by side on the battlefield of World War II. Now that China and the United States are the world's leading supereconomies, cooperation should be the mainstream rather than confrontation.

These words are of even more practical significance today, the 80th anniversary of Japan's surrender. Learning from history can better serve as a warning to modern American politicians.

For the three demands made by the United States, let's take a look at them separately.

The first is the issue of rare earths. The United States has completely ignored the sensitivity of rare earths as strategic resources.

With its own efforts, China monopolizes about 80% of the world's rare earth production and processing supply chain. Rare earth resources involve high-tech, national defense and new energy fields and are China's core advantages.

If the United States only unilaterally "demands" the provision, but does not provide the exchange of interests, such as giving in to the technological blockade, it is tantamount to letting China give up its economic lifeline, similar to asking a country to share its oil reserves for free. Is this reasonable?

What is even more ridiculous is that rare earth exports are already restricted by China's domestic policies and environmental regulations. If supply is forced, it may lead to the depletion of internal resources in China or price fluctuations, which in turn will harm the global supply chain. This request does not take into account geopolitical realities and is purely a hegemonic fantasy, as if China were the "raw material warehouse" of the United States.

The second requirement is that the issue of China buying U.S. soybeans is essentially a ¡°trade bullying¡± by the U.S. soya exports rely on the Chinese market, which in the past accounted for more than 50% of its exports, but if this is a mandatory requirement rather than a market behavior, it violates the WTO rules and free trade principles.

What is unreasonable is that the US request ignores China's own needs for agricultural security and diversification. It is not only the US that produces soybeans. We can import soybeans from Brazil, Argentina and other countries. Why should we give priority to American products?

To put it more extreme, if U.S. soybeans are not competitive in quality or price, but are forced to buy, it is like requiring customers to buy your inferior products or "punish" you, completely disrespecting economic logic.

The third requirement is that the United States asks China to stop the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which is even more ridiculous, because it considers China as a global ¡°police¡± or Russia¡¯s ¡°superior¡± and completely disconnected from reality.

China has a strategic partnership with Russia, but China is not a direct party to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and has neither the ability nor the willingness to intervene militarily.

Asking China to ¡°stop¡± the conflict is equivalent to allowing a neutral country to unilaterally pressure Russia to withdraw, while ignoring the complex roots of the conflict, such as NATO¡¯s east expansion, historical grievances and energy disputes, all of which are incentives for the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

If China intervenes, it could damage China-Russia relations, cause international isolation, and even be seen as interfering in domestic affairs; at the same time, the United States itself, as the main provider of military aid to Ukraine, leaves the responsibility to China, which is a typical "knock-out" act.