The United States of the Cold War period, with a combination of "drawn to death opponent" fist, handed away the former Soviet Union. Now faced with China, the American politics have begun to "remember the old", trying to replicate the script of the year.

But Singapore's former prime minister, Li Xinglong, recently poured a bowl of cold water, saying a fact that was not very willing to be acknowledged by the American media: China is not the Soviet Union, the United States can overcome the Soviet Union, and it can also overthrow China without representation.

This is not long, but it is heavy.

What makes this old Southeast Asian politician so determined, and what is the difference between what he sees and what the Cold War elderly in Washington do?

America's Cold War script, an "old almanac" cannot turn out new stories

The "routine" of the United States defeating the Soviet Union really looks classic now.

Economic blockade, the neck of science and technology cards, the arms race, public opinion infiltration, agency warfare ¨C the bloodshed, the stepping-up.

So, some "old-cold war" parties in American politics began to fantasize: to deal with China, also in this way, not without fault?

The problem is that history is not a video tape, and it can not be repeated again by pressing "Recover".

How was the Soviet Union in the 1980s?

On the one hand, the inefficiency and rigidity of the planned economy, and on the other, the diplomatic isolation completely rejected by the West.

Technically, the Soviet Union missed the first wave of the information revolution, not even home computers, let alone semiconductors and the Internet.

Even more fatal is the fact that the Soviet Union relyed on gunpowder for hegemony abroad, with intense national contradictions, even food was not satisfied, and the sense of people's trust in the system had long collapsed.

And what about China today?

By 2025, China is the world¡¯s second-largest economy, with a GDP of $17.7 trillion by 2023, with more than 180 trading partners.

The world's factories, the world's first manufacturer, the second largest consumer, the first electric vehicle market, the number of the first 5G base stations ... these labels are not blown up, they are data stacked.

Do you want a country that is so deeply embedded in the global system to be ¡°cold war-style isolated¡±?

In an interview with the Strait Times in July, Li said: "The United States cannot confront China in a way against the Soviet Union, and China is not a closed, rigid, and isolated system like the Soviet Union."

This assessment is not impartial, but it is harmful.

The United States' operation against the Soviet Union was only successful on the basis of "the opponent losing its own chain".

In today's China, not only has the chain not fallen, but it is tighter than the United States in some key areas, especially technology and infrastructure.

China is not the Soviet Union, the old American means are useless here.

Li Xianlong's speech has caused widespread resonance, not only because he "stands between China and the United States and speaks fairly", but also because his words are justified.

Taking the economic structure as an example, the Soviet Union is an "internally digested" planned economy with basically little interaction with the outside world.

China is the backbone of the entire global supply chain and not only produces parts for Apple phones, but also supplies 80% of the world's rare earth, 70% of photovoltaic components, and more than 50% of new energy vehicle battery materials.

To "isolate" such an economy, the United States must first ask its own enterprises whether they agree or not.

Li also mentioned that China has a 28.5% share of the world's manufacturing industry, more than twice as much as the United States.

The United States can increase tariffs on China, engage in chip restrictions, but the consequences are global manufacturing, inflation rebound, corporate profits tightened.

At the diplomatic level, China has not controlled the ¡°satellite state¡± by force like the Soviet Union, but has engaged in a seemingly offensive ¡°Belt and Road¡±.

You say it's expansion, it says it's collaboration. If you want to contain it, it has become integrated with Africa, ASEAN and Latin America.

The United States in the United Nations proposed sanctions on China, which suffered "half of the countries abstained."

This is not China "buy the world", but many countries really can't withstand the U.S. set of "you listen to me I give money, don't listen to me sanctions."

In terms of internal governance, the economy in the late Soviet Union stagnated, ethnic conflicts exploded, and Gorbachev's reform made it "uneasy".

In the past few decades, China has not only lifted the whole people out of poverty, but also stabilized the market of 1.4 billion people. The social order is "surprisingly stable" globally.

But polls show that Chinese people have long-term trust in the government at more than 80 percent, and the United States itself can¡¯t.

This is the most crucial point in Li Xiaobo's words: China is not a "old wall that waits for the wind to blow down", but a "iron cement high-rise."

If you cut it with that Cold War axe, you might cut yourself.

The words of Lee is a reminder and a counsel.

From the perspective of Singapore, if the face between China and the United States is really torn, then the whole of Asia will not think better.

Li Xianlong is clearer than anyone else: it is not China that is not strong, it is the United States that is not adapting.

"The United States has to accept that the world is changing. China is already a big country and it is impossible to return to its subordinate position in the past."

This is, on the one hand, an affirmation to China and, on the other hand, a reminder to the United States.

The Chinese-American game is indeed accelerating, but it is not that kind of "non-East-West, non-Black-White" cold war model, but more like a "global game" of two super players in economics, technology, geography, speech and other levels.

There is no surrounding circle, no absolute safety zone.

Chips are the focus, and the United States formed a so-called "technology alliance" through the "Chip Act" to restrict China's access to advanced process technology.

But China did not lie flat, but instead concentrated on tariffs to replace domestic products.In 2024, Huawei launched a 7nm chip, which has made the United States feel "unstoppable".

In the next 10 years, scientific and technological competition will be the main battlefield of Sino-U.S. relations, but the outcome is likely to be "you have you high-end, I have me", and no one can eat anyone.

Geographically, the United States relies on the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" to draw ASEAN, Japan and India into a "small circle", while China on the one hand deepens RCEP, promotes the free trade process of China and Japan and South Korea, and on the other hand strengthens cooperation with Central Asia and Africa.

The United States wants to engage in ¡°disconnecting¡±, but the international community is more willing to ¡°risk¡± and not choose sidelines.

In global governance, climate change, epidemic prevention and control, and AI governance are transnational issues that cannot be pushed without China¡¯s involvement.

Even the United States itself has to admit: "We don't like China, but we can't live without China."

This is the core of Li Xianlong's speech: you can compete with China, but don't think about engaging in "draw-to-do tactics."

This game is not a short run, but a marathon; not a cold war, but a competition.If America really wants to win, it is not by siege, but by itself to "run faster."

conclusion

Lee Hsien Loong's phrase "You can't deal with China in the same way that you deal with the Soviet Union" doesn't say much, but it reveals the secret.

China is not the Soviet Union, and today's world is not the stage of the Cold War.

Competition between China and the United States is inevitable, but the outcome will not be the end of your life, but more likely a long-term strategic game.

Is America Really Ready to Accept This Reality?