Shut up here.
The editor comes.
U.S. Congressional VisitSuddenly mentioned Boeing ordersChina has not responded positively, but the topic of military technology communication has unexpectedly warmed up.
Who really wants to “talk” and who’s playing the counter?
A deal without shaking hands.
In the recent round of talks, the atmosphere was not tense, but nobody really revealed the bottom line.
It seems to be communicating, in fact, each has a calculator.
The US delegation spoke at the opening, not the military, not the dialogue mechanism, but the Boeing aircraft.
This changed the rhythm of the scene.
The original topic revolved around security risks, arms control cooperation, and technological decoupling. Suddenly someone interrupted and asked if China could buy more Boeing.
This is not the opening remark of negotiation, but more like fish in troubled waters.
The US is well aware of the importance of Boeing in the Chinese market.
As soon as orders stop, enterprises suffer losses year after year, factories reduce production and employees lose their jobs.
They did not think of self-saving, but relying on the domestic market alone is far from enough.
In order to recover, we must fight for the biggest overseas buyers.
And this buyer hasn't placed a big order for many years.
In other scenarios, if this proposal really falls, who benefits the most?
On the surface, it is Boeing, but in fact it is the political and financial forces behind it.
Order talks, stocks are rising; it is not possible to talk, and China refuses to cooperate.
There is nothing to say about retreat, absolutely not harmful.
The Chinese side did not refuse, nor did it accept the move, and there were no waves in the whole process.
Silence means alertness. It may also mean that Boeing has another channel for negotiations, and this time it is just a temptation on the political show.
In the long run, U.S. lawmakers are accustomed to put economic and trade issues on any agenda.
Even if it is arms control negotiations, we should add some business.
Boeing is not only an airplane to China and the United States, but also a "wind vane".
Not to mention, it shows whether the attitude towards China is soft, and also shows how much pressure the domestic industry is.
Boeing has been in a difficult situation in China in recent years, not entirely because of quality issues, but is stuck in a political confrontation.
Each time the atmosphere warms up, it is pulled out of a wave of presence.
Unfortunately, the fate of enterprises is no longer out of their own control.
This parliamentarian speech to Tiffany is not coincidental.
On the one hand, it is prepared, and on the other hand, it is a Chinese sentiment.
If China responds positively, it will move forward; if it does not pay attention, it will go back home and say "China does not buy accounts."
Public opinion, on the other hand, quickly followed, and several foreign media began to hype "China is considering resuming Boeing procurement."
However, over the course of the Chinese publication, there is no substantive response.
The information between the two sides is unequal, the Chinese side is stagnant, and the US side is nervous, and once in a while it becomes news.
Speaking of Boeing on the surface, behind it is a deeper technical cooperation issue.
The US side hopes to "share the windmills" and engage in arms control dialogue with civilian cooperation.
The Chinese side understands at a glance. It doesn't say much, but its attitude is very clear.
Whether you buy a plane or not is not the key point, but whether you talk sincerely or not is the focus.
Face and face of military communication.
During the talks, another key word frequently appeared: military dialogue.
U.S. representatives have successively expressed the hope to establish smoother communication channels between armed forces to reduce "misjudgment".
This word sounds familiar. I shout it almost every year, and I mention everything, but I always get cold when I shout it.
The military is not communicating, and the root is not in the absence of mechanisms in technology, but in trust.
In recent years, the two sides have almost broken the hotline.
Every time maritime approximation and air reconnaissance occurs, we must rely on media mutual cooperation, there is no official coordination mechanism, misunderstandings will only increase.
The U.S. side mentioned again this time that it hopes that China will resume contacts.
When did China take the initiative?
Sanctioned, encircled, interrogated, and what is trust?
China has never opposed dialogue, but conditions are equal.
You can't fly in the light to the reconnaissance, and then turn your head and say "sitting down and talking," communication is not a one-way channel, much less a safety valve.
True dialogue is based on respect and reciprocity.
It's not that American lawmakers are not smart. They know that to talk about arms control, they should first lay civilian cooperation as a buffer.
Boeing is a bargaining chip. If it is negotiated, it is goodwill. If it is not negotiated, it can pretend to be innocent.
However, it is not the first time that the Chinese side has touched this set, responding without a statement, but focused the military's attention on the communication mechanism itself.
Interestingly, “emerging technologies” became the key word in this discussion.
It is no longer a regular military exercise, no longer a sea-air hotline, but artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and unmanned systems.
This shows that the cognition of both sides has undergone subtle changes, the conflict point has begun to move forward, and the source of risk is more difficult to control.
The consequences of such areas of technology, once out of control, are far more severe than those of traditional armed conflicts.
An automatic algorithm misjudgment, an erroneous instruction, can all trigger a chain reaction.
Moreover, the two sides are developing their own AI weapons control system, and no one wants to be taken too much by the other.
Although dialogue is important, the boundaries should be clear.
China will not easily disclose the core parameters, nor will the United States publicly deploy logic.
Therefore, if you want to open smooth communication, you can only build a rule bottom line outside the technical framework.
Not an exchange of information, but a principle of exchange.
The "face" of military communication is dialogue, and the real "lining" lies in transparent mechanism, risk control, and correction of misjudgment.
To truly reach a concord, it requires processes, not statements.
At the moment, the talks have not given substantial results, but have released a signal that neither side wants to completely cut off the issue of technology and arms control.
Even in a tense atmosphere, there is still an airport.
But desire alone is not enough.
How mechanisms are built, which areas can be talked about and which ones never touch, all need to be clearly planned.
Otherwise, even if the line is over, no one is willing to take it.
The United States has initiative, but it also has speculation.
China has a bottom line and concerns.
In this context, whoever is more patient, whoever dominates, the military dialogue appears to be in detail and actually involves the whole situation.
The logic behind technology.
There was a hidden topic that many did not notice: emerging technologies.
In the past, technology cooperation was mainly industrial standards, chip manufacturing.
Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, network security, and unmanned equipment have become new keywords. Whoever masters it will be able to make the move first. Whoever lags behind will be passively beaten.
The United States knows this, so it mentioned technical communication more than once during the talks.
On the surface, the reason sounds reasonable, saying that it is to avoid misuse, misjudgment and accidental injury.
The real goal is to obtain the rule of rule.
AI weapons, data warfare, and satellite links—no one has set the bottom line for such new fields.
Whoever proposes first can seize the right to interpret; whoever reaches the mechanism first can restrict the opponent.
Technology is not neutral.There is strategic logic behind the algorithm, and there is intelligence-oriented behind the communication system.Even if you communicate, you cannot fall lightly.
The U.S. side wants to talk, is not equal to the willingness to be transparent. Many issues they want to care only about others, don't want to be handled. their own development of AI reconnaissance system, not open rules to the outside; require the other party to set limits, but not give standards.
China has a clear attitude, not refusing to communicate, but to have borders.
Whoever wants to hear, whoever wants to hear, understands.
Dialogue can talk, not let it become a channel for technological penetration. Otherwise, just after saying "peaceful use", the turnhead is used as a guiding engine.
The most common way used by the United States is to pull middlemen.
Look for the UN platform, look for regional organizations, look for industrial alliances, and set the rules of the game in the name of "common governance".
If China does not participate, it becomes the "absence"; if it participates, it must follow the other party's standards.
Talking about emerging technologies this time is a test.
Is China willing to build it together? Can the US draw a specific bottom line?
Both sides don't want to lose points, and both want to take the lead, but this game is difficult to break.
Dialogue must be built on real reciprocity mechanisms, not on a few words to “strengthen cooperation.”
True communication requires the willingness of both sides to give up part of the leadership and establish a transparent, sustainable and responsible mechanism.
Otherwise, it will only become a mattress before the next round of conflict.
So far, talk more and fall less.
Technical dialogue remains at the vision level and has not yet entered specific fields. Both sides are waiting. Wait for a change, or wait for a trial and error.
If the future can really talk about even a collaboration, it may start with technological ethics.
Who first uses AI weapons, how to recognize the borders of other people's machines, whether automated weapons should be secure locks, such issues are relatively neutral and also urgent.
Even so, don’t be too optimistic.Once the rules are broken, conflict only comes earlier.
The game has not stopped, what will be the next step?
Speaking of this node, the topic is no longer limited to Boeing, not limited to military communication, nor more than technology trials.
Behind this conversation, there is a larger arrangement.
In the short term, whether Boeing orders can land is a test paper for testing temperature.
If there are really large purchases, it means that both sides are willing to release goodwill at least at the commercial level.
The same goes for technical conversations. A lot has been said, but the mechanism hasn't been established yet. There is neither a set rhythm of the talks nor a clear topic to be discussed.
With full will, the risk is high.
Military communication is a bit moving.Those hot lines that have been broken in the past are expected to restore some of the contacts.
However, one meeting cannot solve all the problems.
The misunderstanding, vigilance and mutual suspicion left over from the past few years can be healed by a few statements. To establish a truly stable channel, we have to rely on the coexistence of mechanism design, public opinion cooperation and political will.
These factors are currently the most lacking.
There are constant internal elections in the United States and frequent policy swings; China emphasizes security priority and strategic contraction is cautious.
Each one was hesitant and feared that too many concessions would be seen as weaknesses.
So an embarrassing situation is formed-everyone wants to talk, but no one wants to move first.
This is the reality.
In the future, if you really want to go deep into the dialogue, you must go out of the comfort zone. can not only talk about desires, without a bottom line. can not only talk about technology, without touching the fundamentals.
For China, the key is to uphold the principles.
Cooperation can be, but not guided; communication can be opened, but not overturned; procurement can be talked about, but not accompanied by conditions.
For the U.S. side, in order to obtain the right to dialogue, it is necessary to express honesty, not just to say a few words of "open cooperation", but to stop interference, reduce misunderstandings, and reduce hostility.
Otherwise, communication will only become the precursor to the next round of confrontation.
The whole situation remains undefined.
Media discourse has run ahead of reality, and business aspirations also prevail over policy determination.
I'm afraid the real turnaround needs an external variable to trigger it.
It could be a new crisis, it could be a deal, it could be an unexpected conversation.
Whoever sets the card first, controls the pace.
The office is not determined, people are not scattered, and the chessboard is still changing.
The reference information:
This American delegation's "rare" visit to China is "of great significance"! · Minnan.com · 2025-09-23
U.S. lawmakers speak out in China: China and the United States should strengthen communication to avoid "misjudgment" and fall into conflict · Observer.com · 2025-09-23
U.S. Congressman's "Rare Visit to China" Transmits Three Signals · Global Times Hotspot · 2025-09-23