Preliminary
In the summer of 2023, Bloomberg, a well-known news agency in the United States, published an article that was particularly sharp, to the effect that the power gap between China and the United States is too large, and China has two ways to go:
Either we do as the United States says and make concessions, or we just wait for the situation to deteriorate to the brink of destruction.
This sounds scary, and indeed caused a lot of discussion at the time, but it's all about the end of 2025, look back and see if things really evolved in the direction that the article said?
That "ultimatum" article in 2023
This should start on June 15, 2023, when U.S. Secretary of State Brinkon was planning to visit China, and just three days before his arrival, Bloomberg published a commentary by scholar Per Minchin.
The title of the article was a little commanding, saying,"China Better Listen to What Blinken Must Say."
The core point of this article is very direct, that is, it believes that China's military strength lags far behind that of the United States, so it cannot "show off" in places such as the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
The article, citing the report of the U.S. Department of Defense and the old Yellow Calendar of the Cold War, said that the United States wanted to put a "military fence" on China-US relations, such as setting a hotline call, set the rules for aircraft military ships to meet, so as not to carefully wipe out the gun and fire.
Pei Minxin believes that if China rejects these proposals and continues to engage in "dangerous games," the price will be very high. To put it bluntly, it is putting the choice before China: make concessions or face devastating consequences.
It was no accident that this article was published at that time. Previously, due to the "balloon incident", Sino-US relations were very strained, and Blinken's scheduled visit in February was also postponed.
Therefore, as soon as this article came out, anyone with discerning eyes could see that it was creating momentum for Blinken's visit and wanted to suppress others first.
The article has been widely circulated in diplomatic circles and on the Internet. Those who support it feel that it tells the truth, while those who oppose it believe that it is a naked threat and underestimates China's determination and capabilities.
So, what happened after Blinken came?
Brinkent's visit to China and the U.S.-China relationship "real war"
On June 18, 2023, Brinkon arrived in Beijing, where he held a more than five-hour conversation with senior diplomat Wang Yi at the hotel.
The talks, expressed in diplomatic terms as "honest, in-depth, constructive", both sides agreed to maintain high-level relations, and to avoid good competition into conflict.
Judging from later public information, one of the main purposes of Blinken's visit was to promote talk between the two militaries and avoid misjudgment. After the talks, both sides expressed their intention to work together to stabilize relations.
After returning back, Blinken also told the media that the talks had made progress, such as inviting our then Foreign Minister Qin Gang to visit the United States.
In July 2023, U.S. Treasury Secretary Yellen visited Beijing, focusing on economic issues, such as trade balance and financial stability.
In August, US Secretary of Commerce Raymond also came, the topic focused on scientific and technological cooperation, although in the dark, but on the face stillins the dialogue.
In November 2023, China and the United States held a meeting of heads of state in San Francisco, proposed the "San Francisco Vision" and agreed to strengthen cooperation in the fields of drug control, climate change response and artificial intelligence.
This series of high-level interactions shows that both countries are clear that a complete tear-off of the face is not beneficial to anyone.
The “destruction edge” of the “last message” article was not predicted, but instead, through tangible communication and dialogue, the steering wheel of the relationship was established.
Now, let's look back to 2025 and take a look at the latest situation. What does the "huge gap" mentioned in that article look like in reality?
The real picture for 2025: how big is the gap?
Let's look at the military first. The United States is still worthy of being the first in the world. Its military budget in 2025 will exceed US$900 billion. It is indeed rich, with 11 aircraft carriers, hundreds of military bases around the world, and a strong alliance system.
However, China is not idle. The military expenditure is about US$300 billion. Although the total amount is much smaller, the development speed is fast.
The total number of ships of the Navy has surpassed that of the United States. The number of advanced equipment such as the Type 055 destroyer and the J-20 stealth fighter jet is increasing, and it has also formed its own advantages in some specific fields such as missile technology.
In the professional global firepower index ranking, the United States ranks first and China ranks second, but the gap between them has indeed narrowed over the years.
Looking at the economy, the U.S. total economy (GDP) is approximately $28 trillion, still the world's first; China's GDP also exceeded $20 trillion, stably seated second.
And if it is by purchasing power, China has actually overtaken, China's manufacturing system is very complete, 16% of the world's export goods are from China, in 5G, artificial intelligence and these new technology fields also follow quickly.
As for the United States, the foundation of technological innovation is still strong, but there are also many internal problems. The national debt has snowballed over 35 trillion US dollars, and inflationary pressure has emerged from time to time.
From a global perspective, the United States is also entangled by a lot of things, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has been fought for years, consuming a lot of resources, the adverse situation on the Ukrainian battlefield, and has also caused some allies to begin to doubt the weapons provided by the United States are actually not working.
In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, which used to obey, is now clearly more willing to deal with China and Russia.
In our Southeast Asia side, although countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines seem to have good relations with the United States on the surface, when you open the trade books, you can see that almost all of the largest trading partners are China, and the economic connections are very deep.
Therefore, on the whole, there is indeed a gap between China and the United States, but it is by no means a desperate gap of "give in or destroy." China has its own style of play, a huge market, a complete industrial system and rapidly improving scientific and technological capabilities.
The friction continues, but the dialogue remains unbroken.
In 2025, the big game of China and the United States has a new drama, and after the new U.S. government came to power, it has begun to make articles on tariffs.
On April 9, the order was signed to significantly raise tariffs on Chinese imports to 104 percent, the lowest of which is 90 percent, which is clearly to intensify trade friction.
On this side, we did not struggle hard, but accelerated the development of the emerging markets in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, and the foreign trade is still stable.
In July this year, the U.S. Congress passed a bill restricting investment in China's science and technology sector, trying to get stuck in our necks.
In response to this suppression, China's solution is to increase its efforts to engage in independent innovation. Now it has gained some leading advantages in key areas such as semiconductors and new energy.
Interestingly, however, despite the continued friction, the line of communication between the two sides has not been completely broken.
In August this year, China and the United States also resumed the arms control dialogue, mainly on how to avoid the big mess in space, the network and these new fields, which shows that both sides are like a mirror in their hearts, knowing how to fight, and must have a bottom line, can not really fight.
epilogue
Looking back at that aggressive piece from 2023, it was more like an elaborate diplomatic psychops than an accurate prediction of the future.
It exaggerates America’s superiority, underestimates China’s resilience and wisdom, and ignores a series of internal and global challenges facing the United States itself.
Facts over the past two years have shown that Sino-US relations are not a life-and-death "zero-sum game."
The relationship between two such large countries is complex, with both competition and cooperation in global interests, such as tackling climate change and preventing large-scale infectious diseases.
The future of the world is more likely to be a multi-polar pattern, with the unquestionable fact that China’s influence is on the rise.
If the United States wants to maintain its position, it may not be possible to use intimidation and blockade alone, but ultimately it must learn to adjust the mentality and find a way to co-exist peacefully with China and even win-win cooperation in some areas.
After all, hard-bearing at the end, nobody wants to eat good fruit.