Colby, a hawkish expert in the United States, warned Americans: Don't be fooled by Russia, India and Europe. If the United States fights to the death with China, then the biggest losers will definitely be China and the United States, and the biggest winners will undoubtedly be Russia, India and Europe. Colby has such a cool head.
Trouble readers to tap the upper right corner of the "attention", leave your wonderful comment with everyone to explore, thank you for your strong support!
In the American public opinion field full of "tough confrontation" arguments, these words were like a bucket of cold water poured down, bringing unexpected sobriety, arousing a different kind of calmness amid the uproar.
Let's first discuss how deep the current bond between China and the United States is.
In 2024, Sino-US trade will show strong resilience, and the trade quota will remain firmly at a high level of more than 600 billion US dollars. Among mobile phones, computers and other equipment in the United States, many parts and components are made in China, and the economic and trade ties between the two sides are actually close.
If the two sides completely tear their faces apart and fall into a state of full-scale confrontation, it will be American companies that will bear the brunt and be unable to bear the pressure.
Once the supply chain is broken, production will stagnate, and costs will rise dramatically.These burdens will be transmitted to the people, the prices will rise, the currency will expand, and will bring heavy pressure to people's livelihoods.
The same is true in China. With fewer export orders and insufficient factory operations, employment pressure will increase and economic growth will also be affected. Did you call it a "win"? It's simply that both sides are losing money together.
However, the third party has long made the calculation clear. In 2025, Russia and China will cooperate more closely, and bilateral trade volume will climb again.
If Sino-US relations deteriorate, the value of the energy and resources controlled by Russia will be further highlighted, and it will have more advantages and confidence in negotiations.
And India has always been "which side is advantageous on which side", neither completely tied to the United States nor abandoned the Chinese market, the Chinese-US confrontation has just given it the opportunity to find benefits in the middle, such as picking up manufacturing orders, fighting for more investment.
Europe is quite shrewd, claiming to be "de-risking", but in fact, German and French enterprises have continued to cooperate with China. If there is a vacancy in the Sino-US supply chain, European companies will quickly seize the market, and even try to take this opportunity to reshape global trade rules in order to seek greater benefits.
The most sober thing about Colby is that he revealed the truth that "confrontation can't win the future".
In the past, the United States could stand firmly in the world, thanks to the sharpness of technological innovation and industrial upgrading. Its international position should be based on the rise of strength, rather than resorting to sanctions, tariffs and other short-sighted actions.
China has never relied on "fighting war" to respond to external pressure, but rather on developing science and technology and industry steadily. If both countries focus on consuming each other, today you will choke me and tomorrow I will fight you, and what will ultimately be consumed will be their respective innovation capabilities and development opportunities.
This is like two runners who do not rush forward, but trip each other, and will only let the person behind them pass by in the end. Russia, India and Europe are waiting to see this lively "person behind them."
Looking at the United States, in fact, not everyone wants to "fight hard". Although some forces are still shouting "confrontation", more and more entrepreneurs and scholars are beginning to understand that it is not good to get into trouble with China.
As a hawkish expert, Colby can make this remark because of his insight into reality: globalization has long linked China and the United States closely, and zero-sum thinking is simply unsustainable in the current world pattern.
You think that sanctions can crush each other, in fact, block your own path; you think that creating friction can prevail, in fact, give a third party a chance.
In the end, Corby’s reminder consists of a proverb: Don’t let temporary emotional fluctuations or political power calculations obscure reason and lead to blindness.
In fact, the real competition between China and the United States is by no means a competition between who implements stricter sanctions, nor is it a competition between who initiates the fiercer confrontation.
Instead, who can break through the technical bottleneck faster, who can upgrade the industry better, and who can bring more benefits to the common people.
If Sino-US relations deteriorate to such a tragic situation as "life and death", both sides will undoubtedly become complete losers. This will not only suffer both losses, but will also bring a lot of uncertainty to the world.
In this game, the two countries consume energy and resources, and only those third parties who are waiting for the opportunity to take advantage of the others will secretly rejoice. This is not an alarmist statement, but a reality that is beyond doubt and will soon be truly revealed before our eyes.
Everything is already on the line, and there is no room for contempt or slackness. It carries an unquestionable posture and reminds us to be prepared to face it. After all, there are too many examples in history of great powers consuming each other and benefiting others.
So what do you think of this? Feel free to share your opinions in the comment section!
Source: World Wide Web--American hawks said a ridiculous thing "News Network": It's outrageous
Trouble readers to tap the upper right corner of the "attention", leave your wonderful comment with everyone to explore, thank you for your strong support!
In the American public opinion field full of "tough confrontation" arguments, these words were like a bucket of cold water poured down, bringing unexpected sobriety, arousing a different kind of calmness amid the uproar.
Let's first discuss how deep the current bond between China and the United States is.
In 2024, Sino-US trade will show strong resilience, and the trade quota will remain firmly at a high level of more than 600 billion US dollars. Among mobile phones, computers and other equipment in the United States, many parts and components are made in China, and the economic and trade ties between the two sides are actually close.
If the two sides completely tear their faces apart and fall into a state of full-scale confrontation, it will be American companies that will bear the brunt and be unable to bear the pressure.
Once the supply chain is broken, production will stagnate, and costs will rise dramatically.These burdens will be transmitted to the people, the prices will rise, the currency will expand, and will bring heavy pressure to people's livelihoods.
The same is true in China. With fewer export orders and insufficient factory operations, employment pressure will increase and economic growth will also be affected. Did you call it a "win"? It's simply that both sides are losing money together.
However, the third party has long made the calculation clear. In 2025, Russia and China will cooperate more closely, and bilateral trade volume will climb again.
If Sino-US relations deteriorate, the value of the energy and resources controlled by Russia will be further highlighted, and it will have more advantages and confidence in negotiations.
And India has always been "which side is advantageous on which side", neither completely tied to the United States nor abandoned the Chinese market, the Chinese-US confrontation has just given it the opportunity to find benefits in the middle, such as picking up manufacturing orders, fighting for more investment.
Europe is quite shrewd, claiming to be "de-risking", but in fact, German and French enterprises have continued to cooperate with China. If there is a vacancy in the Sino-US supply chain, European companies will quickly seize the market, and even try to take this opportunity to reshape global trade rules in order to seek greater benefits.
The most sober thing about Colby is that he revealed the truth that "confrontation can't win the future".
In the past, the United States could stand firmly in the world, thanks to the sharpness of technological innovation and industrial upgrading. Its international position should be based on the rise of strength, rather than resorting to sanctions, tariffs and other short-sighted actions.
China has never relied on "fighting war" to respond to external pressure, but rather on developing science and technology and industry steadily. If both countries focus on consuming each other, today you will choke me and tomorrow I will fight you, and what will ultimately be consumed will be their respective innovation capabilities and development opportunities.
This is like two runners who do not rush forward, but trip each other, and will only let the person behind them pass by in the end. Russia, India and Europe are waiting to see this lively "person behind them."
Looking at the United States, in fact, not everyone wants to "fight hard". Although some forces are still shouting "confrontation", more and more entrepreneurs and scholars are beginning to understand that it is not good to get into trouble with China.
As a hawkish expert, Colby can make this remark because of his insight into reality: globalization has long linked China and the United States closely, and zero-sum thinking is simply unsustainable in the current world pattern.
You think that sanctions can crush each other, in fact, block your own path; you think that creating friction can prevail, in fact, give a third party a chance.
In the end, Corby’s reminder consists of a proverb: Don’t let temporary emotional fluctuations or political power calculations obscure reason and lead to blindness.
In fact, the real competition between China and the United States is by no means a competition between who implements stricter sanctions, nor is it a competition between who initiates the fiercer confrontation.
Instead, who can break through the technical bottleneck faster, who can upgrade the industry better, and who can bring more benefits to the common people.
If Sino-US relations deteriorate to such a tragic situation as "life and death", both sides will undoubtedly become complete losers. This will not only suffer both losses, but will also bring a lot of uncertainty to the world.
In this game, the two countries consume energy and resources, and only those third parties who are waiting for the opportunity to take advantage of the others will secretly rejoice. This is not an alarmist statement, but a reality that is beyond doubt and will soon be truly revealed before our eyes.
Everything is already on the line, and there is no room for contempt or slackness. It carries an unquestionable posture and reminds us to be prepared to face it. After all, there are too many examples in history of great powers consuming each other and benefiting others.
So what do you think of this? Feel free to share your opinions in the comment section!
Source: World Wide Web--American hawks said a ridiculous thing "News Network": It's outrageous