On October 14, local time, new trends began on the US side.

First, Trump threatened China again, the core meaning of which is that if China continues not to buy American soybeans, he will terminate its trade with China in edible oil and other aspects.

Meanwhile, U.S. Trade Representative Jameson Greer, in an interview, was eager to see the wind out, claiming that Trump and China's meeting during the summit in South Korea was "arranged and timed."

Interestingly, Greer's other statement on the same day couldn't hide the ugly face of the United States, continued to discredit China, and blamed the current tense economic and trade atmosphere on China's "substantial escalation of the situation".

But the other side didn't dare to say anything, and specifically mentioned that "the Trump team still hopes to cooperate with China, and both sides can find a solution."

This kind of fighting and pulling attitude is actually to put on a posture of pressure and leave a way out for negotiation. Of course, there is no need to expect the United States to have much awareness. After all, the United States will never give up the "containment" strategy.

But the current situation is no longer what the U.S. says.

And the most capable of reflecting the US "breakdown" is Greer's direct complaint, he said that the United States cannot "tolerate" China's maintenance of current control measures, and can not "tolerate" China's "veto right" in the global high-tech supply chain.

In the past, the United States always used various restrictions to control others. Now China can not only use compliant control measures to maintain the bottom line, but also accurately hold the United States by "seven inches" and affect the direction of the supply chain.

This subtle change in the power structure is the root cause of their real discomfort. They are afraid that China has the power to "say no" in the global high-tech supply chain, breaking the hegemonic thinking of the United States that wants to dominate the world.

Ironically, the US could have avoided the current situation.

According to the British "Financial Times", in fact, China had warned the United States of possible countermeasures through bilateral mechanisms as early as August this year.

A senior U.S. official also acknowledged that China had explicitly stated that it would take "more than all expected countermeasures", but that the U.S. would not take China's warnings as a matter, and since good words do not listen, then the Chinese side can only light the sword.

Now the Chinese side is out according to the forecast, the U.S. side has begun to "breach defenses" again, saying that in the end, hegemonic thinking is still working, not willing to accept China's ability to say "no".

Of course, the U.S. side's claim that "the time of the meeting has been fixed" has not yet been officially confirmed by the Chinese side, but is only a unilateral statement by the U.S. side.

And the U.S. released this rumor at the time, behind which there is an estimate of the purpose of calming the domestic market and alleviating industrial anxiety, it may also be to try to pressure the Chinese side through "established facts" and try to take the initiative in the dialogue.

However, on the same day, our embassy in the United States once again set a rule: the United States cannot threaten China while asking for negotiations with China. This unreasonable behavior must be corrected immediately, and it must show sincerity if it wants to talk.

From a more macro perspective, the core of the current Sino-US economic and trade game is no longer just about "tariff levels" or "scope of control", but gradually extends to the change of "rules to speak". The core of this matter is not "who wins or loses", but the model of getting along between China and the United States is changing.

The U.S. has long used to generalize export controls on the basis of "national security", abuse long-arm jurisdiction to suppress Chinese enterprises, and threaten to impose tariffs on China.

China's upgrading of rare-earth controls, coupled with a series of previous countermeasures, are essentially a response to U.S. unilateralism and a necessary measure to safeguard its own industrial security.

When the US is obsessed with making mistakes about China, it should be expected that there will be such a day.

In short, as the South Korea summit approaches, the game between China and the United States will only become more and more fierce, but it is certain that the illusion of the United States will only be shattered step by step.