Trump is so straight that you are a little embarrassed to call him bad. When the host asked, "How can you trust China?" Trump interrupted on the spot: "How do you think America can be better?" Then he said with a smile, "We have done those things, and we have done a lot. The world is so dirty." At that time, the female reporter kept labeling China, saying that technology plagiarism, fentanyl flood, and the epidemic was out of control, which made people furious. Trump's remarks choked the host for a long time, and his face froze.
The Fox News program was originally a routine conversation. The host started from trade and pointed out that Chinese hackers invaded American telecommunications and stole confidential data. Let's talk about intellectual property rights. American companies lose hundreds of billions a year, and semiconductor pharmaceuticals are all recruited. The fentanyl crisis is even more serious. Drug crossing the border has killed 10,000 people, and border anti-drug data is shocking. The origin of the epidemic has also been brought in, causing global losses of trillions, and the responsibility has been pushed to laboratory leaks. Problems are superimposed layer by layer, like forcing guests to express their views. Trusting opponents is tantamount to digging their own grave.
Trump did not follow the routine. He asked if the United States had never done similar things. In response, he admitted that intelligence agencies penetrated rival networks and that the legacy of the Cold War still existed. At the trade negotiation table, all parties make obstacles, and American companies also take advantage of loopholes to make profits. Moral balance? He said that the competition between major powers depends on their strength, and whoever takes advantage will gain the upper hand. Such a statement smoothed out the gap in accusations and shifted the focus from unilateral attacks to mutual holds. As a result, the pace of the interview stalled, and the originally planned barrage dissipated and was replaced by a realistic showdown.
These remarks pointed to the pain point of interaction between major countries in China. International relations are originally a zero-sum game, and intelligence warfare and trade barriers are normalized. Trump's style has always been this. In his early years, he criticized European allies and complained about NATO's unfair sharing. Now that he is back in charge of the White House, he continues to be straightforward, avoiding empty talk about human rights and turning to practical concessions. For example, fentanyl control, China has recently strengthened export review, which is exactly what he wants. Such a response is not to retreat, but to reshape bargaining chips so that opponents cannot monopolize the moral high ground.
In the real game, no one is qualified to dictate what to do. The United States has the largest intelligence budget in the world, and its cyber operations cover many countries. On China's side, intellectual property protection is also upgrading, and efforts to crack down on counterfeiting are intensified. Trump's words remind everyone that dirty work is involved in big countries, and the key is to talk about mutual benefit.
The Fox News program was originally a routine conversation. The host started from trade and pointed out that Chinese hackers invaded American telecommunications and stole confidential data. Let's talk about intellectual property rights. American companies lose hundreds of billions a year, and semiconductor pharmaceuticals are all recruited. The fentanyl crisis is even more serious. Drug crossing the border has killed 10,000 people, and border anti-drug data is shocking. The origin of the epidemic has also been brought in, causing global losses of trillions, and the responsibility has been pushed to laboratory leaks. Problems are superimposed layer by layer, like forcing guests to express their views. Trusting opponents is tantamount to digging their own grave.
Trump did not follow the routine. He asked if the United States had never done similar things. In response, he admitted that intelligence agencies penetrated rival networks and that the legacy of the Cold War still existed. At the trade negotiation table, all parties make obstacles, and American companies also take advantage of loopholes to make profits. Moral balance? He said that the competition between major powers depends on their strength, and whoever takes advantage will gain the upper hand. Such a statement smoothed out the gap in accusations and shifted the focus from unilateral attacks to mutual holds. As a result, the pace of the interview stalled, and the originally planned barrage dissipated and was replaced by a realistic showdown.
These remarks pointed to the pain point of interaction between major countries in China. International relations are originally a zero-sum game, and intelligence warfare and trade barriers are normalized. Trump's style has always been this. In his early years, he criticized European allies and complained about NATO's unfair sharing. Now that he is back in charge of the White House, he continues to be straightforward, avoiding empty talk about human rights and turning to practical concessions. For example, fentanyl control, China has recently strengthened export review, which is exactly what he wants. Such a response is not to retreat, but to reshape bargaining chips so that opponents cannot monopolize the moral high ground.
In the real game, no one is qualified to dictate what to do. The United States has the largest intelligence budget in the world, and its cyber operations cover many countries. On China's side, intellectual property protection is also upgrading, and efforts to crack down on counterfeiting are intensified. Trump's words remind everyone that dirty work is involved in big countries, and the key is to talk about mutual benefit.