As soon as some good news came out of the Sino-US consultations, a major event occurred in the South China Sea. Two US military fighter jets crashed into the sea, and the United States '"strength underpants" were stripped naked.
In the past two days at the end of October, two pieces of news were particularly eye-catching.
One is for the economic and trade market.
On October 25-26, China and the United States talked about economic and trade in Kuala Lumpur, and China's Commerce Ministry's Li Zhen Steel finally said very clearly - "The U.S. side's position is tough, and China's interests are firm."
Although it is “formed preliminary consensus”, but the tension in the negotiations, everyone can hear.
The other one is from the military field.
On the same day that the negotiations ended, on October 26, something happened in the South China Sea.
Two aircraft on the US aircraft carrier Nimitz crashed.
At 14:45, the Seahawk helicopter was the first to fail. Half an hour later, a Super Hornet fighter also received bad news. Fortunately, all five crew members were rescued.
The United States is "tough" at the negotiating table while making "mistakes" in its military operations in the South China Sea. Behind this contrast, it seems to show that the United States '"hard power" is really problematic.
Let’s talk about the Kuala Lumpur negotiations.
The "toughness" of the United States this time is actually just those old tricks over and over again.
Their requirements were clear:
First, I want to continue to get stuck in the neck of China's maritime logistics and shipbuilding industry, and keep the 301 charging measures;
Second, the tariff suspension period should be extended, but China would like to make more concessions.
Third, Fentanyl also wants to cooperate cheaply.
On the contrary, the United States either goes around or is vague on issues that China is most concerned about, such as lifting export controls to China and loosening the blockade on chip technology.
This doomed this consultation to be very difficult.
Didn’t the U.S. realize that these “pressure measures” had no deterrent at the time?
Looking at this year’s Sino-U.S. economic and trade interactions, we know that during the Geneva talks in May, the U.S. also promised to suspend some tariffs.
But every time the talks are over, the United States always has to pick up its "hard" gesture.
However, the reality is that the White Paper "China's Position on Several Issues in China-U.S. Economic and Trade Relations" that we previously issued, has long drawn the bottom line clearly and bluntly, and these counter-instruments of rare-earth control and reciprocal tariffs have always been in hand.
Not to mention anything else, just the rare earth card, which the United States really cannot circumvent.
More than 80% of the world's rare earth processing capacity is in China, and rare earths are the "lifeline" for the US military to build stealth fighters and missile guidance systems. If the United States really overplays economic and trade pressure, the first thing to hurt will probably be its own military industrial chain.
In addition to the chip, in the first half of 2025, the sales of U.S. chip companies to China fell by 40 percent.
You know, the Chinese market used to be the "profit cow" of these enterprises.
On the one hand, its own enterprises shouted "can not bear", while still carrying the technical blockade on the negotiating table, this "damaging not necessarily selfish" operation, in any case, does not look like there is a bottom-up, on the contrary, it is like fearing that Matsushita has lost the initiative to negotiate the "fake voice".
If the "hard" on the economic and trade table can still rely on speech packaging, then the South China Sea military aircraft fell, putting the "hard wounds" of the U.S. military directly on the face.
The "Nimitz" aircraft carrier that had an accident this time can tell how "vicissitudes" it is by looking at its service record.
It was in service in 1975, almost 50 years into 2025, with the deployment starting in March from San Diego, California, to be seven months in October.
First went to the Western Pacific, then rushed to the Middle East, and finally hurried through the Strait of Malacca into the South China Sea. It was said that it was "the last mission before retirement", but it was more like supporting the "Indo-Pacific" military layout.
The cost of high-intensity operation comes faster than expected.
Within 30 minutes, two carrier-based aircraft crashed one after another. The US military said that "the cause is still being investigated." However, considering the condition of the Nimitz, can we really ignore the problem of aging equipment?
As mentioned on the website of the U.S. Naval Association before, the carrier-based aircraft ejection system and radar equipment of this aircraft carrier had many minor glitches during training in the first half of this year, but there was no major trouble.
This time the two military aircraft happened, not to say is the long-term maintenance is not in place, personnel fatigue saved "the inevitable result".
What is even more embarrassing is that the dilemma of the Nimitz is not an isolated case at all, but a microcosm of the US military's "Indo-Pacific" layout.
At present, the US military only has one capable aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific. Although one Ford-class aircraft carrier has been in service, it has been unable to form combat strength due to technical problems such as electromagnetic ejection and ammunition elevators. The "aircraft carrier gap" is getting bigger and bigger.
After the crash of the two aircraft, the combat power of the "Nimitz" will definitely be affected, and the "Washington", which plans to replace it, has just completed the qualification certification and will not be able to stand up in the short term.
In addition, the U.S. military will also take into account the tasks of the Middle East and Europe, and the military expenses will not be able to withstand such a "thin use".
In 2025, the cost of U.S. military equipment maintenance increased by 12% over the past year, but it is still not able to stop the problem of ageing ships and inadequate training.
Looking at these two things together, the current situation in the United States is clear.
On economic and trade, both want to contain the upgrading of Chinese industry by sanctions, and fear that the Chinese side will counter-harm its own enterprises; militarily, both want to rely on the aircraft carrier in the South China Sea show "dissuasion", but is unable to bear the cost of old ship maintenance and new ship iteration.
This contradiction of "both need and need" makes its "toughness" particularly awkward.
The more violent it is at the negotiating table, the more it appears to be covering the insufficiency of code; the more you want to brush the sense of presence in the military, the easier it is to expose the weaknesses of power.
Previously, there were concerns that the talks could make China-U.S. relations more tense.
However, judging from the actual situation, China's response has been very stable. It has maintained its bottom line at the negotiating table and has not been biased by the "toughness" of the United States. The South China Sea has not over-interpreted the crash incident and maintained rational restraint.
On the contrary, if the United States still can't see its own "hard injuries" clearly and continues to rely on "toughness" to support the scene, I'm afraid there will be more similar troubles in the future.
After all, what the international community sees is not who’s voice is big, but who’s strength can really stand up to its position – this point, the US might have to think about well.