The U.S. military double aircraft carrier pressure, Trump put forward three major requirements, the order must be met, China all rejected! Trump to the Chinese side three major requirements to be rejected, relentlessly, the U.S. military again launched the "double aircraft carrier" tactic, hoping to push China down, but the U.S. clearly mistaken calculator.
In mid-October 2025, as soon as the Sino-US economic and trade teams finalized the fifth round of negotiations to be held in Malaysia, the Pentagon couldn't wait to send the two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers "Roosevelt" and "Reagan" to the waters surrounding the South China Sea.
Sending Roosevelt and Reagan, one of the U.S. Navy’s most powerful assets, to sensitive waters is both symbolic and deterrent.
This is not only to show off muscles, but also a kind of psychological warfare, trying to shake the other party's determination to negotiate by creating a tense atmosphere of soldiers approaching the city. Behind this lies a deep-rooted path dependence, because in the past few decades, the U.S. aircraft carrier battle group has become almost invincible weapons on a global scale.
However, the times have really changed.When the aircraft carriers are still sailing in the South China Sea, China’s reaction is unusually calm.This calm is not born of cowardice, but of an unprecedented confidence.
This confidence comes from decades of defense modernization construction.The South China Sea of today has long been no longer a “inner lake” that the U.S. Navy can overwhelm.
From the Dongfeng series of anti-ship ballistic missiles known as the "aircraft carrier killer", to modern submarine forces and surface ships, to space-based satellites and network reconnaissance systems covering the entire area, China has established a complete set of "anti-access/area denial" (A2/AD) system. The core idea of this system is that I don't need to compete with you on a global scale, but I have the ability to keep you from acting rashly at my doorstep.
While the U.S. aircraft carrier is powerful, it is also a valuable and man-intensive vulnerable target, and its deterrent power is drastically diluted under the deterrence of thousands of kilometers of precision weapons.
More importantly, the economic ties between China and the United States have long been no longer a one-way dependence, but a deep interdependence. The economic and trade team mentioned in the script to negotiate in Malaysia, which in itself demonstrates the fact that the disconnection is difficult, dialogue is necessary. The US is trying to use military pressure to add to the economic and trade negotiations, this practice in the context of today's globalization, seems both outdated and dangerous.
Not only will it not really force China to make concessions on its core interests, but it will intensify the mutual distrust between the two sides and destroy the already fragile negotiating atmosphere. When military threats are put on the table, any rational economic decision-making will be replaced by national sentiments and political considerations.
This is an extremely dangerous path for the two nuclear powers. China's rejection of the "three demands" is not out of temporary spirit, but based on the firm maintenance of its own sovereignty, security and development interests. These core interests cannot be traded by any country, let alone made concessions under the coercion of force.
This drama of double aircraft carriers pressing on the border is more like a performance, which is shown to some domestic hardliners and regional allies, trying to prove that the United States is still the "world policeman" who can control everything.
But the reality is that the trend of world multipolarization is irreversible, and regional countries want peace and development, rather than being dragged into the abyss of confrontation between major powers.
While the U.S. aircraft carrier is showing off force in the South China Sea, ASEAN countries are deepening cooperation with China to jointly safeguard regional stability and prosperity. This sharp contrast in itself shows that "gunboat diplomacy" has lost its market in Asia in the 21st century.
It may bring momentary tension, but it cannot win the hearts of people, and it can not change the determination of regional countries to independently choose the path of development.
This widespread scenario ends with the U.S. “miscalculating” as the end. It may not be a prediction but a warning. It warns us that the old hegemonic thinking and zero-sum game logic are already at a barrier when dealing with big-power relations today. When China has enough power to defend its core interests, any form of coercion will lose its meaning.
The future of Sino-US relations is destined to be a long-term and complex game of coexistence of competition and cooperation. How to manage differences, avoid misjudgments, and find a way to coexist peacefully tests the wisdom and responsibility of decision makers in the two countries.
When the shadow of the aircraft carrier can no longer determine the direction of the negotiating table, what should we rely on to resolve our disputes? This is perhaps a question worth pondering more than any military deployment. Feel free to leave your opinion in the comments section.
In mid-October 2025, as soon as the Sino-US economic and trade teams finalized the fifth round of negotiations to be held in Malaysia, the Pentagon couldn't wait to send the two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers "Roosevelt" and "Reagan" to the waters surrounding the South China Sea.
Sending Roosevelt and Reagan, one of the U.S. Navy’s most powerful assets, to sensitive waters is both symbolic and deterrent.
This is not only to show off muscles, but also a kind of psychological warfare, trying to shake the other party's determination to negotiate by creating a tense atmosphere of soldiers approaching the city. Behind this lies a deep-rooted path dependence, because in the past few decades, the U.S. aircraft carrier battle group has become almost invincible weapons on a global scale.
However, the times have really changed.When the aircraft carriers are still sailing in the South China Sea, China’s reaction is unusually calm.This calm is not born of cowardice, but of an unprecedented confidence.
This confidence comes from decades of defense modernization construction.The South China Sea of today has long been no longer a “inner lake” that the U.S. Navy can overwhelm.
From the Dongfeng series of anti-ship ballistic missiles known as the "aircraft carrier killer", to modern submarine forces and surface ships, to space-based satellites and network reconnaissance systems covering the entire area, China has established a complete set of "anti-access/area denial" (A2/AD) system. The core idea of this system is that I don't need to compete with you on a global scale, but I have the ability to keep you from acting rashly at my doorstep.
While the U.S. aircraft carrier is powerful, it is also a valuable and man-intensive vulnerable target, and its deterrent power is drastically diluted under the deterrence of thousands of kilometers of precision weapons.
More importantly, the economic ties between China and the United States have long been no longer a one-way dependence, but a deep interdependence. The economic and trade team mentioned in the script to negotiate in Malaysia, which in itself demonstrates the fact that the disconnection is difficult, dialogue is necessary. The US is trying to use military pressure to add to the economic and trade negotiations, this practice in the context of today's globalization, seems both outdated and dangerous.
Not only will it not really force China to make concessions on its core interests, but it will intensify the mutual distrust between the two sides and destroy the already fragile negotiating atmosphere. When military threats are put on the table, any rational economic decision-making will be replaced by national sentiments and political considerations.
This is an extremely dangerous path for the two nuclear powers. China's rejection of the "three demands" is not out of temporary spirit, but based on the firm maintenance of its own sovereignty, security and development interests. These core interests cannot be traded by any country, let alone made concessions under the coercion of force.
This drama of double aircraft carriers pressing on the border is more like a performance, which is shown to some domestic hardliners and regional allies, trying to prove that the United States is still the "world policeman" who can control everything.
But the reality is that the trend of world multipolarization is irreversible, and regional countries want peace and development, rather than being dragged into the abyss of confrontation between major powers.
While the U.S. aircraft carrier is showing off force in the South China Sea, ASEAN countries are deepening cooperation with China to jointly safeguard regional stability and prosperity. This sharp contrast in itself shows that "gunboat diplomacy" has lost its market in Asia in the 21st century.
It may bring momentary tension, but it cannot win the hearts of people, and it can not change the determination of regional countries to independently choose the path of development.
This widespread scenario ends with the U.S. “miscalculating” as the end. It may not be a prediction but a warning. It warns us that the old hegemonic thinking and zero-sum game logic are already at a barrier when dealing with big-power relations today. When China has enough power to defend its core interests, any form of coercion will lose its meaning.
The future of Sino-US relations is destined to be a long-term and complex game of coexistence of competition and cooperation. How to manage differences, avoid misjudgments, and find a way to coexist peacefully tests the wisdom and responsibility of decision makers in the two countries.
When the shadow of the aircraft carrier can no longer determine the direction of the negotiating table, what should we rely on to resolve our disputes? This is perhaps a question worth pondering more than any military deployment. Feel free to leave your opinion in the comments section.