A huge trade offensive against China that took several months ended up returning to the original point. Trump's "art of trading" suffered a major setback in front of China for the first time.

In Kuala Lumpur in October, the venue of Sino-US economic and trade consultation was filled with a subtle atmosphere.

After the talks, US Representative Besent couldn't wait to announce the conclusion of the "substantive framework" to the media, his tone filled with relief.

On the other side of the ocean, on October 28, the New York Times that the people who were busy with the Trump administration, in fact, only allowed the Sino-U.S. economic and trade relations to return to the state before Trump provoked the tariff war.

This seemingly ¡°breakthrough¡± negotiation is essentially a strategic ¡°return to the point of origin.¡±

Six months after Trump cried out to China, he had to face an embarrassing reality: his extreme pressure strategy has failed here in China.

At the beginning of Trump's second term, he launched a tough trade policy with China.

From imposing 20% tariffs on all Chinese goods, to soon increasing to 145%, to provoking port fee disputes and expanding controls on chip exports, every step is filled with the arrogance of ¡°America¡¯s priority.¡±

However, the Kuala Lumpur talks at the end of October brought this fierce trade war to an abrupt end.

More ironically, the United States called this a "breakthrough", and Treasury Secretary Bescent said with joy that it could "alleviate the worries of American soybean growers".

Anyone with discerning eyes can see that this is just the United States solving a crisis it has created. The New York Times 'comment went straight to the essence: "Trump's trade agreement with China is a solution to a crisis he created himself."

This self-directed, self-interrogative diplomatic code exposes the intrinsic flaws of Trump¡¯s trade strategy.

The Trump administration has been pursuing a negotiating strategy of ¡°upgrading to degradation,¡± which is at the heart of its ¡°trade art.¡±

However, this strategy, which may have worked on some occasions in the past, has failed entirely in the face of China.

The reason for the failure is that the Trump administration has seriously misjudged China¡¯s determination and capabilities.

Compared to the first term, China now knows more about the style of conduct of the US president and is well prepared.

The reason why China's countermeasures are effective lies in their accuracy and symmetry, which both hit the pain points of the United States.

Observing this round of confrontation between China and the United States, a significant change is the evolution of China's strategy.

This shift in strategy reflects China¡¯s growing diplomatic wisdom in the international trade game.

China no longer simply dances to the rhythm of the United States, but chooses the most appropriate countermeasures and opportunities based on its own interests and strength.

China is teaching him in a language that Trump can understand what the real game of power is.

This kind of education is not simply tough, but to demonstrate China¡¯s determination and strength through precise, powerful and sustainable countermeasures, while leaving room for negotiation.

Trump decided to ¡°return to the starting point¡± during the Kuala Lumpur talks, and another factor that cannot be ignored is the political pressure inside the United States.

On the one hand, U.S. government agencies have been suspended for more than half a month, and even the Embassy in China has announced that it will stop updating daily information. This internal chaos has undoubtedly weakened the Trump administration's ability to negotiate externally.

On the other hand, Trump's trade policy is in direct conflict with the interests of the American business community.

This policy contradiction puts U.S. enterprises in a difficult position and pressures governments through lobbying.

What is more noteworthy is that Trump's trade policy has aroused deeper doubts in the United States.

The New York Times's report represents a reflection of Trump's trade policy by American elite media: What kind of national interests does this self-creating crisis and self-solving model serve?

The "basic consensus" reached in the Kuala Lumpur talks appears to be preparing to bring the Sino-U.S. trade relations back to the starting point, but this starting point has been different from the previous starting point.

After this round of games, both China and the United States have a clearer understanding of each other's strategic bottom line.

For China, this confrontation demonstrates China¡¯s ability to cope with the most extreme trade pressures and to defend its own interests through precise countermeasures.

For the United States, the experience of this "return to the starting point" should be an opportunity for reflection.

The biggest question is: Did Trump really learn from this experience, or would he just take this ¡°return to the starting point¡± as a stop for the next ¡°escalation¡±?

For the world¡¯s two largest economies, the real challenge may not be how to get back from the end, but how to move from this cycle to a more stable future.