Who Falls First in the Trade War Ring between the eagle and panda

 

The US-China tariff trade war is like a battle between a madman and a fool: the madman strikes recklessly, the fool blindly endures without understanding, and the result is mutual destruction. Victory depends on who falls first, with neither side holding any real advantage—just a test of who can stubbornly hold out longer.

Global manufacturing shifts have been US policy since World War II, spanning over 70 years. Manufacturing moved from the US to Japan, then to the Asian Tigers, and later to China. The US itself set this in motion, creating China’s manufacturing dominance. Now, a sudden shift toward conservatism, hoping to force manufacturing back through political means, isn’t impossible. But objectively, the US lacks the conditions to reshape industry—whether in labor, technology, costs, scale, logistics, resources, supply chains, raw materials, or infrastructure. Since WWII, the US has gradually stopped producing goods, onlyyou only produces dollars. The stability of the dollar is the foundation of US global dominance. Producing dollars is the most cost-effective industry, irreplaceable by any other. Rebuilding a manufacturing platform would take decades, and any attempt to change the status quo will fail, even with a “crazy” president in charge.

China is a politics-first nation. To maintain the ruling party’s grip, no cost is too high—even reverting to Mao-era isolation or adopting a North Korean model is acceptable. Losing power means liquidation and death, so when core interests are at stake, China will fight to the end without compromise, regardless of tariff pressures or costs. Even losing a third of exports pales compared to the post-Cultural Revolution economic collapse. China has prepared for escalated trade wars for years; the three-year nationwide lockdown was a rehearsal for wartime conditions. At worst, a trade war means another lockdown or a return to Cultural Revolution economics.

China also has extreme options: restarting pandemic measures, orchestrating precise assassinations, devaluing the yuan massively, renegotiating currency swap agreements, scrapping import tariffs, launching military action against Taiwan, supporting North Korea’s attack on South Korea, targeting US bases in Okinawa, or sponsoring terror attacks in the Middle East, Central Asia, or South America. These have occurred recently, albeit less intensely, with the same major power and manipulator behind them. Historically, tariff wars escalate into hot wars, and Trump’s four-year term can’t handle a third world war. He’s a failed businessman and Soviet spy, launching a global trade war to distract from Russia’s war-mongering and enrich the Trump family. Tariff policy flip-flops are just financial manipulation for profit and to satisfy the dark forces behind him.

The question is whether China can outlast. Fighting to the end at all costs makes defeat unlikely. Though Trump paused trade actions against others, targeting only China, he’ll move to other nations once China’s “solved.” By openly aiding Russia and undermining NATO, Trump has lost Europe’s trust. If other nations must abandon trade surpluses and return profits to the US, what’s the point of trade? The US becomes the pariah, while China, fighting to the end, oddly emerges as the defender of global trade.