Zelensky should wear shorts to see Trump who cuts off arms supply to support Russia again

 

After promising to provide Ukraine with some second-hand air defense missiles, Trump abruptly reneged again, citing urgent needs in the Middle East as a reason to delay arms supplies to Ukraine. This has left Zelenskyy in a highly passive position in the face of Russia's summer offensive. Currently, Russian forces have concentrated over ten divisions, totaling 110,000 troops, in Krasnoarmeysk, attempting to break through and capture the city to reverse their faltering momentum. 

As Putin's lackey, Trump is naturally cooperating fully, ostensibly to force Ukraine back to the negotiating table, but in reality, to assist Russia in occupying Ukraine, annexing the four eastern regions and Crimea, and ensuring Ukraine does not join NATO or the EU. The war has now lasted over three years, with Russia facing opposition from the entire NATO alliance and more than 60 countries combined. Although Ukraine has not officially joined NATO, the difference is negligible. From a frail army of just over 100,000 at the war’s outset, Ukraine has grown into Europe’s, and perhaps the world’s, most battle-hardened force of a million soldiers. 

As long as it receives military aid from the West, Ukraine can continue fighting indefinitely. Although Russia still occupies 20% of Ukrainian territory and holds a slight military advantage, Ukrainian morale is low, desertions are severe, and the army continues to face equipment shortages. Nevertheless, Ukraine has managed to hold the line against Russia, launching special operations that inflict heavy damage on Russian military equipment, energy infrastructure, and strategic facilities. In contrast, Russia has suffered over a million casualties, with significant depletion of Soviet-inherited equipment. 

Its forces also face low morale and exhaustion, making it increasingly unsustainable. The battlefield remains a stalemate, with neither side able to decisively defeat the other or gain a strategic advantage to turn the tide. This war has become a test of endurance, a question of who can outlast the other. As Putin ages and his control weakens, Russia’s economic strength, military equipment, and war resources will eventually be exhausted, bringing the conflict to an end. As long as Putin remains in power, he will prolong the war, for if the Russian army stops fighting and withdraws, it could become uncontrollable, potentially leading to a coup, as seen in historical precedents like World War I. Russia is not the superpower the Soviet Union once was; its military capabilities are limited, and its economy is only on par with mid-tier European nations. 

Though Russia’s vast territory spans millions of square kilometers, only the 3 million square kilometers in its European part are suitable for development. With a population of 140 million—far larger than Ukraine’s 20 million—Russia can mobilize around 3 million for combat, but over a million have already been lost. Moreover, the Russian military’s capabilities are outdated, relying on World War II-style attrition tactics, which are ineffective against the advanced technological equipment supplied by the West. This is essentially a war between two different eras. Even with Trump’s covert support pressuring Ukraine into submission and signing agreements to cede territory and pay reparations, as long as Ukraine maintains its military strength, the war could reignite after Trump leaves office and Putin retires. Once Trump’s term ends, his controversial actions will likely lead to a reckoning, and NATO will inevitably return to its previous stance of suppressing Russia. 

Putin’s health has been deteriorating since the war began, and even if he holds on for a few more years, his time is limited. This is his personal war, his final gamble on the promise of Russia’s great revival. But after him, both he and Russia as we know it may cease to exist. Zelenskyy, on the other hand, is still young, even without a suit. His repeated appearances in military attire during meetings with Trump were meant to convey that Ukraine is in dire straits, that he has just come from the battlefield, and that U.S. military aid is a given. He came to apply pressure, but the reality is the opposite: Trump, a Russian asset who rose to power through the Russia scandal, is intent on suppressing Ukraine. Even if Zelenskyy reluctantly dons a suit, Trump will still undermine Ukraine. In the current situation, the worst-case scenario for Zelenskyy might be to accept some of the conditions imposed by the U.S. and Russia, trading territory for peace, which is not entirely unacceptable. 

By outlasting the authoritarian regimes of the U.S. and Russia, strengthening its military, building up resources, and implementing domestic reforms, Ukraine will ultimately prevail. The war can always be restarted in the future. Thus, the current strategy of fighting while negotiating, combining military and political struggles, is also a means to achieve military victory. Fighting paves the way for talks, and if talks fail, the fighting can resume. A ceasefire is not entirely unacceptable, and a suit is not something that must always be worn!

 

Khamenei faces treason and heresy if he surrenders, decapitation by Bunker-busters if he doesn't

 

Just as Trump promised to give Iran two weeks to consider surrender, he immediately deployed strategic bombers carrying bunker-busting missiles to destroy three of Iran's most critical nuclear weapons facilities. Although Iran claimed the losses were minimal and that they had already made prior transfers, there is no doubt that Iran's nuclear weapons development has suffered a severe setback, making recovery in the short to medium term highly unlikely. Israel's basic objective in this attack has been achieved.

From the current situation, it is clear that Iran was completely unaware of Israel's surprise attack, resulting in the decapitation of key military leaders and nuclear weapons experts. Therefore, it is impossible for Iran to have made adequate concealment or transfer measures for all its nuclear facilities in advance. However, even so, as long as the Iranian government maintains its rule, completely destroying its nuclear weapons development is unrealistic—it would merely require more time to rebuild. The current situation is actually more complex than before the nuclear facilities were destroyed. 

Since the United States has already entered the conflict, it will not easily back down. The so-called precondition of Iran's unconditional surrender simply does not exist. If Khamenei were to surrender, it would be tantamount to treason and a betrayal of Islam, stripping him of his divine legitimacy and turning him into a public enemy to be purged. If he does not surrender, he risks being targeted for assassination. His only option is to go into hiding and avoid making public statements, but retaliatory actions against Israel will not cease in the short to medium term.

In theory, blockading the Strait of Hormuz is not technically difficult, as its narrowest point is only 30–50 kilometers wide. Deploying mines could disrupt normal maritime traffic, halting oil exports and severely impacting energy-importing nations like Europe, China, India, Japan, and South Korea. This would cause a global economic shock and soaring oil prices, inevitably leading to a coalition of powers uniting to decisively address the Iran issue. Moreover, Iran's government relies almost entirely on oil exports for revenue. A prolonged blockade would cripple the regime's ability to sustain itself, making such a strategy unsustainable. 

It would also affect other Gulf nations. Iran's proxies, such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and terrorist groups in Syria and Yemen, all require substantial financial and military support to resist U.S. and Israeli strikes. Iran's allies, China and Russia, are unlikely to intervene directly. Putin currently depends heavily on Trump to maintain the status quo in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and with U.S.-China trade tensions only recently cooling, neither power is willing to risk a confrontation with the U.S. over Iran. Thus, Iran must rely on its own capabilities to navigate this crisis.

Given that the U.S. has been drawn into the conflict by Israel, it is determined to resolve the Iran issue once and for all. The demand for unconditional surrender is essentially a strategy to force Iran into a corner. Iran's missiles and drones will eventually be depleted, and once its war resources are exhausted, its ability to resist will collapse. While ground forces are not necessary to topple an authoritarian regime, this does not prevent the rise of domestic opposition within Iran. The U.S. has even promoted the Pahlavi dynasty's heir, an American citizen, as a potential successor. Regardless of whether Khamenei surrenders, the leaders of Iran's theocratic regime will be targeted for elimination, and domestic opposition will be supported to establish a pro-U.S. government as quickly as possible. For now, the U.S. and Israel will avoid deploying ground troops, focusing instead on air strikes to deplete Iran's war resources and energy. So far, apart from launching ballistic missile attacks on Israeli civilians, Iran's retaliatory options have been extremely limited.

Air strikes from both sides will likely continue for some time, with all parties observing subsequent developments. Regardless, the current situation is advantageous for Israel. The day Iran successfully develops nuclear weapons would mark the beginning of Israel's destruction. Now, with the crisis averted and the U.S. taking the lead, Israel can step back and observe, leaving the stage to President Trump. After a series of foreign policy missteps, Trump's decisive action against Iran will bring him significant political gains. For Iran, the optimal window for negotiation has passed. It lacks the strength to wage all-out war and can only take things one step at a time. The best strategy would be to seek mediation from allies like China and Russia to preserve the regime, avoiding reckless actions that could lead to catastrophic consequences. Otherwise, the inevitable outcome will be an early meeting with Allah.

 

If American liberals don't interfere, Israel could eliminate Khamenei in 3 minutes

 

Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and eliminated most of the leaders of its armed forces and nuclear experts. In response, Iran raised its red flag as a sign of retaliation and launched a large number of missiles and drones against Israel, causing minimal damage. Militarily, Israel has no difficulty annihilating Iran, but the biggest issue remains the United States' stance. After Trump took office, U.S. policy toward Iran shifted, allowing Israel to strike Iran's nuclear program without American interference. Although Iran could produce around 20 nuclear bombs within a few months, Israel's strikes, while not completely destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, will significantly delay its nuclear development.

The formation of Iran's theocratic regime was entirely due to U.S. support. In the 1950s, the U.S., under Eisenhower, collaborated with the UK to overthrow Iran's communist regime and install the Pahlavi Shah. Iran entered a golden era: its economy soared, society became open and secularized, women could wear skirts without headscarves, and young people enjoyed rock music and Coca-Cola. Iran's economy ranked among the world's top ten, with robust energy exports and increasing government revenue, leading to rapid societal development and improved living standards. Tehran became a Middle Eastern version of the "American Dream." At that time, Iran, the U.S., and Israel were staunch allies with close ties in the region.

However, in 1979, remnants of Iranian communists allied with religious extremists took to the streets, sparking a revolution marked by riots, vandalism, and chaos. The Shah's police suppressed the protests, inadvertently killing a few religious students. This ignited outrage among American "white liberals," particularly under President Carter, who championed "human rights." Driven by political correctness, Carter condemned the Shah's "tyranny," issuing warnings and threatening sanctions if force was used again. Protests escalated, spreading from Tehran across the country. Under pressure from Carter, the Shah was forced into exile, paving the way for Khomeini's return from the U.S. and rise to power. In his memoirs, the Shah confessed to Egyptian President Sadat, "I trusted the Americans and was betrayed by Carter."

After Khomeini took power, he implemented theocratic rule, ending secularization and transforming Iran from a "Middle Eastern America" into a "theocratic republic." The Iran-Iraq War, initiated by Khomeini, lasted eight years, killed over a million people, and displaced millions of refugees, turning the Middle East into a war-torn region. Khomeini also supported Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and Syria's Assad regime, turning the Middle East into his "backyard" and fueling endless conflicts driven by terrorist organizations. After Khomeini's death, power passed to Khamenei, and Iran became a fully theocratic state, repeatedly threatening to destroy Israel. Meanwhile, American liberals from Carter to Clinton, Obama, and Biden have shown fear toward Iran. Obama's "Iran Nuclear Deal" provided funds, lifted international sanctions, and emboldened Iran, which used this "goodwill" to advance its nuclear program with the aim of destroying Israel and dominating the Middle East.

Iran's current state is entirely the responsibility of the U.S. With Trump's presidency, U.S. Middle East policy has shifted, enabling Israel to intensify its crackdown on Iran's theocratic regime. Ironically, Khamenei is of Azerbaijani descent, and the current theocratic government is not controlled by ethnic Persians. Khomeini’s lineage is closer to North Indian. In recent years, the Iranian government has faced growing domestic protests, and during Israel's attacks, many locals reportedly celebrated the strikes.From a military perspective, Iran's theocratic regime lacks the strength to confront the U.S. and Israel and has lost popular support domestically. With Hamas nearly eliminated and Syria's Assad regime toppled, if the U.S. does not intervene, Israel’s military strength could systematically dismantle Middle Eastern terrorist forces. 

Iran has already been thoroughly infiltrated by Israel, and this attack demonstrates that Israel could assassinate Khamenei at any time, potentially ending Iran's theocratic rule. However, the critical factor remains the United States' stance.

 

Putin to Trump: China wants war, North Korea needs money, so no ceasefire

 

Even with Trump's mediation, Russia refuses to ceasefire. Although the current U.S. bias is exactly what Putin desires, the situation has not unfolded as expected. Russia's economy, still maintaining 3-5% annual growth, is entirely driven by a war economy. Without this, years of global sanctions would have led to economic collapse and widespread hardship, making it difficult to sustain. Despite the loss of a million soldiers and vast amounts of military equipment, most casualties come from remote regions' ethnic minorities and marginalized groups, including criminals and the homeless. Major Russian cities remain largely unaffected, and with the government's tacit approval, many urban youths fled early in the war. Thus, the million casualties have not shaken the country's foundation but rather reduced the burden by "clearing out" low-end populations.

Historically, Russia has always relied on massive personnel losses to cope with large-scale wars. The Slavic attitude toward death is almost indifferent, showing little concern for the number of lives expended in war. Russia has long been a serfdom-based state, where serfs were at the disposal of landowners but nominally belonged to the Tsar. Landowners had usage rights but not ownership, and while serfs were guaranteed minimal survival conditions by the Tsar's decree, their depletion was utterly disregarded. Military officers came from the nobility, while soldiers were peasants and serfs, treated as mere "gray mules," barely valued above animals. Thus, the Russian military has a longstanding tradition of disregarding soldiers' lives. During World War II, retreating soldiers faced execution, their families were sent to Siberia to eat potatoes, while charging forward earned black bread, and families received potatoes to survive. Soldiers' lives were measured in terms of potatoes and black bread.

For many unemployed, alcoholic, smoking, abusive, uneducated men with no prospects in Russia's peripheral regions, dying on the frontlines for millions of rubles in government payouts is not necessarily a bad deal for their local economies or families. Russian men, with a life expectancy of just over 50 due to chronic alcoholism, have little to lose. Moreover, Russia has historically blurred the line between soldiers and civilians, with potentially tens of millions available to be sent to the battlefield. As for weapons, Russia inherited vast Soviet stockpiles, sufficient for prolonged conventional warfare, supplemented by some advanced equipment. North Korea's soldiers and weapons further bolster this, as their situation mirrors Russia's. Thus, a 21st-century war has devolved into World War I-style trench warfare, with drones absent, as if returning to a century ago. Russia's technological, logistical, and intelligence capabilities lag far behind the West, so it relies on its strength: attrition, betting on who can endure greater losses.

Currently, apart from most of Luhansk being occupied, the frontlines are in a stalemate with Ukrainian forces, with Crimea also under strain. The goal of occupying the four eastern regions is to connect them with Crimea, ensuring a viable independent entity linked to Russia. Without this, the "special military operation" is meaningless. Ukraine, after three years of war, has built a million-strong, well-equipped, and battle-hardened army, gradually gaining air superiority with Western support. A ceasefire is meaningless for Russia unless Ukraine's military is dismantled, as it could counterattack with NATO support at any time. If Russia withdraws from the costly eastern territories, they risk being lost again in the long term, and Russia's economic strength is insufficient for reconstruction or long-term stabilization. The hard-won stalemate keeps Ukraine's air superiority in check by maintaining close-quarters combat.

China's stance is also a factor. As Russia's main financial backer, China benefits from a prolonged war where Russia neither wins nor Ukraine loses. This prevents the West from fully focusing on China, and Russia's energy revenues and goods largely come from China. A ceasefire would intensify U.S. pressure on China, escalating trade and tariff conflicts, and China would lose Russia as a key counterweight against the U.S. With Trump's term limited to three years (or longer if re-elected, though an octogenarian has limited time), Russia is unlikely to abandon its current partial advantage if the U.S. returns to a confrontational stance. With Chinese financial support, Russia can sustain the war and even open a second front to divert Ukraine's forces, targeting Poland, Finland, or the Baltic states.

Domestically, Putin's control relies on nationalism, internal repression, military rule, propaganda, and speech control, with wartime conditions being key. As long as the war continues, he maintains a high-pressure grip, fostering unity against external threats. If the war ends, opposition could resurge, and returning soldiers and weapons pose a domestic threat. Prigozhin's brief rebellion, advancing hundreds of kilometers toward Moscow with a small force, nearly toppled Putin. Troops are easier to control on the frontlines than back home, where they become destabilizing. At his advanced age, Putin emulates Stalin: as long as the nation is at war, he remains the undisputed national leader. With no decisive military advantage yet, Russia lacks favorable negotiation leverage. To maintain the status quo, Putin will fight to the end, never allowing Ukraine a chance to regroup.

 

Rafale crashes, China snickers, Modi dances, Trump goes nuts!

 

India’s nationwide celebration of a supposed victory over Pakistan’s terrorist forces has been called into question. Reports suggest that up to six Indian fighter jets were shot down, with one French-made Rafale and one Russian-made Su-30 confirmed by media sources. This India-Pakistan air battle involved aviation technology from China, India, Pakistan, France, Russia, and Israel, and it has been dubbed the first large-scale beyond-visual-range (BVR) air combat in human history, with 120 fighter jets from both sides engaged for over an hour. The Indian and Pakistani governments have responded differently: India vehemently denies the losses, seemingly deceiving its domestic audience, while Pakistan is suspected of exaggerating its achievements. However, India’s defeat in this air battle is now largely confirmed.

Looking at the entire conflict, it’s clear that Pakistan’s air force alone could not have achieved such a victory, including downing the Rafale, touted as a 4.5-generation fighter second only to the American F-35. The fingerprints of China are evident in every aspect of the operation, from strategic and tactical planning to weapon use and intelligence operations. Pakistan orchestrated the conflict by leveraging regional terrorist groups to provoke an incident, anticipating India’s retaliatory airstrikes. Pakistan then deployed early-warning aircraft and fighter jets along India’s likely approach routes, fully prepared for combat. When Indian jets entered the ambush zone, they were attacked from long range. Despite India’s numerical and technological superiority, their aircraft were locked on by Pakistani early-warning systems, leaving them defenseless against BVR attacks.

This wasn’t the first time terrorist activities in the Kashmir region sparked conflict. India had previously conducted retaliatory airstrikes, during which Pakistan’s air defense missiles failed to respond, allowing India’s surprise attacks to succeed. Emboldened by past successes, India underestimated Pakistan this time, assuming they could easily cross the border and strike. However, they found Pakistan fully prepared and waiting. India was forced to abandon its cross-border plans, resorting to launching cruise missiles from a distance to hit ground targets. Shockingly, the Rafale jets weren’t even equipped with Meteor missiles for medium-to-long-range combat. Pakistan, on the other hand, was ready for air combat, with early-warning aircraft guiding fighter jets to launch a salvo of medium-range air-to-air missiles, catching the Indian air force off guard. Pakistan’s JH-17, J-10CE, and early-warning aircraft worked in tandem, forming a cohesive system that outmaneuvered India’s uncoordinated forces. Despite India’s numerical and performance advantages, they suffered a crushing defeat. The French Rafale, considered the world’s best outside of stealth capabilities, and the Su-30, renowned for its close-range dogfighting prowess despite its poor performance in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, were shot down without even sighting their opponents.

China likely masterminded this India-Pakistan air battle, using it as a strategic move to gain leverage in the U.S.-China trade war. Recently, J.D. Vance, accompanied by his Indian-American family, visited India to express the U.S.’s stance on aligning with India to counter China. Known for his brash style and provocative rhetoric, Vance has consistently stirred controversy. His meeting with Zelenskyy sparked arguments, his encounter with the Pope led to a mysterious death, and his visit to Modi triggered this India-Pakistan air battle. Wherever he goes, chaos seems to follow. China, seeking a breakthrough in the trade war with the U.S., identified Pakistan as its most reliable ally to pressure India. India has long been a key pillar of Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy to counter China, making it an ideal target to disrupt Trump’s trade war tactics. Moreover, with the Russia-Ukraine war at a stalemate, China prefers Russia to remain in a state of neither winning nor losing decisively, diverting Western attention from China. In the Middle East, Israel has largely subdued Hamas, Iran is negotiating nuclear deals with the U.S., North Korea is bypassing China in its military cooperation with Russia, and ASEAN countries in the South China Sea need to be courted to counter the U.S. The Taiwan Strait involves U.S. and Japanese intervention, leaving Pakistan as China’s most controllable ally to act.

China not only orchestrated this air battle but likely had military personnel directly involved, choosing to fight within Pakistani territory to avoid escalation. From fighter jets to early-warning aircraft, from operational planning to execution, the battle reflected Chinese military philosophy: “Strike unexpectedly, attack the unprepared,” “Never fight an uncertain battle,” “Never fight an unprepared battle,” and “Lure the enemy deep and strike their reinforcements.” The likelihood of this air battle escalating into full-scale war between India and Pakistan is low, but limited military conflict is inevitable given the threat to India. This conflict will not be resolved through Trump’s mediation—he lacks the capability. Instead, China will likely pull back once its objectives are met. By keeping India pinned down, China ensures that if the conflict worsens, the U.S. cannot afford to ignore it, as it would destabilize the Indo-Pacific strategy. Yet Trump, known for prioritizing profit over war, will face pressure. If the U.S. doesn’t yield in the trade war, China will continue using Pakistan to exert military pressure on India. Trump, who has failed to mediate the Russia-Ukraine conflict, cannot afford to ignore India either. If India and Pakistan escalate to full-scale war alongside the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the U.S. will be stretched thin and forced to negotiate with China, as everyone knows who Pakistan’s true backer is.

As a result, Trump has made a 180-degree turn, conceding on tariffs with China. The air battle has also sparked interest among developing nations in Chinese aviation weapons. Affordable and effective, these weapons proved capable of downing French and Russian jets, an enticing prospect for cash-strapped countries with limited options. Trump’s aggressive return to power, with bold claims of suppressing China, has been met with China’s preparedness. Countless scholars, experts, think tanks, and AI systems have studied Trump thoroughly, anticipating and countering his moves before they even materialize. His strategies have largely failed, leaving him to resort to simplistic rhetoric to deceive his domestic “redneck” base.

 

America defeated Germany and Japan in 3 Years, now 'Trumple' loses to China just 30 days

 

The unexpected announcement of the US-China trade negotiation results indicates that the US will impose a 30% tariff on China, while China will impose a 10% tariff on the US. Combined with the 20% tariff from 2018, China faces roughly 50% tariffs overall. The trade war will pause for 90 days, with further negotiations on other issues to follow.

Most of the 20% tariff from 2018 has been mitigated by China through methods like transshipment and overseas exports. The mutual 10% tariffs offset each other, leaving an effective tariff of about 20%. Producers, importers, and consumers each bear a portion, with China’s export tax rebates and recent RMB depreciation further cushioning the impact. Additionally, the US applies a baseline tariff of around 10% to other countries, suggesting that the trade dispute between the two nations is largely resolved. While there may be fluctuations after the 90-day period, the general direction is set. Trump’s tariff drama with China is on hold, but he will likely continue pressuring other countries. Except for the EU and Japan, most nations lack the economic strength to counter the US. China, the most resistant, faces 30% tariffs, while others will likely face around 20% on average, with specific items varying.

Debating who won or lost this round is less meaningful than recognizing that the trade dispute hasn’t worsened. The US and China account for over a third of the global economy, and a tariff war threatens not only both nations but also global economic stability. The instigator, Trump, a failed businessman who has gone bankrupt six times, has relied on Russian funds to bail himself out and has no notable success in commercial trade. His approach—self-serving and damaging to others—mirrors his governance: driven by personal whims, marked by erratic statements, inconsistent strategies, chaotic negotiations, and a lack of credibility. He bullies the weak while fearing the strong. Decoupling from China requires a national strategy, allied coordination, long-term planning, and a focus on ideological differences rather than trade disputes. Suppression should target authoritarian leaders, not their people.

Trump’s tariff war against the world has backfired, with China’s counterstrike forcing a compromise. Post-WWII globalization, driven by US military and economic dominance, matured after the Cold War. The US specializes in high-tech innovation, and manufacturing revival is infeasible due to high costs. Without Chinese imports, the US economy would stall, as entire supply chains vanished decades ago and cannot be rebuilt quickly. Decoupling from China’s full industrial chain would take over a decade. During the late Cold War, the US allied with China against the Soviets, and globalization was a US-led project. Until Trump’s presidency, the US and China were strategic partners, benefiting mutually.

However, new leaders—amateur politicians—have ushered in a post-Cold War strategic rivalry, with “allying with Russia against the US” and “US-China decoupling” souring relations. This has fractured global peace, splitting the world into opposing camps. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the US-China trade war signal an economic world war through tariffs, dismantling the post-Cold War order. The culprits—autocratic leaders in the US, China, and Russia—share similar ideologies: “Make America Great Again,” “Russian ethnic revival,” and the “Chinese Dream.” To pursue these fantasies, they’ve disrupted global peace, prioritizing personal will over national interests and law, waging unrestricted warfare that harms people and destabilizes the planet, regressing history to pre-Cold War chaos.

The trade negotiation outcome warns Trump that he cannot act unchecked. The stalemate in Ukraine shows Putin that the era of might-makes-right is over. China, integrated into global trade, cannot sustain a full confrontation with the West. Its economic pillars—exports and real estate—are crumbling, with the property bubble already burst. Further export suppression could trigger economic collapse, threatening the ruling party’s legitimacy. Thus, the trade war is a political, not just economic, issue. Trump has identified China’s vulnerability, and persistence could yield long-term success. However, decoupling and collapsing China’s economy benefits neither the US, the Chinese people, nor global stability. China’s unique role as the world’s factory, with its unmatched industrial chain, is irreplaceable.

Without allies, the US cannot economically overpower China. Trump’s unilateral, ego-driven trade war is doomed, and his compromise is inevitable—a complete defeat. If “making America great” results in soaring prices, empty shelves, and economic strife—where families argue over costs, children lack toys or computers, and jobless husbands face broken marriages—what does this “greatness” mean? As long as Trump remains in power, America’s decline is certain. His folly and recklessness led to the US defeating Germany and Japan in WWII in three years, yet in this trade war with China, he was defeated in just one month!

 

India-Pakistan air war: China-directed Kashmir blockbuster ends in vain

 

The India-Pakistan border conflict has become a hot topic, with self-media even claiming the possibility of launching a ground war and triggering nuclear threats. India's military strength is overall many times that of Pakistan. As a country with a per capita GDP of less than $1,000, Pakistan is deeply tied to China through the Belt and Road Initiative, burdened with heavy debt and on the brink of bankruptcy, unable to sustain the pressure of a mid-to-long-term war. Its main backer, China, is embroiled in a trade war, with a struggling domestic economy and widespread hardship, focusing its primary efforts on supporting Russia. Relying solely on Pakistan’s own strength, self-preservation is already a challenge, let alone launching a full-scale war.

Both sides engaged in a mid-range air battle along the border. It can be confirmed that 1-2 French Rafale fighters were shot down. Pakistan claims 6-7 Indian aircraft, including French Rafales, Russian Su-30s, and MiG-29s, were downed, but no solid evidence has been provided. The so-called evidence presented is merely old news from years past. The incident involved the Pakistani Air Force, guided by early warning aircraft, locking onto Indian fighters and launching mid-range missiles to shoot them down. The equipment used included Chinese-provided early warning aircraft, export versions of the J-10C, and JH-7 fighters. Although the Indian Air Force has advanced equipment from various countries, including early warning aircraft, these systems are not integrated, leading to losses from a surprise mid-range air-to-air missile attack within its territory. While the incident did not generate significant attention in mainstream global media, China and Pakistan heavily hyped it, particularly through coordinated online propaganda, suggesting this was a carefully orchestrated event.

Despite its advanced equipment, the Indian Air Force has too many weaknesses, and its combat effectiveness is limited. War is never won by equipment alone. However, this large-scale mid-range air battle was indeed a first in human history, and countries worldwide will conduct detailed analyses of it. The Pakistani Air Force lacks the capability to counter the Indian Air Force’s comprehensive air strikes. In the past, the Indian Air Force has repeatedly struck terrorist bases inside Pakistan without interception, and Pakistan’s air defense systems, such as the HQ-9 and HQ-16, failed to respond. This time, it is likely that Chinese military personnel directly commanded the operation, or even Chinese fighter pilots participated, choosing to engage within Pakistani territory. The Indian Air Force suffers from subpar pilot training, poor aircraft maintenance, and overly complex avionics systems due to the variety of aircraft models, making it difficult to form effective combat power. India, not even considered an industrial nation, lacks a complete industrial system. Its weapons and equipment face issues from development to maintenance, compounded by a lax and imprecise approach, resulting in a large but ineffective military. Compared to the weaker Pakistan, India has a size advantage but limited combat strength, unable to fully dominate.

In the disputed Kashmir region, India controls 45%, Pakistan nearly 40%, and China 15%. The balance of power between China-Pakistan and India makes it difficult to alter the status quo through military means. The complex terrain and harsh climate also make large-scale, long-term military deployments challenging. All parties create incidents in the region for political gain, drawing international attention before quietly de-escalating. India’s ruling party seeks to divert domestic issues through military actions, Pakistan aims to secure more aid, and China uses the conflict to promote its arms sales. China provides significant annual military aid to Pakistan, its most important Belt and Road partner, but Pakistan has no choice in the weapons it receives, accepting them passively. The backbone of the Pakistani Air Force remains the U.S.-made F-16, with good relations built through years of counterterrorism cooperation. However, due to its nuclear program, the U.S. imposes restrictions and prohibits Pakistan from using F-16s for offensive operations. The J-10CEs, valued at over 24 billion RMB, acquired by Pakistan are part of Chinese military aid, provided as a loan to be repaid by 2032—effectively a gift that Pakistan did not actively request.

The so-called JF-17 (Xiaolong) joint production was initially aimed at replacing the large number of Soviet MiG-21s retiring in developing countries, with the affordable JH-7 filling the gap. At the time, China, under U.S. pressure, exported through Pakistan’s name. However, the JF-17, derived from the MiG-21-based J-7, has limited combat capability. Russia’s affordable MiG-29, along with abundant second-hand and retired Western aircraft, combined with geopolitical influences, led to poor JF-17 sales. It was only provided to Myanmar and Algeria through Chinese grants. Pakistan, lacking any industrial base, offers little assurance for exporting aviation equipment. Although China has made rapid progress in aviation weaponry, its export efforts have seen little success. Even with favorable terms for friendly nations, the lack of combat-proven performance has led to failures, with countries like Thailand, Serbia, Argentina, and Egypt opting for European or second-hand U.S. equipment instead.

Thus, through this carefully planned air ambush, China aims to break its passive stance and open up the international market for its aircraft exports, with some international orders reportedly in negotiation. Pakistan’s provocation predictably triggered an Indian retaliatory airstrike, as seen in the past. Given Pakistan’s historically ineffective air defenses, India launched its attack with lax precautions but suffered heavy losses from a coordinated China-Pakistan strike. Pakistan’s claimed results are likely exaggerated; it’s implausible that all types of Indian aircraft, French and Russian, were lost. The most credible evidence points to one French Rafale being shot down. Even if ten Chinese aircraft were traded for it, the loss is significant, as the Rafale is an advanced 4.5-generation fighter, second only to the F-35, with a high price tag and strong export performance. Currently, both sides are engaged in a propaganda and information war. Pakistan exaggerates its achievements to tout Chinese equipment, while India denies losses and plans retaliation. However, the likelihood of further large-scale military conflict remains low.

China emerges as the biggest beneficiary, potentially securing some arms orders, but even downing a Rafale has limited impact on exports. Geopolitical constraints are unavoidable—wealthy nations won’t buy, poor nations can’t afford it, and middle-tier nations have many options. China’s support for Russia against the West, amid a heated trade war, makes countries reluctant to take sides by purchasing its equipment. Moreover, few nations urgently need aviation equipment. At China’s nominal price to Pakistan, a J-10CE costs over $70 million, with many alternatives available internationally. The online hype and orchestrated propaganda are largely driven by Chinese nationalist sentiment and prearranged narratives.

 

If Trump still uses his TV tactics he'll end up in the same hearse as the Pope

 

The United States and China have initiated contact under the pretext of addressing the fentanyl crisis, but in essence, this serves as a preliminary maneuver to gauge each other's positions ahead of forthcoming trade negotiations. It is highly probable that the upcoming talks in Switzerland will yield no substantive outcomes, particularly as China has dispatched officials who are not responsible for economic or trade affairs.

President Trump initially sought to exert maximum pressure to inflate his bargaining power, aggressively targeting China to secure advantageous concessions and ultimately compel China to accept a relatively lower tariff rate. His proposed 145% tariff would effectively dismantle bilateral trade; however, the reality is that the economic and trade relationship between China and the U.S. cannot be severed in the short to medium term. While China, as the United States' primary global competitor and the world’s largest authoritarian state, merits strategic containment, its rise was significantly enabled by American support. Effective containment demands a long-term strategy, coordinated with allies and underpinned by thorough preparation, rather than relying solely on Trump’s personal inclinations and instincts. As with other decisions made during his tenure, these actions are not without practical justification, but they lack the essential conditions for successful execution. Furthermore, Trump has a history of arbitrarily reversing decisions, reneging on commitments, and operating as an untrustworthy businessman whose practices fall short of even basic commercial standards.

Having faced multiple bankruptcies due to mismanagement, Trump either profited by exploiting legal loopholes to undermine competitors or relied on Russian capital to extricate himself from financial difficulties. Since returning to office, he has reverted to his former business tactics, insisting that other nations must compensate for allegedly exploiting the U.S. In essence, he demands that trading partners incur losses rather than profits when dealing with the U.S. This self-serving, predatory approach mirrors the strategies that led to his repeated bankruptcies. By managing the nation as if it were a corporation, he is steering the United States toward inevitable decline. His exposure as a Soviet operative, corroborated by his son’s public acknowledgment of the disproportionately high share of Russian funds in their business, confirms that Trump was recruited as a spy during visits to the former Soviet Union. His presidential election was also facilitated by the so-called “Russiagate.” This explains why Russia is exempt from his global tariff campaigns, unlike smaller African and Latin American nations that are compelled to pay.

The abrupt resumption of partial arms sales to Ukraine is driven by specific circumstances: Putin’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire, Zelenskyy’s unwillingness to cede territory or pay reparations, and European nations’ decision to independently support Ukraine’s resistance, bypassing the U.S. With Trump’s Soviet affiliations exposed and his pledge of a “24-hour ceasefire” discredited, he is unable to mediate and has temporarily withdrawn from the role. Similar to his threats against Greenland, Canada, Mexico, and Panama, his trade war against China is likely to end inconclusively. China’s strategy is to endure the loss of the U.S. market, which, though significant, can be sustained by an authoritarian regime capable of absorbing short-term setbacks. China’s economy is far from collapse, and by maintaining a resolute stance in the short to medium term, it anticipates that the U.S. will ultimately falter. By late June, the U.S. must issue new treasury bonds, domestic inventories will be exhausted, and the consequences of disrupted supply chains are already evident, with significant price increases inevitable. Domestic dissent is intensifying, and the aggressive global tariff campaign has reached an impasse, placing Trump in a precarious position.

Should China persist in its opposition, other nations may follow, resulting in disruptions to U.S. goods and material supplies that could affect public welfare and generate substantial pressure ahead of the midterm elections. However, conceding to China would signify the failure of the trade war, with even greater implications for his administration. China’s reluctance to engage in negotiations stems from Trump’s unpredictable behavior; since his first term, he has consistently targeted China. Consequently, even at the cost of significant trade losses, China is determined to resolve the “Trump issue” decisively. During the first trade war, China effectively countered by rerouting exports through third countries, doubling its trade volume with the U.S., and expanding overseas production and sales. For the current trade war, China’s minimum condition is a U.S. commitment to rescind all tariffs imposed on China to date and to pledge no further suppression—otherwise, negotiations are non-negotiable. As a result, the trade conflict is poised to be protracted, continuing until a scenario favorable to China emerges, such as internal U.S. turmoil driven by goods shortages.

While the loss of Chinese goods has minimal impact on America’s affluent elite, it poses a survival challenge for the broader public. Trump’s primary objective in this term is to amass vast wealth for his family, and he has already secured substantial profits through issuing digital currencies, engaging in insider trading, and covertly manipulating financial markets. His support for Russia also comes with a price. China seeks to de-escalate the trade war, but some form of profit-sharing or concessions will likely be inevitable. For Trump, this ensures an impregnable position. His rhetoric of “Making America Great Again” is merely a pretext to mislead the uninformed American electorate. Trump’s ascent in the U.S. was propelled by unexpected fame from reality television, leveraging media attention to generate topics and controversy. His current erratic actions are rooted in this strategy, now extended from the U.S. to the global stage.

His stunt of dressing as the Pope was intended to capture public attention and generate topics, but excessive media manipulation risks public fatigue with his outlandish behavior, leading to a loss of interest and marketability. Moreover, given his advanced age, he will eventually exit the political stage, and the American public, feeling deceived, will likely demand accountability. Given his precarious circumstances, it is conceivable that one day he could be found deceased at Mar-a-Lago or elsewhere, with an official investigation concluding it was suicide, with no suspicious circumstances.

 

Did Trump really get a call from China or just losing his mind again

 

Trump claims that negotiations with China on tariff issues are progressing well, stating he received a call from China's top leader and that both sides will soon reach an agreement. However, China's Foreign Ministry completely denies this. In reality, while Trump’s stance has softened, China has decided to adopt a national strategy to confront the U.S. trade war. Trump’s unpredictability and lack of credibility are well-known. During the last trade war, which wasn’t solely targeted at China, the confrontation between the two sides was exceptionally intense. China not only tore up the signed agreement, completely refusing to honor the U.S.’s trade commitments, but also launched a “pandemic war” to drive Trump out of office. Given such determination back then, why would China bow to trade pressures this time?

Since taking office, China’s top leadership has consistently adopted a hostile stance toward the West, aiming to challenge the U.S. for global dominance. This strategy contradicts the 40 years of reform and opening-up policies, failing to gain international recognition and sparking domestic opposition. This has led to internal and external troubles, economic decline, and public discontent, even affecting the authority of the top leader. However, Trump’s return to power and the initiation of a tougher new trade war seem to validate the correctness of China’s long-standing confrontational approach: “The imperialist U.S. will never abandon its intent to destroy us.” Rather than being contained and suppressed, losing power, it’s better to fight to the end and become the true “defender of international trade.” Recent reports from all Chinese think tanks agree that Trump’s tariff war, driven by his foreign trade policies, will ultimately end in America’s complete failure. Thus, China must seize this historic opportunity. China’s approach is a national strategy, not dictated by Trump’s personal will, and the tariff war will not end quickly.

During the pandemic, China imposed three years of lockdowns, particularly sealing off coastal cities for over a month after the Russia-Ukraine war began. The real purpose was to support Russia. China and Russia had agreed that once Russia’s surprise attack on Kyiv succeeded, China would immediately launch an attack on Taiwan. To counter military pressure from the U.S. and Japan, China locked down major coastal economic cities, believing a month was sufficient to resolve the Taiwan issue. Once the situation was settled, China would then pursue compromises with the West. The so-called comprehensive lockdowns, restricting people’s lives and freedoms while using high-tech surveillance, served another purpose: establishing a wartime system to counter future U.S. pressure. If the U.S. completely decouples from China, leading to war, China has already made comprehensive preparations, conducting rehearsals and adjustments.

A full-scale trade war with the U.S. will ultimately lead to economic devastation, widespread hardship, business closures, mass unemployment, and social unrest. At most, China can adopt a wartime system with total surveillance, leveraging the inherent advantages of its authoritarian regime to maintain control. China has long prepared for a protracted trade war with the U.S., lasting at least 1-2 years or longer, and has not ruled out military conflict. Similar to the West’s strategy in the Russia-Ukraine war, China does not seek a quick, comprehensive victory but aims to exhaust the opponent’s strength over time. In contrast, the U.S. is entirely unprepared. While it has temporarily suspended tariffs on other countries for three months, China has become the primary target, bearing the brunt of the pressure. Trump intends to resolve the China issue first, but if he fails, other nations will likely follow China’s lead. As the leader of the anti-American front, China will also be courted by other countries to counterbalance the U.S.

If China wins, it will shake the U.S.’s position as the global hegemon. Economically powerful players like the EU, Japan, and South Korea, which have close economic ties with China and are dissatisfied with Trump’s protectionism, do not welcome U.S. tariff policies. They only yield under pressure. Globalization has expanded for decades since the Cold War, benefiting all parties, and cannot be undone by threats or tariffs—it requires reshaping the global trade system. Decoupling from China’s economy and relocating manufacturing also requires cultivating alternatives. The impact of cutting off Chinese goods has not yet surfaced but will likely manifest during the summer consumption peak, affecting supply chains and prices. Biden’s downfall was due to uncontrolled inflation, and Trump will face the same issue. The American public cares little about partisan disputes and is focused on daily life. As for the so-called return of manufacturing, while people see it as beneficial to the nation, returning to factory work is seen as unrealistic.

The U.S., aside from producing dollars, manufactures nothing. Its priority is maintaining the dollar’s privileged status. Losing the dollar’s global dominance would spell doom. The U.S.-China trade war will severely weaken China, potentially undoing decades of reform and opening-up achievements, but the U.S. will also suffer greatly and decline. For the U.S., the urgent task is to stop Trump’s reckless policies and return to previous economic and trade routes while time remains. Following American tradition, extraordinary measures should be considered if necessary. Authoritarian rivals should be punished, but this requires a gradual approach, uniting allies for a long-term strategy of containment and attrition. 

U.S.-China trade accounts for 40% of the global total, and mishandling it will harm the entire world. For the U.S., the biggest problem now is Trump himself.