The U.S.–Iran negotiations are nothing but a sham, and before the midterm elections Trump will absolutely not withdraw troops

 

The brief so‑called negotiation period between the U.S. and Iran is about to end. During this time, Trump applied for $200 billion in military funding, with troops and equipment already deployed. What the media described as Trump “TACO” does not exist. The negotiation terms exchanged by the two countries are nothing but pipe dreams. The next step for the U.S. military—occupying Kharg Island—is inevitable. Once the island is controlled, it is equivalent to controlling Iran’s oil exports and part of the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. military has already bombed the island’s ground facilities, and naturally the next move is ground forces engaging in an island seizure operation.

Some EU countries are participating in escort missions, and Gulf states joining the fight is already on the agenda, though more time is needed. Even if the U.S. and Israel wanted a ceasefire now, Gulf states—under security threats—would still need to intensify strikes against Iran. A military alliance for sustained attacks on Iran has already formed, and the war is showing signs of becoming prolonged, lasting months or even longer depending on circumstances. Israel, despite its absolute advantage, has struggled with Hamas for a long time; how much more difficult it would be against Iran, one of the stronger powers in the Middle East. Trump’s conditions for a ceasefire are clear: Iran must hand over enriched uranium, establish a pro‑U.S. government, allow free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, stop all military resistance, let the U.S. dominate oil and gas control, and refrain from launching special operations against neighboring countries. As long as Iran refuses, there will be no ceasefire—especially since the U.S. and Israel currently hold absolute military superiority.

Iran’s ability to resist relies on the complete military system built for it over decades by China and Russia. Its vast underground facilities give it the capacity to withstand two to three rounds of U.S.‑Israeli strikes. Earlier, street protests in Iran were suppressed, key figures and uprising leaders eliminated, and the government had essentially stabilized the domestic situation before U.S. attacks began. Unless Iran’s military and irregular forces are completely destroyed, it is impossible for the public to launch a larger uprising in coordination with military strikes. Kurdish guerrillas are negligible. Iran still possesses considerable unconventional warfare capabilities, able to attack neighboring countries’ energy and civilian infrastructure in ways that are hard to defend against. The U.S. has no ability to provide total protection.

Eliminating Iran’s military resistance is the only solution, which requires ground forces to intervene for actual occupation and target clearance. Entering Kharg Island is not too difficult for U.S. forces; the challenge lies in eliminating remaining defenders and securing the island effectively. The island has numerous underground facilities, and fighting in areas dense with energy infrastructure while avoiding large‑scale destruction poses certain difficulties. But if Kharg Island is successfully taken and controlled, Iran’s bargaining power will be greatly weakened. The war now depends on how long Iran’s stored war energy can last. The U.S. will not withdraw at least before the midterm elections, and Gulf states hope to resolve the Iran issue completely.

However, if the war drags on, Trump may at any time fabricate a reason and suddenly withdraw troops without warning, shifting the burden of striking Iran onto Israel. Only then would Iran have a glimmer of survival.

Trump’s delay in visiting China is to see who blinks first over Iran

 

Trump has postponed his visit to China, citing the intensifying conflict in the Middle East with Iran. His earlier proposal for international escort missions in the Strait of Hormuz received little response, and China has remained silent. The delay benefits both sides: Trump can use it as leverage, while China needs time to reassess its internal strategy.

Iran’s strongest backer against the United States is China. As the U.S. and Israel launch full‑scale attacks on Iran, Tehran has struck neighboring countries while attempting to blockade the Strait. Strategically, the former is “you fight your war, I fight mine,” while the latter is “unrestricted warfare special attack”—both concepts taught by China, with Iran merely the executor. Beijing did not anticipate Washington would truly strike Iran; Israel’s attacks were expected, but U.S. foreign policy has been stable since the Cold War, with little uncertainty. Historically, U.S.–China relations were more cooperative than confrontational. Yet with Trump and China’s new leadership, the long‑standing balance has been broken.

During the Cold War, the U.S. and China cooperated against the Soviet Union. Afterward, comprehensive cooperation became the norm. Now, personal will from both leaders has turned relations into direct confrontation: China promotes the “community of shared destiny” and the rise of the East, while Trump’s “Make America Great Again” demands eliminating competitors. Iran, the strongest anti‑American force in the Middle East, has become the flashpoint. China will not easily escort the Strait of Hormuz, as ensuring safe passage would mean betraying Iran. With Israel having largely neutralized Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran’s only options are blockade and ground warfare. Drones and missiles will eventually be exhausted; despite Iran’s manufacturing capacity, it cannot withstand relentless U.S.–Israeli pressure.

Launching a “people’s war” on the ground requires public support, absolute military control, and strong external aid—none of which Iran currently possesses. Blockading the Strait is low‑cost, high‑impact, and immediately effective, which is why Trump’s escort plan has no takers. China needs time to evaluate Iran’s situation, ultimately deciding whether to continue support or use Iran as a bargaining chip. The U.S. does not seek to rule Iran but aims to dismantle the theocracy, install a pro‑American regime, eliminate nuclear weapons, secure oil, and remove threats to Israel. The U.S.–Iran conflict stems from earlier policy misjudgments: Iran was once Washington’s closest ally in the region, with strong ties to Israel. For America, restoring normal relations with Iran would naturally dissolve anti‑U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Iran is the backbone of anti‑American sentiment in the region, and China is its largest patron and energy importer. If Iran is neutralized, China will suffer backlash—just as in Venezuela, where massive investments were lost and energy supplies restricted. China’s urgent priority is to preserve Iran’s government, but that inevitably means concessions to Trump. Both sides now need time to adjust, but the final decisions may depend less on national interest than on the personal will of their leaders.

Rare Earths Down, Energy Up: Iran Takes the Blows, U.S.–China Rivalry Enters a New Round

 

The greatest impact of a U.S.–Israel war against Iran is the surge in global oil prices, which raises fears that the world economy could slip into recession due to inflation. Objectively speaking, before the war began, the U.S. had already anticipated that global energy prices would spike in the short term if the Strait of Hormuz were blocked. As the world’s largest energy exporter, the U.S. is fully capable of using its influence to bring oil prices back down. In reality, Iran did not block the strait; the so‑called attacked tankers were merely Iranian and Russian oil vessels.

From a military perspective, a joint U.S.–Israel strike on Iran poses no difficulty. Months earlier, Iran’s nuclear facilities had already been hit. The only real threat Iran can pose to the U.S. and Israel is nuclear weapons. Unless a large‑scale ground offensive is launched, Iran’s military strength cannot compare with theirs. Iran’s navy and air force have been largely destroyed, and valuable domestic targets have been comprehensively struck. The current war is more symbolic than substantive. Its future progress depends on negotiations between the Iranian government and the U.S., and on how far each side is willing to compromise. Iran has declared it will not accept unconditional surrender, but it is not opposed to talks. In fact, the war was triggered precisely because negotiations had stalled, and Trump launched strikes on Iran to divert domestic tensions.

The key question now is what conditions Iran’s military and clerical forces will demand. The war’s tempo is dictated by the U.S. and Israel. If they wish to end it quickly, eliminating Supreme Leader Khamenei and Iran’s leadership would suffice. If they prefer it to drag on, it can last indefinitely. Much depends on U.S.–Israeli intent and Iran’s endurance. China and Russia have made clear they will not support Iran. Given Iran’s strength, it cannot simultaneously confront the world’s foremost military powers. A nationwide guerrilla “people’s war” is unrealistic—the conflict originated in mass protests. Iran’s strikes on neighboring countries are merely attempts to sow regional chaos, drive up energy prices, and gain leverage in future negotiations.

Iran still has some missiles and drones in stock, but once these are depleted, the war will be difficult to sustain. The claim that Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, causing tankers to pile up, is false. The real reason is that shipping insurers suddenly stopped offering war‑risk coverage, and shipping companies, for safety, ordered tankers to anchor until the conflict ends. Rising oil prices benefit producers, but hurt countries overly dependent on Iranian energy—chiefly China. Thus, a prolonged war plays into Trump’s hands ahead of his visit to China, giving him a powerful bargaining chip. China’s “rare earth card” in the trade war has already lost its bite.

The U.S. does not seek to occupy Iran outright. Trump’s goal is to use energy leverage to topple the current Iranian government and install a pro‑U.S. regime. Before the clerical regime took power, Iran was America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and even had strong ties with Israel. The rise of the theocracy was largely due to U.S. foreign policy missteps. Ayatollah Khomeini himself was escorted back to Iran by the U.S. The long‑standing “Iran problem” is therefore in part America’s own making. Iran’s support for Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas may appear homegrown, but behind the scenes, funding often involves Russia and China. In this sense, Iran is an extension of the Cold War confrontation among the U.S., Russia, and China.

Resolving the Iran issue would go a long way toward stabilizing the Middle East. The outcome of the Russia–Ukraine war is already apparent; today’s battles are largely procedural. Putin is Trump’s ally, and once the Iran problem is settled, the focus will inevitably shift to U.S.–China rivalry. China may have won the first round of the trade war with rare earths, but the next round—the energy war—has already begun.

US-Israel Decapitation of Khamenei: A War Game Between Two Octogenarians

 

The US and Israel launched an attack on Iran, publicly stating in advance that it would last four days. However, within just one day, Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, along with more than 40 other senior officials and even some of his close relatives, were decapitated and killed in targeted strikes.The United States primarily focused on striking Iranian military facilities, while Israel took responsibility for eliminating key figures. Israel's intelligence penetration has reached a microscopic level: as soon as Iran's highest leader, even when hiding in a heavily protected bunker, shows any sign of appearing, he can be immediately assassinated. 

The so-called multi-day negotiations beforehand were nothing more than a tactic to lure him out into the open.Trump, now approaching eighty years old, launched this targeted elimination of the 86-year-old theocratic leader in order to reverse the declining momentum ahead of the midterm elections. This war between two elderly men was even announced with a specific start time in advance, after which adjustments could be made depending on the situation.Believing there was still a chance if the few days operation persisted, Khamenei naturally came out to rally morale — only to walk straight into the trap. In reality, behind the scenes, people encouraging him to appear were likely influenced by Israeli intelligence agencies.The current so-called "limited" military operation remains confined to airstrikes. 

It is almost impossible for the US and Israel to deploy large-scale ground forces for sweeping operations; otherwise, they would not have publicly declared the timeframe of the military strikes in advance.Overall, this is a coordinated effort to support internal chaos in Iran, with the aim of forcing the theocratic regime to collapse as quickly as possible. Iran has been experiencing internal unrest for several years, but large-scale uprisings have only recently erupted, with citizens taking to the streets to protest and attack government buildings. Under international public pressure, the United States felt compelled to respond — especially given that Trump, after courts ruled his tariffs illegal, needed a military strike against Iran to divert domestic attention.He originally had no intention of striking Iran. 

The earlier so-called negotiations were merely extreme pressure tactics. The eventual launch of military action involved some   occational factors, as well as Israel's unilateral commitment: once the operation began, they would definitely decapitate Khamenei. Now that the objective has been achieved, the current military action is essentially a follow-up to the earlier strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The only real threat Iran posed to the US and Israel was its nuclear program, which has now been basically eliminated.As for whether the theocratic government can maintain power, the killing of the Supreme Leader has plunged the country into even greater internal chaos. 

During the negotiation period, the Iranian government continued to suppress popular uprisings while hoping for support from China and Russia.Russia's Putin is Trump's ally. After already betraying Venezuela's Maduro, he doesn't mind sacrificing one more — Khamenei — in exchange for the US withdrawing military aid to Ukraine, indirectly leading to the dissolution of NATO.China remains a relatively insignificant player in this scenario. Its role is mainly economic — purchasing 90% of Iran's oil and helping sustain the theocratic regime financially. However, in political, military, and diplomatic terms, Iran's dependence on Russia far outweighs its reliance on China. Since Trump took office and adjusted his policy toward Russia, Russian support for Iran has begun to shift. Losing Russia's backing is fatal for Iran. China's assistance is limited to economic blood transfusions, and China's influence in the Middle East has always been mostly rhetorical. While it is undoubtedly an economic powerhouse, it has almost no real presence in international politics. 

It is essentially just a tool exploited by Russia and Iran.In the face of US-Israeli bombing, the air defense systems provided by China and Russia proved completely ineffective. Neither China nor Russia offered meaningful support for Iran at the United Nations.In the short term, it is unrealistic for the heir of the Pahlavi dynasty to return and take power. The current international focus is on how the Iranian government and military will react under the theocratic regime.So-called "targeted retaliation" has so far been quite limited — merely dozens of haphazardly launched missiles from neighboring areas. The greatest threat — nuclear weapons — has been neutralized, and the theocratic religious leader has been decapitated. 

The next focus is on how the current Iranian regime will negotiate and compromise with the United States. Bargaining between the two sides is expected to continue, accompanied by further military strikes, and this process may last for a considerable period.At present, military strikes are secondary; political pressure is primary. The Iranian issue may be resolved more quickly than many expect. Moreover, Trump will not allow Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, which would cause sustained rises in oil prices.

 

No War with Iran: Trump Turns to Stock Market Investments

 

Trump pressured the Iranian government to begin negotiations within 15 days, otherwise military action would be taken. At the same time, two U.S. aircraft carrier fleets arrived at designated positions, exerting military pressure on Iran. This kind of “maximum pressure” tactic has already been used countless times. To believe he would actually launch a war against Iran is naïve—this is merely his bargaining excuse. After a few days, he will deny everything he said and repeat the same trick again. To truly start a war requires strategic deception, as the art of war says: “When far, show as near; when near, show as far; when capable, show as incapable.” Before fighting, there must be prolonged negotiations to lull the opponent while preparing comprehensively, then strike suddenly when the enemy is unprepared.

In today’s information age, where military actions are highly transparent, launching a war against a strong Middle Eastern opponent with nearly a million regular and irregular troops by simply announcing it verbally is laughable. Iran, as the long-time center of anti-American and anti-Israeli resistance, has fought a decade-long religious war with Iraq. With a land area of over a million square kilometers and a population exceeding 100 million, although its air force is weak, its army has some strength and is capable of guerrilla warfare and total war. The country possesses a complete military industry, able to produce everything from bayonets to ballistic missiles. Even under recent overwhelming Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear facilities, Iran can retaliate with issiles and drones, to the point of nearly exhausting Israel’s air defense ammunition.

Although the U.S. has long stationed troops in the Middle East, even with Israeli forces, any military action against Iran would require ground warfare. In such a case, even a U.S.-Israeli coalition would lack sufficient manpower and is not prepared for a prolonged war. Iranian uprisings are sudden events, and future developments are unpredictable. Trump’s so-called maximum pressure is nothing more than a political show, intended to attract attention and boost his political standing. He is merely a clumsy businessman, not a statesman. His main purpose in governing is to consolidate internal control and secure family interests. Large-scale military action, let alone war, is not his option, and he has consistently avoided it during his administration.

As for the capture of Venezuela’s Maduro, it was merely a political show completed under full infiltration and coordination with Russia’s Putin. In form, key military targets were bombed, and with no resistance, less than a platoon of special forces carried out the operation—one U.S. soldier wounded, about 30 Cuban casualties. After the political deal was struck, the arrest was just a procedural step. Russian military advisers were the real directors of the operation, so Maduro was nothing more than a bargaining chip.

To eliminate Iran’s theocratic government cannot be achieved by airstrikes alone. Moreover, Iran has already prepared for Trump’s repeated pressure, currently stabilizing domestic conditions and suppressing uprisings. The U.S., apart from verbal support for Iranian protesters, has provided no substantive military aid, and has even restricted Israel. Trump’s current military pressure is just another online war of words, given his long-standing lack of credibility. The movement of one or two carrier fleets proves nothing—after all, four carrier fleets cruising in the Asia-Pacific is common. Therefore, a war against Iran is unlikely in the short term. This is simply Trump, after a few weeks of quiet, making money again in the stock market.

Iran’s oil will only come into play after the U.S. digests Venezuela’s reserves. As for Trump’s constant outrageous remarks, the whole world knows they are nothing more than tricks to attract attention like an internet celebrity.

 

The Russia–Ukraine War Continues Thanks to Two Things: Trump’s Scowl and China’s Cash

 

The Russia–Ukraine war has lasted for a full four years and is still stuck in a stalemate. After Donald Trump came to power, he hoped to force Ukraine to cede territory and pay compensation through strong pressure. In the end, due to strong backlash from Europe, he did not succeed, and internationally it also triggered negative consequences. Ultimately, the U.S. had to withdraw, which indirectly helped Russia and led to the collapse of NATO. His pre-election promise to end the war within 24 hours was nothing but a joke, just like many of his other empty political promises. Putin cannot accept a ceasefire under any conditions, because that would mean losing his legitimacy to rule. In Russian history, after paying a huge price without gaining land or benefits, such an outcome is unacceptable for a strong leader, as it would show national weakness. As long as the war continues, Putin can maintain domestic control; otherwise, once millions of troops return home after a ceasefire, it would mean the end of his political life. Russia has experienced this more than once in history.

For Ukraine, sustaining the war is not difficult, since Europe has basically passed legislation openly supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia. As long as European funding arrives, Ukraine can keep fighting. For Russia, the continuation of the war also comes down to money. With Russia’s energy exports having dropped sharply, the war now depends more on China’s support. If China continues to buy Russian energy, the war can go on; otherwise, only a ceasefire remains. At present, neither side has the strength to unilaterally change the course of the war. Russia relies on human-wave tactics to maintain offensives, but these small-scale attacks are militarily meaningless. Ukraine has shifted to a defensive posture, concentrating strikes on Russia’s energy facilities, manufacturing, communications, and military industries, gradually weakening Russia’s war potential and extending the impact into civilian life.

This all-around attrition has moved beyond the battlefield to affect the daily lives of ordinary Russians. Objectively speaking, maintaining the stalemate benefits both sides, and the costs are relatively manageable. Compared with the large-scale clashes in the early stages of the war, Russia now launches company-level assaults in occupied areas every day, entangling with Ukrainian forces just to sustain the situation. Although Russia pays the price of thousands of casualties daily, it considers this negligible, as long as it can mobilize enough manpower and equipment to keep going. Ukraine has grown accustomed to Russia’s attacks; as long as it can hold the front lines and launch limited counteroffensives in summer, it can manage.

Both Putin and Zelensky insist on continuing the fight. Trump’s ability to interfere is limited—his chaos is global, and Russia is only one part of it. In fact, Putin has always been the one controlling Trump, leaving Trump helpless. Going forward, Europe will be the main driver of the war, while the U.S. has lost its global hegemon status and become a secondary power. Raising tariffs to suppress other countries will not succeed. Trump is merely an anomaly, a transitional political clown whose actions will eventually be erased and judged. For now, it is only a matter of how long the world can tolerate what remains of his political life.

Trump Sending Troops to Iran to Nab Another Maduro is Overthinking

 

After Trump successfully captured Venezuela’s Maduro, he now faces large-scale domestic unrest in Iran. Both the Iranian people and the outside world are eagerly hoping that Trump will once again take action, with the U.S. military directly intervening in Iran’s internal affairs, capturing Khamenei, and ending the theocratic government. Although Trump has repeatedly posted statements pressuring the Iranian government, up to now he has not taken any substantive military action.

Venezuela is a coastal country with limited military strength. After years of infiltration, it poses no real military threat to the United States. Russia’s Putin, in order to reverse his battlefield decline, used Maduro as a bargaining chip with the U.S.—the so-called Russian colonel who accepted one dollar to betray Maduro’s whereabouts was in fact Russia providing intelligence to the U.S. Therefore, for America, the technically difficult operation of capturing Maduro had no obstacles; it was only a matter of execution. For the U.S., it was a guaranteed victory. Venezuela’s only potential threat, its air defense system, though aided by China and Russia, has long lacked operation, training, maintenance, and even basic combat readiness. Many systems were never powered on or connected, essentially abandoned. The Venezuelan military’s combat capability is low, lacking basic will to fight, and would likely stand aside in the face of a U.S. strike.

Iran’s situation is completely different. As a central leader in long-term confrontation with Israel, Iran fought a decade-long religious war with Iraq. With a land area of over one million square kilometers and a population exceeding 100 million, its regular army and auxiliary forces approach one million. Although its air power is weak, its ground forces have real strength, capable of guerrilla warfare and nationwide mobilization. The country possesses a complete military industry, able to produce everything from bayonets to ballistic missiles. Even after Israel’s overwhelming strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, Iran can retaliate with missiles and drones, nearly exhausting Israel’s air defense ammunition. The U.S., despite long-term deployments in the Middle East and Israel’s support, would need ground operations to truly eliminate Iran. If Iran launched a nationwide resistance, U.S.-Israeli forces would be insufficient and unprepared. The Iranian uprising is a sudden event, and its future trajectory is unpredictable.

Moreover, striking Iran would require Israeli participation, which would inflame anti-Israel sentiment across the Middle East, complicating the war’s nature and potentially turning it into a religious conflict. Khamenei’s theocratic government has controlled Iran for decades, with influence penetrating all levels of society. The unrest stems from economic hardship, but the deeper cause is years of sanctions led by the U.S. and the UN. Russia’s decline due to the Ukraine war limits its ability to support Iran, echoing the Maduro precedent. Putin abandoned Maduro, and may abandon Khamenei, in exchange for Trump’s support and concessions from Ukraine. China, as Iran and Venezuela’s largest financier, plays mainly an economic role, with limited political influence and little military capacity. Beyond diplomatic protests, China is essentially powerless.

Inside Iran, protesters demand the overthrow of Khamenei’s theocracy, even calling for the return of the Pahlavi dynasty. Ironically, it was the U.S. that orchestrated the fall of the Pahlavi monarchy, and Khomeini returned from America to establish the theocratic rule. The current unrest is still in its early stages, and its future is uncertain. Khamenei, relying on the military, has the ability to suppress protests. The people also have some capacity to resist, potentially paralyzing the state and toppling the government. Already, some Iranians have begun burning portraits of religious leaders, destroying Qurans, and toppling mosques, while the government responds with gunfire. Any theocratic dictatorship that still controls the military can suppress unrest, and mass killings of civilians remain an option. As long as the regime controls the situation in the short term, it can maintain governance and restore basic order.

As long as Iran’s situation remains unclear, the U.S. will not dare to deploy ground forces. At most, it might conduct selective airstrikes, likely led by Israel. As a businessman-president, Trump cares only about interests; the lives of the Iranian people are not his primary concern. Thus, his promises remain rhetorical, and a full-scale military campaign against Iran is essentially impossible.

 

Horse year and bad luck for Maduro Captured at New Year

 

Maduro, the President of Venezuela, was captured alive by U.S. military action. According to Trump’s version of events, it was Russian military advisers who betrayed him, revealing all of Maduro’s secrets to the Americans, which ultimately led to U.S. forces seizing the Venezuelan president without a fight. In the “Year of the Horse,” those connected to “horse” are said to be unlucky—Maduro’s surname sounds like “horse” in Chinese, so he was the first to be struck at the start of the new year.

Believing the story of a Russian colonel betraying the president is too naïve. The real mastermind must be Putin, who sold out Maduro and his wife as a bargaining chip to escape the quagmire of the Russia–Ukraine war. He is Trump’s true boss. For this, the U.S. was willing to withdraw from NATO, betray its European allies, lose international credibility, and even help Putin by pressuring Ukraine to cede territory and pay reparations. Rumors of a Russia–Ukraine ceasefire are likely not baseless—there may already be a secret agreement. Venezuela, as a pawn, was abandoned to give Trump a boost in his poor record, helping him regain ground for the upcoming midterm elections.

After losing badly in the U.S.–China trade war, Trump has been moving aggressively: launching strikes in Thailand against Chinese-backed Cambodian cyber fraud parks, carrying out a decapitation operation in Venezuela—all aimed at China. China has massive investments in Venezuela, including energy interests and military aid, and Maduro himself is deeply tied to Beijing. His political faction is heavily influenced by China. The collapse of the Venezuelan government would be a major blow to China—not only economically, in energy and military terms, but also by uprooting one of the most important Belt and Road footholds in the Americas.

As a businessman-president, Trump does not want to follow previous administrations in propping up a pro-U.S. government there. Instead, under political and military cover, he intends for American energy companies and traders to control Venezuela’s economy through cooperation, and then expand influence across all sectors. For this reason, the country’s opposition leader—who just won a Nobel Prize—has not received U.S. support. The deeper meaning is that Trump must consider Russia’s interests in the region, so he has no intention of completely purging the old government for now. At the same time, he is watching China’s reaction. Maduro and his wife, along with China’s interests in Venezuela, have become Trump’s key bargaining chips.

Trump’s urgency in resolving the Russia–Ukraine war is not only to please Putin, but also because he needs to gather strength to confront China. After years of trade war, he realized he cannot defeat China economically. The initiator of the so-called Indo-Pacific strategy, Shinzo Abe, has already been assassinated, and even Trump himself nearly got shot during his campaign. India, having lost an air battle to Pakistan backed by China, is of little use. Thus, Trump urgently needs new breakthroughs to rebuild the strategic zone: Japan protecting Taiwan, increased arms sales to Taiwan, Thailand striking Cambodia, the decapitation of Venezuela’s leadership, and even Iran’s internal unrest—largely caused by years of U.S. sanctions—all are part of America’s intensified pressure campaign against China. Just three hours after China’s envoy visited Venezuela and made promises, the U.S. launched military action. Economically, America cannot match China’s global expansion, but strategically, it does not even regard China as a serious rival.

China’s international partners are dwindling, essentially facing political, diplomatic, and military encirclement. In East Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are moving; to the north, Russia; to the southwest, India; to the south, Southeast Asian nations—all are taking action. In the Americas, Venezuela is unstable; in the Middle East, Iran is in turmoil. The pressure on China has shifted from the economic level of the trade war to the strategic level. The anti-U.S. policy pursued by China’s top leadership for over a decade, if not adjusted in time, will inevitably lead to military confrontation. If China loses allies internationally—even Russia siding with the U.S.—then under extreme encirclement, even winning the trade war would leave China isolated by the global community. Ultimately, this would trigger internal economic collapse. Right now is the most critical test for China’s reformist faction.

Trump Push America Into the ‘ Sinking Program’

 

After Trump’s second rise to power, he aided his patrons China and Russia in bringing about America’s complete decline. In less than a year of his destructive rule, the United States has already, without question, begun to collapse—at a speed and scale unmatched. Although Trump came to office under the slogan “Make America Great Again,” it resembles Putin’s “Give me 20 years and I’ll return you a strong Russia,” and China’s “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation—the China Dream.” These narratives follow the same logic: not shameless lies exactly, but promises whose hopes of success were already doomed at the moment they were made. America has never truly declined, Russia is not truly strong, and China may not necessarily be rejuvenated.

Cracking down on China’s authoritarian government with a trade war was understandable, but launching a trade war against the entire world only pushed countries to hedge their bets, using China as leverage to counter U.S. economic sanctions. In reality, this accelerated China’s expansion in international trade. U.S.–China economic cooperation has been a long‑term national policy pursued by successive American governments since the end of the Cold War. To change it requires a long‑term, targeted plan, coordinated with allies, gradually cutting ties until full decoupling is achieved—a process that would take at least a decade. Instead, Trump launched a global trade war, driving allies toward China and isolating the U.S. Given the deep entanglement of U.S.–China economic ties, short‑term separation is impossible, and the return of manufacturing lacks basic conditions. Thus, when China introduced its so‑called rare earth control strategy, the U.S. effectively admitted defeat and abandoned the trade war.

After forty years of globalization, the tariffs imposed during the trade war ultimately balanced out and canceled each other. Today, the trade war is no longer a topic Trump even mentions. Beyond creating countless confrontations internationally, he has abandoned the fight on trade tariffs, powerless to continue—a complete farce. China emerged with absolute victory, gaining deeper and broader economic influence worldwide, becoming the true leader of the global economy. The U.S., meanwhile, alienated allies, pursued only its own interests, harmed global economic development, and surrendered its role as international economic leader, becoming marginalized.

To help Putin out of his predicament, America under Trump even sided with Russia, indirectly withdrawing from NATO and halting military aid to Ukraine. With the U.S. abandoning Europe, Britain, France, and Germany led other nations in independently resisting Russia. As Ukraine’s military strength and striking power grew, Europe proved capable of handling its own affairs without U.S. intervention, provided support for Ukraine continued. With America’s exit from NATO, it lost leadership and ceased to be taken seriously in other international matters. In short, the U.S. has been marginalized. Losing military leadership inevitably undermined its economic position, and the continued decline of the dollar became inevitable. 

The military and monetary advantages America relied on since World War II have vanished. As Russia’s accomplice, the U.S. lost Europe’s trust. Other nations scoffed at America’s abandonment of allies, of European security, and of opposition to aggression. Thus, the U.S. forfeited its role as guardian of international peace, and the post‑WWII American‑led political, economic, military, and diplomatic system collapsed. In short, America lost its international credibility.

Rumors swirl that Trump’s wife is a Russian spy. After multiple bankruptcies, Trump was repeatedly rescued by Russian funds. As early as the 1980s, during a visit to the Soviet Union, he received certain promises. In his first presidential campaign, he gained Russian support, exploiting loopholes in the U.S. electoral system, turning himself into an internet celebrity to attract traffic, and ultimately winning the presidency. Upon his second election, his urgent mission was to help Russia turn its invasion of Ukraine into a fait accompli—cutting off military aid to force Zelensky’s surrender and the partition of Ukraine. Next, with U.S. approval and assistance, Russia would launch military action against the Baltic states and Poland, then Sweden, Finland, Turkey, and eventually all of Europe. Thus, Putin’s “Russian Dream” would be realized, with Trump as the Cold War‑era strategic pawn against NATO, finally dismantling NATO after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

In just one year, Trump helped China and Russia achieve anti‑American goals they had pursued for decades without success. America has since entered decline, transformed from the world’s sole superpower and international leader into a marginalized nation led by a clown. In Trump’s subsequent three years of leadership, aside from his family profiting through open market manipulation, America as a global leader—the so‑called beacon of democracy—has long since gone dark. The countdown to “America sinking” has begun.

The Red Army City Battle Royale: Putin’s Gamble and Ukraine’s Boiling Frog Strategy

 

The Ukrainian army has recaptured half of Red Army City and destroyed Russia’s elite 76th Guards Division. Putin’s order to seize Red Army City as a bargaining chip has once again failed—this time under the premise that Trump has completely withdrawn from NATO and stopped aiding Ukraine. Meanwhile, European countries bordering Russia, including the Baltic states, Sweden, and Finland, have openly declared plans to build forces that would directly fight Russia if Ukraine were defeated. Britain, France, and Germany are also attempting to bypass the EU and deploy troops into Ukraine, with the stated condition of avoiding direct clashes with Russian forces. Yet since the war began, such conditions have proven illusory, serving only to buy time while gradually implementing intervention. From a broader perspective, even without U.S. support, as long as Europe establishes a reliable support mechanism, Ukraine can continue the war—at least until the U.S. midterm elections, when American politics may shift.

Currently, neither side has the ability to annihilate the other militarily. Ukraine has been under nationwide military mobilization for four years, steadily strengthening its capabilities. Russia, by contrast, has no better option than attritional warfare, maintaining a stalemated front line. Over four years, Russian forces have suffered massive losses in personnel, equipment, ammunition, logistics, and supplies, while enduring Ukrainian raids and relentless international sanctions. Ukraine has already struck Russia’s energy facilities across the board and now targets civilian infrastructure and transport hubs. Russia’s economy is increasingly strained, with energy exports slashed and revenues plummeting. Yet the basic funding for war continues thanks to Chinese support. In short, as long as China provides lifelines, Russia can keep fighting until the international situation changes. As long as the war persists, the West cannot fully pressure China, since Western economies remain deeply tied to China. Trump’s trade war has already failed, leaving China in a position of advantage. Moreover, under Trump’s global pressure, many U.S. allies hedge their bets, cooperating with China to offset American influence.

America’s explicit refusal to support Ukraine is effectively a withdrawal from NATO, reducing its influence in Europe and weakening its global posture. This indirectly boosts China’s leverage, strengthened by the trade war outcome. For Europe, supporting Ukraine to wear down Russia is the obvious path. Putin, now in his seventies, cannot sustain a decade‑long war like Afghanistan; another five years would likely exhaust both Russia and Putin. Meanwhile, China’s internal environment is also shifting. Trump’s collusion with Russia has triggered backlash at home. If U.S. military aid is cut off, the biggest losers will be American arms manufacturers. For four years, Western defense industries have operated around the clock, producing nonstop. To sustain the front, Europe and the wider world have scoured for ammunition. If the war drags on for several more years, Western defense industries will return to Cold War levels. At that point, even if Russia wanted to stop, it would be difficult.

Russia and Putin are gambling with national destiny. For Putin, whether he can endure or not—even considering nuclear options—defeat would mean certain death and Russia’s disintegration. Thus, securing a relatively dignified ceasefire agreement through Trump’s help is crucial, though Trump’s time is limited. Everything now hinges on Russia’s battlefield performance. Yet the Russian army falls far short of its reputation as the world’s second‑strongest military. It can only keep filling the front lines with troops, relying on sheer numbers to launch meaningless tactical assaults, hoping to blunt Ukraine’s advantages. Maintaining the current front and achieving symbolic victories—such as Bakhmut before and Red Army City now—would strengthen Russia’s bargaining position. But so far, these attempts have failed.

For Putin, prolonging the war itself is victory. Trump’s withdrawal means Russia only needs to confront Europe, and historically Russia has had many ways to deal with Europe. Thus, Putin is not entirely disadvantaged. If Europe descends into full‑scale war while America stands aside, Russia might even turn the tide—especially with nuclear options and Trump’s government as external support. For Ukraine, rushing to reclaim territory and win outright may not be the best strategy. Instead, gradual attrition across all fronts—military, morale, energy, transport, defense industry, civilian infrastructure, industrial base, and agriculture—is wiser. Militarily, Ukraine should avoid reckless offensives. This “boiling frog” approach, sustained for another four years, could produce decisive change. Ukraine is shifting from pure military strikes to comprehensive attrition, combining fighting and negotiating, alternating between talks and battles, to prolong the war indefinitely.

Once Russia’s resources are completely exhausted, Ukraine can unite with the EU to launch a decisive counteroffensive, finally resolving Europe’s peace and security dilemma. As for Trump, it seems Abe has been waiting for him for quite some time.