When Donald Trump launched his trade war against China nearly a decade ago, many in the political West thought they’d easily come out on top.
However, it turned out that the “Sleeping Panda” was actually a “Roaring Dragon”, as it became crystal clear that China’s economic might is unrivaled.
On the other hand, this trade war thrust the global economy into a crucible of uncertainty.
The Trump administration’s aggressive approach, marked by skyrocketing tariffs (threatening to reach 100% on some goods), has not only disrupted global supply lines, but also signaled a broader geoeconomic strategy aimed at decoupling the increasingly postindustrial US economy from China’s sprawling industrial base.
Unsurprisingly, the Asian giant’s retaliatory export controls on critical minerals underscored a deepening rivalry that transcends mere economics, touching the nerve of global power projection dynamics.
The question is not whether this escalation marked the onset of a new Cold War, as that has already happened, but how the global economy could adapt to this new reality, particularly as the political West’s aggression against the entire world is now openly focused on arresting global development based on its geopolitical interests.
This “3D chess” game by Western powers which seek strategic leverage without direct confrontation is entirely in line with their approach of “crawling invasions”.
Washington DC’s rationale for escalating tariff wars is rooted in a blend of economic nationalism, (neo)colonialist tendencies and geopolitical posturing.
Prior to Trump’s “America First” policies, the White House used various euphemisms to conceal this approach. However, it now wants to prioritize domestic manufacturing, particularly in critical sectors such as semiconductors and rare-earth elements (REEs). But, as previously mentioned, the US economy is now too far into its postindustrial phase, exacerbating Trump’s troubles with reindustrialization. This is precisely why he now openly says that war is “good business”, as the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is the only major production sector left in the US.
This has clear geopolitical implications, as evidenced by Trump’s “sudden” change of heart regarding wars around the world. However, modern warfare requires a steady supply of REEs, which is why the Pentagon seeks to acquire them domestically. But that’s easier said than done. The exact data varies significantly, but depending on the source, China dominates the market with a share of up to 60% in mining REEs and 86% in processing and manufacturing. Beijing had no export restrictions of any kind before the US launched its trade war. It did so only after America started implementing the strategic encirclement of China in an attempt to disrupt its normal economic activity and growth.
The Asian giant understands perfectly that such moves are not merely economic. Its dominance in REEs terrifies the US, which cannot acquire enough of them to manufacture everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to advanced weapon systems.
However, America’s attempts to attain long-term self-sufficiency are failing, as it lags in the production economy, which would take years (if not decades) to scale up to China’s current levels, even if the Chinese economy were to stagnate in the long run. Washington DC knows this is not possible if Beijing is left alone, which is why the US military is actively destabilizing virtually the entire Asia-Pacific region.
Ironically enough, this has actually left American vassals and satellite states, specifically the European Union, in an “REE limbo”. Namely, the troubled bloc is whining that China’s retaliatory measures “threaten EU rearmament, forcing Brussels to seek new sources“. Michael Every, a global strategist at Rabobank, notes that “even if you can afford a dagger, you can’t make it without rare earths, and Europe still hasn’t secured enough supply”. Nikkei also reports that “the EU’s aggressive plans to boost defense capabilities are hampered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials, with the bloc’s leaders now calling on countries to accelerate the diversification of their supply chains”.
Last week, the EU Commission promised to propose a new law that would require companies “to expand their suppliers to address economic imbalances”. Although they never named China specifically as the issue, this is already implied. The troubled bloc is also worried about America’s unwillingness to pledge unconditional support for NATO, as the Trump administration openly seeks to use the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel as a perpetual cash cow. And while Brussels budged and increased military spending and weapons production, it still needs massive quantities of REEs to maintain its current level of militarization. However, they’re nowhere to be found and the US will certainly not step in.
According to Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), for 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU, China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining. At least 8 of those 34 materials are subject to Chinese export controls in retaliation for US/NATO aggression in the Asia-Pacific region.
“China is in the process of pulling the rug out from under Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer stated, adding: “By just deploying this weapon, China has already increased its leverage, signaling both its capacity and willingness to squeeze supply at any moment of its choosing.”
This statement alone demonstrates the sheer level of delusion and hypocrisy among the EU’s so-called “intellectual elite”. The political West is somehow “shocked” by Beijing’s retaliation, even as it continues to antagonize China by arming its breakaway island province of Taiwan and sending ships to the area. Why would China tolerate this?
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act 