
Trump failing to grasp China's long-game trade war tactics
Articles in the publication are often seen as a reflection of Beijing's official stance. The latest piece – Today, it is necessary to revisit 'On Protracted War' – argues that the trade war is an American attempt to strangle China's economic growth and that it is necessary to perceive the current trade tensions as a long-term development.
What's particularly important here is that the title refers to former Chinese leader Mao Zedong's 1938 essay 'On Protracted War', a piece of writing that set out Mao's approach to combating the invading Japanese during the Second Sino-Japanese War between 1937 and 1945.
This strategy was also key to the subsequent establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, after the communist victory in the long-running Chinese civil war. Mao became the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from 1943 until his death in 1976 and created a set of political theories referred to as Maoism. He wrote extensively on political strategy.
Chinese policymakers and media figures often invoke the nation's history to justify domestic and foreign policy. And the decision to reference Mao's text reflects not only China's strategy in the current trade war but also the lasting influence of his ideas.
Mao's 1938 essay described a struggle that might seem, at first glance, a world away from the current China/US tariff conflict. His key thesis was that guerrilla warfare was a long-term affair with little chance for a quick victory.
Mao's argument was that a war of attrition would end with a Chinese victory as it would slowly bleed the conventionally stronger Japanese forces of resources.
Such an approach has been a key feature of insurgencies throughout the modern world, with movements such as the Taliban in Afghanistan using the long war of attrition against larger or more technologically advanced foes.
By invoking On Protracted War, it would appear that Beijing perceives its economic struggles with the US as a conflict without a swift resolution, something that may come as a shock to Donald Trump, who is clearly signaling that he now wants a deal.
This long-view approach has also been reflected in how Beijing has been preparing for a second Trump trade war ever since its experiences in the first Trump presidency.
In contrast to China, the US administration appears to have banked on the trade war being a comparatively brief affair that should be ended by a quick and decisive knock-out blow against Beijing. And a public relations coup for Trump.
This explains the showmanship behind the 'Liberation Day' announcements and the speed at which Washington deployed its key moves.
But by preparing its citizens for a protracted trade war, it would appear that China's strategy, similarly to Mao's, is to slow down the process and grind out the best deal it can over time.
Beijing believes that Chinese consumers are more capable of 'eating bitterness' (coping with hardship) than Americans. So, US diplomats would be well advised to dip into 'On Protracted War' to understand more of China's President Xi's intentions.
However, this is not the only way in which Mao's strategies are relevant to global politics right now.
Another of Mao's political ideas was what he termed the 'people's war.' This envisioned a slow movement where one group creates 'shadow institutions' that gradually displace established ones in order to build support from the local population.
This echoes part of China's approach to globalization, where China has supported or created alternatives to US-led institutions.
Many of Beijing's international institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and Belt and Road Initiative, are created to be alternatives to more established international bodies, such as the IMF and the World Bank. These Beijing felt were too dominated by the US.
While China has worked on this policy for decades, it seems to chime with Trump's lack of commitment to US involvement in international institutions, such as the IMF and NATO. In this aspect of international politics, Xi and Trump seem to have somewhat similar goals, and could open up more space for Chinese leadership of these institutions.
It's becoming clear that the Trump administration has severely miscalculated by assuming that Beijing would quickly capitulate, showing a lack of understanding of Chinese culture and political history. The expected instant deal has failed to materialize, and US stores are now warning that shelves may soon be empty of many goods.
The trade war has become a war of attrition, and whatever moves Xi makes now are likely to be only his first in what he sees as a very long game, in the great Maoist tradition.
Tom Harper is lecturer in international relations, University of East London
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


AllAfrica
22 minutes ago
- AllAfrica
80% of American troops would disobey illegal orders: study
With his August 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, DC to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged US troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. 'The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,' a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. 'This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.' Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey 'manifestly unlawful' orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that US troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. President Donald Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Biondi, announced at a White House news conference on Aug. 11, 2025, that he was deploying the National Guard to assist in restoring law and order in Washington. Photo: Hu Yousong / Xinhua via Getty Images / The Conversation US service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the US Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the US Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would 'obey any order.' Only 9% 'didn't know,' and only 2% had 'no comment.' When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were 'obviously wrong,' 'obviously criminal' or 'obviously unconstitutional.' Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that 'orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they're immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.' Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was 'harming civilians,' while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as 'torturing prisoners' and 'harming US troops.' One wrote that 'an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.' A tag cloud of responses to UMass-Amherst's Human Security Lab survey of active-duty service members about when they would disobey an order from a superior. UMass-Amherst's Human Security Lab, CC BY But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust US law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized US law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the US. 'Trump will issue illegal orders,' wrote one respondent. 'The new laws will allow it,' wrote another. A third wrote, 'We are not required to obey such laws.' Several emphasized the US political situation directly in their remarks, stating they'd disobey 'oppression or harming US civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution' or an order for 'use of the military to carry out deportations.' Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on 'manifestly unlawful orders' before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the US troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, 'becoming violently ill.' Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead's research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don't want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Charli Carpenter is professor of political science, UMass Amherst and Geraldine Santoso is a PhD student in political science, UMass Amherst Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


RTHK
an hour ago
- RTHK
No truce as Trump pins hope on Putin-Zelensky summit
No truce as Trump pins hope on Putin-Zelensky summit US President Donald Trump talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin after their post-summit press conference. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin made no apparent breakthrough on Ukraine in a high-stakes summit, pointing to areas of agreement and rekindling a friendship but offering no news on a ceasefire. Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity after the summit on Friday that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin were going to set up a meeting to try to reach a ceasefire to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. "Now, it's really up to President Zelensky to get it done," he said. "And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit. But it's up to President Zelensky... And if they'd like, I'll be at that next meeting." Trump said he and Putin negotiated on issues that included Nato, security measures and land, and advised Zelensky to get a deal done with Putin. He told Hannity he will not have to think of retaliatory tariffs on countries buying Russian oil right now but may have to "in two or three weeks". "Well, because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that," he said. "Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Trump, fond of calling himself a master deal-maker, rolled out the red carpet for Putin at an Alaska air base in the first time the Russian leader was allowed on Western soil since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. After three hours of talks with top aides, Trump and Putin offered warm words but took no questions from reporters – highly unusual for the US president. "We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to," Trump said. "There are just a very few that are left, some are not that significant, one is probably the most significant. But we have a very good chance of getting there. We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there." Putin also spoke in general terms of cooperation in a joint press appearance that lasted just 12 minutes. "We hope that the understanding we have reached will... pave the way for peace in Ukraine," he said. As Trump mused about a second meeting, Putin smiled and said in English: "Next time in Moscow." Putin warned Ukraine and European countries to "not create any obstacles" and not "make attempts to disrupt this emerging progress through provocation or behind-the-scenes intrigues". The former KGB agent quickly tried to flatter Trump, who has voiced admiration for the Russian leader in the past. Putin told Trump he agreed with him that the Ukraine war, which Putin ordered, would not have happened if Trump were president instead of Joe Biden. Trump for his part again complained of a "hoax" that Russia intervened to help him the 2016 election – a finding backed by US intelligence. But Trump said he would soon consult Zelensky as well as Nato leaders, who have voiced unease about the US leader's outreach to Putin. (AFP/Reuters)


RTHK
an hour ago
- RTHK
No truce as Trump pins hope on Putin-Zelensky summit
No truce as Trump pins hope on Putin-Zelensky summit US President Donald Trump talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin after their post-summit press conference. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin made no apparent breakthrough on Ukraine in a high-stakes summit, pointing to areas of agreement and rekindling a friendship but offering no news on a ceasefire. Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity after the summit on Friday that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin were going to set up a meeting to try to reach a ceasefire to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. "Now, it's really up to President Zelensky to get it done," he said. "And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit. But it's up to President Zelensky... And if they'd like, I'll be at that next meeting." Trump said he and Putin negotiated on issues that included Nato, security measures and land, and advised Zelensky to get a deal done with Putin. He told Hannity he will not have to think of retaliatory tariffs on countries buying Russian oil right now but may have to "in two or three weeks". "Well, because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that," he said. "Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Trump, fond of calling himself a master deal-maker, rolled out the red carpet for Putin at an Alaska air base in the first time the Russian leader was allowed on Western soil since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. After three hours of talks with top aides, Trump and Putin offered warm words but took no questions from reporters – highly unusual for the US president. "We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to," Trump said. "There are just a very few that are left, some are not that significant, one is probably the most significant. But we have a very good chance of getting there. We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there." Putin also spoke in general terms of cooperation in a joint press appearance that lasted just 12 minutes. "We hope that the understanding we have reached will... pave the way for peace in Ukraine," he said. As Trump mused about a second meeting, Putin smiled and said in English: "Next time in Moscow." Putin warned Ukraine and European countries to "not create any obstacles" and not "make attempts to disrupt this emerging progress through provocation or behind-the-scenes intrigues". The former KGB agent quickly tried to flatter Trump, who has voiced admiration for the Russian leader in the past. Putin told Trump he agreed with him that the Ukraine war, which Putin ordered, would not have happened if Trump were president instead of Joe Biden. Trump for his part again complained of a "hoax" that Russia intervened to help him the 2016 election – a finding backed by US intelligence. But Trump said he would soon consult Zelensky as well as Nato leaders, who have voiced unease about the US leader's outreach to Putin. (AFP/Reuters)