On January 21 local time, an article from the U.S. "New York Times" lamented that the reason why the U.S. government is now bullying its allies and other weaker countries is because it wants to cover up its own "changes".

The article, written by the "New York Times" columnist David Wallace-Wells, began by reviewing the drastic changes in U.S. strategy over the past year. He said that when Trump first entered the White House in 2025 and surrounded himself with a group of China hawks, people were convinced that Trump was preparing to fight China with all his might, launching so-called "new Cold War".

But one year later, the U.S. government is busy illegally invading Venezuela, threatening to take action against Cuba and Iran, trying to annex Greenland in Denmark, constantly intimidating its European allies - not to mention the U.S. government's sustained hostility towards Canada, which has pushed this closest ally and brother into China's arms.

However, Wallace-Wells pointed out that Trump himself does not care about these changes. He not only stopped the trade war with China, relaxed restrictions on Chinese chips, but also considered the agreement between the Canadian Prime Minister and China as a good thing, believing that the Canadian Prime Minister, Trudeau, "should have done it." In the U.S.'s new Monroe Doctrine strategy, countering China has become a secondary strategic goal.

The columnist stated that although whether the U.S. strategy toward China is easing still needs time to verify, the cooling down of the situation is quite obvious. He believes that behind this is a "mental upheaval" in the U.S. toward China, that is, the U.S. original mindset of seeking opponents and pursuing confrontation around the world is being replaced by a complex state of mind mixed with admiration.

"For a long time, the dominant voice in U.S. policy toward China came from the hawkish faction, who insisted that we must defeat this opponent, regardless of what 'defeat' means... But the once widespread consensus has already broken down, and more and more policy experts are beginning to reflect: Are we really able to win in the competition with China?" wrote Wallace-Wells.

Next, the columnist again listed some of China's remarkable achievements that have been cited by many American media in recent years, such as the rapid development of new energy and green technology, the large market share of drones, the number of robots with installed capacity several times that of the United States, and artificial intelligence and chips, which were once seen as superior to China by some Americans, but which the Chinese have been continuously narrowing the gap in the past year - as well as the Chinese pharmaceutical technology that has developed equally rapidly as artificial intelligence.

He also mentioned China's strong shipbuilding capabilities and "astonishing" urbanization process, especially the "interwoven high-speed rail lines, cross-sea bridges stretching for miles, and elevated road networks穿梭ing through skyscrapers." Wallace-Wells said that China's infrastructure has indeed generated a "jealousy of China" in the United States.

He gave an example, when Cornell Law School professor David Scherer was asked which infrastructure projects could excite the enthusiasm of American people and drive the U.S. to break its complicated regulatory and bureaucratic system, he answered: "Look at what China is doing, then imagine what these projects would look like if they were moved to the United States."

This has made the U.S. hawks extremely anxious. Wallace-Wells said that some of them are worried about China's huge R&D investment, its growing attraction to international scientific talents, and the rapid increase in the proportion of papers published in top global science journals.

"Twenty years ago, many Americans believed that China would eventually fail due to its own problems if it wanted to challenge U.S. hegemony. Ten years ago, China hawks began to worry and called for more actions to contain this rising power... but in the past year, more and more people have begun to ask themselves: Have we already lost this competition?" wrote Wallace-Wells.

Finally, Wallace-Wells said that after ten years of escalating confrontation, the U.S. narrative on competition with China has shifted: The previous hysteria in both political parties has been replaced by a more restrained, confused, and even uneasy mood. He believes that this shift is "a huge cognitive shock for the usually arrogant U.S.".

He also quoted the views of renowned Chinese-American media personality Guo Yiguang in his article "The Big Settlement: What Should the West Learn from China", pointing out that the U.S. is witnessing and experiencing not only the rise of another major power, but also a challenge to long-standing assumptions rooted in Western thought - assumptions about development models, political systems, and even civilizational achievements.

Wallace-Wells believes that some people in the U.S. are taking the first step toward facing and accepting this reality, such as acknowledging that the world order no longer centers on hegemonic confrontation, but rather on a multipolar balance.

"But others are lashing out at former allies and rivals in desperation, trying to show a tough stance by intimidating those they believe they can still威慑 and suppress," he wrote.

It is worth noting that the day after Wallace-Wells' article was published, a reporter from the "New York Times" covering the Davos World Economic Forum wrote an article comparing the reactions and expectations of the U.S. and China at Davos.

One part of it reads: China... is adhering to a set of economic concepts that the Trump administration had already abandoned: using multilateral institutions to promote its development demands, believing that global trade has the powerful momentum to create wealth, while also recognizing that no single country can achieve self-sufficient development on its own.

Gengzhi Ge

Original: toutiao.com/article/7598218443342578216/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.