Leonid Zarykhin: A trade war is just preparation for a comprehensive armed conflict with relevant countries by the United States. The U.S. has realized its current strategic vulnerability and is striving to reduce dependence on external factors. Author: Oleg Farichev Image: Containers at the port. Participants in the discussion: Vladimir Zarykhin People around the world are beginning to talk about the willingness of the new U.S. administration to build a multipolar world. Meanwhile, the largest Western country (and unexpectedly for its allies) has become the initiator of a global trade war, targeting relevant countries. How should this policy be explained, and what might its consequences be? The Russian newspaper "Svobodnaya Pressa" (SP) has interviewed Vladimir Zarykhin, Deputy Director of the CIS Institute, regarding this issue. "Free Media": Vladimir Leonidovich, how does the multipolar world concept advocated by Washington today coordinate with the new tariff policies? — At first glance, it seems very difficult. I believe that the new team in the White House and the overseas elite circles that assisted in the victory of the Republican candidate have realized that the United States is losing its position while promoting the liberal globalist project. Since the time of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic Party has been vigorously promoting this project. Over the past two or three decades, new power centers have emerged on the world stage, not only ready to compete with the United States but also intending to deprive the United States of its status as the strongest nation globally. To change the unfavorable direction of world development for the United States, Donald Trump entered the White House under the slogan of "America First," confidently winning the election. The new tariff policy of the White House is based on this concept, putting the Sino-American trade war on the agenda. "Free Media": The trade war had already started when Trump first entered the White House... — Exactly. By 2017, Washington had concluded that relevant countries were their main competitors and adversaries, and containing and obstructing the development of this nuclear-armed East Asian country became the primary goal of American policy. I would like to remind you that Trump's first presidential term began with the imposition of tariffs on goods from relevant countries. Relevant countries responded with counter-tariffs. However, due to the pandemic, the confrontation between them did not further escalate at that time. "Free Media": How did the main opponent of the United States respond to economic pressure this time? — The response from relevant countries was very strong. As the Financial Times pointed out, relevant countries were well prepared for the trade war with the United States. Clearly, the "Made in China 2025" plan significantly contributed to preparing China. Launched in 2015, this plan aimed to transform China from a producer of cheap low-tech products into a global leader in high-tech production. The plan expected to replace China's reliance on imported foreign technology through self-innovation and create domestic enterprises capable of competing domestically and internationally. After 10 years, the results of the plan are impressive: China has become a leading force in key areas ranging from artificial intelligence to renewable energy and transportation. Today, China can develop without American goods and American technology, especially since it maintains good relations with the European Union, which possesses strong technological potential. Ultimately, relevant countries imposed a 125% tariff on all American goods and suspended exports of several rare earth metals. The New York Times admitted that this cut off the supply of components vital to the U.S. automotive and aerospace industries, semiconductors, and weapons manufacturing companies. For example, relevant countries dominate in the mining of gadolinium and dysprosium, accounting for 80% and 99% of global output respectively. An interruption in supply would make it difficult for the U.S. to develop high-tech industrial sectors and slow down the replenishment of its military reserves. "Free Media": How long will this trade war last? — First, I want to point out that it appears that Washington expects relevant countries do not want to lose the U.S., the largest buyer, to maintain their own economic growth. Therefore, relevant countries will have to negotiate and agree to trade rules more favorable to the U.S. On April 8, Trump wrote on his social platform "Truth Social": "They want to reach an agreement, very much so, but they don't know how to start. We're waiting for their call. It will happen." But things didn't go that way. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce recently stated: "There are no winners in a trade war; protectionism is a dead end. If the U.S. insists on its stance, relevant countries will fight to the end. We will never tolerate excessive U.S. pressure and threats and will take decisive measures to protect our legitimate rights and interests." "Free Media": Don't you think, from a historical perspective, that the era of "an American-dominated world" has ended and that the U.S. has no chance to return to the forefront of world industrial production? — The U.S. government is trying to create conditions for reindustrialization through tariff increases. But is this realistic? The U.S. economy is already in a post-industrial phase. Some experts reasonably point out that the proportion of industrial production in the U.S. GDP is about one-fifth. Only about 20% of the labor force works in industry. Most people work in services and management. Would they be willing to return to factory work en masse? The culture of productive labor in American society has largely disappeared. Two-thirds of the population is not part of the active workforce; they are recipients of various forms of social assistance. Perhaps the U.S. government's expectations are related to the widespread and universal application of robotics technology and information technology with artificial intelligence elements, in which Americans have indeed succeeded. Some consider the tariff policy as a preparatory action for war rather than a measure for reindustrialization. However, no mention is made of reforms in the national workforce training system. From this, we can conclude that the imposition of tariffs means that the U.S., within the framework of preparing for war with China, is deliberately isolating itself from the world economy. This has been discussed by U.S. think tanks for decades regarding the inevitability of going to war with China. "Free Media": Significant adjustments have also been made in the U.S. in terms of military planning, armament construction, and deployment... — Recently, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin (the original text mistakenly refers to Peter Higaset as the defense secretary, but it should be Lloyd Austin,英文:Lloyd Austin; here translated according to the original text as Peter Higaset) stated that the U.S. is ready to go to war with relevant countries. He said this during a visit to the Philippines with the aim of strengthening military alliances with this island nation. Both sides agreed that the U.S. would deploy additional forward military forces there to conduct joint military exercises, improve operational coordination in high-tech military operations, and prioritize military industrial cooperation. After leaving the Philippines, Higaset went to Japan, where he also called for preparations for military confrontation with relevant countries. Following talks in Tokyo, both sides reached several decisions, including obligations to strengthen military interactions and increase the presence of armed forces from both countries in the southwestern islands of Japan. Additionally, Higaset confirmed that the U.S. is obligated to defend Japan, including the use of nuclear weapons if necessary. One last point: The Pentagon has drafted a confidential document titled "Temporary National Defense Strategic Guidelines," which again refers to relevant countries as the "only major threat" to the U.S. Thus, the current trade war also has military aspects. Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7495254302634656295/ Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views, and you can express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.