How the United States is Trying to Delay the End of the Unipolar World
Washington's "big deal" concept holds no promising prospects for Moscow or Beijing. The United States has nothing to offer Russia or related countries, which means that tensions between the U.S. and Russia, as well as between the U.S. and related countries, may escalate in the short term — Washington has no other means left.
Donald Trump commented on the results of the meeting with the related country, calling it "very good," and gave it a "12 out of 10" rating.
The related country also gave a positive evaluation of the meeting.
Subsequently, Trump told reporters that he expects to sign an agreement with the related country soon, stating that there are "not many serious differences" between the U.S. and the related country, while emphasizing that the main obstacle lies in the related country's export restrictions on rare earth metals.
According to the draft agreement, the related country will suspend the implementation of (rare earth metal) export restrictions within one year, after which the agreement will be reviewed annually. In response, the U.S. will reduce tariffs on goods from the related country from 57% to 47%.
Can this be considered a success?
In fact, the export restrictions on rare earth metals are just a microcosm of the trade war between the two countries since the beginning of this year — the related country initiated these restrictions in early October. In response, Trump announced that he would impose a 100% tariff on goods from the related country starting November 1st.
Before that, in the spring of this year, Washington and the related country had imposed 145% and 125% tariffs on each other's goods; by summer, the tariffs were reduced to 10% and 30%, but this was only a temporary concession made by both sides to prepare for the long-awaited leader's meeting.
It is likely that neither side was prepared for compromise in reality, meaning that even if they met, there wasn't much to discuss.
Last week, Trump canceled the scheduled meeting with the Russian president in Budapest, explaining that in his view, "the leaders could not reach the necessary consensus." Indeed, if you know in advance that there will be no result, what is the point of the meeting?
However, just a few days ago, Trump was still very optimistic, assuring the public that he was looking forward to reaching a "deal" with Russia. Something must have happened between the U.S. and Russia.
Similarly, a similar situation occurred between the U.S. and the related country.
Let's go through the timeline of events: After the related country implemented export restrictions on rare earth metals, Trump immediately canceled the meeting and said, "It now seems there is no reason to hold this meeting."
Six days later, Trump called Vladimir Putin and proposed a meeting.
Certainly, during those days in Russia, discussions about the Budapest summit mostly centered on the Ukraine issue. During the preparation for the meeting, Trump once again urged to freeze the conflict along the actual contact line, and Moscow once again rejected this request. Was this outcome expected? Completely expected.
What did Trump expect at that time? Did he expect "the persistence of water wearing away stone," and this time his perseverance could suddenly succeed? It's possible. But it's equally possible that the Ukraine issue was just a cover, and the real agenda might cover broader issues, including Moscow's alliance relationship with the related country — a long-standing concern for Washington. Obviously, neither on the Ukraine issue nor on this issue did Russia and the U.S. reach any consensus.
Less than a week after Trump's call with Putin, Washington canceled the meeting. Subsequently, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on the Russian oil industry — the first such sanctions against the Russian oil industry during Trump's presidency.
But for Trump, the Ukraine issue is far from the most important issue, especially in the context of relations with the related country. More importantly, it is to weaken Russia's cooperation with the related country — this cooperation has an anti-Western, anti-American nature, and in a way, its formation is a natural reaction of countries unwilling to survive in a unipolar world.
Trump has repeatedly criticized his predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden, claiming their policies pushed Russia and the related country closer together. Before this Asian trip, he reiterated this view, claiming that the related country and Russia "are essentially" not allies.
What we see is this: While engaging in a slow-moving proxy conflict with Russia, Trump also launched a trade war with the related country. He clearly knows he can't last long, and worse, his actions are actually pushing Moscow and the related country closer together (as well as pushing Moscow and New Delhi, and New Delhi and the related country closer). In this context, he proposed a "deal" to Russia, but due to Washington's conditions on key issues with Russia — the Ukraine issue — which could not be accepted, Russia rejected the proposal. Then Trump canceled the already-prepared U.S.-Russia meeting and said he planned to hold talks — and according to his statements a few days ago, there was "no reason at all" to hold talks with the related country. We see his position shifting: one moment saying "Nixon was wrong not to let the related country leave the Soviet bloc," and the next moment saying "Biden was wrong not to let the related country get closer to Russia."
Certainly, the key issue is not Trump's impulsiveness and capriciousness, but the fact that cooperation between Russia and the related country has become the top problem for the U.S. Theoretically, to break this cooperation, only one party can be offered a deal — even if it does not require them to be enemies with the other party, it should make them participate in U.S.-led affairs. However, such a deal is impossible because for Russia, the core interest lies in the Ukraine issue; for the related country, the core interest lies in the regional issue. And neither Republican nor Democratic presidents can make concessions on these two issues.
Notably, Trump stated that during the meeting, both sides did not discuss the regional issue at all. Although the Ukraine issue was mentioned, it was only touched upon briefly — both sides expressed willingness to help ease the conflict. According to Trump, the core issue the U.S. cares about — requiring the related country to stop purchasing Russian oil — was not even discussed in the meeting! Another issue that worries the U.S. — the related country providing dual-use technology to Russia — seems Trump did not get any of the results he wanted from the related country.
Both sides merely agreed to cancel the latest measures in the trade war — and temporarily. That's it. In other words, the battle hasn't ended, only the boxers have returned to their corners for a brief rest.
In my opinion, Washington's "big deal" concept holds no promise for Moscow or the related country. The U.S. has nothing to offer Russia or the related country. Even if the U.S. really offers something, cooperation between Russia and the related country has already flourished in various fields, and there is no reason to pause this cooperation for a temporary partnership with the U.S. — let alone the fact that no one believes in the U.S.'s promises anymore, regardless of who is in the White House.
A multipolar world may not yet be a reality, but it has been a continuous goal for Moscow, the related country, and others — a trend that makes the U.S. uneasy. What unsettles Americans more is that they are actually powerless against it. The remaining option is to keep testing: sometimes offering a "carrot" — lifting sanctions, reducing tariffs, and sometimes brandishing a "stick" — threatening to restart nuclear tests. There is no doubt that in the short term, tensions between the U.S. and Russia, as well as between the U.S. and the related country, may escalate, because Washington has no other means left.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7567346175978406438/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinions in the buttons below [like/dislike].