America's 'Colour Revolution' Comes Home to Roost

Responding to reporters at the White House, Donald Trump has made it crystal clear that if he deems the protests in Los Angeles an "insurrection," he won't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act to crush the L.A. "rebellion." He's even warned off any would-be demonstrators at the US Army's 250th-anniversary parade in Washington D.C., promising they "will be met with a very powerful force." The message couldn't be plainer.

Where’s the egg-and-wall metaphor now?

Upping the ante, Trump told soldiers at Fort Bragg that Los Angeles is being invaded by a "foreign enemy." After lambasting California Governor Gavin Newsom, he vowed he would not tolerate "this anarchy" or "allow federal personnel to be attacked," especially after seeing “rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion” in Los Angeles. In his view, this is an all-out assault on American sovereignty, and for that reason, he needs to "liberate" the city. It’s quite the rhetorical escalation, isn't it?

Trump Flips the Script

Make no mistake, the White House's move to rebrand this as a "June Riot" is a game-changer. Those on the streets are no longer mere "illegal immigrants"; they're now participants in a "foreign invasion." As The New York Times notes, the Insurrection Act gives the military carte blanche to "suppress an insurrection." Suddenly, the playbook used for decades in other countries is being read aloud in the heart of the empire.

To put it bluntly, Trump is done with half-measures. He's not the one who will be shedding any tears; he's leaving that for the rebels. Given the context, it’s highly likely we'll see bloodshed on American streets this weekend. This is a confrontation between the egg and the high wall, and it's never pretty. Let's call it what it is: the brink of civil war.

Of course, the usual suspects online are piling on Trump, claiming the protests were perfectly manageable until he decided to bring in the military. But that fundamentally misunderstands his strategy. Trump is a devotee of "maximum pressure." Anyone who wrote him off as a paper tiger and called him TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) is the real source of the trouble. Now the Democratic Party and the "anti-Trump" camp are forced into a high-stakes "Game of Chicken." The question is, are they willing to call his bluff?

Cutting Off the Head of the Snake

Here's the thing: Trump is holding a strong hand and has little to fear. While the United States is now bogged down in its very own "colour revolution," Trump had the foresight to dispatch Elon Musk to dismantle the "Global Colour Revolution Development Bureau"—what you and I know as USAID—the moment he took office. It's the ultimate irony.

As a result, while "rebellions" have flared up across American cities, there isn't a single US consulate on the ground to "pump in money," "coordinate" efforts, or "handle propaganda." Their impact has been severely blunted. The professional, black-clad activists on the front lines might be well-drilled, but once the Insurrection Act is triggered, the Marines won't be handing out flowers. The only outcome will be a panicked, disorderly retreat.

So long as the White House successfully quells this "rebellion," the so-called "civil war" everyone's panicking about will fizzle out. There's no role here for a latter-day Abraham Lincoln. So, relax. And here's another prediction: you'll see a lot of opportunists in America, much like Musk, rush to admit their mistakes and get back in line. I reckon America will be great again before you know it.

As for whether Sweden can bring itself to award Trump the Nobel Peace Prize this year – well, that’s story for another day.

The Politics of Eggs and Walls

On that note, have you ever wondered why the Japanese author Haruki Murakami seems destined never to win the Nobel Prize? My guess—and it's only a guess—is that the problem traces back to his 2009 speech in Jerusalem. With Gaza under relentless bombardment, he took a trip to Isreal, against the wish of many in Japan, to accept the Jerusalem Prize, a prestigious literary award. At the prize presentation ceremony, he gave his now-famous speech, declaring he would "always stand on the side of the egg" against the wall.

This is a lesson for the people of Hong Kong. Backed by our motherland, the city spent three years using its wisdom and courage to defeat a "colour revolution" of its own, moving from chaos to prosperity. But that's not enough to win a Nobel Peace Prize, because the primary currency for that award is a very specific brand of Western-approved "democracy and freedom." At the end of the day, both Murakami's egg and China's Hong Kong are standing on the wrong side of the wrong wall.

Perhaps the only sensible path forward for Hong Kong, then, is to simply double down on national and patriotic education.

Deep Blue

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Wang Yi just put the world on notice. "The international situation is getting more turbulent and intertwined," he said. "Unilateral bullying is intensifying. The sudden change in Venezuela has drawn high level of attention from the international community."

He then added: "We never believe that any country can play the role of world policeman, nor do we agree that any country can claim itself to be an international judge."

This isn't diplomatic chitchat. Wang Yi added that "the sovereignty and security of all countries should be fully protected under international law." It's a warning shot fired directly at Trump's so-called "New Monroe Doctrine"—and it signals China will push back hard against neo-colonialism. One story from China's past shows exactly what that means.

The Incheon Gamble

In mid-September 1950, MacArthur pulled off the audacious Incheon landing—later hailed as "the most successful gamble" in military history. He bet everything on one card: that North Korean forces would be lax defending a port with terrible geography. The bet paid off. US forces achieved total surprise, cut enemy supply lines, and reversed the early disasters of the Korean War.

The Korean Peninsula was strategically vital to both China and the Soviet Union. They planned to back North Korea. At 1:00 a.m. on October 3, Zhou Enlai urgently summoned K. M. Panikkar, India's ambassador to China. His message was blunt: "If US forces cross the 38th parallel, we cannot stand by—we will have to step in."

The CCP's official Party history records this moment and emphasizes one critical word: "管" (to intervene). The Chinese term posed a translation challenge. If the wording was too soft, the Americans might miss China's intent. So Premier Zhou asked his foreign affairs secretary, Pu Shouchang, to choose carefully. Pu used "intervene"—making China's intention crystal clear. China would step in and interfere. The message reached Washington quickly through India. Yet "the US side chose to ignore it, and US forces brazenly crossed the 38th parallel on October 7."

Crossing the Yalu

American troops didn't just cross the 38th parallel—they surged in force toward the Yalu River and raced along the China-North Korea and North Korea-Soviet borders to the Tumen River. What happened next? On October 19, 1950, the Chinese People's Volunteers crossed the Yalu River. After five successive campaigns, they drove UN forces back from the Yalu area to near the 38th parallel.

On July 27, 1953, China, North Korea, and the UN Command signed the Korean Armistice Agreement. Many believe Mao Zedong's decision to send troops delivered China a stunning victory—a weaker power defeating a stronger one. People now say China "won so hard it felt unreal."

MacArthur—that "godlike general"—couldn't let it go. After his success at Incheon, the more he thought about it, the more he wanted to expand his gains. He proposed a radical escalation to Washington: first, blockade China's coast; second, use naval and air power for unlimited bombing to completely destroy China's industrial production and infrastructure; third, bring in Nationalist (KMT) forces to "retake the mainland" and tie China down. Then fourth, MacArthur went even further with a wild proposal—drop 20 to 30 atomic bombs on China and create a radioactive "death zone" along the Yalu River between China and North Korea.

Trump's MacArthur Moment

Today's Trump thinks arresting Venezuela's president and his wife means he can bulldoze the whole world. One moment he talks about "taking over" Venezuela. The next he claims he can make personnel arrangements for that country, sending Marco Rubio to serve as a "governor." Meanwhile, US oil giants are poised to "swallow up" Venezuela's petroleum assets. Trump's ambition follows the same logic as MacArthur's back then.

MacArthur's recklessness enraged America's allies. They feared World War III. More importantly, the Soviet Union—which also possessed atomic weapons—was deeply dissatisfied with the US and warned that "bombs can be answered with bombs." President Truman faced an impossible choice: keep his war hero or keep the peace. He chose peace. On April 11, 1951, Truman fired MacArthur—ending the career of America's most celebrated general. MacArthur became one of the century's biggest cautionary tales.

 

The lesson is simple, direct, and brutal. Trump thinks everyone is scared of him and that he can keep throwing out ever more outrageous "deals" at will. That will invite disaster—because it crosses the tolerance threshold of the great-power balance. The major powers will have to "intervene."

How will they intervene? Great powers have many tools in their toolbox. Think of Schrödinger's cat—you open the box yourself and you'll find out the outcome. This isn't a joke. Do you dare try?