Torn Between Two Powers

China's backed Trump into a corner. Over the past few days, he's been throwing around "terminating business with China" threats like confetti. But despite his decoupling bluster, bad news just dropped, and the White House lights are burning bright again tonight as staffers order pizza for another overtime session. What a joy.

Reuters dropped a bombshell: Chinese manufacturers have already lined up alternative buyers beyond the US market. “China's export growth picked up pace in September, buoyed by manufacturers finding buyers in markets beyond the U.S. as a tariff deal with President Donald Trump remained elusive while investors grappled with the latest salvoes in their trade war.”

Chinese exports are absolutely booming—customs data shows over 8% year-on-year growth last month, crushing Reuters' 6% forecast. China's export situation isn't just good. It's excellent.

Meanwhile, Trump's ready with his own playbook. He's raging on social media: “I believe that China purposefully not buying our Soybeans, and causing difficulty for our Soybean Farmers, is an Economically Hostile Act.”

Then, while hosting Argentine President Milei at the White House, he threw out a warning: "We have to be careful with China." The superpower's run out of cards to play against China, so Trump's hinting that complete decoupling might be on the table. Analysts note this message wasn't just for Milei—it was for every American ally listening.

Trump's pushing for a showdown to apply maximum pressure on China. Since rare earths are threatening America's lifeline, why not just break up completely? The subtext: China has rare earths while America has strength.

Reuters points out that no country matches America's consumer firepower—the US absorbs over $400 billion worth of Chinese goods annually. With China prioritizing economic development, how could it possibly just ditch the American market?

China's Been Planning This All Along

But the hawks and White House team have missed something crucial—China's been preparing for this with long-term strategic resolve. Reuters reports that Chinese policymakers are betting on factory owners expanding sales across Asia, Africa, and Latin America to offset trade restrictions and keep this nearly $19 trillion export-driven economy hitting its official 5% annual growth target.

Last year's Nikkei Asia report revealed the shift: China's total trade with the US plummeted from 20% in 2018 to around 11%, with imports dropping to 6.3%—the lowest since China joined the WTO in 2001. The trend's continued this year, with US-bound exports down 30% year-on-year in September and 20% from January through September. At the same time, China's exports to India hit a historic high in August, and shipments to Africa and Southeast Asia are on track for annual records.

Long before Trump's second inauguration, China had already ditched American soybeans for Brazilian ones. Chinese Mainland commentators noted back then that China had achieved trade diversification, arguing that even if Trump launched another trade war, China wouldn't be worried. The logic was simple: China had made full preparations, meaning a trade war wouldn't damage Chinese fundamentals while severely hurting America's vitality. The mutual dependence ratio between the two countries was completely lopsided.）

The reasoning went deeper. Observers pointed out that the US would struggle to achieve de-Sinicization because of China's vast market. The massive population base doesn't just provide cheap labor—it creates an enormous consumer market that's impossible to replace.

The Impossible Choice for US Allies

Then Trump added another line for Milei: "You can do some trade, but you certainly shouldn’t be doing beyond that,“ especially anything to do with the military, or else “I’d be very upset about that”.

In other words, he's forcing Milei to choose—the main theme is "rely on America for security, rely on China for the economy." Simply put, China weighs half a catty, America weighs eight taels—you decide. Reportedly, Milei went silent for a while.

Oh, I get it—I understand what Milei and other American allies are thinking. Ever heard Sam Hui's song "Half a Catty, Eight Taels"? "These days, making a living is tough—where's the ideal balance of half a catty and eight taels?" A backing vocal chimes in—"Hell!"—which perfectly captures the helplessness of being "caught between a rock and a hard place", and squeezed from both sides.

Deep Blue

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

The US War Secretary Hegseth is finally in the spotlight, but with fame comes headaches. He was set to give a speech to 800 generals, only for President Trump to show up last minute and steal the show. Anyway, Hegseth started off as a nobody, but now he’s got tons of attention; many say he was caught off guard by the sudden fame.

The McNamara Comparison: Not Just Military, But Political Trust

Let’s talk about an American icon: McNamara. In 1943, he joined the US Army Air Corps as a math whiz, rising to captain. His job? Using statistical models to make air force bombing more effective. Post-war, he joined Ford, revamped their management, and by 45, became Ford’s president—second only to Henry Ford II. In 1961, Kennedy tapped him to be Secretary of Defense. Hegseth? He’s been in various wars, earned medals like the Bronze Star, served as an Afghanistan instructor in 2012, moving up to major.

Here’s the thing: as Defense Secretaries, Hegseth and McNamara had similar military creds. Critics say Hegseth’s just a junior officer and can’t be preaching to star generals. But back in 1965, General Westmoreland, the top Vietnam commander, had to report to McNamara. Big military moves had to get Johnson’s nod. So why bash Hegseth but not McNamara? Both started low in rank—what really matters is presidential trust. Without that, no one’s fit for the job.

Kennedy’s “Best and Brightest” — Then and Now

Speaking of McNamara, let’s not forget Kennedy. At 43, he was America’s youngest president ever, seeing himself as a fresh, new-gen leader. His cabinet was full of America’s brightest young minds, called “The Best and the Brightest.” In his inaugural, Kennedy said, “The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans” to lead the nation onward. He promised a “New Frontier”: ending segregation, reforming civil rights, pursuing peace, and taking humanity to space.

McNamara was the poster boy for Kennedy’s “Best and Brightest.” Plus, he held a Harvard MBA and made major WWII contributions, earning his spot among the “Blue Blood Ten,” America’s academic elite. Today, President Trump, a famous TV host by background, probably thinks Hegseth deserves a spot among the Best and Brightest too—he’s one of America’s top TV personalities.

The Flaws of the “Best and Brightest”

But here’s what you can question—the actual capability of America’s “Best and Brightest.” McNamara made grave strategic missteps in Vietnam, known in management circles as the “McNamara Fallacy.” This was his obsession with relying solely on quantitative data, which led to serious errors. He backed Westmoreland’s “carpet bombing” strategy—using B-52 Stratofortress bombers to relentlessly bomb North Vietnam. The flaw? Viet Cong often evacuated before strikes. McNamara still supported it, saying the goal wasn’t necessarily to destroy targets but to psychologically intimidate the enemy. The result? A humiliating US withdrawal after a decade.

So far, no “Hegseth Fallacy” has popped up, but calling Hegseth “The Best and the Brightest” feels off. It reminds me of the Western classic, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Not that Hegseth has Clint Eastwood’s style, but more like two of the three character types in that film—the good, the bad, and the ugly.