power is NOT about what you want to do, but about what you CAN do. Trump didn't arrive at this position because he wanted to.
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2054903749500350685
I know there's a lot of cynicism around - justifiably so - but if there's a single positive thing Trump could be remembered for, this 
may be it: going to Beijing and signing a framework that redefines the most consequential relationship on Earth on a constructive basis, putting cooperation first.
It's impossible to spin this as a negative: we've been told for years that the so-called "Thucydides trap" was foredoomed, that we were in a "new Cold War," that great power conflict was just around the corner, etc.
And yet here we are: the U.S. president in Beijing agreeing in writing to the exact opposite.
So, sure, everyone will be saying that Trump's words aren't worth the paper they're written on, that this is a ruse, some sort of American version of Deng Xiaoping's "hide your strength, bide your time" (韜光養晦), bla bla bla...
There's undoubtedly a lot of truth to this: Trump obviously hasn't had some sort of Damascene conversion to peaceful coexistence and there's no way on earth the man genuinely cares about "constructive strategic stability."
But I actually think the cynics aren't cynical enough. If you think that Trump wants to stand with his cabinet in front of Xi in the Great Hall of the People saying stuff like "we're all here to pay respect to China" (he literally said that: x.com/RnaudBertrand/), you're out of your mind.
Something basic that people often forget is that power is NOT about what you want to do, but about what you CAN do.
Trump didn't arrive at this position because he wanted to. He is the very president who ENDED engagement and started a decade of U.S.-China hostility. He tried virtually every tool in the confrontation playbook and...it failed.
So if power is about what you CAN do - and it is - Trump arrived at this position because it's the only one left. And that's exactly why it might be real: the costs of confrontation finally exceeded what America can bear.
And unless the structure changes - unless the U.S. somehow regains the long-lost (to the extent it ever had it) capability of containing China - then the trend is towards reluctant coexistence, simply because it's the only option.
That's the real cynical take: outcomes forced by structure outlast those driven by sentiment.
may be it: going to Beijing and signing a framework that redefines the most consequential relationship on Earth on a constructive basis, putting cooperation first.
It's impossible to spin this as a negative: we've been told for years that the so-called "Thucydides trap" was foredoomed, that we were in a "new Cold War," that great power conflict was just around the corner, etc.
And yet here we are: the U.S. president in Beijing agreeing in writing to the exact opposite.
So, sure, everyone will be saying that Trump's words aren't worth the paper they're written on, that this is a ruse, some sort of American version of Deng Xiaoping's "hide your strength, bide your time" (韜光養晦), bla bla bla...
There's undoubtedly a lot of truth to this: Trump obviously hasn't had some sort of Damascene conversion to peaceful coexistence and there's no way on earth the man genuinely cares about "constructive strategic stability."
But I actually think the cynics aren't cynical enough. If you think that Trump wants to stand with his cabinet in front of Xi in the Great Hall of the People saying stuff like "we're all here to pay respect to China" (he literally said that: x.com/RnaudBertrand/), you're out of your mind.
Something basic that people often forget is that power is NOT about what you want to do, but about what you CAN do.
Trump didn't arrive at this position because he wanted to. He is the very president who ENDED engagement and started a decade of U.S.-China hostility. He tried virtually every tool in the confrontation playbook and...it failed.
So if power is about what you CAN do - and it is - Trump arrived at this position because it's the only one left. And that's exactly why it might be real: the costs of confrontation finally exceeded what America can bear.
And unless the structure changes - unless the U.S. somehow regains the long-lost (to the extent it ever had it) capability of containing China - then the trend is towards reluctant coexistence, simply because it's the only option.
That's the real cynical take: outcomes forced by structure outlast those driven by sentiment.
posted by Satish Sharma at
02:36
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home