Abstract

In this chaotic, messy world, Donald Trump and his brand of Trumpism, in the form of neoconservatism, are innovatively rewriting the "source code" of the Western world, creating a new and unprecedented ideology and ideological struggle. From the U.S. Vice President JD Vance's speech in Munich to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy being expelled from the White House and the global trade war, all these events reflect that the conflict between the U.S. and Europe is not accidental, but inevitable. This confrontation and dispute are only just beginning and, unless disrupted, will inevitably intensify in the future. In the realm of international relations, this ideological struggle will also have significant implications. For the conservative U.S. government, the main contradiction lies in the conflict and competition between America's new conservatism and Europe's progressive ideology, while relations with China, Russia, and the control of China's rise are secondary contradictions. The evolving trend in international relations has already defined the new global spatial structure of the future. Therefore, for China, there is reason to adopt a pragmatic political stance in U.S.-China relations going forward. China should engage more actively with the U.S. and avoid taking a confrontational stance. This approach will benefit China in gaining greater development opportunities within the current international dynamics.

Keywords: U.S.-China relations, anti-establishment, U.S.-Europe conflict, Trumpism

1. Three Major Events in the Turbulent Global Shift

U.S. President Donald Trump's first speech delivered at the joint session of the Congress since taking office has the theme of reviving the American Dream. This is a topic heavily laden with ideological undertones. In the midst of a chaotic world, Trump and the ideology of Trumpism, in the form of neoconservatism, are innovating the source code of the Western world, creating a new, unprecedented ideology and ideological struggle.

The current world situation is in the midst of a turbulent transformation, but at least three very important events, which are closely related yet can be viewed separately, stand out:

The first major event is the speech by U.S. President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference. ANBOUND has already published an analysis of Vance's speech, focusing on its ideological significance. Vance's speech is of a subversive nature, an aspect often overlooked. His speech was the first to directly shatter the cultural superiority complex that Europe has long held towards the United States. It also presented to the world for the first time the significant divergence in trends and ideological differences between the future of the U.S. and Europe. Vance's speech can be said to have directly broken through the defenses of the European establishment, forcing Germany's defense minister Boris Pistorius to deliver an impromptu speech in Munich, offering a harsh rebuttal. Christoph Heusgen, the chairman of the Munich conference was even seen shedding tears on stage, realizing that the U.S. was moving away from Europe. This moment of realization led to intense hostility among European progressives and the establishment towards Vance, which is the root cause of the later coordinated social media attacks from European elites and left-wing intellectuals, who even resorted to spreading rumors and false information to discredit him.

Behind JD Vance, there is undoubtedly Trump. Vance has been criticized by left-wing media and intellectuals in the U.S. as Trump's "attack dog". The political backdrop behind such criticism is the same, but left-wing intellectuals with simple thinking have oversimplified it into a mere "political struggle". Trump and Vance are cut from the same cloth; together, they have created a new conservative ideology in America that subverts progressive views on issues like racial equality, environmental climate, class, income, and welfare, i.e., "political correctness". They have become the representatives of Trumpism, aiming to build a new future world in which the U.S. holds a unique, dominant, and unsharable global position. This, in essence, is the true meaning of "America First".

The second major event is the incident involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. Encouraged and supported by the governments and establishment figures of progressive European countries, Zelenskyy considered himself as both a "European leader" and a "world leader". He subsequently reneged on his own self-declared and self-interpreted mineral agreement and challenged the United States at the White House, attempting to lecture the U.S. on morality and justice. In response, he was practically expelled from the White House by Trump. While this spectacle shocked the world on the surface, European countries, particularly the United Kingdom and France, viewed it with quiet amusement. After leaving the U.S., Zelenskyy was warmly welcomed by British Labour Party leader and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who led him out of Downing Street to enjoy the cheers of the British public. Starmer, representing the left-wing of the British Labour Party, repeatedly assured that Ukraine will "have full backing across the United Kingdom … for as long as it may take".

In fact, Europe had already reached an agreement with Ukraine regarding post-war reconstruction, with Zelenskyy's assurances in place. After his fallout with the White House, Starmer immediately criticized the U.S., accusing it of disrespecting Zelenskyy. French President Emmanuel Macron also condemned the U.S., stating that it was unjustifiable to disrespect the leader of a nation fighting against aggression. Zelenskyy was deeply moved by both the UK and France during this moment, reportedly even breaking into tears. Following this, both the UK and France held two European summits without U.S. participation, placing Zelenskyy at the center to demonstrate special support. It is said that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was not invited, but he insisted on attending the meetings to emphasize the distinction between the U.S. and Canada.

The support for Zelenskyy from progressive European countries naturally frustrated Trump. However, after the White House incident, his response was actually quite measured. He did not react impulsively, in line with his usual character. It was not until he witnessed the performance of progressive European countries and the subsequent two summits held in Europe that he decided, on March 4, to order a suspension of all military aid to Ukraine. It is important to note that the European establishment, regardless of left or right-wing positions, expressed a unified stance. Their statements were rooted in a sense of European cultural superiority. For instance, UK Conservative Party leader Rishi Sunak also declared that Trump's attitude toward Zelenskyy was "wrong" As for former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he went even further, personally contributing funds to support Zelenskyy. The ideological divide between Europe and the U.S. became particularly clear, prominent, and noticeable due to the ongoing war in Ukraine and the peace negotiations.

The third major event is the start of a trade war, which, despite many uncertainties, unfolded rapidly. Shortly after taking office, Trump announced the imposition of a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico, and a 10% tariff on China, immediately shocking and unsettling the world. Trudeau even made a special trip to Washington to confirm this decision. He expressed his complete disbelief, stating that it was incomprehensible for the U.S. to impose such tariffs on Canada. He emphasized that while tariffs on China might be understandable, imposing them on Canada seemed "dumb". However, as events unfolded, it became clear that this was indeed the case. On March 4, the U.S. moved forward with the tariff measures as planned. On that day, Trudeau reluctantly declared that the U.S. has launched a trade war against "its closest partner and ally, its closest friend". At the same time, the Canadian Prime Minister announced a retaliatory 25% tariff on certain U.S. goods in response to Trump's new tariff actions. Furthermore, the U.S. also imposed similar measures against China, but with an additional 10% tariff, marking the formal beginning of a trade war between the U.S. and the rest of the world.

In response to Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's retaliatory measures, Trump's reply was: "Please explain to Governor Trudeau, of Canada, that when he puts on a Retaliatory Tariff on the US, our Reciprocal Tariff will immediately increase by a like amount!" Regarding this tariff war, The Wall Street Journal sounded an alarm, noting that Trump's tariff actions during his second term almost entirely disregarded the distinction between opponents and allies. This approach was seen as a declaration of U.S. dominance, but it also carried significant risks. These observers, however, have yet to recognize the underlying role of anti-establishment social movements and ideologies behind this approach.

From the recent series of three major events, it is clear that Trump's America has been in direct and intense conflict with traditional Western allies, especially those adhering to the establishment, progressive ideals. Trump essentially took a confrontational approach, maintaining a "I will do it my way, and you can't stop me" attitude. In contrast, Trump's brand of neoconservatism adopted a relatively more conciliatory and differentiated stance towards countries like China and Russia, which are traditionally seen as "adversaries" by progressive Western standards. Trump's defiance of the established norms has been a significant challenge for traditional European countries like the UK, France, and Germany, and their frustration and anger are easy to imagine.

2. The Inevitable Dispute Between Europe and the U.S.

The key reason behind Trump's actions is his anti-establishment stance. Coming from a background as a businessman and an outsider to traditional politics, Trump's political success is rooted in his ability to disrupt the establishment. He tapped into widespread American dissatisfaction with the establishment, which had been building up for decades. His broad public support and political appeal stem from his identity as a non-establishment figure. Thus, anti-establishment sentiment is fundamental to Trump's approach, and what he seeks to challenge and overthrow is precisely the establishment itself. Without this opposition to the establishment, there would be no new conservatism or a new form of political correctness. In nearly every speech, Trump now makes sure to highlight the incompetence and corruption of the Biden administration, emphasizing the costs that America has paid as a result. His consistent repetition of this message serves to fuel the anti-establishment social movement. All in all, this is an intense social struggle between the establishment and the anti-establishment forces. Given the widespread support from the American public, the conflict between these two groups has evolved into a social movement. As with all social movements, this struggle will ultimately give rise to a new ideology, which will in turn become part of an ideological battle.

Therefore, the confrontations and disputes between the U.S. and Europe are not accidental but inevitable. Furthermore, this conflict is only in its early stages, and as long as there is no significant interference, it is bound to intensify in the future. In the realm of international relations, this ideological struggle will also have a major impact. For the conservative government of the U.S., the primary contradiction is the clash and competition between American neoconservatism and European progressive ideology, while relations between major powers such as the U.S., China, and Russia, including the containment of China's rise, are secondary issues. This evolving trend in international relations has already defined the emerging global order. Countries like China and Russia, which were once considered the "others" due to Cold War-era thinking, must recognize these changes and adjust their international strategies promptly to respond prudently.

The key to managing this issue is the ability to quickly identify and understand these shifts.

Many institutions and universities in China specialize in studying the U.S., with a large group of experts, yet there is still no clear understanding of Trump's neoconservative policy orientation. However, many conventional discussions have been made. It can be expected that if this situation continues, the outcome will either be a forced "either-or" and "post facto causal" academic speculations. The former is often characterized as "no other available alternatives", while the latter is referred to as "conclusion based on accumulated experience". However, neither of these outcomes leads to the best policy path. The ideal policy approach should come from proactive analysis and predictions made in the midst of uncertainty, followed by timely and advantageous decision-making.

The issue that deserves particular attention now is that for the neoconservative ideology in the U.S. to establish itself, achieve a comprehensive victory, gain a dominant position in American society, and thereby influence generations to come, it must thoroughly and completely resist the progressive ideology from Europe. This makes a severe ideological conflict between Europe and the U.S. unavoidable, and it is certain to become long-lasting, potentially even encouraging the rise of right-wing forces in Europe. An example of this is the support from Vance and Elon Musk for the German Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which led to strong protests from Germany's progressive political parties and even direct threats from them to Musk, warning him to "face the consequences".

Interestingly, the neoconservatism led by Trump and Vance is historically significant from the perspective of the U.S. As observed in the past, resisting the influence of European progressive ideology is directly tied to America's cultural independence. This represents the most important historical development since the United States gained its independence in 1776. Only by achieving cultural independence can the U.S. truly claim global influence and possess genuine leadership on the world stage. In this context, Trump could potentially become a figure akin to "Founding Father" George Washington. Trump certainly harbors such political ambitions, and in fact, he does not shy away from acknowledging this.

For a long time, American political and cultural roots have been deeply tied to Europe. From its legal system to its moral frameworks, the entire structure of the U.S. has been derived from European traditions, which has fostered a sense of European superiority. Europeans have long believed they held the privilege of shaping American society, often feeling entitled to criticize Americans while expecting financial contributions from them. The transatlantic partnership has clearly become a constraint for the U.S. today. Europeans view the U.S. as the leader of this system, and thus, it is expected that America will bear the financial and strategic burdens while Europe reaps the rewards. This reflects Europe's perspective on U.S.-Europe's mutual "beneficial" relations, and it is precisely this dynamic that Trump aims to change and challenge. Therefore, the primary international conflict will center on the U.S.-Europe relationship rather than other issues.

Noteworthily, in the face of this reality, the progressive countries in Europe and their establishment-led allies are not helplessly awaiting inevitable change. They have been repeatedly attempting to shift the focus of the conflict, hoping to direct U.S. attention towards China and Russia. Without the Ukraine war and without Zelenskyy's misguided attempt to deliberately escalate tensions by going to the White House, they could have achieved this goal smoothly. This is because, under the influence of the establishment, the U.S. had already started to focus on China in several key areas of international relations, as well as in major technological and trade domains. Now, due to the Ukraine issue, the contradictions in U.S.-Europe relations have become more apparent, with mainstream American sentiment becoming increasingly agitated. This situation has created new opportunities for China and Russia.

3. China's International Position

For China, in its relationship with the U.S., it should avoid choosing hostility and should not actively confirm the accusations made by European progressive countries about China. It should not confirm itself as a threat to the U.S. In terms of international relations, the Chinese policy decisions should recognize that the most intense anti-China sentiments are primarily constructed within the U.S. government and society by the internal influence of the establishment and progressivism. For example, Marco Rubio, one of the most outspoken anti-China figures, actually stands in direct contrast to Trump's ideology. His confirmation in the U.S. Congress was passed with zero opposition votes, which proves the strong support and endorsement from the Congressional establishment. Trump has also mentioned labeling China as the "primary adversary", but this is merely a tactical move, and it actually contradicts his broader ideological stance. His real primary adversary is Europe, not China. However, he is now compelled to take such a stance, and this is something China must recognize.

Trump greatly admires one of America's Founding Fathers, President Thomas Jefferson, who once advised that the future U.S. foreign policy should be: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". This is likely the goal that Trump is trying to achieve now. Although many may liken this to isolationism, it is essentially the reality. However, this reality also comes with an additional point: the U.S. will define what is moral and just for itself, rather than following Europe's lead. Ultimately, China's inward-looking societal paradigm, from a cultural foundation, does not pose a challenge to the U.S.

Such a policy shift is certainly highly challenging within the current social environment in China, and the number of those opposing it will far outweigh the supporters. However, an interesting comparison can be made. Compared to the current situation in Chinese society, Russian President Vladimir Putin could be considered a "pragmatist" in the realm of international relations. Even though the Ukraine war continues and European countries have seized USD 300 billion of Russian assets, Putin's political stance on the international stage can only be described as a political posture. He has left himself considerable room for maneuvering, maintaining restraint in his language and avoiding crude rhetorical violence in international relations. The result of this objective attitude is that Russia now largely benefits from the situation.

4. Conclusion

Based on these objective predictions and judgments, China has reason to adopt a more pragmatic stance in its relationship with the U.S. It should focus on actively engaging with the U.S. rather than taking a confrontational stance. This would be more beneficial for it in securing greater opportunities for development within the current international relations dynamics. We firmly believe that this is the right path for China's future international standing.