“Consider what the framework asks Americans to believe in May 2026, and then consider the facts on the ground. Trump arrived in Beijing accompanied by Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Larry Fink, and Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg, the visible cohort of American technological and industrial dominance. The economic mass he brought into the room is staggering. “
Joe Biden on the other hand arrived in China accompanied by his dopey son Hunter. Let that settle in.
Xi invoked the “Thucydides Trap” because Beijing needs Americans to believe in it. That is the tell. If the U.S. accepts the frame, China wins without firing a shot: we manage decline, tolerate Taiwan pressure, accept industrial surrender, and call cowardice “stability.” Trump rejected the script by showing up with the cards: energy dominance, manufacturing revival, AI chips, Boeing, Apple, NVIDIA, food leverage, oil leverage, and a widening GDP advantage. Western liberals heard Greek history. Xi was running influence ops. Hanson called it bankrupt. Good. The trap was never Thucydides. The trap was believing CCP propaganda.
🎯🎯🎯Xi has the left believing him. Conservatives, thankfully, are pushing back hard, and we hopefully will see Paxton replacing Cornyn. So funny that MSM has nothing to report except that Cornyn called Paxton an “Albatross” which sounds more like a compliment when they fly extremely long distances and endure dangerous weather conditions. 🇺🇸 Paxton has shown he will go the distance for Texas and for all Americans.
The mask that has been removed is that of corporate greed. And those of the 1% who believe they own the minds of all citizens. Only Republican minds are weak enough to buy into the Right’s propaganda hook, line, and sinker. We are not superior to other peoples of this world. In facts, we have been dumbed down to the point the majority of Americans cannot read or comprehend at an 7th grade level. And forget about math, engineering and science skills in our country! Laughable!
China and India value education and have grown their middle class. While America’s elite value money and have stripped us bare.
I think Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most amazing people in our country. He is one of the few people I would believe anything he says.
Would someone enlighten me? If we are headed toward a $32.4 trillion GDP, why are we $37T in debt? Why are we in debt at all? Why do we give money to countries that hate us, and why are we giving any money to anyone? I read that our daily debt is $1.6 billion. Why? No more money to anyone.
Bill Clinton, despicable as he is, left us with a balanced budget. Are the Republicans incapable of that?
Off track — why is the Air Force going to buy thousands of radios because two pilots recently crashed? Would not a hundred suffice?
“Bill Clinton, despicable as he is, left us with a balanced budget. Are the Republicans incapable of that?”
Setting aside the myth of Clinton’s balanced budget for a minute - Rush Limbaugh explained that farce on the radio decades ago - I would point out that democrats were not actively trying to assassinate the President for working with Republicans.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 followed on the heals of revenue expansion due to the 1990s dot-com technology boom, and the defense spending cuts made possible by the end of the Cold War/collapse of the Soviet Union - i.e. the peace dividend.
However, while the government ran a surplus on paper, the national debt itself actually continued to grow. Those surpluses only offset the publicly held debt, but the total gross national debt continued to increase under Clinton.
Speaking of despicable democrats, the last 47 years of Iranian terror can be laid squarely at the feet of Jimmy Carter. While the short attention span main stream media is complaining about the current cost of a gallon of gasoline, not one of them is asking about the catastrophically colossal cost of Carter kicking off the Iranian Islamic Revolution in the first place.
People confuse a balanced budget/surplus versus our public debt all the time. we can have a balanced budget and actually generate a surplus per calendar year, but still increase our public debt. Clinton gets way too much credit for what little he did.
Thanks, Shawn, for the explanation. I was not listening to Rush in the 90s, so I would have missed his explanation of Clinton’s budget.
I do remember how gas was rationed during Carter’s term, and we could only buy it on alternate days, depending on the last number of our license plate. His presidency was a nightmare. He was such a phony that when he travelled, he would carry an empty suitcase to make him look humble.
It was terrible that they held 66 Americans hostage for 444 days, and how they were released the day Reagan was inaugurated.
I remember my surprise hearing Carter say the US govt would wait to see what happened in Iran. If he had publicly backed the Shar then probably the Mullahs would have not been able to seize control of the country. Something Trump is trying to fix 47 years later.
I believe you're one of the most intellectually sharp people I've ever followed. Your ability to explain complex issues with clarity is remarkable. I truly admire your mind.
Wonderful analysis! I may be biased as a historian, but I always felt that political scientists are just historians who are too lazy to go to the archives and do the hard research so they come up with a fancy theory, put a fancy name on it, and then spend their careers defending it against all comers. It’s one long exercise of fitting disparate facts into the theory. Alas, life is just too complex for that to ever work (incidentally also the reason all Marxist regimes are doomed to failure).
I had the honor of meeting Dr. Hanson once at a talk he was giving in Ashland, Ohio many years ago. My wife and I went to talk to him after his edifying lecture. We were young professors and wanted his advice on how to get a job. He laughed and said he didn’t think his advice would be good any more since he was too old school for modern academe. “When I interviewed a candidate for our Classics department, I would just ask one question [NOTE: this was around 2002/3 and there were no smartphones or chatbots back in those days]: what is the distance between Athens and Sparta? If they knew that I would hire them on the spot!” Love VDH!
I agree with much of what you wrote. I believe Prof. Meersheimer has also pointed out that the T Trap is mostly bogus.
However...
"Peaking powers, demographically collapsing and economically stagnating, are historically the dangerous ones."
The main threat I see is that both the US and China are peaking, with likely declines in the future. The leaders of such powers are often desperate to remain the leaders, rather than hanging from a lamp pole, and outside enemies are a popular solution throughout history.
The US can invest and build all it wants, the fact remains that we are importing worthless people and breeding more worthless people, while those who would make good citizens are told their job is to pay for it all and suffer the consequences.
Would it be fair to say that the PRC is beginning to falter just as it is about to become a contender against the United States because of Xi's return to Maoism? The belief that as China became more integrated into the global economy it would become more "liberal" is certainly naive, but it had a certain logic to it. I'm not a fan of the "great man" theory, but I can't help imagining an alternative timeline without Xi and Trump might be very different. Question is whether conflict is inevitable.
Allison's thesis is facile at best, but it does have the advantage of sounding schmart.
Interesting and thoughtful take on this - thank you 🙏
Xi (and China in general) does not do anything in the diplomatic realm by accident
This entire visit was a very carefully-crafted show aimed at an Asian audience with a very clear “suite” of goals:
Play to Trump’s ego in terms of pageantry, knowing that this would keep him distracted (as his social media posts afterwards demonstrated)
Carefully and subtly place Trump in the role of “supplicant” [edited to add: it is absolutely not an accident that “orange chicken” was a part of the banquet menu - a not-very-subtle reference to TACO]
Use economic smoke-and-mirror “promises” to gain diplomatic ground vis-a-vis Taiwan specifically, and Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region more broadly
In terms of those specific goals, I’m calling the summit a “win” for China
Nvidia is locked out of the Chinese market (which can honestly be read as both good and bad)
Boeing was banking on the sale of 500 jets, and got a very vague (at best) promise of 200. Trump announced the 200 figure as a win, while the market was punishing Boeing both for not getting the 500 sale and for not getting anything actually *binding* even for the 200 jets promised
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea were watching this all play out in light of the US drawing down munitions in Asia to support the war in Iran while also putting an arms sale to Taiwan on ice
The ASEAN countries saw this as China flexing their regional soft-power muscles while the US continues to back away in both economic and military terms
In purely propaganda terms, China wins this round, regardless of the accuracy (or not) of the Thucydides framing Xi is so fond of
I am no fan of China’s regime by any stretch. I *do* have a grudging respect for their ability to exercise soft power and diplomatic influence without (so far) actually firing a shot.
If China “wins” in the region, it won’t be because they beat the US in a military face-off - they don’t want *that* war any more than we do. If they win, it will be because of US political short-sightedness, indifference, and diplomatic isolation resulting from a chaotic (at best) foreign policy
@Earl Baum you comment on the key results. Following Xi and his actions after the Summit? Summit with Russia. More camaraderie there. Russia mired in Ukraine, pageantry distracts Trump. I tend to agree with you about who won this meet on the surface. But love that VDH chiseled Allison's premise down to pebble size. I wonder will Trump read this article? He should.
I would add 1) Clearing out China's presence in Panama, 2) Strait of Mallaca, 3) Strait of Hormuz, 4) US Nuclear submarine appearing at Gibraltar, 5) Major destruction of China's refinery in Lake Maracaibo, 6) Cuba negotiations, 7) Diplomacy with Greenland following Summit with Xi. A major realignment of spheres of influence.
“Consider what the framework asks Americans to believe in May 2026, and then consider the facts on the ground. Trump arrived in Beijing accompanied by Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Larry Fink, and Boeing’s Kelly Ortberg, the visible cohort of American technological and industrial dominance. The economic mass he brought into the room is staggering. “
Joe Biden on the other hand arrived in China accompanied by his dopey son Hunter. Let that settle in.
Biden as VP took home a loan for his family from a Chinese bank, no doubt approved by the CCP.
Xi invoked the “Thucydides Trap” because Beijing needs Americans to believe in it. That is the tell. If the U.S. accepts the frame, China wins without firing a shot: we manage decline, tolerate Taiwan pressure, accept industrial surrender, and call cowardice “stability.” Trump rejected the script by showing up with the cards: energy dominance, manufacturing revival, AI chips, Boeing, Apple, NVIDIA, food leverage, oil leverage, and a widening GDP advantage. Western liberals heard Greek history. Xi was running influence ops. Hanson called it bankrupt. Good. The trap was never Thucydides. The trap was believing CCP propaganda.
🎯🎯🎯Xi has the left believing him. Conservatives, thankfully, are pushing back hard, and we hopefully will see Paxton replacing Cornyn. So funny that MSM has nothing to report except that Cornyn called Paxton an “Albatross” which sounds more like a compliment when they fly extremely long distances and endure dangerous weather conditions. 🇺🇸 Paxton has shown he will go the distance for Texas and for all Americans.
The American left will side with any and every foreign power to attack American conservatives.
They're openly cheering for islamists. The mask is off.
The mask that has been removed is that of corporate greed. And those of the 1% who believe they own the minds of all citizens. Only Republican minds are weak enough to buy into the Right’s propaganda hook, line, and sinker. We are not superior to other peoples of this world. In facts, we have been dumbed down to the point the majority of Americans cannot read or comprehend at an 7th grade level. And forget about math, engineering and science skills in our country! Laughable!
China and India value education and have grown their middle class. While America’s elite value money and have stripped us bare.
The mask that was removed revealed the left to be blatant antisemites who openly cheer for islamofascists.
Laughable indeed.
I think Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most amazing people in our country. He is one of the few people I would believe anything he says.
Would someone enlighten me? If we are headed toward a $32.4 trillion GDP, why are we $37T in debt? Why are we in debt at all? Why do we give money to countries that hate us, and why are we giving any money to anyone? I read that our daily debt is $1.6 billion. Why? No more money to anyone.
Bill Clinton, despicable as he is, left us with a balanced budget. Are the Republicans incapable of that?
Off track — why is the Air Force going to buy thousands of radios because two pilots recently crashed? Would not a hundred suffice?
Inquiring minds want to understand.
“Bill Clinton, despicable as he is, left us with a balanced budget. Are the Republicans incapable of that?”
Setting aside the myth of Clinton’s balanced budget for a minute - Rush Limbaugh explained that farce on the radio decades ago - I would point out that democrats were not actively trying to assassinate the President for working with Republicans.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 followed on the heals of revenue expansion due to the 1990s dot-com technology boom, and the defense spending cuts made possible by the end of the Cold War/collapse of the Soviet Union - i.e. the peace dividend.
However, while the government ran a surplus on paper, the national debt itself actually continued to grow. Those surpluses only offset the publicly held debt, but the total gross national debt continued to increase under Clinton.
Speaking of despicable democrats, the last 47 years of Iranian terror can be laid squarely at the feet of Jimmy Carter. While the short attention span main stream media is complaining about the current cost of a gallon of gasoline, not one of them is asking about the catastrophically colossal cost of Carter kicking off the Iranian Islamic Revolution in the first place.
People confuse a balanced budget/surplus versus our public debt all the time. we can have a balanced budget and actually generate a surplus per calendar year, but still increase our public debt. Clinton gets way too much credit for what little he did.
Thanks, Shawn, for the explanation. I was not listening to Rush in the 90s, so I would have missed his explanation of Clinton’s budget.
I do remember how gas was rationed during Carter’s term, and we could only buy it on alternate days, depending on the last number of our license plate. His presidency was a nightmare. He was such a phony that when he travelled, he would carry an empty suitcase to make him look humble.
It was terrible that they held 66 Americans hostage for 444 days, and how they were released the day Reagan was inaugurated.
I remember my surprise hearing Carter say the US govt would wait to see what happened in Iran. If he had publicly backed the Shar then probably the Mullahs would have not been able to seize control of the country. Something Trump is trying to fix 47 years later.
It’s amazing how the Democrats want to blame everything on Trump, but the messes we are in now started with Carter and LBJ.
Let's not forget the pallets of cash sent by both Obama and Biden with which they built the infrastructure to terrorize the rest of the world.
Dot com boom. Gotta give credit where credit is due.
I enjoyed reading this article, and learning more about this topic. Thanks for your work.
Spot on. And I hope you saw my piece on this:
https://www.rodmartin.org/p/quick-thoughts-summit-wins-xis-thucydides/
Your latest U.S.-China piece is next on my list this morning, Rod.
Thanks!
I believe you're one of the most intellectually sharp people I've ever followed. Your ability to explain complex issues with clarity is remarkable. I truly admire your mind.
Wonderful analysis! I may be biased as a historian, but I always felt that political scientists are just historians who are too lazy to go to the archives and do the hard research so they come up with a fancy theory, put a fancy name on it, and then spend their careers defending it against all comers. It’s one long exercise of fitting disparate facts into the theory. Alas, life is just too complex for that to ever work (incidentally also the reason all Marxist regimes are doomed to failure).
I had the honor of meeting Dr. Hanson once at a talk he was giving in Ashland, Ohio many years ago. My wife and I went to talk to him after his edifying lecture. We were young professors and wanted his advice on how to get a job. He laughed and said he didn’t think his advice would be good any more since he was too old school for modern academe. “When I interviewed a candidate for our Classics department, I would just ask one question [NOTE: this was around 2002/3 and there were no smartphones or chatbots back in those days]: what is the distance between Athens and Sparta? If they knew that I would hire them on the spot!” Love VDH!
"The Thucydides Trap." A clever hook. Thank goodness for attention spans longer than three minutes.
Thank you for this articulate summary!
I agree with much of what you wrote. I believe Prof. Meersheimer has also pointed out that the T Trap is mostly bogus.
However...
"Peaking powers, demographically collapsing and economically stagnating, are historically the dangerous ones."
The main threat I see is that both the US and China are peaking, with likely declines in the future. The leaders of such powers are often desperate to remain the leaders, rather than hanging from a lamp pole, and outside enemies are a popular solution throughout history.
The US can invest and build all it wants, the fact remains that we are importing worthless people and breeding more worthless people, while those who would make good citizens are told their job is to pay for it all and suffer the consequences.
Thanks much for this elucidation; I was not paying attention to Xi's diversion political rhetoric until now.
Baked-in Harvard liberal-constructed outlook foiled by Hoover’s VDH.
Xi doesn’t know the difference.
Would it be fair to say that the PRC is beginning to falter just as it is about to become a contender against the United States because of Xi's return to Maoism? The belief that as China became more integrated into the global economy it would become more "liberal" is certainly naive, but it had a certain logic to it. I'm not a fan of the "great man" theory, but I can't help imagining an alternative timeline without Xi and Trump might be very different. Question is whether conflict is inevitable.
Allison's thesis is facile at best, but it does have the advantage of sounding schmart.
So, what you are saying is that I can sleep well tonight? LOL! Thank you, for the 100th time, for making this understandable!
Interesting and thoughtful take on this - thank you 🙏
Xi (and China in general) does not do anything in the diplomatic realm by accident
This entire visit was a very carefully-crafted show aimed at an Asian audience with a very clear “suite” of goals:
Play to Trump’s ego in terms of pageantry, knowing that this would keep him distracted (as his social media posts afterwards demonstrated)
Carefully and subtly place Trump in the role of “supplicant” [edited to add: it is absolutely not an accident that “orange chicken” was a part of the banquet menu - a not-very-subtle reference to TACO]
Use economic smoke-and-mirror “promises” to gain diplomatic ground vis-a-vis Taiwan specifically, and Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region more broadly
In terms of those specific goals, I’m calling the summit a “win” for China
Nvidia is locked out of the Chinese market (which can honestly be read as both good and bad)
Boeing was banking on the sale of 500 jets, and got a very vague (at best) promise of 200. Trump announced the 200 figure as a win, while the market was punishing Boeing both for not getting the 500 sale and for not getting anything actually *binding* even for the 200 jets promised
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea were watching this all play out in light of the US drawing down munitions in Asia to support the war in Iran while also putting an arms sale to Taiwan on ice
The ASEAN countries saw this as China flexing their regional soft-power muscles while the US continues to back away in both economic and military terms
In purely propaganda terms, China wins this round, regardless of the accuracy (or not) of the Thucydides framing Xi is so fond of
I am no fan of China’s regime by any stretch. I *do* have a grudging respect for their ability to exercise soft power and diplomatic influence without (so far) actually firing a shot.
If China “wins” in the region, it won’t be because they beat the US in a military face-off - they don’t want *that* war any more than we do. If they win, it will be because of US political short-sightedness, indifference, and diplomatic isolation resulting from a chaotic (at best) foreign policy
@Earl Baum you comment on the key results. Following Xi and his actions after the Summit? Summit with Russia. More camaraderie there. Russia mired in Ukraine, pageantry distracts Trump. I tend to agree with you about who won this meet on the surface. But love that VDH chiseled Allison's premise down to pebble size. I wonder will Trump read this article? He should.
I would add 1) Clearing out China's presence in Panama, 2) Strait of Mallaca, 3) Strait of Hormuz, 4) US Nuclear submarine appearing at Gibraltar, 5) Major destruction of China's refinery in Lake Maracaibo, 6) Cuba negotiations, 7) Diplomacy with Greenland following Summit with Xi. A major realignment of spheres of influence.
Really great read today, all of this!
Your analyses are so amazing and well-explained. Citing VDH just confirms I'm "following" the right thinkers.