China and the United States held two days of talks in Madrid, and afterward, Trump published a lengthy article justifying his actions against China.

China and the United States have once again been in the spotlight in recent international media debates. After traveling through Geneva, London, and Stockholm, the delegation finally arrived in Madrid, Spain, for talks aimed at breaking the previous deadlock.

However, this meeting was more than just a simple economic exchange; it was a battle of power and wisdom.

Among the many reactions to the negotiations, US President Trump's sentimental statement was thought-provoking: "We've already lost."

So, what exactly transpired during the Madrid negotiations?

Why did Trump publish a lengthy article at this time, seemingly lamenting the decline of American manufacturing?

First, let's focus on the content of the talks.

China and the United States held two days of in-depth dialogue on economic and trade issues, covering topics including unilateral US tariffs, export controls, and the business environment for Chinese companies in the US. On the first afternoon, representatives from both sides held discussions for six hours, but even so, sharp differences remained, and the conflict loomed like a dark cloud, difficult to dispel.

Before the negotiations began, the US Department of Commerce added 23 mainland Chinese entities to the "Entity List," a list of import and export controls, 13 of which were involved in semiconductors and integrated circuits. The apparent intent was to pave the way for negotiations by exerting pressure. However, China, unwilling to be outdone, swiftly retaliated—initiating an anti-discrimination investigation into the relevant US measures and an anti-dumping investigation into imported analog chips originating in the US. This series of actions sent a clear signal: if the US doesn't want to do business properly, China has the ability to refuse to pay. After all, a market of 1.4 billion people is not to be underestimated.

Secondly, it's worth noting that, given the current complex international situation, the operational status of Chinese companies in the US has become a key variable in the talks.

Trump threatened to ban TikTok if it didn't sell, and with the deadline approaching, this threat appears to have heightened tension in the negotiations.

Sources have revealed that the US government appears prepared to extend the deadline, but whether this will truly save the struggling US manufacturing industry remains to be seen.

In a lengthy post-negotiation article, Trump acknowledged the United States' manufacturing failures, acknowledging the past glory days of "building a large ship every day."

Today, not only is it difficult to deliver even one order a year, but American manufacturing is also struggling in terms of quality and competitiveness.

It's clear that behind Trump's tariff policy lies a deep anxiety and frustration about the decline of American manufacturing.

He appears to be trying to use tariffs to pressure foreign companies to build factories in the United States, thereby boosting domestic manufacturing. However, this is an extremely dangerous "grab" strategy.

This strategy may stimulate some economic growth in the short term, but in the long run, it will incur greater social costs.

Tariffs will ultimately be borne by consumers, and the United States' dependence on imported goods far exceeds that of other countries.

In today's highly globalized world, any attempt to protect its own interests through closed-door policies is likely to end in heavy losses.

Ultimately, the game between China and the United States is a complex interweaving of markets and policies, resources, and strategies. The United States is attempting to weaken China's economic position through unilateral measures. However, this approach has not only undermined economic trust between the two countries but has also made the entire international business environment increasingly uncertain. Although the talks failed to yield a "white flag" of exhaustion, at least the two sides maintained communication, which is undoubtedly a positive sign.

However, the key to truly resolving the issue lies in whether the United States can recognize reality and abandon its unreasonable trade restrictions. Only on an equal footing can a mutually acceptable solution be found. The future of Sino-US relations will ultimately depend on the choice the United States makes—whether it continues to stubbornly insist on its own position and escalate confrontation, or whether it chooses compromise and cooperation.

In this battle over Sino-US trade, no one wants to see the two countries formally sever diplomatic ties or even descend into the abyss of an economic cold war. If either side continues to insist on a hardline approach, the only people who will ultimately suffer are ordinary people.

Therefore, regardless of the final outcome, we hope that China and the United States can adopt a rational and pragmatic approach and find a win-win path.

Looking at the entire negotiation process, it is clear that the game between China and the United States is not just an economic conflict, but also a contest of ideas, culture, and even values. In the era of globalization, no country can survive independently. Only through collaboration can we meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Against this complex backdrop, every step forward between China and the United States is magnified, and every decision carries far-reaching consequences.

I hope that in the days ahead, the two countries will listen more closely to each other and jointly embrace opportunities and challenges.