Based on analysis from The Wall Street Journal’s “Why the China Doves Are Wrong” (Oct. 17, 2025) by Shyam Sankar, with supporting research from Brookings, the Atlantic Council, and related sources.

A Misguided Faith in “Us and Them”

Some American business leaders, eager to maintain their lucrative ties with China, continue to insist that cooperation will bring harmony. Nvidia’s Jensen Huang recently said that those who call themselves “China hawks” wear “a badge of shame,” adding that the future “could be us and them.” It is a comforting thought, but it misreads the Chinese Communist Party’s intentions.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, China’s leaders see global stability not through cooperation but through control. Their strategy is rooted in the belief that China cannot rise without America’s decline. Beijing’s behavior bears this out—from its economic coercion and technology theft to its growing military belligerence.

China’s Hostile Economic Moves

Beijing’s latest export controls on lithium batteries, rare-earth materials, and related technologies are more than bureaucratic policy—they are weapons in an economic war. President Trump called them “a sinister and hostile move,” and with good reason. The U.S. has built a dangerous dependence on Chinese supply chains, effectively financing its own vulnerability.

China subsidizes roughly 5 percent of its GDP to prop up state-controlled industries, a system described by the Journal as “conquest economics.” The result: Western companies are welcomed just long enough for China to replicate their technologies, then pushed out while Beijing floods global markets with cheaper alternatives. American firms like Apple have poured hundreds of billions into China—investments that helped build the very industrial base now used to undercut U.S. manufacturers.

Even worse, Chinese defense contractors have tapped into global capital markets, meaning American investors may unknowingly be funding weapons aimed at U.S. ships.

China’s Hybrid War on the United States

Beijing’s aggression extends beyond economics. The Journal notes multiple forms of asymmetric warfare:

• Resource weaponization: Withholding rare-earth minerals vital to U.S. manufacturing.
• Agricultural sabotage: Attempts to smuggle crop diseases into the United States to disrupt food supplies.
• Cyber and electronic warfare: Pre-positioning electronic devices capable of crippling American telecommunications.
• Chemical subversion: Subsidizing production of chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl, which has devastated U.S. communities.

Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army literally practices attacking mock-ups of American aircraft carriers—a chilling reminder that China’s ambitions are not limited to the boardroom.

The Global Power Play

Research from Brookings’ John L. Thornton China Center shows that China’s strategy is part of a broader campaign aligned with Russia to erode U.S. global leadership. Beijing’s support for Moscow’s war machine—including the export of microelectronics, military optics, and drone engines—has helped sustain Russia’s assault on Ukraine. This partnership undermines the rules-based order and emboldens authoritarian regimes across Eurasia.

Beijing and Moscow are also spreading narratives of American decline throughout the Global South, working to build an alternative world system insulated from U.S. sanctions and democratic accountability. Institutions like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are key tools in this campaign.

The Atlantic Council’s analysis of China’s push into Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East underscores how Beijing merges economic influence with political control. Through technology exports and infrastructure projects, China offers “development partnerships” that subtly bind nations to its digital and economic systems—what analysts call “dependency through innovation.”

Not Just Competition—Systemic Conflict

According to studies by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), China’s model fuses military, technological, and commercial aims. Its tech policies are designed not just for competition but for dominance: gaining access to U.S. data, shaping global supply chains, and embedding Chinese-controlled software and devices in critical infrastructure worldwide.

This strategy is already reshaping the 21st century. The U.S.-China rivalry in artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and quantum computing is not a “trade dispute”—it is a struggle over who controls the next industrial era.

The Journal calls for a clear-eyed mobilization: rebuilding U.S. manufacturing, securing supply chains, and coordinating with allies to end dependency on Chinese-controlled industries. Initiatives like JPMorgan’s $10 billion national-security investment fund show that the private sector is beginning to recognize the stakes.

The U.S. government, the Journal argues, should do what it did during Operation Warp Speed—coordinate industry and state to fast-track critical production in areas like rare-earths and pharmaceuticals. Tariffs should remain in place to offset China’s subsidies, while regulatory barriers that slow domestic industrial projects must be cleared away.

Washington should also restrict U.S. capital from flowing into Chinese ventures and compel American corporations to “pick sides.” As the Cold War proved, limited trade can coexist with national security, but sovereignty cannot coexist with submission.

The Price of Denial

The evidence from multiple fronts—China’s economic coercion, military buildup, alliance with Russia, and influence campaigns in the Global South—shows a coordinated effort to replace, not partner with, the United States.

Those who continue to believe that “us and them” can coexist peacefully are ignoring decades of proof to the contrary. As the Wall Street Journal concludes, America faces a choice: remain “useful idiots” funding our own decline, or wake up to the reality that an economic and strategic war is already underway.

The first step is admitting the truth: Beijing is not playing fair, and pretending otherwise is the most dangerous delusion of all.

ACZ Editor: We agree with the WSJ perspective, but perhaps they do not go far enough. If one were to catalog all of the pontential threats from China, and all of the variety of attacks they have instigated on so many fronts, one might wonder if it were wise to do business there at all.