There is apparently no such word as “defeat” in Trump's vocabulary. It is always someone else's fault!
Remember his first term? When the writing was already on the wall that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, he went to extraordinary lengths to convince Americans, and indeed the whole world, that he was the real winner.
He claimed widespread electoral fraud without producing credible evidence sufficient to overturn the results. His campaign and allies launched more than 60 legal challenges, almost all unsuccessful. He personally pressured Georgia's Secretary of State to find another 11,780 votes, enough to reverse his loss there. His supporters and associates promoted alternative slates of electors, while he pressured Vice-President Mike Pence to reject the electoral votes when Congress met to certify the results.
The whole episode culminated in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Even then, Trump was unwilling to concede that he had lost.
But lose he did!
Joe Biden then took over. Unfortunately, he was foolish enough not to take advantage of the very issues that had caused Trump's ouster. Instead, he doubled down on Trump's efforts to retard China's development.
The trouble was that China in the 2020s had already become a very different animal — economically, militarily, technologically and, most importantly, intellectually. It is this intellectual capacity, backed by a vast pool of scientists, engineers, researchers and entrepreneurs, that has been driving all the other fronts to greater heights.
Instead of recognising this new reality, Biden surrounded himself with a team of nincompoops — Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Trade Representative Katherine Tai and Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns — who helped lead him into blind alleys in his so-called war with China.
Under their watch, Washington imposed increasingly stringent restrictions on advanced semiconductor exports, pressured the Dutch and Japanese governments to restrict the supply of sophisticated chipmaking equipment, and raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to an astonishing 100%.
Did they seriously believe such measures could stop a nation that possesses an enormous industrial base and an expanding pool of scientific talent from advancing? The Chinese simply have the intellectual capacity to find alternative solutions. Their determined efforts to develop a domestic semiconductor industry, in the face of American restrictions, are a case in point.
At best, these measures bought the Americans some time. At worst, they accelerated China's determination to replace American technologies and reduce its dependence on Western suppliers.
Biden's saving grace was his ability to consolidate the Five Eyes intelligence partnership, strengthen the Quad and advance AUKUS, particularly the defence cooperation between Australia, Britain and the United States.
But these arrangements were, in my view, half-baked instruments for containing China.
The Five Eyes is essentially an intelligence-sharing arrangement, not an economic development strategy. AUKUS promises nuclear-powered submarines for Australia, but the enormous costs, industrial limitations and long delivery schedules raise serious questions about its effectiveness. The Quad, meanwhile, is hardly a unified alliance. India has its own strategic interests and is certainly not going to become an American vassal.
Even America's closest allies are discovering that their economies remain deeply intertwined with China. Australia, for example, can hardly afford to abandon its enormous trading relationship with China simply to satisfy Washington's geopolitical ambitions.
In short, Washington has been assembling coalitions to constrain China without offering a convincing alternative to China's manufacturing strengths, technological advances and economic opportunities.
When Kamala Harris was named the Democratic presidential candidate in 2024, Trump gradually built up his momentum. Harris failed to connect sufficiently with the electorate. She was portrayed by her detractors as something of a dumb blonde, even though she was not blonde at all!
The rest is history.
However, this is where Eastern and Western political cultures differ greatly.
There is a Chinese expression, 卧薪尝胆 [wò xīn cháng dǎn], which describes the extraordinary humiliation and self-discipline a defeated ruler is prepared to endure while preparing to regain his strength. It comes from the story of King Goujian of Yue (approximately 496–465 BCE, during China's Spring and Autumn Period), who endured years of hardship before finally overcoming his adversary.
There was no such 卧薪尝胆 experience for Trump.
Instead of learning humility from his 2020 defeat, he treated his 2024 victory as a complete vindication of his first presidency. He became even more determined to rule like an emperor.
His word is supreme. Everyone must serve him — domestically as his minions and internationally as his vassals.
And like the emperor who did not realise he had no clothes on, Trump has become easy prey for those who understand how to manipulate his enormous ego.
Benjamin Netanyahu has demonstrated a remarkable ability to con Trump into supporting Israel's strategic agenda, particularly its confrontation with Iran. The Chinese leadership, on the other hand, has shown a far more sophisticated understanding of Trump. They know when to flatter him, when to accommodate him, and when to stand their ground.
One of the few Western exceptions, in my view, is Canada's Mark Carney, who seems to understand that dealing with Trump requires firmness, rather than endless flattery.
The rest of the Western political leadership — particularly those in Europe, Japan and Australia — have too often behaved like political idiots, seemingly unable to distinguish their countries' long-term interests from Washington's shifting demands.
But Don't Celebrate Yet…
Trump is not an ordinary man. He is a narcissist of the highest order.
Instead of eating humble pie following the Republicans' midterm humiliation, I suspect the results will only aggravate his anger and strengthen his determination to fight back.
After all, he has already convinced himself that the Republicans did not lose because of his policies. They lost because his name was not on the ballot!
Never mind that he had spent months telling voters to regard the midterm elections as though he were personally standing for election.
Pete Hegseth's defiant post-election performance outside the Pentagon, now ceremonially identified as the Department of War, was telling. He declared that the fight was far from over. I cannot imagine him making such a combative declaration without at least believing he had Trump's blessing.
Even more revealing is Trump's elevation of Stephen Miller to White House chief of staff.
Miller is no ordinary political operative. He is an ideological attack dog, far more calculating and, I suspect, considerably more dangerous than Hegseth. His elevation suggests that Trump is not preparing to accommodate the Democrats. He is preparing for confrontation.
Trump being Trump, personal glory, vengeance and political survival will continue to outweigh almost every other consideration.
And there is another consideration — personal enrichment. I suspect Trump will use whatever remains of his presidency to further enrich himself and his family. Indeed, the process is already well underway. Reuters has estimated that his family has made some US$2.3 billion from cryptocurrency ventures since his return to the White House. His family's expanding business interests, including dealings with foreign investors, raise serious questions about the extent to which the presidency has become entangled with private commercial interests. Trump, of course, insists that there is nothing wrong with these arrangements. But with his political future now severely constrained, I would not be surprised if he becomes even more determined to extract whatever personal benefits he can from his remaining time in office. After all, when has Trump ever been known to put public duty ahead of personal advantage?
He may become a lame-duck president at home, with the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. His international standing may also be badly diminished. But he will fight them tooth and nail.
The Democrats can investigate his administration, frustrate his legislation and challenge his executive actions. Trump, in turn, can resort to presidential vetoes, executive powers and every political weapon at his disposal.
The result could be two years of extraordinary political paralysis and institutional warfare.
The country could go the way of Nero's Rome. So what, as far as Trump is concerned?
And then there is Iran.
Having already joined Israel in launching the war against Iran earlier this year, Trump may now be tempted to resume bombing the hell out of the country.
But this could become his international Waterloo.
The United States may still possess enormous military power, but it does not possess an unlimited capacity to sustain prolonged wars without serious economic, political and strategic consequences.
Its
experience in Afghanistan and Iraq should have taught Washington a lesson or
two. It can destroy military installations, overthrow governments and claim
spectacular battlefield victories. But translating military superiority into
lasting political success is another matter altogether.
Iran is no pushover. Its geographical position, ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and capacity to impose costs on American interests throughout the region make any prolonged conflict extremely dangerous.
And the war has already contributed to rising energy costs and domestic dissatisfaction.
Netanyahu's own political future is now hanging in the balance. Following Israel's October 27 elections, President Isaac Herzog has chosen former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, rather than Netanyahu, to attempt to form the next government.
Netanyahu, who has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to survive political crises, may finally be approaching the end of his long tenure. Whether his successor will be less hawkish, particularly towards Iran, remains to be seen.
Trump may discover, too late, that bombing a country into submission is one thing; compelling it to accept an American political settlement is quite another.
Who Is Going to Laugh All the Way to the Bank?
Trump
may well be one of them! He does not have to campaign anymore. He can now concentrate to make more billions for himself.
But jokes aside, you might have guessed whom I have in mind. Nonetheless, let’s begin with those who certainly won’t be laughing…
The Europeans!
They have progressively relinquished much of their room for independent manoeuvre to Brussels and to a political establishment epitomised by Ursula von der Leyen — a real blonde, unlike Kamala Harris!
In my view, Europe has become a continent of great historical achievements but increasingly mediocre political leadership.
Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of Europe, has struggled with high energy costs, industrial stagnation and the competitive challenge from China. Its automobile manufacturers, long regarded as the world's finest, are now finding themselves challenged by Chinese electric vehicle producers.
France faces its own economic and political difficulties. Britain, having left the European Union, has hardly demonstrated that it possesses a coherent alternative strategy.
Instead of addressing their structural weaknesses, European leaders seem preoccupied with military expenditure, ideological posturing and following Washington's geopolitical agenda.
Europe is not without technological strengths or economic resources. But unless it rediscovers the ability to act independently, I fear it will continue to lose ground.
Japan's predicament is no less serious.
Its long economic decline began after the extraordinary expansion of the 1980s and the subsequent bursting of its asset bubble. The 1985 Plaza Accord was an important turning point in the pressures facing its export-led economy, although its subsequent stagnation also reflected domestic policy failures.
Japan is losing its formidability on the industrial and technological fronts. Its ageing population, rigid corporate culture, conservative institutions and resistance to immigration present formidable challenges as the world enters the AI era.
Its once-dominant consumer electronics industry has already lost considerable ground to competitors from South Korea and China. Its automobile industry now faces a similar challenge from the transition to electric vehicles.
Sanae Takaichi may have inherited the premiership, but I wonder how long she can survive Japan's deeply entrenched political and economic difficulties.
Meanwhile, back in America, Trump cannot constitutionally stand for a third elected presidential term in 2028.
Who will succeed him?
JD Vance? Marco Rubio? Or another of the Republican hopefuls?
I doubt that any of them can easily escape the enormous political baggage Trump will leave behind.
The Democrats won the midterm elections not because they possessed exceptionally inspiring leaders or brilliant policies. They had one major advantage — Donald Trump himself!
At present, they do not seem to have another Barack Obama who can electrify the electorate and articulate a compelling national vision.
Nonetheless, I suspect they will carry the 2028 presidential election, again thanks largely to Trump's recalcitrant mindset and the damage he will continue to inflict on the Republican Party.
But whoever wins, too much damage will already have been done to the American political psyche.
A nation that once prided itself on constitutional government, institutional checks and balances, and respect for electoral outcomes has become increasingly polarised, suspicious and consumed by internal hostility.
The decline, I fear, will continue.
And while America and its allies spend their energies quarrelling, sanctioning and confronting one another, China will continue to advance.
Living with a New Reality
George
Yeo, Singapore's former foreign minister, is one of the few political thinkers
whom I believe can speak with authority and intellectual honesty about the need
for the world to recognise and live with a new reality.
It is a reality that many Western leaders still refuse to acknowledge.
China is NOT the evil empire that the West and the less discerning parts of the world have long sought to portray it as.
China has its shortcomings, as every great nation does. But it is foolish to interpret its rise entirely through the prism of Western fears, prejudices and historical experiences.
Of course, China also faces some serious domestic challenges — an ageing population, a troubled property sector, local government indebtedness and sluggish domestic consumption. Western analysts have been quick to seize upon these problems as evidence of China's impending decline. But are these necessarily signs of a nation in irreversible decline, or are they challenges that inevitably arise in the course of transforming a vast developing economy into an advanced industrial and technological powerhouse? The Chinese leadership is certainly not oblivious to these problems. It has acknowledged them and is taking steps to address them, although solutions will take time. What impresses me is China's capacity to think and plan in decades rather than electoral cycles. Nation-building is a long journey, and temporary setbacks should not be confused with the failure of that journey.
For centuries, Western powers expanded their influence through conquest, colonisation, unequal treaties and military intervention. They now seem incapable of imagining that a rising great power might pursue a different path.
Nor should the world continue to believe that the particular form of democracy practised in the United States and the West is the be-all and end-all panacea for every society.
Democracy is supposed to produce accountable government, sound policies and leaders who serve the interests of their people. When it produces political paralysis, endless confrontation, short-term populism and leaders such as Trump, surely, it is time to question whether the system is delivering what it promises.
China's experience suggests that there are other ways of organising a society to achieve development, technological progress and improvements in living standards.
The world should remove its blinkers.
Instead of devoting enormous resources to containing China, countries should ask themselves how they can cooperate with it, compete where necessary, and benefit from its enormous industrial and technological capabilities.
The coming AI era will transform almost every aspect of human activity — manufacturing, healthcare, education, agriculture, transport, scientific research and public administration.
China is particularly well positioned to exploit these developments because of its extensive manufacturing ecosystem, vast engineering workforce, infrastructure and capacity to translate technological advances into practical applications.
Those who continue to regard China merely as a geopolitical adversary risk being left behind.
Of course, countries must protect their sovereignty and national interests. Nobody should be expected to surrender these to China, America or anyone else.
But they should also understand that cooperation with China does not necessarily mean submission to China.
And they should stop assuming that China's rise must inevitably replicate the colonial expansion of the Western powers that followed Christopher Columbus's voyages more than five centuries ago.
The world has changed. China has changed.
The great irony is that the United States, which prides itself on innovation, dynamism and adaptability, now seems determined to resist a changing world rather than learn how to live in it.
Perhaps Trump's greatest contribution to history will not be making America great again, but accelerating the world's realisation that it can no longer depend on American leadership.
And China may well be the greatest beneficiary — not because Trump intended it, but because he simply cannot accept that the world has moved on.
End
