The US is 150% of China's GDP (in nominal numbers) [1]. AI claims that China's "purchasing power parity" GDP is $44t compared to $32t for the US. There is no way that the US, which has been the world's largest economy for decades, is 3% of China's GDP.

Exports to the US is about 20% of China's GDP [2].

Regardless of any of China's contingency plans, US exports are well above noise-levels.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268173/countries-with-th...

[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location...

That's not how you would want to measure this, as it doesn't much matter whether a good is directly exported from China to the US, or whether it is routed through a third country like Vietnam, or used as an intermediate input to a different good which is then exported to the US, etc.

What you should take note of, is that China's trade surplus tracks the US trade deficit extremely closely, and this has been the case for the last 20 years.

Said another way, most nations in the world run roughly balanced trade. There is only one nation on earth that can sustain large and prolonged trade deficits. Only one. That is the US. So if you are a nation whose entire economic strategy rests on running large and sustained trade surpluses, then you are going to be exporting your surplus to the US, directly or indirectly, and only to the US.

Now in practice, some of that will be direct sales to the US, some will be indirect sales to the US, but at the end of the day, if you want to run a 1.2 trillion dollar trade surplus, then you have to hope to God that the US is willing to run at least a trillion dollar trade deficit, because no other country is going to do that for you, the entire rest of the world may be willing to accomodate a hundred billion or so, but for everything else, you will depend on the US, directly or indirectly, to absorb your surplus.

>it's likely that after things cool down there will be some sort of rebellion.

Please support this statement.

Dude thinks this a game.

Imagine that your country - whose rulers you do not agree with - is attacked by two states unprovoked in the middle of negotiations, not once, but twice in a single year.

And how do they initiate this attack? They strike a number of targets, one of which the compound your head of state is living in along with members of his family, including a child (his granddaughter). Mind you, your head of state was not in a bunker, but was an 87 year old man living his life as normal. After executing this amazing operation, these two states then call on your people to rise up and overthrow the government.

What would you do?

You base this on?

That's what Putin believed about the Donbas. But, it turns out, people really really hate being bombed!

[dead]

The US has been in basically never-ending war, and warlike actions, for most of its existence, and especially since the end of WW2. This isn't partisan. The only thing that's particular unique in this scenario is that drones have made the typical pattern of assassinate leadership + bomb the country into oblivion as being rather less than effective. Well that and we have a leader who no longer even pretends it's about democracy, freedom, and protesting students or whatever. But it never was. Look at the destruction and chaos in the places we 'bring democracy to'. It's always been, and will always be, about power.

Declare everybody that disagrees with you as a Russian bot and, lo and behold, apparently the only people that disagree with you are Russian bots. I think the German elections have been a rather more impartial poll on the views of people, to say nothing of the approval ratings of European leaders. Macron is at 16% and Merz has hit a truly impressive 10%. They've defined their leadership by their foreign policy, so what other conclusion can one draw?

And Russia is going to collapse after the war if somebody doesn't give them $300 billion, a small fraction of their GDP, and what Western media now claims they're annually spending on the war? How is that supposed to even make any sense? Similarly for a Ukrainian victory. The war in Ukraine has turned into a classic war of attrition with a small nation against a much larger one. The small nation is already having significant manpower issues, while the large one has yet to even turn to general mobilization. Again, how is a victory supposed to come out of this?

>somebody giving them 300 billions for free

Well, Iran was offered similar amount by certain somebody, so never say never