Decoding Trump’s chronic fear

The Chinese army’s military parade has thrown the U.S. president into a state of panic. Matters have reached a point where Trump is no longer able to conceal his fear, openly revealing it through negative remarks:

“I watched China’s military parade and it was very, very impressive. I understood the reason they did it, and they were hoping that I would be watching. I was watching. But I think America should have been mentioned in President Xi Jinping’s speech.”

Trump’s comments came shortly after he accused China on Truth Social of conspiring with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un against the United States—while all three leaders were present at the parade. But the key question is: What has led to Trump’s anger and confusion over this military event, and why has he lost the ability to hide such negative emotions from an international relations audience?

The reality is that “assumptions” and “strategic constants” play the most crucial role in the calculations of politicians and military leaders. The stronger and more established these assumptions and constants are, the greater their ability to take risks and act decisively in the face of various challenges. Yet, the worst moment in the life of any politician or strategist is when their assumptions and constants (their very basis of calculation) are challenged—and consequently, when their roadmap collapses.

This rule also applies to the recent disputes between China and the U.S. When Trump took office for the second time, White House officials assumed that China, as in 2017–2020, would remain vulnerable in its economic and trade war with Washington. Yet, after only six months, Trump has effectively become the loser of this all-out trade war. China’s move to manipulate the yuan’s exchange rate against the dollar has only further inflamed officials at the U.S. Treasury Department.

Now, Beijing has demonstrated that in military affairs too, it holds the power to dismantle Washington’s assumptions and the fundamental calculations of both the U.S. and its NATO allies. Over recent months, Washington and its partners—London, Canberra, Tokyo, Seoul, and Manila—have focused their attention on Taiwan to an unprecedented degree. Trump’s long-held assumption was that Beijing, in its pursuit of economic hegemony and global polarity, would avoid direct war with Taiwan (and indirect conflict with Taipei’s Western backers). But what we now see is the combination of two key elements from Beijing: the drive toward economic polarity and the exponential growth of military deterrence and action capability.

Under such circumstances, Trump’s anger, confusion, and fear at the simultaneous manifestation of these two forces—and their integration—becomes far more understandable. The U.S. president now faces only two options: retreat from interventionism in Taiwan, or persist in escalating confrontation with China. The consequences of either choice will be dire for a politician who entered this arena without regard for realities—or worse, with flawed calculations and misguided beliefs.