中美硬碰硬较量后，鲁比奥亲口承认：中国特别强大，遗憾美国无能

Group 1: Trade Relations - The U.S. accused China of unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft, leading to a significant tariff increase on $500 billion worth of Chinese goods in early 2025, which caused global market turmoil [2] - In retaliation, China imposed equivalent tariffs on U.S. products, affecting various sectors including soybeans, automobiles, and natural gas, severely impacting global supply chains [2] - The trade war has placed immense pressure on import-export businesses, highlighting the interconnectedness of global markets [2][3] Group 2: Technological Competition - The U.S. targeted China's semiconductor industry, particularly Huawei's Ascend chips, warning global companies of potential security risks and threatening sanctions [2] - China responded with legal measures against companies that complied with U.S. demands, creating a dilemma for global businesses [2][3] - Despite ongoing competition, both nations began to explore cooperation in certain areas, such as climate change research, indicating a potential shift in strategy [11] Group 3: Strategic Adjustments - The U.S. recognized the ineffectiveness of a hardline approach and sought to negotiate a preliminary agreement in May 2025, pausing new tariffs and reaching some consensus on technological cooperation [5] - Rubio's acknowledgment of China's strength and the limitations of U.S. influence sparked intense debate domestically, reflecting a divided political landscape [7] - The signing of a new trade agreement in Geneva in 2026, which lowered some tariffs, demonstrated a move towards collaboration rather than confrontation [9] Group 4: Future Outlook - The ongoing competition between the U.S. and China is characterized by a need for negotiation and cooperation, as both countries face challenges in a globalized economy [12] - China's industrial base and technological advancements, such as Huawei's chips and BeiDou navigation, compel the U.S. to reassess its strategies [12] - The recognition of interdependence in global supply chains suggests that unilateral actions may not yield favorable outcomes for either side [12]