连续2个月零进口！美终于发现不对劲，中方出手不留情面，特朗普火速称与中国关系好

Core Insights - The article highlights a significant decline in China's imports of energy commodities from the U.S., with crude oil imports dropping from nearly $800 million last year to zero this year, and LNG shipments halted for four consecutive months [1][3] - The U.S. energy sector is facing unprecedented challenges, with the absence of Chinese buyers leading to a two-year low in U.S. crude oil exports [3][6] - The article discusses the strategic dilemma faced by the Trump administration, which oscillates between aggressive rhetoric and attempts at diplomatic engagement with China [4][6] Energy Trade Dynamics - China's imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG, and coal have plummeted due to tariffs imposed by the Chinese government, which include a 10% tariff on crude oil and 15% on coal and LNG [1][3] - The U.S. energy market has been significantly impacted, with Canadian and Middle Eastern suppliers filling the void left by the absence of U.S. energy exports to China [3][6] - The article emphasizes that the U.S. is losing the first round of the energy battle, as evidenced by the drastic drop in trade figures [3][6] U.S. Government Response - The U.S. Treasury Secretary's contradictory statements about trade negotiations with China reflect a lack of confidence in the U.S. position [4][6] - The Trump administration's threats to impose tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil indicate a desperate attempt to regain leverage in the energy market [4][6] - The article suggests that the U.S. is caught in a bind, needing to balance tough rhetoric with the reality of economic interdependence with China [6][7] Strategic Implications - The article argues that the U.S. attempts to use sanctions to disrupt China's energy supply have backfired, as China has turned to cheaper Russian oil [6][9] - China's strategic response to U.S. pressures demonstrates a calculated approach, focusing on energy as a critical point of leverage while maintaining trade discussions [6][9] - The shift in U.S. rhetoric from aggression to a more conciliatory tone indicates a recognition of the unsustainable nature of a confrontational approach in the current global economic landscape [7][9]