Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals declaring most of the tariffs imposed on China during the Trump administration as "illegal and overreaching" marks a significant turning point in the global trade war, highlighting the complexities and contradictions within U.S. political dynamics [1][3]. Group 1: U.S.-China Trade Relations - The U.S. and China are engaged in negotiations that appear to be pragmatic but are underpinned by contrasting positions, with China advocating for "equal cooperation" while the U.S. prioritizes "national security" [1]. - Despite attempts to ease tensions through trade discussions, the Trump administration continues to impose tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum products, revealing a duplicity in U.S. political strategy [1]. Group 2: Judicial and Political Dynamics - The court's decision, while seemingly favorable, has significant flaws, including delaying the effective date to October 14 and avoiding scrutiny of the Section 232 tariffs, suggesting a strategic maneuver to allow for an appeal by the Trump administration [3]. - The actions of the Trump team, which includes denouncing the court's bias while simultaneously appealing the decision, reflect a broader narrative of political absurdity and division within the U.S. [3]. Group 3: Strategic Implications - From a macro perspective, Trump's tariff policies have become a political tool, using "national security threats" as a facade to rally populist sentiments and solidify political support [5]. - The recent court ruling illustrates a collusion between establishment and radical factions in the U.S., who are reluctant to bear the blame for damaging the global trade system while still aiming to contain China's rise [5]. Group 4: Conclusion on Trade War - The ongoing trade war is characterized by a lack of winners, with the rhetoric of "winning" being a desperate facade that will ultimately be overshadowed by historical realities [7]. - The narrative suggests that cooperation and mutual benefit should be the focus, rather than the current adversarial approach, which is likely to lead to detrimental outcomes for the U.S. [7].