The EU and U.S. have agreed to a tactical cease-fire, not a strategic settlement. As long as Europe pursues strategic autonomy and Washington replaces rules-based multilateralism with transactional deals, fresh disputes are inevitable.

Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true. That ancient proverb comes to mind when considering the eagerness of America’s trade partners around the world to negotiate deals with US President Donald Trump’s administration. Four countries already have, with Indonesia the latest to do so – and possibly the first to regret it.

The intent of the United States was to coerce China into making concessions. But this didn’t work. China was only inspired to reach out to other trading partners and become more independent through home-grown technological development.

The current deglobalization policy of the Trump administration in the form of tariffs, as well as its disregard for multilateral rules, will only lead to a slowdown in American economic growth. It will undercut the country’s technology advantages and hurt American families.

Trump’s ‘America First’ protectionist tactics are supposed to create advantages for the U.S. in trade and freeze out China in theory, but expect that the world needs America’s consumers to continue. New connections forming amid the trade war could mean instead, the U.S. is left out in the cold.

Global trade is evolving, not ending, as structural limits on U.S. protectionism and the rise of regional agreements beyond U.S. influence sustain economic integration. While the U.S. remains the dominant power, the U.S.-centric trade regime is gradually declining.

The Trump administration’s confused and misplaced understanding of its own national “interests” and “threats” will not only fail to help resolve the enormous domestic challenges facing the United States but will lead it further down the wrong track.

America’s reindustrialization process relies heavily on China’s industrial system support. In an increasingly competitive global market, China’s full-fledged industrial system emerges as the most cost-effective and competitive option.

History may rhyme, but the economic drama now unfolding in the United States defies historical reason. When the US Federal Reserve’s technocrats collide with an inexperienced and capricious presidential administration, conventional macroeconomic tools quickly become impotent.

The recent Financial Times editorial by economist Michael Pettis, in which he advocates for U.S. capital controls to achieve balance in its external accounts, is emblematic of a deeper and more troubling reality: American economic policy has entered a conceptual dead end.