By Lu Honglai, Vision Times contributor
In a recent video interview from “Three Water Gunmen,” political scientist Professor Wu Guoguang was asked a central question: Have the U.S. and China entered a new Cold War era? Wu argued that despite intense geopolitical friction, the current situation does not meet the essential criteria of a true Cold War. His remarks have sparked renewed debate, prompting one commentator’s surprising new take: The U.S. and China are already in a Cold War — both in fact and in form.
Wu, a prominent scholar of Chinese politics, contended that Cold War conditions require two defining features: 1) A fundamental confrontation between two blocs rooted in political systems and ideology, which Wu argued the United States does not yet define China as an ideological or systemic rival, and: 2) Two clearly formed rival camps. Wu noted that while autocratic regimes aligned with Beijing are increasingly “hugging together,” the U.S. has not yet formed an explicit political alliance with other democracies for the purpose of containing China.
RELATED: Shanghai’s Vanishing Crowds: Where Are the 25 Million People That Live Here?
Because these elements are not fully present, Wu concluded that Washington and Beijing have not formally entered a new Cold War.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Given the profound global implications of U.S.-China relations — from international security to China’s own political future — U.S.-based analyst Lu Honglai argues that Wu’s assessment misses the mark. He offers a detailed rebuttal contending that the Cold War is already underway.
What defines a Cold War?
Lu begins by clarifying the concept itself. A Cold War, he writes, encompasses “all hostile actions short of direct military conflict.” Its defining characteristics include tense relations, deep antagonism, and strategic confrontation through tools such as propaganda warfare, infiltration and subversion, sanctions, embargoes, arms races, proxy wars, and “peaceful evolution.”
He stresses that Cold Wars are not declared, but recognized through objective fact: “Just like the two world wars and the U.S.-Soviet Cold War, no one formally announced a start date. The reality itself proves that the sides are already in a state of conflict.”
RELATED: CCP Media Signals Leadership ‘Can Rise and Fall’ as Douyin Users Defy Censorship
A Cold War may occur between nations or political blocs — and by this definition, he argues, the U.S. and China already meet the criteria. Lu offers six arguments challenging Wu Guoguang’s conclusions.
- Washington and Beijing are in an open ideological confrontation
He states it is an objective fact that the U.S. and the CCP are fundamentally opposed in ideology and political systems. He cites decades of CCP actions — infiltration, subversion, intellectual property theft, destabilization efforts, and fentanyl-linked drug flows — as examples of China’s Cold War tactics against the United States.
He argues that many Western observers failed to detect this Cold War earlier because Washington pursued a long-term strategy of political reform through economic engagement — a strategy that has now “clearly failed,” but whose failure does not negate the ongoing confrontation.
- The US already has strong political and military alliances
Lu rejects Wu’s claim that the U.S. lacks alliances based on ideology, pointing to NATO, the U.S.-Japan-Korea alliance, and America’s security partnerships with New Zealand, the Philippines, and Taiwan.
“These military and political alliances are rooted in shared political systems and ideology,” he writes. “They do not shift with short-term policy changes.”
- US strategy has shifted to direct containment of China
Following the collapse of engagement strategy, Washington has formally designated China as its top strategic competitor. Lu also cites multiple bipartisan congressional bills in the past two years aimed squarely at countering the CCP, including:
- Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act
- Strategic Homeland Intelligence and Enforcement Against CCP Act
- 2025 Technology Transfer Control to China Act
- U.S.-China AI Decoupling Act
- 2024 Protecting American Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act
- Countering CCP Drone Act
- Ending China’s Domination of U.S. Electric Vehicles Act
- Foreign Investment Safeguards to Counter China Act
- U.S.-China AI Decoupling Act
“These laws targeting, preventing, and countering the CCP are themselves the American side of the Cold War,” he argues.
- The entire American political establishment now sees China as a top threat
Lu notes that the consensus on confronting Beijing is not limited to any administration: “To treat China as America’s biggest competitor, biggest challenge, and biggest threat has become broad consensus across both U.S. parties and the entire political establishment.”
This, he says, reflects a nationwide alignment on Cold War posture.
- The US-Sino trade war has become a global economic encirclement
What began as a bilateral trade conflict has now expanded into a global supply-chain restructuring effort aimed at preventing China from circumventing restrictions. Many U.S. trade agreements now contain “poison-pill” clauses preventing Chinese transshipment or origin laundering.
“That means every nation maintaining normal trade with the U.S. has effectively joined a global economic front encircling China. If this is not a Cold War, what is?”
- The 2025 National Security Strategy effectively announces a new Cold War
As Lu notes, the U.S. released its 2025 National Security Strategy, declaring the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific, especially the Taiwan Strait, as core U.S. strategic interests.
RELATED: US Ends Engagement Era: Anti-Communism Week Signals Strategic Reset on China
The strategy criticizes past administrations for attempting to integrate China into a rules-based order and now defines China as a “primary economic and technological competitor and potential military challenger.” It urges allies to increase collective defense investments and confront China’s “predatory economic behavior,” aiming to deter direct conflict.
“This is equivalent to the United States openly announcing a new Cold War against the CCP,” Lu notes. He also believes Wu misinterprets U.S. policy under the incoming Trump administration and overlooks the constitutional framework of American governance.
‘A Cold War is inevitable’
Cold War dynamics, he argues, are not about which leader starts them: “A Cold War emerges when two fundamentally opposed political systems and ideologies cannot coexist peacefully — yet both wish to avoid a hot war.”
He writes that once the CCP established its Party-state system, it placed itself in structural opposition to human civilization. The post–reform era merely masked this confrontation temporarily due to strategic needs and China’s own period of “reform and opening up.”
Lu concludes that with China’s political system unchanged — and reform and opening having reached its limits — genuine U.S.-China friendship is impossible. Both sides’ strategic needs have evaporated. “An open Cold War has become inevitable,” he writes. “It is not a matter of declaration but of reality — a contest between two ideologies, two value systems, and two political orders. The question now is not whether a Cold War exists, but whether it will continue to escalate — and how this zero-sum struggle will ultimately end.”
Editorial note: Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Vision Times.
