Follow us on social

China

Has Biden's China chip war backfired?

Huawei, which was a target of the previous administration, too, appears to have roared back with success.

Asia-Pacific

This article was republished, with permission, from the Nonzero Newsletter.

In October of 2022, President Biden launched America’s “chip war,” imposing restrictions on China’s access to advanced semiconductors and the equipment needed to make them. The goal was to slow China’s progress in artificial intelligence, which the Biden administration had identified as a critical strategic asset. So, as the two-year anniversary of this Cold War II campaign approaches, how is it going?

Fine, according to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who oversees the policy. This week, Foreign Policy published a piece based on an extensive interview with the chip-warrior-in-chief, and in it she assures America that she’s fully engaged. She says that she’s “connected at the hip” with military and intelligence agencies and that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin calls her his “battle buddy.”

Raimondo is aware that there are chip war skeptics, who say Biden’s policy has spurred China to accelerate development of an indigenous chipmaking infrastructure. And she’s aware of evidence supporting this concern: The Chinese company Huawei surprised the world last year by putting a homemade 7-nanometer chip in its Mate 60 smartphone. But she says there are doubts about whether those chips can be produced at scale and argues that China continues to lag behind America in AI.

In the weeks since Foreign Policy interviewed Raimondo, though, Huawei has upped the ante again. The Wall Street Journal reports that the company will soon introduce a new AI chip—the Ascend 910C—that it says rivals industry leader Nvidia’s most powerful chip, the H100. If Huawei is right about that, its new chip will easily surpass the hobbled version of the H100 (the H20) that Biden allows Nvidia to sell to China. (Meanwhile, Nvidia’s next-generation AI chip, the B200, reportedly faces a delay of at least three months owing to a recently discovered design flaw.) The Journal piece observes that “Huawei’s ability to keep advancing in chips is the latest sign of how the company has managed to break through US-erected obstacles and develop Chinese alternatives to products made by the US and its allies.”

Elaboration on the sources of China’s progress comes from Paul Triolo of the Albright Stonebridge consulting group, who recently published an in-depth assessment of Biden’s chip war. In a recent episode of the Sinica podcast, Triolo explained that “before October 2022, when Chinese companies could buy the most advanced tools from US suppliers, Japanese suppliers and Dutch suppliers,” there was less incentive to develop Chinese toolmaking capabilities, and this fact “to some degree held back Chinese toolmakers.” But since Biden launched the chip war, “hundreds” of Chinese companies—“toolmakers, materials makers, design companies, EDA [electronic design automation] toolmakers”—have increased their coordination, with Huawei playing an orchestrating role.

The US war on Huawei predates its broader assault on China’s advanced chip industry. The Trump administration, in addition to barring Huawei hardware from America’s 5G network, muscled the company off of the Android smartphone platform. Huawei responded by developing its own operating system, and now, with China’s chipmaking capability growing, “Huawei has arguably come roaring back,” said Triolo. “The biggest losers are US toolmakers.” Hurting American companies isn’t traditionally part of a commerce secretary’s portfolio. Then again, as Raimondo notes, “We’re at the red-hot center of national security and economic competitiveness. Some of that is because technology is in the middle of everything, and some of it, I think, is just the way in which I have managed this place.”

Triolo says China’s chipmaking infrastructure isn’t yet close to full recovery from the Biden assault. “In some sense, of course, the controls have been successful. But on the other hand they have massively incentivized China’s industry to try and overcome some of these bottlenecks.”

Meanwhile there are other costs of the Biden policy. It has caused tension with US allies whose tech companies are affected (and the resolution of those tensions sometimes dilutes the policy). And, because the policy prohibits Taiwan’s TSMC foundry—the most advanced chip factory in the world—from exporting high-end chips to China, China now has less to lose from starting a war with Taiwan. A war would almost certainly leave the TSMC factory enduringly incapacitated, which would still stop the flow of advanced chips to the West.

The Biden policy also steepens the already severe challenge of having a constructive dialogue with China about the international governance of AI, or even about the nurturing of international AI norms. And lots of analysts say that ultimately any effective governance of AI will have to be international—and will have to involve, in particular, the world’s two AI superpowers, the US and China.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Huawei released its Mate 60 while Raimondo was visiting China. And, much to Raimondo’s displeasure, someone made fake Mate 60 ads featuring a picture of her and put them on social media. “My kids sent me the [memes], saying ‘Mom, this is terrible!’ because it’s all over TikTok,” Raimondo told Foreign Policy. (She seems to say that she saw actual billboards in China with such ads, but fact checking by Radio Free Asia renders any such claim dubious.)

The US seems to be moving toward a further tightening of tech exports to China. Triolo says that’s in part because of pressure from Congress in the wake of Huawei’s successes and “in part because Secretary Raimondo was angry that Huawei released the Mate 60. So there’s some sort of payback here that’s coming. I call it the Huawei revenge rule.”


Quality Stock Arts via shutterstock.com

Asia-Pacific
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.