The original title of the article on the "Russia Today" website on February 4: Will the US-China war in 2025 become a self-fulfilling prophecy? The commander of the United States Air Force Mobile Logistics Command, Minihan, said that the United States will start war in 2025. In a memo sent to the officer, he asked his soldiers to "be ready". In addition to Biden's statement that the United States might intervene in the Taiwan Strait, this is the most direct and public prediction of the potential conflict between the United States and China made by American officials so far. Of course, Minihan is not a policy maker, and that memorandum is not an official statement of the United States military policy towards China. However, the impact of the military and military-industrial complex on the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and the overall mood in Washington should not be underestimated. It can be said that the risk of major power conflict is at the highest level since the end of World War II or the peak of the Cold War. This is because the United States regards itself as a legitimate and permanent global hegemon. However, it also saw that competitors were catching up, and was prepared to use all necessary means to take huge risks to prevent the rise of competitors. At present, the distribution of power in the world is called "new multipolarity". Nearly 30 years after the United States advocated a unipolar world, some emerging powers are changing the international order. The multipolar pattern is different from the "bipolar" pattern. "Two poles" refers to two major powers competing for hegemony, such as the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The bipolar pattern brings some form of stability, because the two major powers are close to each other and the potential conflict costs are very high. However, multi-polarization usually brings instability because it creates an unpredictable and competitive international environment. For example, in the world of 1914, competing European powers competed for hegemony, and eventually triggered the First World War. The world today has some disturbing similarities. With the emergence of other world powers, the United States, the insecure hegemon whose relative strength is weakening, is desperately seeking to weaken, destroy and contain its opponents through the arms race and the expansion of alliances. The expansion of NATO triggered the Russian-Uzbekistan conflict, but what's worse, the US government sought to expand this model to East Asia in order to counter China, for example, by manipulating the "Okus" or "four-sided mechanism". In theory, the United States' alliance can build deterrence and project American power. But history has shown that such an approach can only promote, not prevent, conflicts. In the growing atmosphere of political suspicion and mistrust accompanied by military tension, when a country believes that it is facing military containment or potential pre-emptive attack, the "only option" is to attack first. This is also the historical lesson of World War I. Why is this relevant today? Because at some point, China believes that it has no choice but to take the lead in the attack before the United States or Japan intervenes in the Taiwan Strait by force, what should it do? Please rest assured that we have not reached that stage yet, and Beijing usually hates risks in such matters. The tone of the American general is exaggerated, but dangerous, which reflects a view that war is inevitable sooner or later. As Washington continues to escalate tensions with Beijing, a tipping point or a miscalculation makes war more and more possible, which is exactly where the danger lies. (Outlook New Era)