(Analysis) As military dissent and economic failures pile up in China, analysts question whether Xi still commands the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and whether both the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can coexist—or if one must fall.
A senior Chinese general’s disappearance in March 2025 lays bare Xi Jinping’s crumbling control, thrusting China into an existential showdown with the United States.
Far beyond a trade war, this clash fuses economic might, geopolitical dominance, and national security, with Xi’s centralized power now his greatest weakness.
Xi’s rise to absolute power began in 2012 as CCP General Secretary, when he inherited a system balancing decisions across the Politburo. He dismantled this, purging over 1.3 million officials by 2016 through an anti-corruption campaign that targeted rivals.
Declared the Party’s “core” in 2016, Xi embedded his political doctrine in the CCP constitution by 2017, a status rivaling Mao Zedong’s. His 2022 third term, breaking decades of precedent, filled top posts with loyalists.
As PLA commander-in-chief, Xi reorganized military structures to ensure allegiance. This consolidation eliminated shared accountability, leaving Xi solely responsible for China’s triumphs—and its mounting crises.
While Xi’s purges have removed many rivals, recent analysis shows his power is not absolute. The PLA retains a degree of autonomy, and Xi has had to respect certain boundaries to maintain military support.
This partial autonomy, combined with recurring corruption scandals, has limited Xi’s ability to enforce discipline and ensure unwavering loyalty among senior officers.
Economic Woes Pin Failures on Xi’s Rigid Rule
The recent disappearance of General He Weidong, a Xi ally, since March 2025, is not an isolated event. It follows the removal of a senior admiral in November 2024 and nine Rocket Force generals in December 2023.
These purges, targeting even Xi’s loyalists, reflect not only anti-corruption motives but also intense factional struggles within the PLA.
Recent waves of purges have focused on Xi’s own support bases, the Shaanxi Gang and Fujian Clique, likely eroding his authority over the military.
Some observers now believe that Vice-Chairman Zhang Youxia, not Xi, may have orchestrated the latest naval purges, signaling that Xi’s control over the military is far from absolute
Since July 2023, the PLA’s main publication has pushed “collective leadership,” a subtle jab at Xi’s dominance.
These purges, hitting even loyalists, point to factionalism, with reports suggesting Xi’s rivals may orchestrate removals to undermine him.
Military Unrest Deepens the Cracks
The leadership disruption is expected to result in loyalty-based appointments, impair the PLA’s combat effectiveness, and generate insecurity among officers, weakening morale and operational readiness.
Despite these setbacks, the PLA continues to make progress on modernization targets for 2027 and 2035, especially in regional disputes and preparations for a potential Taiwan conflict.
Xi’s reforms have yielded some results, but persistent corruption and purges have undermined trust and operational cohesion.
In 2025, those crises overwhelm. Despite a $295.4 billion trade surplus with the U.S. in 2024, China’s economy reels from a collapsed property sector, deflation, and 15.3% youth unemployment.
The chaotic 2022 end of the “Zero Covid” policy sparked economic turmoil, while crackdowns on private firms crushed innovation. Local government debt reached $13 trillion in 2024, and exports waned under U.S. tariffs.
[arve url=”https://www.riotimesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Alarabiya-China-USA.mp4″ loop=”true” /]
A projected 5% growth for 2025 is doubted, as analysts note Xi’s focus on control stifles adaptability. Public frustration grows, pinning these failures directly on Xi’s rigid leadership.
Despite official Q1 2025 GDP growth of 5.4%, much of this was driven by a “pre-tariff rush” as exporters raced to beat U.S. tariff hikes.
Analysts warn this momentum is unlikely to last, given weak household demand, deflationary pressures, and a property market still in decline.
China’s urban unemployment rate stands at 5.3%, but youth unemployment is much higher, fueling social tension.
Foreign investment continues to dwindle, and China’s 10-year bond yield has plunged to record lows, signaling investor skepticism.
Xi’s policy response has relied on limited supply-side stimulus and ideological discipline, but these measures have failed to restore confidence or reverse the downward spiral in investment and consumption.
The CCP has even threatened to punish economists for warning of economic risks, indicating deepening insecurity at the top
U.S. Tariffs Exploit China’s Existential Weakness
The U.S. seizes this vulnerability, wielding its 30% share of global consumer spending to reshape trade. Tariffs, peaking at 245% on Chinese electric vehicles, target China’s surplus and transshipment through Vietnam.
Over 130 countries, including Japan, negotiate U.S. market access, sidelining China. Xi’s 125% retaliatory tariffs and rare earth export restrictions aim to strike back, but his refusal to negotiate reflects domestic pressures—yielding would signal defeat.
The World Trade Organization warns that the global trade volume could contract by up to 1.5% due to these reciprocal tariffs, with the harshest impact on export-driven developing nations.
U.S. tariffs have already caused global supply chain disruptions, with the Yale Budget Lab estimating 740,000 U.S. job losses by the end of 2025.
While tariffs have hurt China’s export sector, they have also triggered inflation and job losses in the U.S., raising questions about the sustainability of this strategy.
Some analysts argue that both economies are more resilient than headline figures suggest, and a total decoupling remains unlikely in the near term.
Security concerns, like Chinese drones over U.S. bases and a California lab linked to biosecurity risks, heighten fears, casting the clash as a battle for survival.
China’s Trade War Gamble: Factories Shutter, Allies Turn, and Propaganda Intensifies
Can Both Survive or Must One Fall?
This struggle’s existential core lies in the CCP’s view of U.S. democracy as a lethal threat. A 2019 CCP editorial declared a “People’s War” against the U.S., echoing Xi’s 2012 stance that Western systems are incompatible with China’s model.
The CCP’s legitimacy depends on quashing dissent, but Xi’s economic and military setbacks erode this foundation.
For the U.S., losing risks economic dependency, with 2.5 million jobs lost since China’s 2001 WTO entry. The U.S. aims to revive industries, breaking China’s hold on supply chains.
Can both survive? Xi’s zero-sum ideology suggests only one can endure, as the CCP fears U.S. values sparking reform.
Yet, mutual economic ties—China’s need for U.S. markets and U.S. firms’ reliance on Chinese inputs—point to a possible stalemate.
Europe’s indecision, leaning toward China while Japan aligns with the U.S., muddies coalition efforts.
Trump faces domestic pressure, with 75% of Americans expecting tariff-driven price hikes in 2025. Xi risks elite dissent, with purges revealing his fear of betrayal.
Xi’s strategy now relies on perseverance—muddling through economic stagnation, doubling down on ideological discipline, and fomenting global chaos to distract adversaries and buy time.
Yet, this approach is risky: if global crises stabilize, Western focus may return to China’s vulnerabilities, further isolating Xi. The CCP has even threatened to fire economists for warning of economic freefall, a sign of deepening insecurity at the top.
Analysis: Xi’s centralization, intended to cement his rule, has instead tethered him to China’s failures. Purges, meant to secure loyalty, foster factionalism, potentially costing him PLA control.
The U.S.’s tariff strategy exploits these weaknesses, but success hinges on allied unity and economic resilience.
The existential framing is valid: the CCP’s ideological rigidity clashes with U.S. influence, yet interdependence risks mutual harm.
Neither may fall soon, but Xi’s unraveling authority tilts the balance toward U.S. leverage, if it navigates challenges adeptly.