Strategy or Sabotage? Why the U.S.-China Chip War Needs a Rethink
Strategy or Sabotage? Why the U.S.-China Chip War Needs a Rethink
Last week’s news that Nvidia is planning to expand its R&D footprint in Shanghai sent a clear signal: America’s most important AI chipmaker isn’t ready to walk away from China — and for good reason.
This has reignited an important debate:
Should the U.S. exert control over China through exclusion, or by staying close enough to remain essential?
At Far Point Global, we don’t operate in the AI sector. But we do business with China every single day. We source building materials, navigate shifting tariff regimes, manage production timelines with Chinese factories, and negotiate with regional authorities. We understand both the opportunities and the frictions that come with working across two economic giants with diverging strategic goals.
Because of this, we may have a more nuanced view than what’s typically seen through a Washington-centric or cable news lens.
The False Security of Exclusion
One strategy — increasingly favored by U.S. policymakers — is cutting China off. Export controls have made it nearly impossible for Chinese firms to buy Nvidia’s most advanced chips. The idea is simple: if they can’t buy the tools, they can’t build the future.
But here’s the problem: if you’re going to exclude, you need to guarantee exclusion. That means ensuring chips sold in Singapore don’t end up rerouted to China. That means monitoring new AI partnerships emerging on the Arabian Peninsula to make sure they don’t back-channel technology eastward. It’s a nearly impossible task.
And even if it were possible, the unintended consequences are immense. Chief among them?
They’re building the tools themselves.
Chinese firms like Huawei are filling the vacuum. Giants like ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent are actively exploring life beyond Nvidia’s CUDA ecosystem, even if it means a costly and painful transition. It’s no longer far-fetched to imagine a world where China runs its own fully independent AI stack — one the U.S. can neither influence nor audit.
The Power of Entanglement
The other strategy is harder to manage — but smarter in the long run:
Stay engaged. Stay present. Stay essential.
That’s what Nvidia is attempting. Their planned R&D center in Shanghai won’t involve core IP or chip design — those remain offshore. But by keeping engineers on the ground, listening to Chinese customer needs, and continuing to support even constrained product lines, they retain strategic relevance.
This isn’t appeasement. It’s leverage. It’s about keeping U.S. standards embedded in global systems, even under strict constraints.
At Far Point, we’ve seen firsthand that being in the room is how influence is earned. We’ve also seen what happens when U.S. firms pull out too early: competitors step in, relationships unravel, and entire ecosystems reorient themselves — without us.
A Market Too Big to Ignore
Nvidia’s China business was worth approximately $17 billion last year. CEO Jensen Huang believes it could grow to $50 billion in the years ahead.
That’s not just revenue. That’s access. That’s presence. That’s control.
“If we leave a market altogether, there’s no question somebody else would step in,” Huang said. “Huawei is very formidable.”
What This Means for All of Us
Whether you’re in semiconductors, software, steel, or structural glass — if your supply chain runs through Asia, the lesson is the same:
Total decoupling is a fantasy.
Engagement with guardrails is how we retain strategic control.
At Far Point Global, where we operate at the intersection of construction, trade, and manufacturing, we believe the U.S. must lead not by isolating itself, but by making itself indispensable to the world’s most dynamic and complex markets — including those we don’t always agree with.
Let’s not confuse walking away with strength.
Sometimes the hardest — and smartest — thing to do is stay.