As the author says, the good that comes from trading with ideologically different countries is a semblance of peace. It's a weak one, but becoming more self-reliant and less global removes the last reason superpowers have to keep diplomatic and peaceful channels open.

I'd rather have US and China begrudgingly trading because they need each other than the opposite.

The West in general can't endure much because it's no longer used to it, <<unless>>, and this is super important, that pain comes from a clear, mortal threat. In which case democracies are at least as resilient, probably more resilient, that dictatorships, because the decision making is spread around more and more individuals decide it's bad for them if the other side wins.

With Russia at least several countries (Eastern and Northern Europe) decided that Russia is a clear, mortal threat and they're lobbying the bigger and less decided actors (US, Western Europe) to hold the line.

With China, in case of a conflict, alarm bells would go off around the world, much more than for Russia. The US population is quite apprehensive of the PRC regime, already. In Europe a similar thing is happening.

I hope nothing happens, but I think people will be shocked how quickly the hostility ramps up if we get to it, even from people they wouldn't expect.

Case in point: 2014 Ukraine vs 2022 Ukraine vs 2022 Russia. The volunteer movements in UA seem to be very strong and resilient, while the war effort in RU is so centralised it's almost a satire.

We have been fighting our neighbours for hundreds of years, and after WW2 we decided to enter a huge trading agreement with each other, hoping that it would create lasting peace and prosperity.

China inports 80% of energy and 80% of its food chain, either finished food or fertilizer for domestic growth. Stopping globalization trade means famine in less than a year.