Opponents of war (and corporate opportunists) like to believe (or claim) that it can be forestalled by trade. The reasoning goes like this:
If nation X and nation Y are trading partners, nation X will not attack nation Y (despite ideological differences) because nation X would lose its remunerative access to nation Y's buyers of nation X's products.
But why is X trading with Y? One reason is to fund the growth of X's armed forces while also improving the health of its populace -- including, not least of all, the health of its men of fighting age.
Unlike Y, which views trade only through the lens of economic advantage, X views trade as a means to its ultimate objective: dominance of other nations in order to dictate exploit their economic strengths and to obtain their acquiescence (if not outright submission) to X's ideology.
There will come a time when the leaders of X believe that they have acquired the military might needed to attain the ultimate objective. When that time comes, X will leverage its might to dictate trade on its terms and cow its trading "partners" into ideological acquiescence, followed by submission. (Acquiescence having already been attained de facto, submission will follow given the venal and amoral character of Y's leaders.)
Ideological zealots put dominance above all else. (Their true ideology is often the attainment of power for its own sake.) They should not be treated as if they were merely rational trading "partners". But they are so treated by the avaricious "globalists" whose wealth and influence dazzle and dictate to Y's leaders.