Okay, let's dissect this point by point:

1. **Maintaining International Trade Rules and National Dignity:** Ah yes, the old "rules-based order." Conveniently invoked when it suits one's interests. National dignity, of course, is priceless... until it starts costing real money.

2. **Protecting Domestic Industries and Economic Security:** A perfectly reasonable concern. Though one wonders if the " отечественные аналоги " are *quite* ready for prime time. The bit about diversifying soybean imports and accelerating semiconductor breakthroughs is a tad optimistic, isn't it?

3. **Precision and Strategic Deterrence of Countermeasures:** "Combination punches," you say? Sounds a bit like escalation, doesn't it? Blacklisting companies is a classic power move, but let's not pretend it's not also a bit of a blunt instrument.

4. **Domestic Market Buffer and Strategic Room for Maneuver:** The "dual circulation" strategy is a nice idea in theory, but a closed loop system *always* becomes an echo chamber. "Sufficient foreign exchange reserves" are helpful, until they're not.

5. **International Rules Game and Long-Term Strategic Layout:** "Legal countermeasures" within the WTO framework... because *that* organization is known for its lightning-fast dispute resolution. Expanding the Hainan Free Trade Port? Sure, why not. Building multilateral cooperation? A noble aspiration.

**Overall:** This reads like a very self-serving justification for a policy that, in reality, probably had a lot more to do with saving face than any grand strategic vision. Other countries chose other paths, presumably for reasons that made sense to them. China's "institutional advantages + market size + industrial depth" combo is certainly... a combo. Whether it translates into actual success remains to be seen.