Amid the growing complexity of regional and international conflicts during a period marked by profound turbulence and shifting balances within the international system, US President Donald Trump visited China from May 13 to May 15, 2026. The visit aimed to contain mounting tensions between the world’s two largest powers and recalibrate relations increasingly strained by successive rounds of escalation between Washington and Beijing. This was followed shortly afterward by a two-day visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to China from May 19 to May 20, 2026. Both visits reinforced perceptions that Beijing has become a central destination for major world leaders seeking to shape regional and global affairs amid China’s expanding geopolitical weight and growing influence over international issues.
Trump’s visit attracted broad international attention and was widely described as exceptional, as it occurred at a pivotal historical moment in which the international system appears to be undergoing a process of strategic realignment. Against this backdrop, a number of central questions emerge: Did the summit succeed in achieving a breakthrough in the most complex dimensions of the US-Chinese rivalry? Or was its primary achievement limited to containing and managing escalation between the two sides? Alternatively, is the international system merely entering a temporary pause before a new phase of confrontation between Washington and Beijing?
Additional questions also arise regarding the broader strategic implications of the visit: How should the current phase in US-Chinese relations be characterized? What strategic gains did each side derive from the summit? What are the principal differences between Trump’s 2017 visit to China and his 2026 visit? Did the summit reveal that the rules governing the international balance of power are entering a phase of redefinition? And finally, do traditional US pressure tools remain sufficient to constrain China’s global ambitions, or has Beijing already moved beyond the stage of strategic containment and entered a more advanced phase of international ascendancy?
The Visit’s Regional and Global Implications
The visit carried exceptional significance given that it brought together the two most influential powers in contemporary international affairs, whose agreements and disputes alike have direct implications for the foreign policies and strategic calculations of numerous states. The discussions addressed pivotal issues where the interests of multiple international actors intersect and overlap.
For instance, several Asian powers allied with the United States expressed concern over the possibility of a US-China understanding that could involve reducing tariffs on China, offering concessions related to Taiwan, or scaling back the US military presence in Japan and South Korea. Similarly, Russia — whose president moved quickly to visit Beijing shortly after Trump’s trip, in what appeared to reflect an effort to assess the implications of the US-Chinese summit — was wary that any rapprochement between Washington and Beijing might produce shifts in China’s position regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
European states and Japan also feared that any major accommodation between the two powers could come at the expense of market share and competitive positions of European and Japanese companies in areas such as investment and energy. Even Argentina and Brazil closely monitored the summit amid concerns that a breakthrough in US-China relations could encourage Beijing to reduce soybean imports from South America in favor of US products. Meanwhile, countries across the Middle East carefully followed the positions adopted by both sides regarding regional security, energy markets and future economic arrangements.
Against this backdrop, this report highlights a number of the most sensitive and escalating points of US-Sino contention that are shaping the broader struggle over the reconfiguration of the global balance of power in the 21st century.
Market Access
This was foremost among the issues that occupied a central place on the US agenda. During the visit, Trump sought to secure broader access for major US corporations to the Chinese market. Reflecting this priority, Trump was accompanied by a high-profile delegation representing finance, business, industry and technology, including Elon Musk of Tesla, Tim Cook of Apple, Jensen Huang of NVIDIA, Larry Fink of BlackRock and Kelly Ortberg of Boeing.
Trump also pressed Beijing to resume large-scale imports of US soybeans in light of the issue’s importance for US farmers. Chinese imports of US soybeans reached approximately $13 billion in 2024, accounting for around 43% of total US soybean exports. This issue carries particular sensitivity for Argentina and Brazil, both of which have emerged in recent years as major suppliers of soybeans to the Chinese market.
The Iranian File
One of the central files that Trump intended to discuss was the ongoing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, a matter closely linked to the overlapping interests and security calculations of numerous countries across the Middle East, Asia and Europe. The issue has gained additional urgency amid growing fears that a prolonged crisis in the strait could further deepen global energy instability and disrupt international markets.
Within this context, Trump sought to limit any potential Chinese military or technological support for Iran in the event of a future US-Iranian confrontation, while simultaneously attempting to reduce Iranian oil exports and increase pressure on Tehran to make concessions in ongoing nuclear negotiations. In this regard, China possesses considerable leverage over Iran, given that it remains Tehran’s largest trading partner and one of the principal importers of Iranian oil even under sanctions. In addition, Iran continues to rely heavily on China’s diplomatic weight, particularly its veto power within the UN Security Council, to counter potential efforts aimed at imposing comprehensive economic blockades or legitimizing military action against it. Many observers interpret these dynamics as reflecting an implicit US acknowledgment of China’s expanding influence in the Middle East. At the same time, Beijing has strong incentives to prevent further escalation in the Strait of Hormuz crisis, especially given that more than half of China’s seaborne crude oil imports transit through the Middle East. Consequently, rising tensions and higher global oil prices directly threaten Chinese economic interests. Nevertheless, despite China’s interest in containing instability in the region, some analysts argue that Beijing may simultaneously perceive strategic advantages in prolonged US engagement in multiple international conflicts. These considerations have made the Strait of Hormuz crisis one of the most sensitive and contentious issues shaping current US-Chinese strategic interactions.
Rare Earth Minerals
One of the most sensitive and potentially dangerous issues in the escalating competition between United States and China concerns the intensifying confrontation over advanced technology and artificial intelligence (AI). In response to US sanctions targeting Chinese technology companies and aimed at restricting Beijing’s access to advanced technologies and limiting its capacity to compete for global leadership in the AI sector, China has moved to escalate what has increasingly been described as a “rare earths war” by imposing restrictions on exports of strategic rare earth minerals to the United States.
The significance of this Chinese measure stems from two main considerations. First, it carries direct implications for US national security because it affects sectors closely tied to US military superiority. Advanced US defensive and offensive weapons systems rely heavily on rare earth minerals used in the production of sophisticated military technologies and precision weaponry. Second, China occupies a dominant position within global rare earth supply chains. Beijing controls approximately 70% of global rare earth mining output and accounts for more than 90% of the world’s processed rare earth production. This dominance has provided China with a major strategic leverage point in its broader confrontation with Washington, transforming rare earth minerals into an increasingly important instrument of geopolitical and economic pressure.
The Taiwan Crisis
In contrast to the previous issues that dominated Trump’s priorities, the issue of Taiwan represented the central and overriding priority on the agenda of Xi Jinping, given that Taiwan remains one of Beijing’s most sensitive and strategically significant concerns. China continues to insist that any major understanding or comprehensive agreement with United States must involve an end to ongoing US military support for Taiwan.
From Beijing’s perspective, regaining control over Taipei would provide China with a powerful strategic advantage in its broader struggle for international leadership and geopolitical influence. For precisely the same reason, Washington views the prospect of conceding Taiwan to Chinese control as strategically unacceptable. In the calculations of both powers, Taiwan represents a critical focal point in the broader transition of global power from the Atlantic sphere — which has historically dominated the international system — to Asia.
Taiwan also occupies a uniquely important position within the global technology sector, particularly through its central role in semiconductor manufacturing. A wide range of major economies, most notably the US economy, remain heavily dependent on Taiwanese semiconductor production. Consequently, any disruption to Taiwan’s chip manufacturing industry resulting from a potential Chinese blockade would carry severe economic and technological repercussions, including the interruption of global technology supply chains, substantial damage to the US economy and a corresponding strengthening of China’s strategic position in the international system.
Respective Gains From the Summit: Significations and Dimensions
A careful reading of the details and outcomes of the visit suggests that its results fell short of broader expectations, ultimately producing what could be described as a “pragmatic truce” aimed at establishing a relatively stable working relationship between the two leaders. Rather than resolving the underlying structural disputes between the two powers, the visit appeared primarily focused on temporarily containing and managing escalation.
The limited nature of the outcomes becomes more apparent when compared with the results of Putin’s subsequent visit to China, during which approximately 20 cooperation agreements were signed across multiple sectors, particularly in the energy field, including oil and gas, with the objective of expanding Russian energy exports to China. The visit also resulted in the issuance of a joint statement on comprehensive strategic coordination between the two countries, which emphasized efforts to strengthen a multipolar international order within the framework of their broader comprehensive strategic partnership.
Moreover, the joint statement warned that the international system faces the danger of reverting to what it described as the “law of the jungle” amid growing attempts to dominate global affairs, widely interpreted as an implicit reference to perceived US hegemony. From the Russian perspective, these developments underscored that the strategic partnership between Moscow and Beijing remains deeply entrenched despite Trump’s visit to China. Thus, the implications of the visit and the gains achieved by each party can be assessed through several interrelated dimensions.
Limited US Gains
The US objectives behind the visit appeared to center on three main priorities: first, securing major trade agreements with China; second, reaching political understandings that would encourage Chinese cooperation in exerting pressure on Iran; and third, easing tensions within the global economy. In light of these objectives, however, the gains achieved by the United States may be regarded as limited, particularly when considering the following factors:
Trade and Oil Deals:
Trump announced that China had agreed to establish a joint trade council aimed at regulating bilateral trade relations, extending the existing trade truce and providing commitments to increase purchases of US agricultural products, particularly soybeans. According to Trump’s statements in an interview with Fox News, Beijing also agreed to purchase US oil and energy products as part of broader efforts to reduce the chronic trade deficit between the two countries and intensify economic pressure on Iran.
Trump further revealed that China had agreed to purchase 200 Boeing passenger aircraft, a figure significantly below earlier US expectations of approximately 500 aircraft. Nevertheless, tariffs and restrictions related to trade and technology exports remained among the most contentious unresolved issues between the two sides. Moreover, Beijing did not announce any reduction in its oil imports from Iran. As a result, Trump returned to Washington with a number of trade-related gains, although these had not, at the time of writing this report, received official Chinese confirmation.
In contrast, the summit between Xi and Putin produced more advanced understandings regarding the Siberia 2 gas pipeline project, which aims to significantly expand the diversion of Russian gas exports toward China to compensate for the energy revenues Moscow lost from the European market following the war in Ukraine. In this context, Russia has sought to offset its European losses through deeper economic engagement with Asian markets, particularly China and India.
Economic indicators demonstrate the rapid expansion of relations between Beijing and Moscow over the past five years, transforming the two countries into one of the world’s largest interconnected energy and trade hubs. Bilateral trade rose from approximately $108 billion in 2020 to nearly $234 billion in 2025, driven primarily by increased Russian energy exports to China and the growing presence of Chinese goods in the Russian market. This development established China as Russia’s leading trading partner. Meanwhile, China’s share of Russia’s total foreign trade increased from 11.3% in 2014 to approximately 33.8% in 2024.
The Strait of Hormuz:
Trump did not achieve a breakthrough on either the Strait of Hormuz or the Iranian nuclear file. Much of what Beijing communicated to US officials did not represent new commitments. Reuters quoted a White House official as stating that Trump and Xi agreed that Iran must not acquire a nuclear weapon, and that Trump confirmed Xi had indicated China would not supply Tehran with any military equipment.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also stated that the United States was seeking to persuade China to apply pressure on Iran to reverse its actions in the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, sections of the US press reported that Washington and Beijing share the view that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open, and that Xi assured Trump of China’s opposition to its militarization.
In practice, however, Trump had anticipated a swift agreement with China that could be translated into sustained Chinese pressure on Tehran within the framework of negotiations with Washington. Instead, China appeared to counter US pressure: publicly endorsing a diplomatic approach while simultaneously continuing to import Iranian oil, thereby sustaining Iran’s economic resilience. In effect, Beijing signaled a dual position — avoiding direct confrontation with the United States while also not abandoning Iran.
As a result, Trump was left facing a strategic dilemma, with neither China willing to exert meaningful pressure nor Iran prepared to make concessions. This dynamic increased the risk of renewed escalation, before Trump ultimately offered Iran a renewed opportunity for negotiations following interventions by the Gulf states aimed at preventing a return to hostilities.
According to The Guardian, Trump’s request — despite his longstanding reputation as a “dealmaker” — for China to pressure Iran, after encountering difficulties in compelling concessions through coercive means, placed him in a comparatively weaker position. It also conferred on Beijing greater diplomatic leverage on the global stage and implicitly acknowledged China’s expanding influence in the Middle East, signaling that control over de-escalation dynamics in the region and key global energy routes is no longer solely in the hands of Washington.
Rare Earth Minerals:
The summit did not yield any breakthroughs concerning Chinese rare earth minerals or US electronic chips, both of which constitute core pillars of the ongoing geopolitical competition between the two sides over dominance in technological development and global AI leadership.
Chinese Gains
Given China’s objectives for the summit — first, seeking an end to US military support for Taiwan; second, securing the continuity of its oil supply flows; third, strengthening its global diplomatic influence; and fourth, avoiding war with Iran while preserving the stability of its political system, which aligns with Beijing’s broader vision of the international order and its rejection of unipolar dominance — China’s gains may be regarded as significant when assessed in light of the following considerations:
Blocking a US Arms Deal to Taiwan:
The Chinese president departed from diplomatic convention by issuing a direct and explicit warning to his US counterpart during their meeting. Unlike earlier, more restrained signals, his message emphasized that Taiwan constitutes a red line that cannot be crossed, representing the core issue in bilateral relations and remaining non-negotiable, even in the context of a US presidential visit.
Chinese television reports indicated that Xi cautioned Trump during the meeting about the potential risk of conflict between Beijing and Washington should the Taiwan issue be mismanaged. This was followed by Trump issuing an immediate warning to Taiwan against any move toward independence from China. He also reportedly postponed or froze a $14 billion arms agreement with the island, which included advanced defensive systems.
In a subsequent interview with Fox News, Trump stated that the United States had no interest in being drawn into a war located approximately 9,500 miles away. This statement generated concern within the Taiwanese leadership regarding a possible weakening of US military support for the island. Shortly after Trump’s warning, Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry reiterated its position, affirming that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state and is not subordinate to China.
Redrawing the Global Balance of Power:
During the meeting, Xi’s remarks reflected an explicitly realist interpretation of shifting global power dynamics. According to The New York Times, his tone suggested an awareness of evolving international balances, “We should be partners, not rivals… I always believe that our two countries have more common interests than differences. Success in one is an opportunity for the other. And a stable bilateral relationship is good for the world. China and the United States both stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation.”
He also warned against what is commonly referred to as the “Thucydides Trap,” a concept derived from the ancient Greek historian Thucydides’ analysis of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. The theory holds that when a rising power threatens to displace an established hegemon, the likelihood of war increases significantly. The concept was later revived by US scholar Graham Allison in his work Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? in which he examined 16 historical cases of power transitions, concluding that 12 resulted in armed conflict.
In this analytical framework, the concept is applied to the relationship between China as a rising power and the United States as the existing global hegemon, highlighting the structural tensions that may, in theory, increase the risk of future military confrontation.
Change in US Rhetoric Toward China:
In a notable indication of a shift in the tone of US rhetoric toward China as a rising global power, Trump adopted a markedly warmer and less confrontational approach during the meeting. He described the Chinese president as “great,” stating, “You are a great leader, I only say the truth. It’s an honor to be your friend.” He further added, “Hopefully our relationship with China will be stronger and better than ever before,” while extending an invitation for the Chinese president to visit the White House.
Moreover, Trump’s decision to bring the largest economic and technological delegation ever assembled for a US presidential visit — comprising companies with a combined market capitalization estimated at approximately $15.2 trillion — signaled a shift not only in rhetorical posture but also in the US assessment of China’s weight and capabilities in the strategic competition for global leadership. It also reflected an emerging inclination toward managing relations through areas of shared interest, rather than through outright confrontation. This approach stands in sharp contrast to the “America First” doctrine that has traditionally underpinned the Trump administration’s foreign policy orientation.
Drivers of the Conflict Still at Play:
The summit did not achieve any meaningful breakthroughs capable of narrowing the gap between the two sides and putting a brake on the fundamental drivers of their confrontation. Instead, it left the core sources of tension largely intact, as reflected in the following dimensions:
Persistence of Underlying Tensions:
The visit did not resolve the structural frictions underpinning bilateral relations, reinforcing the view that the resulting “pragmatic truce” may prove temporary. Key disputes remain unresolved, including reciprocal tariff measures (10% on US imports versus 20% on Chinese imports), restrictions on Chinese semiconductor companies (25% tariff barriers) and the ongoing rare earths dispute. Likewise, the summit failed to generate any significant progress on the Taiwan issue, nor did it secure Chinese commitments to reduce Iranian oil imports or exert tangible pressure on Iran in relation to the Strait of Hormuz crisis.
Conflict Management Rather Than Settlement:
Overall, the summit appears to reflect an approach oriented more toward managing tensions than resolving them. The confrontation between the two sides has moved beyond traditional trade and economic disputes, evolving into a broader struggle over future technologies, the balance of power in emerging sectors and ultimately the shaping of international leadership and the rules governing the global order.
Mindset of Transactional Diplomacy Versus Strategic Parity:
Trump’s engagement with Xi appears guided by a transactional, deal-oriented logic aimed at reducing trade tensions, securing cooperation on Iran and projecting domestic political gains ahead of upcoming electoral cycles. The visit came amid declining approval following the Iran war and recent setbacks with regard to the settlement of other international conflicts.
By contrast, Xi’s approach reflects a longer-term strategic calculus centered on securing implicit recognition of China’s status as an emerging global pole and principal rival to US power, while elevating issues such as Taiwan from a peripheral concern to a central axis of bilateral relations. The divergence highlights a fundamental asymmetry: Trump prioritizes immediate, communicable outcomes that can be politically marketed in the short term, whereas Xi seeks to manage temporal dynamics in favor of China’s gradual ascent within the evolving global power structure over the coming decades.
Trump’s Two Visits to China and the Global Balance of Power
Trump’s two visits to China — the first in 2017 and the second in May 2026, separated by nearly a decade — highlight significant transformations in the distribution of power within the international system and in the configuration of its major poles, as follows:
Imperial Aura
This refers to a rare imperial-style reception in the host country, reflective of the quasi-imperial symbolism historically associated with high-level foreign visits, during which the visiting leader is sometimes described in ceremonial terms as a “revered imperial guest.” Trump’s first visit was marked by extensive ceremonial grandeur, including access to the Forbidden City, a site traditionally associated with imperial authority and historically restricted in its access.
However, during his second visit, China appeared to adopt a more restrained interpretation of his status. According to a Fortune report, Trump was no longer accorded the same elevated symbolic designation and instead received a standard protocol reception, reflecting a shift in perceptions shaped by a number of factors.
Divergent Political Contexts Between 2017 and 2026:
The Trump-Xi dynamic in 2017 differed markedly from that in 2026. During his first visit, Trump arrived in China from a position of relative global confidence and leverage. By contrast, a Financial Times piece notes that his second visit came after diminished strategic capital, following setbacks in multiple arenas including: tensions with Iran, the trade confrontation with China and unsuccessful efforts to realign other major powers such as Russia and India away from Beijing as well as the failure to secure European military support against Iran.
In this reading, Trump’s pressure-based diplomacy had limited success in constraining China, while also contributing to a more cautious international posture toward Washington. In 2017, Trump appeared confident and assertive in body language and protocol behavior, whereas in 2026 he appeared more restrained, adopting a more formal posture during ceremonial moments.
In contrast, Xi’s diplomatic standing is described as having strengthened, supported by a more calibrated approach to alliance management and the use of available strategic tools to offset containment pressures. During the visit, Xi used engagements such as the tour of the Zhongnanhai — a site associated with China’s political and historical elite — to underscore civilizational continuity and China’s historical depth.
Some of Xi’s remarks during the visit were also interpreted as symbolic reminders of China’s rich civilization and ambitious national vision. He noted that the timing of the visit coincided with the beginning of China’s 15th Five-Year Plan and the continuation of a long civilizational trajectory, as well as the 250th anniversary of US independence — an implicit juxtaposition between China’s millennia-old history and the comparatively shorter historical arc of the United States.
The US-China 2017 Power Gap Differs From That of 2026:
China recognizes a narrowing power gap with the United States, positioning itself increasingly as an international balancer. It also operates on the assessment that the United States has become comparatively weaker and less capable of sustaining unilateral global leadership. In contrast, China in 2017 is not the China of 2026. Trump returned to a markedly different China than the one he encountered during his first visit, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, appeared more unsettled by his unpredictable policy style and tariff-driven approach.
He instead encountered a China that is stronger, more confident and more economically and technologically advanced, and one that appears to accept nothing short of parity in its external relations. This contemporary China differs substantially, as noted by The New York Times, from the earlier perception of the United States as a superior model; instead, it is now charting an increasingly independent trajectory shaped by its expanding global power. According to the same analysis, China has capitalized on perceived shortcomings in Trump’s foreign and trade policies, transforming the United States from a model to be emulated into a strategic problem to be managed.
In this context, China is described as having evolved across multiple dimensions:
Economically, it has become more self-sufficient and more resilient in withstanding US containment measures.
Technologically, it has overtaken Washington in several key sectors, including advanced manufacturing, robotics and battery production.
Militarily, it has adopted a more assertive posture while narrowing the capability gap in both offensive and defensive systems. Its naval power has expanded significantly, and it is described as holding a leading global position in strengthening its nuclear capabilities, including the development of a so-called “nuclear triad” capable of delivering nuclear weapons from land, sea and air.
Politically, it engages with US policies with greater confidence and assertiveness. In this context, when Trump raised tariffs to 145% in 2025, China responded with a defiant posture before both sides eventually reached a temporary truce. Moreover, subsequent US court decisions overturning some tariff measures further reinforced Beijing’s perception that it was not compelled to make substantial concessions, thereby increasing its confidence in defending its strategic interests.
US Awareness of Global Transformations
A combination of factors pushed Trump toward seeking an understanding — albeit a temporary one — with China rather than escalating tensions further. Chief among these considerations was his recognition of the domestic repercussions of sustained instability, as well as the deep structural interdependence between the world’s two largest economies. Despite ongoing disputes in trade, politics and security, US firms remain significantly dependent on Chinese rare earth minerals and intermediate industrial inputs.
Moreover, the United States has increasingly acknowledged that a range of critical global issues — including stability in the Middle East, security in the Indo-Pacific region, the North Korean question, energy security, freedom of international navigation and broader global security concerns — can no longer be effectively managed unilaterally without some degree of cooperation with China.
Against this backdrop, any major escalation with the Chinese economy would risk amplifying domestic inflationary pressures and unemployment, undermining economic growth and further weakening the president’s already declining political standing ahead of the midterm elections.
The Chinese Popular Mood Toward Trump
In an important indicator of the evolving conception of power, Bloomberg reported a marked shift in Chinese public sentiment toward Trump’s second visit compared with his first, reflecting growing confidence in challenging the traditional aura of US superiority.
The report highlighted emerging trends across Chinese social media platforms that appear to reinforce an official narrative framing relations with the United States in terms of parity between the two major powers. In this evolving discourse, public mood is described as having shifted from a previously defensive posture to a more assertive one, with commentary suggesting that Trump arrived in China compelled to cooperate following the perceived limitations of coercive approaches and the inability of US policy tools to contain China within a regional framework.
Within this popular digital environment, particularly on the Chinese platform Weibo, AI-generated images, videos and satirical content circulated widely, featuring jokes and critical commentary about the US delegation. This phenomenon reflected a diminishing sense of psychological deference toward the United States and its leadership role.
In this context, the prevailing sentiment no longer views Trump either as a dominant threat or as a necessary guarantor of the global order, but rather as the representative of a power perceived to be losing its exclusive hegemony over the international system in the face of a rising China that increasingly presents itself as a central pillar of stability in an otherwise turbulent global environment.
The Future of Sino-US Escalation
Many observers assess that the visit failed to deliver any meaningful breakthroughs relative to its stated objectives, and fell short when compared with the outcomes of the Xi-Putin summit. What emerged instead were limited trade arrangements that did not meet expectations, modest political understandings and a trade confrontation effectively contained through a temporary truce rather than resolved. In essence, the relationship remained defined by conflict management rather than conflict resolution, with the most sensitive issues left fundamentally unsettled.
Nevertheless, the visit may still contribute to restoring a state of “cautious stability.” At the same time, China succeeded in elevating the Taiwan issue to the center of bilateral relations, thereby re-establishing the rivalry on a more structured and predictable trajectory. Many analysts argue that the current phase does not reflect a moment of genuine understanding between the two global powers, but rather a shared effort to manage an expanding mutual anxiety: one side fearing a relative decline in global influence, and the other viewing its international rise as an irreversible trajectory.
Hence, three main future trajectories of escalation and interaction are anticipated — as follows:
Renewed Escalation
This scenario is underpinned by the persistence of unresolved core disputes, including tariffs, rare earth minerals, advanced technology competition, the Taiwan question, Indo-Pacific security, Middle East security, Iran, North Korea, developments in the Russia-Ukraine war and the broader struggle for global leadership. It is further reinforced by the United States’ concern over relative decline amid converging power dynamics with China and its determination to preserve global primacy, contrasted with China’s commitment to continued ascent and its revisionist approach to aspects of the international system. However, this trajectory is moderated by both sides’ recognition of the domestic and international costs of uncontrolled escalation and the risks of sliding into direct conflict.
De-escalation
This path does not imply settlement, but rather a managed retreat from uncontrolled escalation that could lead to war. It is driven by the centrality and intractability of the core disputes — particularly those linked to influence, power and global leadership — and by the difficulty both sides face in accepting a reordered international balance. It also reflects the United States’ challenge in adapting to shifting power realities, alongside China’s difficulty in accommodating regional constraints. This approach further reflects Trump’s recognition of China’s strengthened position, the mutual necessity of maintaining a trade truce to avoid systemic shocks and the reciprocal awareness of each side’s instruments of pressure. It also reflects their interdependence across multiple global issues relating to war, economics, security and international stability. In this context, Trump’s invitation to his Chinese counterpart to visit Washington in September 2026 forms part of broader efforts to reinforce de-escalation between the world’s two largest economies.
Temporary Freeze Followed by Renewed Fluctuation
The most likely trajectory is a temporary stabilization of tensions, followed by renewed cycles of escalation and de-escalation in response to evolving disputes and shifting geopolitical conditions. This pattern reflects the inability of either side to secure decisive leverage over the other, alongside a significant convergence in power that renders outright victory through confrontation increasingly implausible. As a result, competition is expected to continue through incremental gains across multiple domains rather than decisive outcomes. This dynamic is further shaped by the ambiguity and pragmatism associated with Trump’s approach, characterized by shifting positions and the absence of a fully coherent long-term strategy toward China. Such fluctuations may weaken the consistency of the United States’ diplomatic posture while simultaneously reinforcing the relative flexibility and strategic positioning of Chinese diplomacy, potentially increasing Beijing’s attractiveness as a focal point for future high-level international engagements.
