The past few days have seen US President Donald Trump travel to Beijing for a high-stakes summit, only to be followed almost immediately by Russian President Vladimir Putin arriving in the Chinese capital before the seats of the American delegation had even cooled down. The two closely watched meetings concluded in very different atmospheres and with markedly different choreography, yet both ultimately reinforced the same conclusion: China has become an unavoidable actor in the emerging world order—and increasingly an equal to the United States.
The summit week was widely interpreted in international media as a major diplomatic victory for Chinese President Xi Jinping. The symbolism of hosting both Trump and Putin within the span of a few days arguably mattered as much as, or even more than, the concrete agreements reached during the meetings themselves. Coverage of the Trump–Xi summit almost unanimously concluded that the Chinese president had further advanced his long-standing ambition of placing Beijing on ‘equal footing’ with Washington.
One of the most discussed aspects of the visit was the fact that Trump travelled to Beijing rather than hosting Xi in Washington. The two leaders had already agreed to meet in late March or early April, although the summit was ultimately postponed at Trump’s request as the administration became increasingly consumed by the US–Israeli war against Iran and the escalating crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz—both of which continue to dominate Washington’s strategic attention as the United States heads towards the midterm elections in November.
That alone arguably damaged Washington’s image even before the summit took place and signalled that Beijing has become geopolitically unavoidable. Much of the discussion between the two leaders reportedly focused on the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on global energy prices.
‘The summit week was widely interpreted in international media as a major diplomatic victory for Chinese President Xi Jinping’
Analysts cited by Western media noted that Trump’s decision to travel to Beijing under significant domestic and international pressure suggested a broader shift in global diplomacy. Whereas major international negotiations in previous decades generally revolved around Washington, the latest summit week projected Beijing as the place where major powers increasingly gather to ‘negotiate the future of international order’.
During the talks, Xi reportedly told Trump that ‘the whole world is watching our meeting’, further reinforcing the image of two co-equal global powers—although Beijing currently appears considerably more stable and confident. According to The Washington Post, the term ‘G-2’ was mentioned several times during meetings between the American and Chinese delegations, suggesting that Xi has successfully normalized the image of US–China condominium-style cooperation in global affairs.
The summit itself produced relatively few major policy breakthroughs. Nevertheless, the two sides agreed to extend the economic truce regarding Washington’s tariffs and China’s export restrictions on critical minerals and rare earth elements, which had become one of Beijing’s strongest leverage tools during the trade confrontation. Both governments also signalled willingness to continue high-level negotiations on trade, artificial intelligence, fentanyl trafficking, and strategic stability, while avoiding any immediate escalation and emphasizing the importance of preserving stability and uninterrupted global energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
Yet this apparent lack of major substantive breakthroughs arguably strengthened the symbolic significance of the visit itself.
Only four days later, on 19 May, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Beijing for another high-level summit with Xi Jinping. During the meeting, China and Russia signed dozens of agreements and issued joint statements promoting a ‘multipolar world order’, criticizing unilateral global dominance, and reaffirming their so-called ‘all-weather partnership’.
However, the agreements signed reflected more of an asymmetrical partnership than a relationship between two equal superpowers. Many centred on further deepening energy cooperation, expanding yuan-based trade, and increasing Russian integration into Chinese-led financial and infrastructure networks, reinforcing the perception that Moscow is becoming increasingly economically dependent on Beijing amid continuing Western sanctions.
China now accounts for roughly one-third of Russia’s total foreign trade, purchases close to half of Russia’s seaborne oil exports, and has become one of Moscow’s primary sources of industrial goods, electronics, and financial liquidity following Russia’s effective isolation from Western markets and banking systems.
‘The balance of power appears increasingly defined by parity in US–China relations and clear asymmetry in China–Russia relations’
The fact that Moscow is increasingly becoming the junior partner in its relationship with Beijing was also reflected in the contrast between the choreography of the two summits. Unlike the Trump–Xi meeting, which revolved around negotiations between two rival great powers over tariffs, Taiwan, and global strategic stability, the Putin visit lacked visible bargaining dynamics almost entirely. Instead, the summit largely centred on Russia signing onto already existing Chinese-led financial, trade, and energy frameworks, reinforcing the impression that Moscow is increasingly adapting itself to an international order shaped by Beijing rather than jointly managing it as an equal partner.
Following the summit week, the balance of power appears increasingly defined by parity in US–China relations and clear asymmetry in China–Russia relations. China has become impossible to bypass, Russia is moving ever closer into Beijing’s orbit, while Washington struggles simultaneously with geopolitical crises abroad and growing political pressures at home as Republicans turn their focus towards the midterm campaign. The European Union, alarmingly, was virtually absent from this entire geopolitical equation.
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
