The structural transformation of the international system is shaped by the distribution of power and alliance dynamics between rising and established powers. The discipline of modern international relations frequently employs fundamental theoretical frameworks such as structural realism, neorealism, and constructivism to interpret the foreign policy-making processes and strategic orientations of global actors. In this context, China’s dual-track diplomacy in the struggle for global hegemony stands as one of the most concrete indicators of systemic polarization and the search for strategic partnerships. The summits held by Chinese President Xi Jinping with U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin provide a unique laboratory for analyzing Beijing’s position in global geopolitics and its perception of threats.
Negotiations with these two distinct hegemonic power centers are shaped through neorealist theories of power or threat, within the framework of the nature of relations, concrete economic outcomes, energy and geo-economic positions, approaches to regional crises, and criteria for rhetorical alignment. While Beijing pursues a defensive and transactional balancing strategy in its relations with Washington, it appears to be building a strategic partnership with Moscow based on a shared revisionist agenda.[i]
The structural nature of the diplomatic bridges China has built with Washington and Moscow represents two distinct poles of alliance-building behavior within a context of systemic anarchy. U.S.-China relations, which took concrete form during the Trump administration and acquired a structural quality in subsequent periods, are founded on zero-sum competition, deep mistrust, and the fragility and uncertainty stemming from mutual economic interdependence—as predicted by the neorealist perspective. The “America First” doctrine, which was at the center of the Trump summits, framed China as a revisionist economic threat; this reduced the bilateral summits to a bargaining ground focused on pragmatic and short-term gains rather than an institutional alliance. The nature of the relationship between the two sides is measured by the structural distrust stemming from the global leadership race. In contrast, the summits held with Russia under Putin’s leadership reflect an established, structural, and high-trust ideological partnership. The systemic threat both actors perceive from the West’s containment strategy has fostered not merely tactical cooperation along the Moscow-Beijing axis, but a long-term alignment of grand strategies. The element of trust here stems not only from personal diplomacy at the leadership level but also from the two countries’ shared ideological vision regarding the transformation of the global status quo.[ii]
When examining the macroeconomic outcomes of these summits, the disconnect between rhetoric and action becomes clearly evident. In the Trump-Xi summits, against the backdrop of massive trade tariffs and reciprocal sanctions that have shaken global financial markets, the absence of concrete and lasting major agreements has been striking. Initiatives such as the Phase One trade agreement have been limited to general trade rhetoric and temporary, limited commitments—such as China’s pledge to purchase American products—rather than offering a structural solution. The U.S. restrictions on Chinese technology firms (Huawei, ZTE, etc.) have led to economic outcomes manifesting as negative sanctions rather than positive agreements.[iii]
On the other hand, the Putin-Xi summits serve as a platform for institutionalizing concrete integration protocols in the macroeconomic sphere. At these summits, nearly 40 concrete protocols and agreements have been signed in the fields of trade, media, high technology, and artificial intelligence. China’s manufacturing strength combined with Russia’s raw material and military-industrial base, united by the common goal of developing alternative payment mechanisms to the Western financial system (such as SWIFT), has transformed these concrete economic outcomes into a structural protective shield.[iv]
Geoeconomics and energy supply security are among the most critical areas that China uses as leverage in its great power diplomacy. In negotiations with the United States, China has been forced to adopt a defensive stance in order to protect its access to global markets and alleviate the pressure of the unilateral tariffs imposed by Washington. The vulnerability of maritime trade routes—such as the Malacca Dilemma—and the U.S. Navy’s hegemony over global sea lanes are forcing China to manage geoeconomic risks in the face of Washington. However, the energy equation with Russia provides China with a massive asymmetric advantage. Having lost the European market due to Western sanctions, Russia has become entirely dependent on the Chinese market for its energy exports (such as the Power of Siberia 2 pipelines). This situation has created a structural advantage for Beijing, granting it the power of a sole buyer in global energy markets and enabling it to dictate crude oil and natural gas prices in its favor. Russia’s geopolitical predicament translates into a cheap energy source for China and provides strategic depth against a potential American naval blockade by securing its continental hinterland.[v]
Regional conflict zones and crisis management serve as the most significant litmus tests of China’s diplomatic maneuverability. During summits with Trump, transactional negotiations were conducted primarily around crises such as those in the Middle East and North Korea’s nuclear program. Claims that Trump secured assurances that “China would not send weapons and strategic technology to Iran,” along with Washington’s demands that Beijing exert pressure on Tehran, demonstrate that crises are being used as leverage in bilateral relations. In managing these crises, Beijing has pursued a balanced tactic: avoiding a complete circumvention of U.S. sanctions while retaining them as a bargaining chip against Washington. In contrast, during summits with Russia, regional conflicts—particularly the Ukraine crisis—are addressed as part of a shared stance against the Western-centric security architecture. Moscow has made it clear that it appreciates China’s “objective position” on the Ukraine Crisis. Although China does not directly provide military support for Russia’s military operations, through its diplomatic protection in the United Nations Security Council and its role as an economic lifeline, it aims to undermine the West’s normative supremacy and NATO’s expansion strategy through the crisis.[vi]
In international relations, discourse analysis is of critical importance for understanding the intentions of actors and the world order they seek to establish. The discursive dimension of the summits between Trump and Xi is characterized by a politeness that does not go beyond diplomatic protocols and a deep visionary divergence. In contrast to the American side’s “Fair and Reciprocal Trade” rhetoric, the Chinese side has put forward the “Win-Win” formula; however, the parties have failed to produce a common discourse regarding the future of global governance. Trump’s approach targeting multilateral institutions has created a rhetorical clash with China’s efforts to position itself as the champion of globalization. In the Putin-Xi summits, however, there is a complete rhetorical common ground. The joint statements issued constitute a united front against the West’s global hegemony, unilateral sanctions, and the values imposed in international relations. Emphases on multipolarity, the primacy of international law, and the non-exclusivity of democracy reflect a revisionist normative framework.
China’s foreign policy practices at the summits with Trump and Putin confirm that Beijing is pursuing a pragmatic and multidimensional grand strategy. Relations with the U.S. are characterized by a defensive nature, built on the controlled management of a structural systemic conflict and the minimization of economic losses. The pragmatic approach and mutual distrust evident at the summits reflect the inevitable power struggle between the two superpowers. On the other hand, relations with Russia play a central role in China’s global revisionism and its quest to balance U.S. hegemony. An asymmetric economic and energy advantage grants Beijing a superior strategic position vis-à-vis Moscow, while rhetorical and strategic alignment accelerates the process of building a new pole against the Western-centric world order. In conclusion, the diplomacy China conducts through these two distinct summit dynamics will continue to be the most fundamental geopolitical parameter determining whether global politics will evolve into a multipolar system or a rigid bipolarity centered on a new Cold War axis.
[i] Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
[ii] Hughes, G., & Leoni, Z. (2025). A ‘Reverse Kissinger’? Why Trump’s Anti-China Rapprochement with Russia Is Likely to Fail. In Survival: August–September 2025 (pp. 147-159). Routledge.
[iii] “Five outcomes that would make Trump’s trip to China a success”, Atlantic Council, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/five-outcomes-that-would-make-trumps-trip-to-china-a-success/, (Accessed: 21.05.2026).
[iv] “Trump and Putin’s meetings with Chinese leader deliver markedly different messages”, AP News, https://apnews.com/video/trump-and-putins-meetings-with-chinese-leader-deliver-markedly-different-messages-407cfe08de4f434493f68bd622806ce6, (Accessed: 21.05.2026).
[v] Hossain, M. B. (2026). Escaping the Malacca Dilemma: How China’s Chokepoint Vulnerability Shapes Its Foreign Policy and Security Behavior in the Indo-Pacific. Available at SSRN 6621723.
[vi] “Trump–Xi Summit: Expert Perspectives on the Stakes and Strategic Outlook”, Stimson, https://www.stimson.org/2026/trump-xi-summit-expert-perspectives-on-the-stakes-and-strategic-outlook/, (Accessed: 21.05.2026).
