Diplomacy
Experts warn US-China tensions rooted in structural miscalculations, not short-term policy shifts
A panel of academics and policy analysts convened by Harici Media offered diagnoses of US-China relations that diverged in some respects but overlapped in others. The relationship was framed as a product of structural tensions, shifting global priorities, and competing civilizational outlooks rather than short-term policy choices.
Opening the discussion, the moderator noted that the webinar took place against a backdrop of intensifying global crises, including the prolonged war in Ukraine, escalating tensions involving Iran, and instability in Venezuela. These developments, he suggested, have unfolded alongside a US foreign policy that appears at once interventionist and strategically ambiguous, particularly in its approach to China.
The panel brought together Professor Radika Desai, a political economist at the University of Manitoba; Dr Christopher Mott, a Washington fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy; Nelson Wong, vice chairman of the Shanghai Center for RimPac and International Studies; and German philosopher and writer Dr Hauke Ritz.
“The United States assumed China would remain subordinate”
Desai argued that the roots of current tensions lie in long-standing structural miscalculations rather than recent political shifts.
Desai said, “The real source of the difficulty in Sino-US relations actually comes from the original assumptions under which the United States created the opening to China.”
She added that Washington initially expected Beijing to accept a subordinate role within a US-led global order. Desai said, “The United States imagined that China would very happily accept a subordinate position… in which the US could profit from China in a variety of different ways.”
That assumption, she said, collapsed as China moved up the value chain and rejected a complementary economic role limited to low-value production. Desai pointed to successive administrations, from George W Bush’s tariffs to Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” and Donald Trump’s trade war, as evidence of a consistent trajectory.
Desai said, “On the one hand the United States would dearly wish to subordinate China, on the other hand it is impossible to do so.”
She also described China as increasingly perceived as a stabilizing force amid what she characterized as Western-driven disruption. Desai said, “China increasingly appears as an oasis of predictability, stability.”
Turning to US domestic dynamics, she linked foreign policy volatility to internal political and economic pressures. Desai said, “There is no method in Trump’s madness… what you see are frequent changes of direction and policy.”
She argued that US leaders face structural constraints that prevent them from fulfilling electoral promises, contributing to erratic policymaking. Desai said, “The internal crisis of the United States has reached a very critical point.”
“They can’t quit the Middle East”
Mott broadly agreed with Desai’s assessment but focused on strategic incoherence within US foreign policy.
Mott said, “I agree with everything that Professor Desai said… that’s a very good summary of where we are right now.”
He traced Washington’s earlier goal of prioritizing competition with China through a “pivot to Asia,” while noting that successive administrations have repeatedly been drawn back into Middle Eastern conflicts.
Mott said, “Every single subsequent president gets dragged back to the Middle East… they can’t quit the Middle East.”
He cited interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as continued engagement with Iran and Israel, as evidence of a persistent pattern. Mott argued that electoral promises of reduced interventionism often translate into deeper involvement once in office.
Mott said, “People promise less interventionism… and then they double down on their predecessor’s level of interventionism.”
He also pointed to the centrality of US alliances, particularly with Israel, in shaping policy. Mott said, “There is one ally that is favored in DC more than any other ally.”
While acknowledging China as a peer competitor, he suggested that US strategic focus has shifted away from direct confrontation with Beijing. Mott said, “Competition with China is deemphasized… but very much interventionist towards the Global South.”
He characterized current US strategy as an attempt to maintain declining unipolar dominance through coercive measures. Mott said, “They are attempting to shore up a fading unipolarity through a kind of hard power doctrine.”
“China wants to manage itself, the US wants to manage everyone else”
Wong offered a perspective rooted in cultural and historical differences, emphasizing China’s preference for pragmatism and restraint.
Wong said, “China always wants to manage itself but the US always wants to manage everyone else’s business.”
He argued that Western narratives dominate global discourse, while China adopts a more reactive posture. Wong said, “China is extremely passive when it comes to dealing with the outside world.”
According to Wong, China’s rise has been shaped as much by external perceptions as by internal ambition. Wong said, “The confidence of China… has actually been pushed up by the outside world.”
He stressed that Beijing does not seek confrontation and prioritizes economic engagement. Wong said, “China never wants to destroy the relation with the US… it’s a big market.”
At the same time, he underscored firm red lines, particularly regarding Taiwan. Wong said, “China will never recognize Taiwan as an independent entity, never.”
He described Taiwan as a core national issue shaped by historical narratives, while reiterating that Beijing prefers peaceful reunification. Wong said, “China always wants to seek a peaceful reunification… there is no timetable.”
On economic tensions, Wong highlighted China’s preparedness for trade conflict. Wong said, “China has been prepared for this for over a decade… we have weapons and started to fight back.”
He noted that China has reduced its dependence on US exports and diversified markets. Wong said, “China’s export to the US has been reduced… from about 20% to below 8%.”
Despite tensions, Wong maintained that neither side seeks military conflict. Wong said, “We do not foresee any immediate threat of a war between the two countries.”
“Europe is at a crossroads”
Ritz framed the debate in terms of Europe’s strategic and cultural trajectory, arguing that the continent remains constrained by its alignment with the US.
Ritz said, “The ability of those leaders… to think about an independent course of Europe is limited.”
He pointed to emerging dissent within Europe, citing countries such as Hungary, Slovakia and Spain as examples of growing interest in alternative paths.
Ritz suggested that change may be driven not from Europe itself but from shifts in the Middle East. Ritz said, “The attack of the United States… has disrupted the global economy to such a large extent.”
He argued that Iran’s resistance could reshape regional dynamics and weaken US influence. Ritz said, “Iran plays in the Middle East a similar role as Russia plays in Europe.”
In his view, Europe’s dependence on the US has eroded its cultural and strategic autonomy. Ritz said, “We have lost the connection to our ancient roots… we have become multicultural societies driven by consumption.”
He called for a rediscovery of European intellectual traditions and a reorientation toward dialogue with other civilizations. Ritz said, “We have to regain this curiosity about different cultures.”
Ritz also predicted a long-term realignment involving closer ties between Europe, Russia and China. Ritz said, “The way to Moscow goes over Beijing.”
“Regionalization is inevitable”
Returning to strategic considerations, Mott argued that global geopolitics is moving toward regionalization, with alliances becoming more geographically anchored.
Mott said, “Geography has a gravity… alliances that were built generations ago do not.”
He questioned the feasibility of US-led deterrence strategies in Asia, particularly regarding Taiwan, noting the limitations of allied contributions.
Mott said, “I think it is extremely debatable… whether everyone would be on board with a kinetic defense of Taiwan.”
He suggested that countries in Asia and elsewhere will increasingly prioritize regional arrangements over global alignments. Mott said, “There will be a breakup of the assumptions of globalized diplomacy.”
“Trump seeks a ‘victory’ but lacks leverage”
Desai, returning in the final segment, argued that US policy is driven by a search for symbolic victories rather than coherent strategy.
Desai said, “This has nothing to do with controlling the Persian Gulf… this has to do with trying to produce some kind of military victory.”
She dismissed claims of US success in Venezuela and predicted failure in Iran. Desai said, “The United States is losing in Iran… it does not have what it takes to win.”
On US-China relations, she argued that Washington lacks leverage. Desai said, “Trump did not have the upper hand even beforehand.”
She pointed to China’s control over rare earths and its willingness to resist pressure. Desai said, “China has shown that it knows how to stand up to him.”
Desai concluded that global instability reflects deeper structural shifts. Desai said, “We are looking at the consequences of the United States going out of control.”
US Vice-President JD Vance has been personally involved over the past two weeks in indirect talks with Iran aimed at securing a fresh ceasefire and restarting nuclear negotiations.
According to Axios, Vance’s intense engagement indicates that he has taken it upon himself to extract the US from the conflict, which he views as responsible for the Republican Party’s shocking losses in this week’s elections.
This elevates the latest round of indirect talks to the highest echelons of the administration.
US officials and regional sources state that Trump is currently willing to let diplomatic efforts run their course to see whether any agreement is achievable.
Asked by reporters on Friday what his message was to Iran, Trump said, “We are talking to them.”
According to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, Vance speaks almost daily with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir, and other mediators regarding the negotiations with Iran.
White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, are also involved in the process.
Sources say Vance and the Qatari and Pakistani mediators have been discussing the possibility of holding a working-level technical meeting between the US and Iran in the coming days, though this has not yet materialized.
Before the war began in late February, Vance was among the most sceptical voices in Trump’s inner circle on the issue, advocating instead for a diplomatic solution.
In April, he led the US negotiating delegation at the Iran summit held in Islamabad and was personally involved in the talks that yielded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the US and Iran in June.
Vance subsequently headed the US delegation during a series of direct talks with Iran in Switzerland.
Two weeks ago, Vance sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, proposing that direct negotiations resume.
Rezaei is one of the closest advisers to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Iranian officials noted that Vance’s letter generated positive momentum toward restarting talks.
On Wednesday, Vance said the war was the primary reason for the Republicans’ repudiation at the polls.
Sources involved in mediation efforts report that while progress is being made, the process is moving very slowly.
On Friday evening, the prime minister of Qatar said, “Over the past few weeks, we worked with our colleagues in the US administration who have a sincere intention to contain the situation and de-escalate. Thanks to them and the voices of reason in Tehran, we prevented the situation from spinning out of control.”
The prime minister added that discussions with the Trump administration continued following the midterm elections, though they were not as active as in previous days “because there are other matters.”
Nevertheless, he noted that the US intention to find a diplomatic resolution “remains ongoing” and emphasized that an agreement is possible.
On Friday morning, Trump and the Emir of Qatar discussed Qatari efforts to bridge differences between the US and Iran as part of an accord.
According to a statement from his office, Sheikh Tamim emphasized the necessity of “pursuing dialogue and diplomatic channels to resolve differences, prevent the region from facing further escalation, and ensure freedom of maritime navigation as well as the security of energy supplies.”
Separately, Trump confirmed on Friday that the US military conducted a strike on an anti-aircraft missile launcher on Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz after it fired a missile at a US fighter jet.
British magazine The Economist reported that mobilization, conflict casualties, and pervasive uncertainty have left Ukraine confronting the threat of demographic collapse.
According to data cited by the magazine, Ukraine’s fertility rate has declined from 1.2 children per woman in 2020 to between 0.8 and 0.9.
This rate marks a lower level than that of any major nation except South Korea.
In the first half of 2026, the number of deaths in Ukraine surpassed the number of newborn babies threefold.
The report noted that ever since independence was gained in 1991, the number of births in the country has lagged behind the number of deaths every year.
The Economist emphasized that the demographic collapse driven by the ongoing fighting constitutes an “existential threat.”
The magazine identified mass refugee migration as the principal driver of the population loss.
More than 5 million Ukrainians reside abroad, predominantly in Europe.
The proportion of those wishing to return among those who left the country is also steadily shrinking.
According to data from the Centre for Economic Strategy (CES), the share of those seeking to return dropped from 74% in 2022 to 43%.
The fact that the majority of refugees consist of Ukrainian children and women under the age of 44 further aggravates the demographic picture.
The Kyiv government decided to exempt men under the age of 25 from mobilization to alleviate the demographic decline.
The magazine reported, however, that many young people have fled the country, while those who remain do not plan to start families.
Projections cited in the report indicate that even if hostilities cease in the coming years, Ukraine can, at best, expect merely a deceleration of depopulation.
Olga Duhnich, an expert at the Ukraine-based think tank Frontier Institute, stated that the generation born in the 1990s and 2000s is the least populous in Ukraine’s modern history, meaning the country cannot expect a post-conflict baby boom.
The United Nations (UN) projects that Ukraine’s population will decline by 0.7% to 0.9% each year over the next two decades.
Under this projection, Ukraine’s population will fall to approximately 25 million by 2040.
If hostilities drag on, people are expected to abandon plans to have children, deepening the crisis even further.
Beyond exempting men under 25 from mobilization, the Kyiv government is rolling out various support packages to boost birth rates.
Under legislation enacted in the country, parents who have children receive a direct payment of 50,000 hryvnias (around $1,100).
Parents are also paid 7,000 hryvnias each month during the first year.
Other state programmes subsidize childcare costs, while Ukrainian soldiers are granted free freezing of egg and sperm cells.
Ukrainian Minister of Social Policy Denis Ulyutin said in May to the Livyi Bereh media outlet that roughly 22 to 25 million people lived in government-controlled territories.
Ulyutin characterized the prevailing picture by saying: “This is a catastrophe.”
Ella Libanova, Director of the Institute for Demography and Quality of Life Research, estimated the population at 29 million during the same period.
Libanova attributed the steep fall from a population of 30 million in 2025 to high death rates and the demographic crisis.
In a statement in October, Libanova announced that Ukraine’s population had slipped to 28.5 million.
Institute Director Libanova said: “The population is already at 28.5 million; we lost half a million people. We lost them, but thankfully this was still caused by migration rather than casualties.”
Narek Karapetyan, a lawmaker and head of the Strong Armenia faction in the Armenian parliament, has urged opposition parties to unite around four core principles set out in a joint declaration.
The key points of the declaration include resisting territorial concessions and blocking the adoption of a new constitution, which the opposition has termed the “Aliyev constitution”.
According to a report by Aysor.am, Narek Karapetyan stated that the opposition meeting was originally planned to be led by his uncle, businessman and Strong Armenia movement leader Samvel Karapetyan.
“We initiated the meeting, but the authorities took preemptive steps to prevent Samvel Karapetyan from launching the national unification process,” Narek Karapetyan said.
Noting that, despite these events, opposition representatives convened and signed a joint declaration based on four agreed articles, Narek Karapetyan invited other opposition forces and members of the public to join the alliance.
“We will not allow them to implement the Aliyev constitution in Armenia. We must unite,” Karapetyan said.
Ahead of these developments, Armenian National Security Service personnel detained Strong Armenia Party leader Samvel Karapetyan following a search of his home.
The party’s press secretary, Agavni Sukiasyan, announced that on the morning of the same day, the Investigative Committee of Armenia searched the homes of both Samvel Karapetyan and Narek Karapetyan.
In a report citing the Investigative Committee, Armenpress stated that Samvel Karapetyan was detained as part of a case involving allegations of causing large-scale financial damage to the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) company, embezzling entrusted property, and money laundering.
According to committee figures, the total damage inflicted on the company exceeds $179 million.
Narek Karapetyan’s home was also searched at the end of July as part of a criminal case.
On 22 July, Armenia’s Central Electoral Commission approved the Prosecutor General’s request to strip Narek Karapetyan of his parliamentary immunity, and Karapetyan was charged with large-scale money laundering.
According to information reported by Sputnik Armenia, the investigation is linked to charges brought against Strong Armenia supporter Aleksan Aleksanyan.
Investigative authorities allege that Aleksanyan received approximately $4.4 million and €230,000 from the Karapetyan-owned Tashir Foundation under the guise of gifts and loans.
Several criminal cases had previously been opened against Samvel Karapetyan.
In 2025, Karapetyan was charged with publicly calling for the violent seizure of power after backing the Armenian Apostolic Church, which had been criticized by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
In January, legal proceedings were also launched against Karapetyan on charges of large-scale tax evasion and money laundering.
Separately, in early July 2025, the Armenian parliament approved a bill enabling the nationalization of the Electric Networks of Armenia company.
In March, Armenia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the nationalization process in question complied with the law.
IRAM expert Oral Toğa assesses Middle East shifts after US vote
Netanyahu Arab party attack triggers crisis over coalition
Fico accuses Merz of blackmail over threat to veto EU budget
US Senate panel seeks records in Trump-linked crypto investigation
Europe ready for arms and missile control talks with Russia, FT says
-
Diplomacy1 week agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Russia2 weeks agoUS and Russia weigh energy deals and corporate return in peace talks
-
Europe2 weeks agoMerz visits Asia to seek new markets for German defence firms
-
Opinion2 weeks agoGaza exposes the myth of the “most moral army in the world”
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS warns Gulf allies of possible Iran strikes after midterms
-
Europe5 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
America2 weeks agoDemocrats target Trump-Putin Russian diesel deal with legal push
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
