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.”
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei strongly criticized Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s recent statements comparing Iran’s regional actions to those of Israel, calling the comparison “astonishing and incorrect” during his weekly press conference.
In a comprehensive briefing on Monday, Baghaei addressed a wide range of foreign policy developments and regional security matters, including relations with Türkiye, the current state of diplomatic understandings with the United States, and Iran’s nuclear program.
“Hakan Fidan’s comparison is astonishing and incorrect”
When asked about Fidan’s assertions regarding Iran and his comparison of Iranian actions to those of the Israeli government, Baghaei sharply rejected the assessment.
“It is astonishing that a figure of Mr. Fidan’s standing would make such an unwarranted comparison,” Baghaei said. “He knows very well that the Israeli regime is expansionist by nature and seeks to harm the entire region, including Türkiye. How they arrived at such a bizarre comparison remains a major question for us.”
Baghaei asserted that Iran maintains no proxy forces in the region and argued that Israel represents the only true proxy entity in the Middle East. “We ask our Turkish friends to align their analyses with existing realities and to avoid repeating analyses that serve the exploitative interests of the Israeli regime,” the spokesperson added.
The remarks follow recent statements by Fidan, in which he addressed the ongoing conflict involving Hezbollah and Hamas, describing them as Iranian proxies in the region.
“We need to return to a situation where the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every nation is fully recognized,” Fidan had stated. “Iran has long claimed to pursue a preventive security policy by maintaining proxies in these countries, just as the Israelis occupy the rest of the region as part of their own security.”
“The Islamabad Agreement has entered a crisis phase”
Responding to a question regarding the status of the Islamabad Agreement, Baghaei stated: “There is no doubt that this agreement has entered a crisis phase.”
While emphasizing that Iran approaches all negotiations with seriousness and precision, and fulfills its commitments in good faith once an agreement is reached, Baghaei accused the opposing party of failing to honor its pledges.
“They were so eager to breach the agreement that they did not even allow the one-month period specified in Article 5 regarding the Strait of Hormuz to run its course. They began backsliding from the very first days,” Baghaei said. “Looking at the 14 articles of the memorandum of understanding, the Americans dismantled different components of the agreement within this short timeframe. We have maintained from the beginning that it is a matter of ‘commitment for commitment.’ As long as the other party fulfills its obligations, we will remain committed to ours.”
“We reject the IAEA’s request to access damaged facilities”
Asked about the request by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi for inspectors to return to Iran and visit damaged nuclear facilities, Baghaei delivered a flat rejection, stating that the request would not be granted.
Addressing separate reports regarding satellite imagery of nuclear facility reconstruction, Baghaei noted that he had not yet seen the satellite images in question and therefore declined to comment.
“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be threatened by the US”
Commenting on maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz and allegations that the United States is providing military escorts to 20 vessels, Baghaei reiterated Iran’s opposition to the presence of extra-regional forces.
Baghaei stated that regional security can only be achieved without foreign intervention, through consultative mechanisms among regional countries. He added that the US military presence is a source of insecurity in the region.
“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to become an area of threat against Iran’s interests,” the spokesperson said. “We made genuine efforts to ensure navigation security, but the US was the party that undermined the process. The claims regarding vessel escorts demonstrate that the US is continuing its interventionist and aggressive policies in the region.”
Regarding the interpretation of Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, Baghaei stated that the text is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.
He noted that provisions designating the management of the strait to Iran, in consultation with Oman, were included in the text to protect Iranian interests. He added that the US is attempting to establish parallel routes by provoking regional countries, which he warned causes environmental issues and jeopardizes maritime safety.
“The declaration by the three European countries is null and void”
Referring to a joint declaration issued by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Baghaei dismissed the statement as entirely invalid, accusing the European nations of attempting to distort facts.
He stated that the actions of the US and Israel are the source of instability and harm in both the region and the wider world, adding that such declarations do not contribute to any resolution.
Addressing claims made by the French Foreign Minister, Baghaei added that French officials should cease attempting to assume roles in matters that do not concern them.
“We have not conditioned cooperation with Afghanistan on recognition”
Baghaei provided details on a recent visit to Afghanistan by Alireza Jalalzadeh, the Deputy Foreign Minister for Consular Affairs, noting that discussions were conducted within the framework of consular affairs and people-to-people relations.
Highlighting that Iran shares a border of more than 900 kilometers with Afghanistan, hosts a large number of Afghan migrants, and maintains extensive commercial ties, Baghaei said: “We have not conditioned the official recognition of the Afghan administration on the cooperation necessary for the interests of both countries. The recognition process is a legal procedure, and a decision on this matter will be made when the time comes.”
“We do not make decisions on behalf of Lebanon”
Rejecting allegations that Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon and Oman, Baghaei said: “We do not make decisions on behalf of anyone. The inclusion of Lebanon’s name in the memorandum of understanding demonstrates Iran’s sense of responsibility toward maintaining international security. In the first article of the text, we emphasized the need to end the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. This is not a matter of decision-making; the decision belongs to the Lebanese people.”
Addressing international pressure regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, Baghaei stated that the Lebanese people are best positioned to understand the value of the resistance’s weapons in protecting their sovereignty, and that any decision on the matter rests solely with them.
“Trump’s claims are false”
Baghaei denied claims made by former US President Donald Trump regarding Iran’s conduct during nuclear negotiations.
“Lying has become a behavioral pattern and an addiction for the US,” Baghaei said. “The talks held in Muscat on Saturday focused exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz. We attempted to establish a mechanism to ensure the safe passage of vessels through Omani mediation, but this outcome was not reached due to pressure exerted on Oman.”
He added that alleged assassination plots against Trump were never a subject of negotiation.
“The death of Lindsey Graham will not grieve free people”
When asked to comment on the death of US Senator Lindsey Graham, Baghaei remarked:
“The Angel of Death is just. One cannot expect the peoples of the region to mourn a figure who built his life philosophy on aggression, war, and terror, and who boasted of being the greatest supporter of genocide. The death of this aggressive senator will not grieve the heart of any free person.”
The military and political leadership of NATO sees no evidence that Russia is preparing for a potential attack on the Baltic states by 2030, according to a report by The Times, citing a senior alliance source.
“I see absolutely no sign that Russia is interested in engaging in any conflict with NATO,” the high-ranking source told the newspaper. The official added that they had no intention of speculating on the date of a potential conflict, as some other officials within the alliance have done.
The Times noted that rhetoric suggesting an open military conflict between NATO and Russia could begin in 2030 is primarily being used to mobilize the resources of the alliance’s member states. The report stated that this framing aims to encourage members to meet a defense spending target set at 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Speaking to the newspaper on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), said that allies currently have a “window of opportunity” to build up the capabilities already agreed upon.
Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has previously stated that the militarization of Europe would require Russia to take additional measures to guarantee its national security.
As the implications of these developments continue to play out in the military arena, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda announced on July 9 that NATO leadership has converted the mandate of the Baltic air policing mission from air patrol to a combat footing.
The day before this decision, leaders attending the NATO summit in Ankara pointed to the “long-term threat Russia poses to Euro-Atlantic security and stability” in a joint declaration.
NATO has repeatedly expressed concerns over a potential conflict with Russia. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has urged member states not to be “naive” about threats coming from Russia and to increase their defense spending. Similarly, the commander of the German Army, Christian Freuding, asserted on June 12 that his country must “be ready for a Russian attack” by 2029 or sooner, stating, “We must be ready for war.”
In contrast, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko claimed in a June 22 interview with the Izvestia newspaper that NATO and the European Union are preparing for a military conflict with Russia on the horizon of 2030. Grushko noted that from a military perspective, there is now little difference between NATO and the EU regarding aggressive ambitions toward Moscow, and that their main objective is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.
The Moscow administration has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of attacking Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that there are no geopolitical, economic, or military reasons to fight the alliance. Nevertheless, Putin has also stated that “all NATO countries are virtually at war with Russia.”
Last year, representatives of NATO countries approved a declaration agreeing to raise military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Under this target, 3.5% of spending is projected to go directly to the military budget, while 1.5% is to be allocated indirectly to defense through cybersecurity and the modernization of highways.
Diplomacy
Zelenskyy announces sweeping Ukrainian cabinet shakeup as Prime Minister Sviridenko resigns
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced a sweeping structural overhaul of the government, confirming that a new prime minister will soon take office.
Following the announcement, the Ukrainian leader held a series of meetings over a two-and-a-half-hour period with potential candidates positioned to succeed Yulia Sviridenko as prime minister.
“Political strategy is changing”
Writing on his Telegram channel, Zelenskyy announced that the structure of the cabinet of ministers will change and that Sviridenko, who is stepping down from her post, will be assigned to a new role.
The Ukrainian president stated that the country is renewing its political strategy. Under the new approach, specific individuals with extensive experience will be put in charge of each priority foreign policy direction to implement agreements reached at the leadership level and to meet the expectations of the Ukrainian people.
Approximately one hour after Zelenskyy’s statement, Sviridenko confirmed her departure from the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine via a message on social media.
Thanking the president for his high valuation of her work, Sviridenko stated that she and Zelenskyy had discussed future steps.
Sviridenko began her career in the Ukrainian government in 2019 as Deputy Minister of Economy. Between 2020 and 2021, she served as deputy head of the presidential office, during which time she participated in negotiations regarding the Donbas.
In November 2021, she assumed control of economic management as First Deputy Prime Minister. In the spring of 2025, she signed a resource agreement with the US on behalf of Ukraine.
Zelenksyy proposed that Sviridenko lead the government in July 2025, and the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, approved her candidacy with 262 votes in a session held on July 17, 2025.
Prior to Sviridenko, Denys Shmyhal had led the cabinet since March 2020. He currently serves as the Minister of Energy.
Priority targets of the new cabinet established
Zelenskyy outlined the primary areas of focus for the renewed government, listing relations with the US—specifically licensing agreements for the production of Patriot systems and security cooperation—as top priorities.
Other core objectives include the European anti-ballistic missile project, the European Union accession process, relations with neighboring states—particularly Poland and Hungary—cooperation with the Middle East, the Gulf countries, and China, as well as relations with international organizations.
The Ukrainian leader also stressed the need to strengthen operations along the front lines and border regions, increase weapons supplies, complete winter preparations, accelerate the transformation of state-owned enterprises, and implement agreements reached with partners regarding the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Who could succeed Sviridenko as prime minister?
The last major reshuffle in the Ukrainian government took place a year ago, with Sviridenko assuming the premiership in July 2025.
Under Ukrainian law, the candidate for prime minister must be proposed by the majority coalition in the Verkhovna Rada.
Once appointed, the prime minister submits the majority of the cabinet members to parliament for approval.
Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that the only legitimate power in Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada. According to Putin’s assessment, the only authority qualified to participate in peace talks is the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, asserting that Zelenskyy lacks legitimacy and therefore has no authority to sign any document.
According to a report by the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, potential candidates being considered for the premiership include:
- Sergiy Koretskyy, Chairman of the Board of Naftogaz and Director of Ukrnafta
- Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Energy
- Mykhailo Fedorov, Minister of Defense
- Ihor Terekhov, Mayor of Kharkiv
Zelenskyy announced that he met with all of these officials, as well as Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko, during the day.
Sources familiar with the matter who spoke to RBC-Ukraine stated that the president’s decision to renew the government came as a surprise to many. The sources informing the publication also put forward Koretskyy’s name for the premiership.
Sources speaking to Bloomberg also pointed to Koretskyy alongside Shmyhal. The agency reported that both Koretskyy and Shmyhal possess extensive experience in the energy sector, which partially explains their candidacy to succeed Sviridenko.
Meanwhile, Verkhovna Rada Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported that the parliamentary vote on the prime minister’s resignation could take place on July 13 or 14.
Zheleznyak stated that following this vote, the entire government will function in an interim capacity, with Shmyhal temporarily leading the administration in his capacity as deputy prime minister.
According to information shared by Zheleznyak, Sviridenko will become Ukraine’s new ambassador to the US. The Financial Times also reported, citing two sources, that the outgoing prime minister will be appointed to this post.
Zelenskyy stated that he had offered Sviridenko the opportunity to head a new and important direction in relations with a key partner, though he did not share specific details regarding which country or organization this would involve.
Subsequently, a report by the Interfax-Ukraine agency, citing sources, stated that Olga Stefanishyna, who currently serves as Ukraine’s Ambassador to the US, wishes to end her diplomatic service due to personal reasons.
Stefanishyna has held the post for less than a year, with Zelenskyy having signed the decree for her appointment in August 2025.
Iran rejects Turkish foreign minister’s comparison of regional policy to Israel
Ending Western reliance on China requires $23.6 trillion in investment by 2050, study shows
NATO leadership sees no evidence of Russian preparations for attack on Baltics by 2030
China and Russia deploy submarines together in “Joint Sea-2026” drills
Zelenskyy announces sweeping Ukrainian cabinet shakeup as Prime Minister Sviridenko resigns
-
Middle East2 weeks agoQatar and Saudi Arabia acquire hundreds of millions of dollars in Israeli defense technology, report says
-
Europe2 weeks agoBuckingham Palace updates King’s official role to focus on securing faith in multi-faith Britain
-
Interview2 weeks ago“Capitalism does not require a free social order”
-
Asia2 weeks agoSouth Korea unveils $518 billion plan for new southwestern semiconductor cluster
-
Europe2 weeks agoBillionaire Peter Thiel deepens ties with German and Austrian right-wing political elite
-
America2 weeks agoAnthropic withdraws covert China user tracking feature after online backlash
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany’s BSW proposes cooperation with AfD to break political ‘firewall’
-
Europe2 weeks agoEurope faces 15-year low in winter gas reserves as June storage targets fall short
