In recent days, I had the opportunity to set out from Shanghai—one of China’s most vibrant and intellectually rich cities—and revisit Hangzhou and Beijing. These cities are home to China’s most prestigious universities and provide an ideal setting for gauging the pulse of academic circles. With Donald Trump’s re-election in the United States reigniting trade wars through heightened tariffs, the growing turbulence in the international system, and China’s position in this emerging world order, I engaged in extensive conversations with Chinese academics. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, these scholars offered candid insights into China’s foreign policy and the global balance of power. The questions are mine, while the responses come directly from these academics.

From Shanghai to Beijing: China’s academic community speaks

China’s role in the international system has been a frequent topic of debate in both the West and the East in recent years. The escalating trade wars spurred by Trump’s tariffs and a world order shaken by conflicts like Ukraine-Russia and Palestine-Israel have once again placed China under the global spotlight. During my discussions with leading academics from universities in Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Beijing, I sought to understand how China views this chaotic landscape and where it positions itself within it.

‘China keeps its distance from conflicts, but it’s a strategic choice’

The first striking aspect of China’s foreign policy is its cautious stance toward conflicts beyond its borders. According to the academics, China justifies this approach with its principles of “non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs” and “non-involvement in disputes between third parties.” However, I posed a pointed question: “Isn’t the root cause of these wars the power vacuum in the international system? If the U.S. were as strong as it once was, would conflicts like Russia-Ukraine or Palestine-Israel be as widespread? Doesn’t China bear some responsibility for the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order? If so, how logical is it for China, as a partial architect of this turbulence, to stand on the sidelines?”

One academic responded decisively: “Yes, it benefits China. The U.S. is no longer as powerful as it once was and is steadily weakening. Constantly engaged in wars, the U.S. is losing both prestige in the international community and economic ground. This situation works against the U.S. and in China’s favor.” I countered with an objection: “But doesn’t it seem like China is losing ground too? Russia and Iran paid heavy prices in Syria over the years, yet China couldn’t even economically support Syria’s reconstruction. Had it done so, might the Assad regime have survived? With Russia tied up in Ukraine and Iran clashing with Israel, Assad was left unsupported and fell. Moreover, groups like the Turkistan Islamic Party have gained strength in Syria and may soon have the capacity to establish a state. Can anyone guarantee that these groups won’t one day target China’s Xinjiang region?”

The academic acknowledged my concern: “Yes, what you say is partly true. Assad had lost the support of his people, and a leader who loses that support will inevitably fall, one way or another. But for China, the real threat isn’t the jihadist groups themselves—it’s the powers backing them. If China is ever forced to fight—and that would truly be a last resort—it would confront not the terrorist organizations, but the forces behind them. China doesn’t approve of Russia’s approach in Ukraine and is pursuing a different path.”

‘Russia made a mistake, China doesn’t favor proxy wars’

Curious about this “different path,” I pressed further: “What do you mean?” The academic’s response was striking: “Russia, with the largest landmass in the world, claimed its goal in Ukraine was to counter groups attempting ethnic cleansing of Russians—which was a legitimate concern. But it did what it swore it wouldn’t: it annexed the territory of a sovereign state. China, on the other hand, hasn’t launched a military operation even in Taiwan, which is internationally recognized as part of our territory. That’s because the people of Taiwan are our people; we seek peaceful reunification, and it will happen eventually. If an operation over Taiwan occurs, it won’t be between China and the island—it will be between China and the powers that support it behind.  China doesn’t engage in proxy wars.”

This response hinted at a red line in China’s approach to conflicts. “So, does that mean China will ignore global conflicts until they reach its borders?” I asked. The academic clarified: “No, of course we’ll raise our voice. We’ll stand against imperialism and with the oppressed. But we won’t be drawn into direct conflict as the U.S. wants. We do not want to jump into the trap that set by the U.S..We’re not ready for that now, but we’re preparing. Look at history: Britain won both world wars but lost all its strength. The U.S., entering both wars late, emerged fresh and energetic, securing victory and becoming the architect of the new world order. China is gathering its energy and strength today. Meanwhile, the U.S. is repeating Britain’s mistake—constantly fighting and wearing itself out.”

‘Waiting for the right moment is China’s strategy’

But isn’t there a limit to this “energy-gathering” strategy? “What happens if you lose all strategic points to the U.S. in the meantime?” I asked. The academic offered a historical perspective: “As Chinese, we, like the Turks, prefer to move forward with historical references. During international crises, we focus on resolving our internal issues and border disputes—it’s a form of preparation for the larger battle. Take the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. While the world was fixated on the U.S. and the Soviet Union, we settled our issue with India in one month. No one even noticed. Of course, no Chinese can figure out why the India launched a war with China first. Similarly, in 1979, amidst the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Second Oil Crisis, we are forced to start the Counterattack in Self-Defense on the Sino-Vietnamese Border, we entered Vietnam, achieved our goals swiftly, and withdrew. Timing is important for China.”

In short, while its adversaries fight, China builds its strength, preparing to defend itself when the moment is right. So when might that moment come? “At what point would China shift from rhetoric to action?” I asked. The answer was clear: “Maybe Iran, or maybe the direct attack from U.S.. Iran is so important for the safety of Central Asia and China. We oppose intervention in a sovereign state. Just as the U.S. supported Ukraine against Russia, we would support Iran anyway.”

‘Until 2030, a period of conflict and cooperation’

The academics also shared a long-term vision for China’s relationship with the U.S. “Until 2030, China will adopt a strategy of engaging the U.S. without entering direct conflict,” they said. They describe this period as one of “conflict and cooperation”, but maybe the most intense and dangerous period compared with the next 10-20 years. The reasoning lies in China’s domestic priorities: “Our western provinces are still underdeveloped. Until China completes its overall development, it won’t risk a direct confrontation. Militarily, we don’t want to be part of a conflict, nor do we think we’re ready for one. But after 2030, the gap between China and the U.S. will be reduced to a large degree and the balance will be in China’s favor. By then, we believe the U.S. won’t dare risk a direct conflict either. If they do venture into such ‘madness,’ China will be ready.”

‘China won’t kneel to Trump’s tariffs’

When the topic turned to Trump’s tariffs, the academic was resolute: “We’ll see it through to the end. In 2018, we didn’t immediately retaliate to the U.S.’s tariffs on China, but things are different now. We didn’t start this trade war, and we won’t bow to the U.S.”

Russia-U.S. agreement and new alliances

I also asked about the possibility of a Russia-U.S. deal: “It was said that China and Russia’s partnership had no limits—does that still hold?” The academic replied: “But there is a bottom line for the relations. China has never seen Russia as an enemy. We understand the security rationale behind its intervention in Ukraine, but we’ve always supported a sovereign state’s territorial integrity. If Russia strikes a deal with the U.S., that’s their choice. According to the official documents, China has no allies. The only ally China has maybe the North Korea because of the Korean War.”

Finally, I touched on recent developments: “Last month, Russia blamed European states for world wars, avoiding mention of the U.S. Trump suggests he could reach an agreement with Russia. Meanwhile, tariffs seem to be bringing China and Europe closer. Just last week, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited China, emphasizing cooperation. Could we see a China-EU alliance pitted against a U.S.-Russia bloc in the near future?” The academic didn’t rule it out: “There are no eternal friendships or enmities. It’s possible. And with potential land and rail links between China and the EU, the strategic importance of Central Asia and Turkey grows. Turkey’s geopolitical position and ties with Central Asia could make it a key partner for China.”

Conclusion: China’s strategic patience and future plans

This interview with Chinese academics reveals Beijing’s patient, strategic, and long-term approach to the turbulence in the international system. By steering clear of conflicts and building its strength, China aims to avoid direct confrontation until 2030, even 2035, 2049 while completing its development. The academics predict that, post-2030, China’s advantage over the U.S. will grow, preparing it for any potential conflict. A critical key country like Iran or a strategic issue like Taiwan could prompt China to act sooner. In the face of Trump’s trade wars, China stands firm: it won’t back down. Meanwhile, emerging partnerships like Russia-U.S. and China-EU, potentially involving Turkey, hint at a global realignment. Time will tell what role China ultimately plays in this chaotic world.

Lucas Zeise, a German economist and co-founder of Financial Times Deutschland, shared his views on the militarization of industry in a recent interview. Zeise said, “If more and more is being spent on the defense industry, this is actually a loss. Because this is a production that exists only for destruction. This is a sign of a general decline and at the same time an indication of the road to disaster.”

Born in 1944, Lucas Zeise is a financial journalist with a background in philosophy and economics. His career includes positions with the Japanese Ministry of Economics, the German aluminum industry, the Frankfurt-based Börsen-Zeitung, and the Financial Times Deutschland, which he co-founded. Until 2017, he served as editor-in-chief of UZ, the weekly newspaper of the German Communist Party (DKP). He currently writes a regular column for Junge Welt and contributes articles to various publications.

Lucas Zeise answered Tunç Akkoç’s questions about the debate on German industry and economy and global developments.

Tunç Akkoç: First of all, is deindustrialization a reality?

Lucas Zeise: Yes, I think so, but of course it is a long-lasting reality. Deindustrialization is a process that coincides with capitalist development in general. Industry has been the main surplus-value-producing element of capitalism in all countries, and in some of the more developed countries, notably Britain, deindustrialization has reached a more advanced level. Since Britain was the first fully developed capitalist country, this process started earlier.

Economists often refer to this process as the tertiary sector, i.e. the service sector in general. In capitalist countries, the share of services in the economy is steadily increasing. This is a general trend that can be observed everywhere, and is particularly related to the fact that developed countries are gradually shifting their industries to other regions, especially South-East Asia, by exporting capital. While industrialization is taking place in these regions, the process of deindustrialization in developed countries has accelerated.

In addition, the process of financialization has also accelerated and the financial sector has become stronger. However, the finance sector is a service sector, not an industry. Nevertheless, all these service sectors depend on industry remaining strong. When we analyze the UK, we can see that the country has experienced a relative decline compared to other regions. For example, Germany had overtaken the UK in the industrialization process and even surpassed it before the First World War. Likewise, the US has also overtaken the UK in terms of industrialization.

This is a long-term trend. However, two major industrialized countries, Germany and Japan, have managed to resist this process for a long time. The recent economic shocks, however, have accelerated Germany’s deindustrialization process, which has brought about an inevitable crisis. This is the essence of the whole issue.

Tunç Akkoç: Some influential figures in the European Union, such as Mario Draghi, have argued that Germany should move away from the car industry and invest in new technologies such as artificial intelligence. What do you think about such proposals for structural change?

Lucas Zeise: I think such proposals for structural change will happen spontaneously on the one hand. I mean, this process is already going on naturally. China has already overtaken Germany in the car industry. Therefore, Mario Draghi’s advice on this issue is actually a cheap suggestion. It is easy to suggest something like this and then say ‘Great job!'”

On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to think that it is possible to steer the economy in this way. It is not enough to say, ‘OK, now we are investing heavily in artificial intelligence and we will get ahead in this field.’ Moreover, it is debatable whether artificial intelligence is really a great revolution or just a passing fad. Artificial intelligence can actually be considered as a sub-branch of the semiconductor industry, i.e. microelectronics.

Of course, the development of microelectronics is important and all countries are making state-sponsored investments in this field. The European Union and Germany are already encouraging this. However, this is not something that is unique to Germany or something that makes Germany different from others. While it is possible to make great progress in this area, this alone is not the final solution to a problem.

Tunç Akkoç: In general, how do you assess Germany’s future energy supply strategy?

Lucas Zeise: Obviously, I am not an expert in this field, so it is difficult for me to give a really good assessment. But it seems very clear to me that all states have to pay attention to such a central sector of the economy.

Germany was already in a different position in that it did not have its own oil companies. This has become a historical tradition. As for natural gas, there used to be two big centers: one centered around BASF, the other around Ruhrgas. These two structures were interconnected and worked well for a while. Over time, however, this system changed and other areas of the energy sector, especially electricity generation, were restructured.

However, this does not change the fact that the energy sector must be guided by the state. Energy policy should be managed by the state in a holistic manner. Developing a common energy policy in the European Union already seems unlikely. However, such a policy should have been mandatory for such a large common market.

At this point, if we look at the example of Turkey, the energy sector there is handled, managed and coordinated in a relatively centralized manner. In Germany, and at the EU level in general, there is a major deficiency in this respect. The state does not really take enough ownership of the energy issue.

Tunç Akkoç: On the other hand, German industry is increasingly turning to the defense industry. Some see in the militarization of the economy the potential for a kind of ‘re-industrialization’. After the war in Ukraine, more and more German companies are breaking the taboo on supplying the defense industry and entering the military equipment sector. How should we assess this development?

Lucas Zeise: On the one hand, this is clearly a sign of the collapse of the still developing and relatively well-functioning global economy. If more and more of it is being spent on the defense industry, this is actually a loss. Because this activity is a production that exists only for destruction. This is a sign of a general decline and at the same time an indication of a road to disaster.

It is also clear that there is competition for the best defense tenders in the international arena. That is why everyone feels that it needs to enter this field strongly. Nobody just wants to buy aircraft from the US, but wants to build their own defense industry. Germany was already taking part in this process. Although not always at the forefront, tank production in particular has long been strong. This sector was progressing steadily, albeit at a slow pace.

However, this development seems to herald an impending catastrophe. It shows that everyone is preparing for war. This is very similar to the atmosphere before the First World War.

Tunç Akkoç: Elections are approaching in Germany. Do you think that after these elections, Germany’s economic policies will change with a new political order?

Lucas Zeise: More likely no, I don’t think so. I think that economic issues have become a bit more prominent, but if we look back, I remember that in the German Bundestag elections in 1969, one of the main debates in the election campaign was whether the German Mark (D-Mark) should appreciate against the US Dollar. So, a very specific and economically critical issue for Germany at that time was at the center of the election campaign. This debate was directly related to the position Germany should take vis-à-vis the US and Europe.

Today such a debate is missing. The issues that really need to be addressed —energy policy, deindustrialization— are being dealt with in a strangely distorted way. The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is the Agenda 2010 program that Gerhard Schröder launched in 2002 or 2003. This program meant lowering wages, reducing social benefits and increasing profit-making opportunities for companies.

But this approach was already wrong at the time. Schröder’s move enabled some big companies to make a big leap forward and strengthened German capital, especially in the European domestic market. This had certain advantages, but repeating it now would only worsen the situation.

That’s why I think the debate is being conducted in the wrong way and not particularly along party lines. On the contrary, there seems to be a consensus among most political actors on this issue.

Tunç Akkoç: How do you assess the first actions of the Trump administration and what will be the impact on international relations and the global economy?

Lucas Zeise: In my opinion, there is not a new wave of deregulation (liberalization). The US government’s more aggressive stance towards other great powers, or as Trump calls them, ‘shitholes’, or small states, ruthlessly suppressing and crushing them, is not deregulation. It is, in fact, a further intensification of the rivalry between the capitalist states, which are essentially allies, by any means necessary. We can see this situation clearly.

This is not deregulation; it is more like what happened during the Ronald Reagan era. At that time, the US tried to revitalize its rivalry, not with China, but especially with Japan and Western Europe. Reagan’s ruthless behavior towards his own allies was aimed at strengthening the US global position. Today, I think it has become even harsher, so much so that the President of the US can stand up and say, ‘Oh Denmark, you have to give us Greenland, or else we will buy it.’ They even imply that they can intervene directly if necessary.

This kind of behavior is actually a continuation of the past US policies towards Panama. Panama was detached from Colombia and made independent because the US wanted to build a canal there. In other words, this imperialist behavior towards weak countries is already a tradition. But the behavior towards medium-sized states such as Germany, Britain, France or Japan is becoming more and more brutal. I see this as the result of an intensifying and ever more bitter rivalry.

The US in particular is less and less reluctant to use its military power more recklessly, and this is becoming more and more prominent. This is not a new era; it is a further advance of neoliberalism and laissez-faire. The so-called ‘rules-based economic policy’ rhetoric has been completely discarded.

Tunç Akkoç: We see both overly optimistic and overly pessimistic comments about the Chinese economy. When government bonds lose value, pessimists sound the alarm; when exports break records, optimists raise their voices. Does China have the intention or the power to ‘share’ the world with the US?

Lucas Zeise: I completely agree with you; the overly optimistic comments are as exaggerated as the overly pessimistic ones. If I try to think from the point of view of the Chinese Communist Party and its leaders, their tradition has been to position China as the largest economic power and to take the first place in the capitalist world.

In the present situation, if I am the second most powerful country, naturally my goal is to equalize with the first. And I have to do this because there is almost no scenario in which the US will accept this and say, ‘OK, we can live in peace with China.’ For a while it seemed as if there was this understanding, that we were working well with China and we were happy with that. But this is clearly no longer possible.

The official US policy is based on not allowing China to become an equal power. They want to continue to set the rules and, if necessary, to violate them according to their own interests. Therefore, China is forced to act like an imperial power.

Alexander Stuglev, the Head of  Roscongress Foundation, spoke to Harici: “For easing the sanctions regime, national currencies are currently used, and potentially in the future, a digital currency developed by the BRICS can be used.”

With the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow has increasingly turned to business diplomacy and international trade cooperation as strategic tools to mitigate the effects of Western sanctions. Central to this effort is Roscongress Foundation, Russia’s premier organization for fostering global economic dialogue and partnerships. Established to enhance Russia’s business ties internationally, Roscongress serves as a bridge connecting Russian enterprises with global markets through high-profile forums such as the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). The organization plays a critical role in reshaping Russia’s economic development by emphasizing collaboration with emerging economies, strengthening ties with traditional partners, and exploring new trade opportunities in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Roscongress was organized a meeting in Istanbul and Alexander Stuglev, the Head of  Roscongress Foundation, replied the questions of Harici.

As we understand, Roscongress is the main tool for business diplomacy and to eliminate the impacts of Western sanctions. Can you tell us more about the organization?

Yes, you have noticed correctly, Roscongress was established in 2007 as a non-financial development institution that deals with the organization and holding of major international economic and political events in Russia in the interests of attracting investments to the Russian Federation and developing the economy of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, while organizing events we, of course, proceed from the fact that in addition to interaction between Russia and businessmen from a particular country, direct connections can also be established with third countries, that we are also welcoming.

Could you tell us more about the opportunities and risks you see in Turkish-Russian relations in business sector?

Undoubtedly, to some extent, sanctions affect the development of Russian-Turkish relations and, in general, business relations with Russia.

Nevertheless, today, all those who use these turbulences in a pragmatic way to build their business projects in Russia are winning, occupying the vacated niches from Western countries, developing their own business. And from the point of view of easing the sanctions regime, national currencies are currently used, and potentially in the future, a digital currency developed by the BRICS association (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) can be used.

First of all, there are always risks out there, marketing risks included. Secondly, in addition to the fact that Turkish companies have occupied the niches vacated by Western companies, we see a general change in the structure of the Russian economy with a greater focus on creating products and services within Russia.

Tourism for example; the number of tourist trips that have now emerged in Russia is many times higher than there were before COVID, about 83 million trips are made by Russian citizens annually within Russia.  And this requires the infrastructure development.

Taking into account the large number of support programs from the Russian state for companies that are developing tourism infrastructure, there are great chances, for foreign companies as well, if they organize a Russian legal entity in the format of an LTD and get the opportunity to develop their projects. This is one of the possibilities.

Creative industry, computer IT security, IT products; in all those areas we can cooperate completely freely. These are such cross-border industries, where, I think, it’s very difficult to be a subject for sanctions.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin set a goal of increasing bilateral trade volume to $100 billion. Do you see an expansion or a contraction in the Turkish-Russian trade volume in 2025?

Firstly, this is practically 100% growth to what we have now.As for the forecast for 2025-2026, the main thing is,first: in my opinion, the construction of transport and logistics projects.There is the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea for example.Second; this is cooperation in the field of energy. Thirdly, this is cooperation in the field of chemistry (creation of chemical products) from supplied raw materials, from oil and gas.This is a promising area of pharmaceuticals, supplies of medical equipment, as well as medical services in Türkiye.Undoubtedly, the development of tourism is very promising but also creative industry, IT industry, Cybersecurity.These are the areas that, in my opinion, will develop in the near future. Of course, traditional cooperation in the field of metallurgy.Traditional cooperation in the field of agriculture and food supplies will grow for sure.

What challenges do sanctions pose to bilateral relations?

The first is an axis from the sanctions regime, including through payment in national currencies and using digital currencies. The second is business, thanks to its capabilities, will find a solution to any restrictions. I do not want to go into details now, do not want to disclose the details of the opportunities that companies can use to maintain a normal trade balance.

Anti-colonial movements in Africa seem to have opened up space for Russia in both diplomatic and commercial terms. How do you assess the situation there?

This is an anti-colonialist movement not only in relation to France, but also in relation to other countries. This is also a movement in relation to proposals that are unfair to Africa, for example, on the green transition, because it will destroy African business and will give great advantages to global companies. In my opinion, it is necessary to proceed from the interests of African countries, which, in fact, Russia always does. This is the advantage of our economy and politics.

We work in a ‘win-win’ mode. In the same way, the Turkish side can work in Africa. In the same way, Chinese investors have been actively working in Africa to this day in the form of the prospects of this market. But based on common interests, on the one hand there is a creation of profitable enterprises. On the other hand – the development of the African economy.  Only this will provide an opportunity for further mutual growth. If we simply export material resources from the colonies as a consumer and do not give anything in return, nothing good will come for sure.

After the fall of Assad government, does Russia have any interest in doing business in the reconstruction of Syria?

I am sure that Russian companies will take part in this process, just like other international companies. Now a period of political stabilization will pass and a period of certain growth will begin. The main thing is that extremist movements and non-constructive movements in relation to Syria and the Syrian people do not prevail in politics.  I believe that politics and economics will improve in the near future.