Strangely, but the world continues to comment on Trump's recent meeting with Xi Jinping, called key and even historic. Apparently the reasons are deeper than assumed. And the consequences are ahead. Let's start with analyses from the days leading up to the MEETING.
On May 3, for example, "The New York Times", NYT, wrote "America is officially a declining empire". The attack by Israel and the US on Iran had become a "turning point in the decline of the American empire". The reference to the Suez Canal from 1956 is eloquent - the Strait of Hormuz is the Suez Crisis for Washington, the NYT says.
The events at the Suez Canal destroyed the British Empire, and Hormuz dealt a blow to the international influence of the United States because of the American adventure in the Middle East. In fact, it makes sense to say that the American intervention in Iran is an American version of the Suez Crisis. In both cases, Israel is a participant and played a role in the decline of the British Empire after 1956. And today, according to the NYT, it can play a similar role for the "American Empire".
The Suez Crisis, after the intervention of the United States and the USSR, was decided in favor of Egypt, which became a geopolitical lever in negotiations after the closure of the Suez Canal. The political career of British Prime Minister Eden has been ruined, and Great Britain (which played in tandem with France and with the military participation of Tel Aviv) has ceased to be a great power. The analogy is impressive and instructive, but Trump's "negotiation diplomacy", which some called "a demonstration of power diplomacy", manifested during his recent visit to Beijing, turns out to have focused primarily on the Taiwan map.
As for the Strait of Hormuz, they say that there are definitely coincidences of interests between China and the United States. There is no way to talk about the destruction of the "American Empire". The Suez Canal is not the Strait of Hormuz, but there is also a Hormuz moment for America. It is important for the world's energy sector and very desirable for influence and control by the hegemon.
In this regard, on the eve of Trump's visit to Beijing, reports with comments were circulating in the West that the American president was going to meet with Xi Jinping to "press China". They wrote about discussing tariffs, about a technological embargo, about pressure on China regarding Iran and even about "American determination" regarding Taiwan. All this at the negotiating table. Something like preparing the psychological ground. Beijing would be forced to make concessions due to the slowdown of the Chinese economy.
Significant concessions were expected from China in exchange for a firm US position regarding Taiwan. For the sake of energy security, Trump would pressure China on the Iranian issue. It turned out that these Western statements largely diverged from reality. Taiwan was the center of the Trump-Xi Jinping dialogue. Taiwan is not only the most important dispute between the US and China, but it is de facto the strategic turning point that will determine the direction of the global balance of power in the future. Xi Jinping said bluntly during his meeting with Trump that "if this issue is resolved correctly, bilateral relations will stabilize as a whole, but otherwise conflicts, even wars, will arise between the two countries".
Trump has been silent. Simply without assessments. In the West, they commented on it as "diplomatic caution". But the issue is definitely deeper. China's message is being interpreted differently - if the US seeks to turn inward, rebuild its industry, manage its debt crisis, reduce the cost of its many wars, and implement a policy of "America first", it should rethink the map of Taiwan. Challenge? Or a reminder of Xi Jinping's thesis, embedded in China's long-standing strategy for the "Great Rebirth of the Chinese Nation". Which is an opportunity for the peaceful unification of Taiwan with China. Historical integration! Apparently, China will not back down on the subject.
But for Trump, things look different. A major conflict over Taiwan would undermine the goals of "America First", i.e. to regain economic power, restore industrial centers, and have no more wars abroad. And in the event of a war over Taiwan, the entire US system would be shaken. Without slowing down China's growth, however. Is the question MAGA or confrontation with China? The topic is rightly leading the talks in Beijing. And Trump "quickly sold Taiwan", they write in the West. "I can't fight a war 15 thousand km away," says the American president.
A cold shower for Taiwan with a call to "not to rush to officially declare independence". Added with "I want Taiwan and China to calm down". He did not foresee a war between Taipei and Beijing. But this gives grounds for conclusions that "Trump's visit to China reveals a shift in the axis". "TIME" published a photo of Trump with Xi Jinping on a red background on its cover with the text "demonstrating the changing balance of power in the rivalry between the US and China". The visit itself revealed "a shift in global power to the east". Behind closed doors, Xi Jinping had warned Trump about the export of American weapons to Taiwan. Taiwan was the most important issue in China-US relations.
Trump remained cautious about the Taiwan issue. The conclusion is that it is a "bright symbol of the changing global balance of power", because China has openly positioned itself as an equal power to the US. Xi Jinping emphasizes that he prefers "strategic stability" to "partnership" with Trump. A transformation in the global order was emerging in the face of China's rise.
However, Iran was not left without attention at this MEETING, as the major media in the West portrays it. China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, has indicated that "the use of force is a dead end". The solution is "Xi Jinping's 4 points", namely: the principle of peaceful coexistence of the Gulf countries, preserving the national sovereignty of the countries in the region, protecting the UN to prevent chaos, and strengthening regional progress. But according to Trump, Xi Jinping has agreed not to export weapons to Iran, will continue to buy Iranian oil, and Iran will not have a nuclear bomb.
Xi wanted Hormuz to be opened, but the US "will not ask for help from China". While Wang Yi reiterates at a press conference that "there is no point in continuing this conflict that should never have happened". It also harms global economic growth. It means "the ceasefire must be permanent". Only through dialogue and negotiations. And to reopen the sea lanes. Apparently the US and China are positioning themselves as the main geopolitical fences that will determine the order in the world. However, on his way back from Beijing, Trump declared that "there should be an agreement between the three great powers to limit the number of nuclear warheads in their arsenals".
The question is, is the world divided into two or three? Are only the US and China superpowers? Where does Russia remain? Is Moscow only looking for an agreement on nuclear weapons? Moreover, China is not willing to sign such an agreement. Was there an agreement in Beijing regarding Russia? Was there a bargain for Taiwan instead of Ukraine? Is it enough to say "friend Xi" to cover up the sparing words of Xi Jinping, who sends messages and uses Trump as a carrier pigeon to convey Chinese opinions "to whomever he needs"? Is Trump creating a fuss to cover up the lack of agreements on the points that were preferred? Will the big American technology players-billionaires who remain for negotiations after Trump's departure be the only ones who will boast of dividends from their meetings in Beijing?
Trump only announces sales of 200 aircraft to China, soybeans, purchases of rare earth elements, i.e. a breakthrough in trade and economic relations, leaving the rest behind the scenes. It is hard to believe that not a word has been said about Cuba and Venezuela, where China has significant investments and its interests are affected. Moreover, the head of the CIA visited Havana for talks and the information is about pressure, threats, promises of 100 million in aid, but also the detention of Raul Castro, i.e. steps different from those towards Maduro, but with the same goal. A division of spheres of influence has been achieved on a global scale, which will be called "distribution of the world", but without Europe? Where does Russia remain? Or will the other part be negotiated with Putin during his visit to China on May 19-20 to meet with Xi Jinping?
At Beijing's invitation, they emphasize in Moscow. Then Xi Jinping will be in the US in the fall, and Trump recently hinted that he may visit Moscow by the end of the year. Preparations for a new Yalta, because chaos does not bring development, no matter what else is claimed, to any of the big three countries? Europe should think about it. The hopes are for a halt to military actions in both Iran and Ukraine, but apparently poker continues and the cards are not yet revealed. The teasing continues. The question is who is more patient, does not blink without reason and has enough reserves to withstand the tension. Events are ahead. But hopes for peaceful coexistence also remain. Hopefully.