The calculus between the United States, Russia, and China is undergoing a fundamental transformation, reflected in recent summits, transactional arrangements, and a shifting global power equation. These developments highlight the emergence of pragmatic, albeit fragile, partnerships that will define future security, economic, and diplomatic orders.

Strategic Summits and Broken Dialogues

Recent months have seen intense diplomacy between President Donald Trump and his Russian and Chinese counterparts. The expected Trump-Putin summit in Budapest was cancelled, a direct result of Moscow's refusal to make concessions on Ukraine, particularly concerning the contested territories and the use of frozen Russian assets as reparations. Russia's firm stance has sent a clear message: unilateral punitive economic measures, such as US and EU plans to use frozen Russian reserves for Ukraine's reconstruction, are non-negotiable and remain a significant source of resentment for Moscow.

For Washington, Russia's intransigence not only stalls peace negotiations but also forces the US to pursue alternative strategies to contain Russian influence in Eastern Europe. The American approach is linked to the goal of utilising $300 billion in frozen Russian assets—either as a direct fund for Ukrainian reconstruction or, more modestly, as collateral for loans. However, substantial legal and practical obstacles remain, including sovereignty and compensation claims.

Xi-Trump Consensus: Transactional Pragmatism

In contrast to the stalled Russia-US dialogue, the Trump-Xi summit in Busan adopted a more pragmatic tone. Trump’s administration secured Beijing’s agreement to maintain rare earth exports, a critical lifeline for the US aerospace and defense sectors, under a one-year deal. Simultaneously, tariffs on Chinese goods, especially those linked to opioid flows, were reduced, signaling an effort to ease economic tensions and stabilize supply chains.

While the outcome has been celebrated in Chinese state media as an elevation to equal-player status of "great leaders of great countries," the reality is more nuanced.

Xi Jinping's focus remains on projecting steady-handed leadership, reinforcing that China does not seek to replace the US but demands recognition of its legitimate sphere of influence. The Chinese approach is less about the symbolism of meetings and more about playing a long game, similar to the ancient strategy of Go (Weiqi): patient, adaptive, and quietly expansionist.

Narratives of Power and Respect

The choreography of recent summits has been carefully scripted by Chinese media outlets. President Trump's open praise of Xi as a "tremendous leader" gave Chinese outlets material to highlight equality and China's "deep internal strength." The state narrative views the outcomes as a "major historical moment" for international relations, with the Pacific Ocean now symbolically large enough for both countries’ ambitions.

Similarly, Xi Jinping's rhetoric emphasized stability, cooperation, and the need for “joint responsibility” among major powers. Instead of confrontation, China prefers gradual progress—expanding the cooperation list, postponing difficult trade reforms, and using dialogue to replace outright strategic competition. Xi’s assertion that “China has never wanted to challenge or replace anyone” expresses a desire for peaceful coexistence, but it is subtly tinged with competitive undertones.

Security Equation, Power Manouvering

While US-China relations show signs of managed friction rather than open rivalry, the Russia factor remains a destabilising factor. Washington's efforts to negotiate peace in Ukraine without Russian concessions underscore the limits of Western leverage, particularly as China closely observes the situation. Beijing sees the Alaska summit and the cancellation of follow-up meetings not only as a test of American resolve but also as a precedent that major powers can revise regional boundaries through force—a notion China may internalise in its own contested frontiers.

For the US, supporting Ukraine through military aid and financial tools potentially funded by frozen Russian assets demonstrates both resolve and the complex balancing act needed to prevent escalation—American pressure via sanctions and 'victory tariffs' aims to force Russian compliance. Still, the lack of a lasting peace keeps the possibility open for further excellent power manoeuvring. This term refers to strategic moves or actions that can significantly alter the balance of power in a given situation.

Geopolitical Implications: Towards a New Equilibrium

The interaction between these summits and negotiations indicates a shifting world order. The era of single superpower dominance is over; instead, a multipolar world is emerging, driven by transactional partnerships - a concept where countries engage in mutually beneficial agreements based on specific issues or interests, selective cooperation, and the strategic retention of influence. The US and China are increasingly collaborating out of necessity, particularly in areas such as rare earths, agricultural trade, and manufacturing supply chains, while competing in technology, security, and global influence.

Russia’s role, though limited, still influences the calculation. Europe and Ukraine stay at the forefront of the contest, with assets, territory, and policy all involved in ongoing negotiations and uncertainty.

China, meanwhile, takes a wait-and-watch stance, seizing every chance to strengthen its position by shaping diplomatic outcomes, messaging influence, and leveraging global economic trends. With each summit, Beijing seeks both reassurance and small gains, trusting that time and patience will expand its influence without open conflict.

The geopolitics of 2025 thus reflect a delicate balance of pragmatism, competition, and transactional partnerships where every gesture, agreement, and cancellation carries strategic weight. The US, Russia, and China are not playing chess; instead, the long and subtle game of Go guides their actions, shaping a future where multipolarity, not hegemony, defines the new global order.

(The writer, an Indian Army veteran, is a strategic analyst. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at manojchannan@gmail.com; linkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/manoj-channan-3412635; X @manojchannan )