Into the Cold Peace: Tactical Calm in US-China Rivalry

The "structural rivalry" between the United States and China has entered a period of tactical quiescence. While the leaders' summit held in Busan, South Korea, may appear on the surface to be a futile attempt at détente, the very fact that Trump was compelled to sit at the negotiating table can be read as a significant conjunctural victory for China.

The "G2" concept, articulated by Trump just prior to the summit, appears significant in terms of rhetorical shifts, yet arguably paints a picture of American desperation. The G2 notion implies parity between China and the United States on the global stage. However, it also conjures a vision of a new order where Europe is relegated to irrelevance, and major powers such as Japan and India are not even factored into the equation.

While appearing as an equal on the global stage may have satisfied Beijing’s appetite for prestige, China—a staunch advocate of a multipolar global order—will likely remain distant from this concept.

Although China’s deployment of the "rare earth elements" card caused shockwaves within the U.S. establishment, the construction of an aggressive foreign policy that refuses to back down is, in reality, a phenomenon that has been maturing on the other side of Asia for some time. As evidenced by the Taiwan crisis involving Japan, the approach known as "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy is deepening daily.

It may seem plausible to view China’s shift toward a more hawkish trajectory—bolstered by its military modernization —as a mere policy pivot. However, one must not forget that this is a "people's war," equipped with a long-term vision and strategic patience.

The structural competition between the U.S. and China materialized during Trump’s first term. The tension, which began with the trade wars in 2018, solidified and persisted, punctuated only by tactical moves to buy time on both sides.

You will recall that in 2023, the two leaders (Xi and Biden) shook hands in San Francisco. It is worth noting the surreal circumstances, such as the balloon crisis, that preceded the meeting. The San Francisco summit resembled nothing more than two exhausted boxers in the ring, taking a break before the next round.

Apart from re-establishing military communications severed during the balloon crisis, the summit yielded no tangible progress. Consequently, deepening structural competition renders diplomatic processes fragile by necessity.

We can interpret the current state of US–China relations as a process of institutional fragility.

Technology wars, tariff walls, chip embargoes... These have been constant agenda items for the government. However, in Busan, we witnessed both sides coming to the table, largely out of necessity. Tariffs imposed by the U.S. on China were reduced from 57% to 47%. In return, China agreed to continue exporting rare earth elements.

In the meeting notes, the issue of Taiwan was rarely mentioned. This was not because they "solved" the problem, but because they "swept it under the rug" to avoid overturning the table. The U.S. later took a step that further clarified its "strategic ambiguity" by approving a $330 million arms sale to Taiwan.

In contrast, Trump’s pre-summit statement—"We cannot stop while other countries are testing; I have instructed the Department of Defense to initiate nuclear tests"—reverberated seriously across the globe. This new development has ignited the fuse of another debate entirely, but that is the subject of a future article.

The Busan Summit did not reverse alliance architecture, sanctions regimes, or the weaponization of supply chains. It merely provided a tactical ceasefire aimed at bringing the cost of fierce competition down to a controlled level.

Therefore, rather than evaluating the summit as a détente that alters the strategic line in the struggle for hegemony, it is more accurate to view it as a risk management maneuver designed to keep crises just below the threshold of escalation.

We are in a period of "Cold Peace"—more complex and insidious than the Cold War.

Grey zone tactics in the Taiwan Strait and water cannon skirmishes in the South China Sea continue unabated. Meanwhile, the U.S. has yet to achieve strategic clarity regarding Taiwan. While the parties continue to talk to one another (détente), they simultaneously fortify their supply chains and arsenals with their other hands.

This calm resembles an intensified phase of preparation rather than being a solution. Everyone is aware that we are heading toward an anticipated ominous crisis.

For now, we are simply listening to the uncanny rumble of a tactical calm.