Those who are still guessing about the new world order should look carefully at the unfolding U.S., China and Russia relations.

A widely assumed world order with the United Nations at its core has lost the little relevance it ever had. Big power relations have always been the predominant form of running world affairs. With their overwhelming influence and veto powers they could dictate or ignore deliberations of the UN’s Security Council.

It is true that the United Nations have been founded and enshrined as the world governing body by big and small countries, but the political realism of ancient Greece continued to prevail: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

One of the big examples we now see of that power game is America’s unrelenting quest to put an end to China’s excessive and systematic surpluses on its U.S. trades.

China responds by denouncing American restrictive trade policies, alleged violations of international trade rules, and unilateral decisions based on national security considerations and judicial overreach.

A trade stand-off will continue

The World Trade Organization concurs with China’s complaints. But China finds that the retaliation is the only effective instrument to manage its U.S. trade business.

That confrontational stance continues. And here is the result.

Last year, the volume of U.S.-China trade in goods and services declined 29 percent from 2024. That declining trend accelerated in January of this year as the bilateral trade plummeted 41 percent from January 2025.

China’s exports to the U.S. sank 44 percent in January, while imports from the U.S. went down 32 percent compared to the same month of last year.

As a result, the U.S. trade deficit with China was halved in January from the year earlier.

Where do we go from here?

Expect more of the same, even though the positive rhetoric preceding the possible U.S.-China summit seeks to dress this up as a continuing negotiation of a managed bilateral trade. In this new deal, both countries are supposed to buy and sell what they need, presumably with an eye on achieving a trade balance.

That is Washington’s flexible and politically shifting formula of reciprocal trade.

China seems to have reluctantly acquiesced while actively diversifying its foreign trade destinations to support export driven economic growth.

China’s official trade statistics show that its exports last year increased 5.5 percent, and its GDP growth reached 5 percent, despite significant headwinds in the last quarter.

A collision course remains

The same source indicates that during the first two months of this year China’s foreign trade soared 21 percent from the year earlier. That growth was driven by a 22 percent increase in export sales, prominently featuring a 28 percent increase in exports to the European Union and a 29.4 percent increase in sales to ASEAN (eleven countries of Southeast Asia), which remains China’s by far the largest trade partner.

And, remarkably, China’s trade statistics show that 52 percent of its foreign trade in the first two months of this year was transacted with a virtually captive market of its Belt & Road Network Partners.

Trade with the U.S. in January and February was down 15 percent, Chinese exports to the U.S. declined 11 percent and China’s imports of American goods and services crashed 27 percent. China’s trade surplus came in at $47.8 billion. Expressed at an annual rate, that surplus amounts to $287 billion, which is 43 percent above the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2025.

Those numbers could create problems. If they are based on America’s trade needs, Washington would have to review its priorities. But if that’s not the case, the U.S. has to adjust its trade with China to prevent a serious dispute.

The silver lining here is that trade problems with China are negotiable. Conversely, most bilateral political and security problems are of a very different nature, but they will be among the key items on summit’s agenda.

For Beijing, Taiwan is a red line. Considered one of China’s provinces, Taiwan’s status is an internal matter. China’s contested maritime borders are also part of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In global affairs, America’s Monroe doctrine is clashing with China’s economic and political interests in South America. Middle East is a similar situation. China’s two-state solution for the Israeli and Palestinian conflict is unacceptable to U.S. and Israel. China is opposed to the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. And China views with serious concern an allegedly U.S. backed Japanese military buildup, and Washington’s hostility toward North Korea.

In this broader context, U.S.-China trade issues are a relatively minor irritant. U.S. trades now account for only 8 percent of China’s total international business transactions.