Geopolitics
Aircraft diplomacy: China buys "only" 200 Boeing planes during Trump visit
Read more
In a webinar moderated by Theresa Terzer, Michaela Abels, Senior Advisor at Sinolytics, and Randolf Carr, Project Leader at Sinolytics, assessed the summit's outcomes. Their central message: the meeting brought visible diplomatic stability, but did not resolve any of the underlying disputes between the United States and China. Companies should not assume a quick return to normal. Instead, they should examine their exposures and prepare for several plausible paths ahead.
The summit was primarily about maintaining stability. The public pageantry was striking: Donald Trump personally welcomed Xi, the program included military displays, and leading U.S. business figures attended the state dinner. By comparison, the two leaders spent relatively little time in substantive face-to-face talks.
Randolf Carr summed up the nature of the meeting this way: "When you subtract the ceremony, the speeches, the tours, and the meals, you’re left with maybe half an hour of actual sit-down, face-to-face discussion." The summit, he said, was deliberately more about optics than outcomes.
There was also little of a business agenda. Michaela Abels noted that there was no joint declaration, no joint press conference, and no official business delegation traveling with Xi. She contrasted this with Xi's 2015 state visit, which included a large Chinese business delegation and, among other things, a major Boeing agreement.
For Michaela, the absence of a substantive business agenda was telling: "Short-term stability on the surface, but none of the core disputes was really addressed or resolved."
The summit's concrete outcome was a two-month extension of the so-called Busan truce. Agreed at the APEC meeting in Busan the previous year, the arrangement had been due to expire on November 10, 2026. It paused some of the most disruptive trade measures under consideration.
On the U.S. side, those measures included steep tariff increases and the so-called Affiliates Rule, which would have significantly expanded the number of Chinese companies restricted from doing business in the United States. China, for its part, suspended export-licensing restrictions on rare earths and other critical minerals and committed to purchasing certain U.S. agricultural products.
The extension moves the next critical deadline to January 10, 2027. But, as Randolf put it, little changes for companies in the near term: "The simple answer to what changes is: not much, except that the cliff has been moved two months further away." Tariffs remain lower for now, but new measures and countermeasures are still possible.
One reason for the short extension may be Washington's dissatisfaction with how the existing agreement has been implemented. Carr pointed to two areas where, from the U.S. perspective, progress has been insufficient: exports of critical minerals and Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products.
Trade data tracked by Sinolytics showed that many rare-earth flows fell sharply after China introduced export-licensing restrictions. For several materials, the expected recovery after the Busan agreement had not materialized. Soybean purchases also appeared to be falling short of the levels previously seen and the commitments discussed.
Randolf stressed that the situation can be interpreted in more than one way. From the U.S. perspective, the shortfall may indicate that China is not following through on its commitments. It could also be a deliberate signal from Beijing that it is unhappy with U.S. measures introduced since Busan. The pressure, in other words, runs in both directions.
From Washington's perspective, the short deadline may be intended to keep negotiating pressure on Beijing. A longer extension could have been seen as granting China more time before the United States saw stronger implementation of the deal. At the same time, the coming months offer further opportunities for leader-level discussions, including the APEC and G20 meetings identified in the webinar as important points on the political calendar.
Randolf's working assumption is that the truce will be extended again. The main question is for how long. A six-to-twelve-month extension, he argued, is more realistic than a comprehensive agreement: it could give both sides some stability without requiring major concessions.
But the two-month extension has now set a precedent. A series of very short renewals would make planning more difficult for companies and leave little time to manage a diplomatic crisis or an unexpected escalation in trade and technology disputes.
Randolf considers a broader agreement that goes well beyond the current issues unlikely. The structural differences over technology competition, supply-chain security, and industrial policy are simply too wide to bridge in the near term.
For businesses, the takeaway is to distinguish scenarios from forecasts. As Michaela Abels put it: "Scenario planning is not about predicting what will happen; it is about thinking through what could happen." The value lies in testing strategic assumptions, identifying vulnerabilities, and deciding in advance what actions may be needed in different circumstances.
As one example, Michaela outlined a possible acceleration of U.S.–China technological decoupling. Potential drivers could include new U.S. export controls, expanded Chinese rules on data localization or counter-espionage, and restrictions on cross-border mobility for talent. Chinese countermeasures involving critical minerals are another possibility.
For companies, that could mean navigating increasingly separate technological and regulatory environments. Michaela recommended stress-testing current business strategies against such a scenario. Questions to consider include:
A stress test can uncover blind spots that are easy to miss in routine planning. Michaela cited visa and travel problems for engineers, as well as new drafts of U.S. export controls, as possible early-warning indicators. The relevant signals and response options will, of course, depend on each company's business and risk exposure.
Particularly useful are "no-regret moves", steps that remain sensible even if events unfold differently from the expected scenario. Michaela pointed to broadening the supplier base, strengthening data governance, and improving transparency and traceability across products.
For Europe, Randolf described the U.S.–China truce as a double-edged sword. A breakdown could directly affect European companies. Renewed restrictions on rare earths could worsen existing supply challenges. And if U.S. tariffs on Chinese exports surged, more of those goods could be redirected to European markets, adding to competitive pressure.
But an improvement in U.S.–China relations would not automatically benefit Europe either. A bilateral deal could deliver relief primarily to U.S. companies, for example, through smoother export licensing or targeted tariff changes, without addressing Europe's structural concerns about China. Those concerns include overcapacity, market access, and strategic dependencies.
Randolf also sees a potential source of leverage for Europe: if Beijing wants to avoid a trade conflict on two fronts, ongoing tensions between the United States and China could strengthen Europe’s position.
In Randolf's assessment, the discussion of artificial intelligence did little to change the underlying rivalry. The United States and China emphasized different priorities. Randolf said Trump had rejected international limits on AI, while Xi had stressed cooperation to prevent misuse and maintain human control over AI.
The two sides announced a formal U.S.–China AI dialogue. At the time of the webinar, however, its composition, responsibilities, and authority remained unclear. Randolf pointed to earlier dialogue efforts that, according to people familiar with them, had lacked substance because the relevant technical authorities were not represented on the Chinese side.
The impact of the new dialogue therefore remains uncertain. Randolf expects AI and technology to remain important sources of tension beyond the current trade truce, with further restrictions from both sides possible.
Turning geopolitical analysis into decisions requires coordination across the company. Supply-chain teams, government affairs, risk management, legal, compliance, and business units often assess political developments from different perspectives. Without coordination, those differences can lead to conflicting assumptions and delayed decisions.
Michaela recommends establishing a central coordination point and building a shared understanding of the risks. Which function leads matters less than bringing the relevant teams together and giving them a clear mandate. Executive-level sponsorship can help establish that cooperation and make sure the resulting analysis reaches the wider organization.
Geopolitics should not sit outside established processes. In Michaelas' view, it should be integrated into regular planning, risk reporting, and existing supply-chain processes. Regular updates for senior leadership and internal communications can also help build geopolitical awareness across the company.
There will be plenty of political announcements and commentary before January 10, 2027. Randolf recommends looking beyond the headlines and tracking concrete developments. These include official announcements at upcoming summits, possible agreements reached on the sidelines, and the tone of the discussions. Even more telling, he said, may be measurable data, especially actual trade flows in critical minerals and the trajectory of Chinese agricultural purchases.
The discussion points to a practical set of priorities for companies:
The truce extension gives Washington and Beijing more time, but it is not a lasting solution. For companies, it is less a reason to relax than an opportunity to review their preparedness. As Michaela emphasized, organizations that have already thought through scenarios and possible responses will be better placed to act quickly and in a coordinated way when a crisis unfolds.
