Following a recent high-stakes phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, both leaders have projected an image of robust bilateral relations. President Trump publicly hailed the ties as “extremely strong,” announcing an upcoming visit to Beijing in April, with President Xi expected to reciprocate later in 2026. However, Beijing’s own readout of the conversation, while confirming discussions on trade, the conflict in Ukraine, and Taiwan, conspicuously omitted any mention of these reciprocal state visits, immediately signaling a divergence in public messaging that hints at underlying complexities.
The phone call revealed familiar fault lines on critical geopolitical issues. On Ukraine, President Xi reiterated China’s long-held position advocating for a negotiated settlement. More significantly, he staunchly reaffirmed Beijing’s claim over Taiwan, asserting it as an integral part of China’s territory, a status he linked directly to the outcomes of World War II. Notably, President Trump’s subsequent public statements made no reference to Taiwan, a silence that, when juxtaposed with Beijing’s firm declarations, underscores the persistent and deep-seated disagreements between the two superpowers on matters of vital national interest.
Amidst these geopolitical tensions, both Washington and Beijing have historically invested considerable diplomatic effort into easing trade frictions, recognizing that unresolved economic disputes could destabilize the global economy. A recent positive note came from the U.S. Treasury Department, which welcomed China’s agreement to boost sales of rare earth metals to American buyers, a development seen as a crucial step towards de-escalating one potent source of economic contention.
Nevertheless, the self-governing island of Taiwan remains the primary flashpoint in the delicate U.S.-China relationship. Beijing consistently invokes the historical narrative of World War II to bolster its claims and encourage a softened American stance, with President Xi Jinping urging President Trump to recognize a shared responsibility in upholding international security, harking back to their nations’ joint fight against fascism. While this historical parallel holds truth, it starkly contradicts the aspirations of Taiwan’s populace. Premier Su Tseng-chang unequivocally stated that the island’s people have no desire to be governed by Beijing.
Adding another layer of complexity, analysts like Sun Yun, Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center, suggest that President Xi’s historical appeals might be primarily aimed at Japan rather than the United States. Beijing was reportedly unnerved by comments from Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who asserted that Japan would deploy military forces to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi swiftly condemned Tokyo’s stance, warning that it had crossed a “red line.” This development shines a spotlight on the paradox of Washington’s “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan. As Japan’s principal ally and protector, the U.S. has notably refrained from explicitly stating whether it would militarily intervene to defend the island, with President Trump instead urging Taiwan to bolster its own defense spending.
Unwilling to rely on the shifting sands of U.S. policy, Beijing is demonstrably preparing its armed forces for a potential confrontation over Taiwan. The Chinese Navy is set to conduct significant military exercises in the Yellow Sea on November 26th, imposing a temporary no-sail zone – a conventional maneuver to refine operational readiness against perceived external threats. Furthermore, anticipating a scenario where the U.S. might abandon its ambiguous stance and intervene, China has reportedly conducted simulations for an armed conflict over the island. These simulations have specifically factored in the use of Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite communication system, a technology that has proven vital for Ukrainian forces in their conflict with Russia, to assess how Taiwan might leverage such capabilities if attacked by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
While the specifics remain undisclosed to the wider Chinese public, the internal simulations reportedly indicate that neutralizing a Starlink-like system is theoretically achievable, though it would necessitate an immense deployment of electronic warfare capabilities and at least a thousand drones. Despite these intricate geopolitical and military considerations, Beijing’s external messaging, exemplified by state-run media like The Global Times, continues to emphasize the imperative of cooperation. The newspaper recently articulated a familiar sentiment: history demonstrates that collaboration between China and the U.S. benefits both nations and the world, while discord harms all. This unoriginal but undeniably pertinent message underscores Beijing’s desire to project stability, even as deep-seated issues continue to simmer beneath the surface of seemingly “strong ties.”