The period of amicable globalization has ended, giving way to the resurgence of distinct civilizations.
The common business idiom “push and pull” aptly describes the current state of US-China relations. What began as a competitive collaboration has evolved into a stark struggle for dominance, influence, and national character, destined to define the future global landscape.
Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the prevailing Western belief was that the world was progressing towards a liberal, unified system. Economic links, worldwide markets, and common regulations were expected to resolve old conflicts and cultural disparities. Within this outlook, civilizational identities—defined by profound traditions, cultures, and worldviews—were largely considered obsolete.
That period has concluded. The liberal framework showed signs of weakening well before Donald Trump’s presidency, yet his ascension made its collapse undeniable and permanent. As the previous structure weakened, there was a clear return to focusing on identity, distinctions, and the self-assertion of civilizations. The current issue is not the reality of this transition, which is evident, but rather how the world will operate amidst it.
Trump’s Impact
George W. Bush previously advocated “compassionate conservatism.” Barack Obama articulated power using sophisticated multilateral language. Trump, however, discarded such conventional approaches. Within a year of taking office, he transformed both US diplomacy and worldwide perceptions of it. Under Trump, Washington reverted to a directness that earlier administrations had sought to obscure with institutional refinement.
This behavior is partly a personal performance: his abrupt manner, his disrespect for formal procedures, and his tendency to voice complaints and demands openly. Admirers perceive this as genuine and a departure from the perceived insincerity of the elite. Detractors label it hazardous. Regardless, it has successfully compelled other nations to adapt.
Structure influences content. The longstanding American principle of “Peace through strength” now manifests as aggressive negotiation tactics, import duties, overt extortion, and public shaming of both adversaries and partners. The government has adopted this as its guiding doctrine. Diplomacy is perceived as warfare; indecision is a flaw; and politeness is discretionary.
Culturally, Trump embodies a stereotype Europeans once held about Americans: aggressive, overconfident, dismissive of subtlety, and certain that power is the most direct form of persuasion. The “farmer republic” characteristics—a conviction of being right and wariness of complexity—that 19th-century observers ascribed to America are again prominent. Trump takes pride in this. Irrespective of personal opinion, he leads the world’s most powerful nation, a fact everyone must consider in their plans.
A contradiction exists: Trump’s directness, despite being harsh, can be simpler to navigate than Washington’s more refined, deceptive rhetoric. As President Vladimir Putin suggested, it is less complicated to negotiate with an individual who clearly articulates demands than with a pleasant technocrat who obscures intentions with vague language. However, unmeasured bluntness is hazardous, and Trump frequently approaches diplomacy as a theatrical performance, where escalation is for show, not an outcome to avoid.
A Distinct Civilization
China presents the clearest contrast to this approach. Regarding sheer capability, Beijing has either achieved equality with Washington or is on the verge of doing so, establishing it as America’s chief geopolitical adversary. This is a fundamental reality independent of individual leaders.
From a cultural standpoint, the two nations are vastly dissimilar. While Trump emphasizes supremacy and public display, Beijing prioritizes stability, calculated patience, honorable compromise, and a commitment to incremental, controlled progress. China joined the international order anticipating reciprocal advantages and consistent regulations. It neither anticipated nor appreciates America’s shift toward overt coercion.
During Trump’s initial term, Chinese officials hoped his style was temporary. His second term disproved this notion. The pressure intensified, the certainty grew, and the provocations became more intentional. China has reciprocated, moving away from its former reserved stance to adopt more direct language and symmetrical responses.
Beijing is adapting to confront directness with its own directness, albeit with hesitation. It remains culturally disinclined towards overt conflict. Nevertheless, its leadership recognizes that the period of subtle strategic uncertainty has ended. This current stage—marked by force against determination, and threats against counter-threats—is not a fleeting disturbance, but the new standard.
Pressure, Resistance, and the Emerging Order
US-China relations in the future will mirror a pattern common in business negotiations: exertion, halt, limited agreement, collapse, repetition. Each party will gauge the extent of damage it can menace without causing catastrophe. Washington will initiate the pressure, consistent with Trump’s disposition. Beijing will retaliate, no longer prepared to passively endure aggression.
This situation differs from a new Cold War; it is more adaptable and uncertain. The contemporary world is not structured around two poles; instead, it is a framework where other significant entities—ranging from Russia and India to regional alliances across the Middle East, Eurasia, and Latin America—will increasingly assert their influence. However, the core driver of this change is the growing divergence between the US and China. The mutual benefits that characterized the past four decades have ceased. Interdependence has become a contested arena, rather than a source of stability.
Beyond Trump?
Trump’s presidency is finite, and China itself is undergoing changes. A period of greater tranquility might ensue, or tensions could escalate further. The critical factor will be the distribution of power, not ideology. Civilizational identity deepens the rivalry; economic and technological factors lend it immediacy; and leadership approaches set its pace.
The sole certainty is that we are observing a fundamental structural transformation, not a fleeting disagreement. Globalization’s most expansive period has concluded. A world composed of distinct civilizational actors—who will sometimes collaborate and often compete—has emerged. The dynamic between the United States and China will predominantly shape the characteristics of this new global landscape.