Sides

China said on Monday that a two-month extension of its trade truce with the United States would give both sides more time to assess the implementation of their existing arrangements and discuss further steps to resolve economic and trade disputes.

China’s Commerce Ministry confirmed that the truce would remain in place through January 10, saying the extension would provide a “relatively stable and predictable policy environment” for businesses and allow the two countries to continue their talks.

The extension was among the main outcomes of a summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in Washington last week, their second meeting this year.

Background

The United States and China have spent years imposing tariffs and other trade restrictions on each other, with tensions extending beyond tariffs to technology, investment, supply chains and market access.

The latest extension follows an agreement by the two sides to establish a trade council that will oversee discussions on a range of economic issues.

One of its first tasks will be to discuss reciprocal tariff reductions covering about $30 billion worth of goods, with the aim of maintaining more stable economic and trade relations between the two countries.

China’s Commerce Ministry said the arrangement would also create better conditions for Chinese exporters seeking access to the US market.

The two sides will hold regular discussions on investment opportunities and barriers, policy transparency and predictability, and concerns raised by businesses.

Why it matters

The extension gives US and Chinese companies more time to operate under a relatively predictable trade environment while negotiators work through remaining disputes.

Agriculture is one of the main areas covered by the latest arrangements. A White House list showed that China plans to reduce tariffs on a range of US agricultural products, including corn, wheat, dairy products and meat, although soybeans were not included.

The proposed cuts appear linked to a US-stated Chinese commitment to purchase $17 billion worth of agricultural products. China has already resumed large-scale purchases of US soybeans under an agreement reached last year that called for annual purchases of 25 million metric tons.

The countries will also establish an agriculture working group under the new trade council, with its first meeting expected before the end of the year.

Energy trade is another part of the agreement. China will import 10 million metric tons of US coal annually in 2027 and 2028, according to the White House. That would account for about 2% of China’s annual coal imports. US liquefied natural gas and oil were not included in the list.

The arrangements extend beyond traditional trade. The two countries have agreed to establish a communication channel for artificial intelligence related incidents and hold another dialogue by the end of November.

China will also consider approving foreign financial institutions, including US backed firms, to operate and open branches in the country. Washington and Beijing will meanwhile continue discussions on increasing direct flights between the two countries.

What’s next

The immediate focus will be on implementing the agreements reached at the presidential summit.

The agriculture working group is expected to meet before the end of the year, while the AI dialogue is due to continue by the end of November. The two countries will also use the new trade council to discuss tariffs, investment, market access and regulatory concerns.

The extension runs until January 10, giving negotiators another two months to evaluate whether the existing arrangements are being implemented and determine what further agreements can be reached.

Whether the two sides can turn the temporary truce into longer-term trade arrangements will depend on progress across the different areas covered by their negotiations, including tariffs, agricultural purchases, investment and technology.

With information from Reuters,

Russian President Vladimir Putin met with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner at the Kremlin on Saturday, before they headed to Kyiv for talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Velensky. Both sides agreed to pause all strikes on the other’s capital while the Americans were in town. Why now? Have we finally reached the point in the conflict where all parties are left without cards to play?

In August 2025, Donald Trump met Putin at a US military base in Anchorage. No Ukraine ceasefire occurred in the aftermath. After discussing the two states’ long history and their efforts in the Second World War, Putin mentioned there was an “agreement” but failed to offer more details. He stressed that the situation in Ukraine was associated with “fundamental threats to our national security.”

Declassified documents from the US National Security Archive noted discussions on NATO expansion during the administration of President Bill Clinton. They show that, in 1993, American officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe that the Partnership for Peace offered an alternative to NATO expansion, rather than being a precursor to it. By the fall of 1993, discussions between supporters of the expansion of the alliance and those who proposed a more cautious approach and cooperation with Russia and Ukraine led to the formation of a “double track” approach in Washington.

Kyiv has recently been striking more deeply inside Russian territory, bringing the conflict home to ordinary citizens

Dr. Diana Galeeva

On June 22, 1994, Russia joined the program. But on Dec. 1, NATO announced that it would begin considering the admission of new members. Yeltsin later accused the US and NATO of provoking a post-Cold War “cold peace.” Clinton met Putin in the summer of 2000 at the Kremlin. Putin said that Clinton called the idea of Russia joining NATO “interesting.” However, after a conversation with his team, the US leader apparently said that “it’s not possible now.”

Since 2022, the Russian president has repeatedly criticized the expansion of NATO, calling it a threat to his country’s security. In 2024, Putin announced Moscow’s conditions for a ceasefire, including the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions and the recognition of these regions as being part of Russia, along with Crimea.

Zelensky appears open to returning to negotiations after CIA Director John Ratcliffe last month “secretly” visited Moscow and proposed a trilateral Trump-Putin-Zelensky meeting. Zelensky said any ceasefire is set to involve the US proposal for a free economic zone in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region — to be administered by a third party. Earlier, Zelensky was pressured by Trump, who told him “you don’t have the cards.” But is it only Ukraine and Zelensky that ended up with no cards to play, or is it all sides involved?

Kyiv has recently been striking more deeply inside Russian territory, bringing the conflict home to ordinary citizens. It has been using Starlink-guided drones and hastily developed missiles, hitting bombers, oil refineries, air defenses and even retail warehouses.

The Ukraine war, just like the Second World War, has revealed that no party to conflict receives any benefits

Dr. Diana Galeeva

Europe was the first side to lose the Ukraine war. The war revealed a critical weakness at the heart of Europe’s energy system. Reuters reported that the energy shock Europe suffered in the early weeks of the war “revealed a hard truth,” with the crisis reaching the heart of all European capitals. The Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz contributed further to this dynamic, with prices climbing 13 percent at the start of July.

Putin suggested in November 2025 that Russia was ready to fight “until the last Ukrainian dies” if Zelensky does not surrender. But the Iran war has changed the game, with the Kiel Institute publishing a report in June titled “Endgame” that highlighted how Russia’s war economy had “hit its limits.” Russia last week downgraded its oil output forecast for this year to a 17-year low. In June, Putin announced that Russia was ready to discuss a settlement with Ukraine based on the agreements reached in Anchorage and in Istanbul in 2022.

Meanwhile, the US, which committed about $68.2 billion in defense support of Ukraine between February 2022 and June 2026, is unlikely to continue such spending as a result of the Iran war. Washington and Iran have been exchanging strikes since Feb. 28 and, as of June, Iranian attacks had damaged 20 US military sites in the region.

Domestic factors are also pressuring the White House to prioritize peace, as Trump’s approval rate was last month stuck at 33 percent, while some 71 percent of poll respondents disapproved of Trump’s handling of the cost of living.

Is all this surprising? No. The end of the conflict is inevitable, as all sides have ended up with no cards to play. The Ukraine war, just like the Second World War, has revealed that no party to conflict receives any benefits, only military and economic damage. Most importantly, nearly 2 million casualties have occurred since 2022. This war has again demonstrated that a wise government’s approach is always about prioritizing the success of its own nation. A peaceful future for Europe would be a win-win approach for all.

Dr. Diana Galeeva, a former visiting scholar to the Centre of Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge, is the author of four books, most recently “Islam in Russia: Formations of Tolerance” (Routledge, 2024).

More from Dr. Diana Galeeva