Xi Jinping’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Beijing from 19–20 May came just days after his farewell to US President Donald Trump.

The timing underscored the deliberate choreography of China’s diplomacy, as Xi and Putin appeared to align their positions against their common adversary, the United States. Reports suggest Xi may soon visit North Korea, hinting at a potential China-Russia-North Korea axis. Putin’s 25 visits to China and over 40 meetings with Xi since 2013 highlight the depth of their engagement.

Analysts such as Malcolm Davis of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned that the summit echoed the prelude to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. He suggested that Putin and Xi may be coordinating actions in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, emboldened by Trump’s retreat from NATO and Taiwan.

Davis cautioned that the world is entering a perilous pre-war period reminiscent of the late 1930s. Yet Dr Yu Jie of Chatham House emphasised that the relationship is driven not by personal warmth but by strategic interests, with both leaders seeking to reshape the international order.

The joint declaration issued on 20 May called for a multipolar world and criticised unilateralism, hegemonism and bloc confrontation. It advocated openness, indivisible security, democratisation of international relations and respect for civilizational diversity.

However, the statement’s claim that “the security of one state cannot be achieved at the expense of another” rang hollow given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea. The declaration also opposed the use of human rights as a pretext for interference, raising concerns about legitimising authoritarian practices.

Putin hailed Xi as a “long-time good friend” and spoke of a new stage in bilateral ties. Xi echoed this sentiment, noting that relations had reached unprecedented levels. The summit coincided with anniversaries of the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and the strategic partnership, while bilateral trade reached USD 228 billion in 2025.

Putin claimed the partnership played a stabilising global role, though Yu stressed it was pragmatic alignment rather than a formal alliance. Shared opposition to Western dominance binds them, but differences remain, such as China’s unease over dependence on Russian energy.

China’s vulnerability to global disruptions, particularly in energy supplies, explains Xi’s call for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East. While Moscow seeks to inflame anti-US sentiment, Beijing prioritises stability to safeguard its economic interests.

Analysts like Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institute argued that China does not aspire to global leadership in the Gulf but rather seeks to clear a path for its rise. Trump’s conciliatory stance towards China, including pausing arms sales to Taiwan, further bolstered Beijing’s confidence.

Yu highlighted that Russia views multipolarity as a way out of isolation, while China sees it as a transition away from US dominance. Their convergence has produced a durable partnership, with China providing Russia economic lifelines and Russia offering discounted energy and military cooperation. 

Reports even suggest China secretly trained Russian soldiers in drone and electronic warfare under a 2025 agreement. Despite denials, such exchanges reveal deeper military collaboration.

Chinese experts celebrated Trump’s visit, noting that he elevated Xi as a peer and adopted some of Beijing’s framing on Taiwan. Hass observed that the uneasy calm between Trump and Xi depends heavily on their personal rapport, though he doubted the durability of “constructive strategic stability.” Trump’s concessions without reciprocal gains from China reinforced perceptions of US accommodation.

Ultimately, the Xi-Putin summit showcased a relationship defined by calibrated utility rather than ideology. Russia gains the appearance of a powerful partner, while China secures a counterweight to the US.

The partnership is resilient but bounded, rooted in pragmatism rather than limitless friendship. As Yu concluded, its durability lies in carefully managed limits, making it one of the most consequential strategic relationships in the world today.

Agencies