Search

Begin New Search Topic Bilateral Relations Political Geography China

1. Assessing the Zeitenwende: Implications for Germany, the United States, and Transatlantic Security

Author:
John R. Deni, Marina E. Henke, Aylin Matlé, Sophia Besch, and Tim Bosch
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
The essays in this volume analyze Germany’s Zeitenwende, a pivotal shift in security policy triggered by Russia’s reinvasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Key topics include national security strategy, defense policy, energy policy, industrial strategy, and international relations with Russia, China, the United States, NATO, and the EU. Regarding strategy, Germany’s approach lacks focus, offering broad goals without addressing trade-offs or specific threats. On defense policy, the Zeitenwende marked a renewed commitment to defense spending, bolstered by a €100 billion modernization fund. But delays in procurement, operational shortcomings, and an underfunded long-term defense budget hinder Germany. Similar challenges affect the defense industry, despite increased spending and exports. In energy policy, Germany rapidly diversified energy sources and expanded its liquefied natural gas infrastructure to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. Still, achieving energy security, affordability, and sustainability remains complex. Internationally, Germany abandoned decades of Ostpolitik, prioritizing Ukraine over ties with Russia. Germany’s evolving China policy focuses on derisking and maintaining economic ties, raising questions about whether Berlin has reduced vulnerabilities. Though Washington supports Germany’s strategic shift, concerns remain about its sustainability, particularly in Germany’s NATO and EU commitments. Each chapter concludes by identifying the implications for the United States as well as the steps to overcome identified challenges.
Topic:
NATO, Bilateral Relations, European Union, Transatlantic Relations, Energy Security, Burden Sharing, and Zeitenwende
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Germany, and United States of America

2. Ronnie C. Chan: The Past, Present, and Future of U.S.-China Relations

Author:
Ronnie C. Chan and Lien-Hang Nguyen
Publication Date:
12-2025
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University
Abstract:
December 2, 2024 — Ronnie C. Chan, Honorary Chair of Hang Lung Properties and Chair Emeritus of the Asia Society, speaks with Lien-Hang Nguyen, Director of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University, about the implications of the 2024 U.S. presidential election for the future of U.S.-China relations and global stability. Columbia University Interim President Katrina Armstrong and University Professor Jeffrey Sachs contribute introductory remarks.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Elections, and Political stability
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

3. GR&P Seminar: US-China Science Cooperation and Chinese American Scientists in the Trump 2.0 Era

Author:
Yasheng Huang, Gang Chen, David Goldston, and Mihaela Papa
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Global Research & Policy Seminar: US-China Science Cooperation and Chinese American Scientists in the Trump 2.0 Era: Tuesday, February 11, 2025. As the new Trump administration shapes its China policies, how is the United States navigating scientific collaboration with China? What are the implications for Chinese American and China-focused scientists? Two Chinese American MIT faculty members and the Director of the MIT Washington Office shared their insights on the opportunities and challenges of advancing scientific progress in the context of an increasingly complex and contested US-China relationship. Speakers: Yasheng Huang, Epoch Foundation Professor of Global Economics and Management, MIT Sloan; Faculty Director MIT-China Program Gang Chen, Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering, MechE; Director, Pappalardo Micro and Nano Engineering Laboratories David Goldston, Director, MIT Washington Office Moderator: Mihaela Papa, Director of Research and Principal Research Scientist, MIT Center for International Studies
Topic:
Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, Donald Trump, and Collaboration
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

4. The Effects of US-China Cooperation on Fentanyl Markets and Overdose Deaths

Author:
Marcus Noland, Julieta Contreras, and Lucas Rengifo-Keller
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
Drug overdose is the leading cause of death among Americans aged 15–44, exceeding heart disease, cancer, suicide, vehicular accidents, and COVID-19 in 2023. Most drug deaths are associated with fentanyl. This paper uses data on illicit drug prices to estimate reduced-form price equations of fentanyl, oxycodone, and alprazolam based on supply and demand, including hedonic characteristics. The results are used to estimate the relationship between fentanyl prices and overdoses. They suggest that the Chinese embargo on fentanyl shipments to the United States beginning in May 2019 raised street prices for a limited period, reducing fentanyl overdose deaths in the United States by roughly one-quarter over a three- to five-month period after the announcement.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Drugs, Opioid Crisis, Cooperation, and Fentanyl
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

5. India-China rapprochement: what are the long-term prospects?

Author:
Nayanima Basu and Alicia Garcia-Herrero
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
China-India relations, which have long been fraught, were further complicated by the 2020 military standoff on the Himalayan border. The political disruption had a significant impact on Chinese companies’ presence in India. And yet, India’s dependence on Chinese imports has increased since. The Indian economy is decelerating at a challenging time for Prime Minister Modi, who governs in a coalition. China could offer a partial solution to India’s economic woes by providing manufacturing FDI and creating jobs. The Modi-Xi ‘rapprochement’ after their encounter at the October 2024 BRICS summit signals that relations could improve. India may be willing to accept targeted investment from China, but relations are unlikely to fully normalise, particularly since the 2025 India-Pakistan military stand-off. There are three main reasons for this. First, the Indian army remains cautious about the situation at the border and security risks relating to China. Second, the United States under President Trump will exert pressure on Modi not to depend further on China. This is even more relevant in the context of Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on India. Third, Indian public opinion on China and the Belt and Road Initiative remains negative. India is predicted to experience greater growth than China in the coming decades, meaning China could lose its upper hand in economic relations between the two countries. This, however, will depend on how dependent India might have become on China for imports or for jobs through FDI and other channels. The militarised border, India’s asymmetric economic dependence on China and China’s leadership in the Global South will still shape the relationship even if the Indian economy grows to a similar size to China’s. India-China ‘rapprochement’ is possible but will remain fragile and unlikely to be maintained in the long run.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Governance, Economy, Economic Growth, Investment, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, India, and Asia

6. China-Russia Relations Since the Start of the War in Ukraine

Author:
Asia Sociey
Publication Date:
08-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
In the 19th century, like Western powers and Japan, Russia participated in the “Scramble for China”; however, unlike the others, it never returned the vast territories it annexed. After a long and turbulent history of Sino-Russian relations, Mikhail Gorbachev launched the Soviet “turn to Asia” policy in July 1986 with his Vladivostok speech. Addressing the Chinese directly, he declared: “I would like to dwell on the most important issue in our relations. These relations are extremely important for several reasons, starting from the fact that we are neighbors, that we share the world’s longest land border, and that we, our children, and grandchildren are destined to live near each other ‘forever and ever.’”1 This policy was reaffirmed by President Vladimir Putin after he came to power in 2000, reinforced during the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and further intensified following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That year, China and Russia signed lengthy and grandiloquent declarations celebrating their “no-limits friendship,” prominently showcased during commemorations in Moscow marking the 80th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany. Yet this no-limits friendship, while rhetorically expansive, has never been formalized and contains several clear limitations — limitations the current U.S. administration has unsuccessfully attempted to exploit. This paper examines the China-Russia relationship and its often-contradictory evolution. The strategic dynamic between these two Eurasian powers has produced a partnership further solidified by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, despite Beijing’s attempts to mediate the conflict. While the strength of this partnership may make it appear unbreakable, it should not preclude continued dialogue between China and the West — particularly the European Union and its member states. The EU–China summit held in Beijing on July 24, however, did not yield the expected results in this regard.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, European Union, Partnerships, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, and Asia

7. A New Triangle: The Interplay Between China and EU-India Relations

Author:
Philippe Le Corre
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
China has shaped the U.S.-India relationship for decades.1 Today, another significant triangle is emerging: the China-EU-India relationship. Indian and European leaders are strengthening ties. Both view China as a formidable economic and security rival while regarding the United States as a key security partner (and, for Europe, a long-standing ally). What is the current state of EU-China and EU-India relations? As India’s influence and economic appeal grow, could it become a viable alternative to China for European business leaders and policymakers? How is Brussels incorporating India into its strategies to address a potential crisis in Asia or the broader Indo-Pacific? Twenty-five years ago, the European Union viewed China as a top priority for business, cultural exchanges, and diplomacy. Following the introduction of Beijing’s open-door policy in 1978 and with strong encouragement from Chinese authorities, European companies flocked to China. Initially, many Europeans used Hong Kong as an intermediary for business, but by the mid-1990s, Guangdong Province and Shanghai became key gateways to the Chinese market, particularly for Germany and France.2 Trade and investment surged, especially after China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, which was widely supported by European political and business elites. Today, China remains the EU’s largest trading partner, with substantial European investments across the mainland. In contrast, India was long viewed as a potential partner, but only a few EU member states took steps to forge a strategic partnership with New Delhi. European investments in India were — and still are — limited, with many corporations citing challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, market access barriers, and bureaucratic red tape, which make it difficult to operate in most Indian states. However, the mood has begun to shift. On the EU side, the European Commission’s 2019 China strategy characterized Beijing as “a partner, a competitor, and a systemic rival.” The COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted direct links between Europe and China from 2020 to 2022, caused significant strain. This was followed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, an event many on the continent perceive as having Beijing’s tacit support. Additional factors, including an increasingly authoritarian regime at home and a more assertive China abroad, have contributed to European perceptions,3 as explained at length by the Center for China Analysis’s latest Global Public Opinion on China project.4 This, in turn, has affected the EU-China relationship, which has been gradually downgraded from the “honeymoon” period of 1995–2015. On the other hand, the strengthening EU-India relationship is a relatively recent development, driven by several factors that have emerged in the wake of the pandemic. These include the rise of the ambitious Bharatiya Janata Party under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who first took office in 2014 and is now serving his third term, as well as a broader diversity of partnerships between the EU and India. Other factors influencing EU-India relations include the growing assertiveness of the People’s Republic of China and the United States’ shift away from multilateralism during President Donald Trump’s first term (2017–2021). Since January 2025, the increasing probability of a break in the transatlantic alliance under the new Trump administration is leading the EU to look for new partners, including in the Indo-Pacific region. In addition, India’s robust GDP growth — 6.6% in 2025 and a projected 6.7% in 2026 — has attracted European businesses.5 In a global environment defined by multipolarity, could the previously low-profile EU-India relationship evolve into a closer partnership? With EU-China relations facing significant challenges, might India emerge as a viable alternative Asian partner for Europe? The current EU-India relationship is described as “strategic.” In reality, it is partial and uneven, and there are major differences in the nature of relations between India and individual EU member states. Meanwhile, how does Beijing view its competitor in the Global South as it seeks to win over Europe’s support? This paper explores the dynamics of the interaction among these three powers in the rapidly changing geopolitical context. It examines India’s political and economic challenges in the context of the EU-China relationship, how the EU-India relationship is evolving, and whether an EU-India partnership could take center stage if tensions with China escalate. European countries have kept strong ties with the Global South, and some see a strong India as a potential bridge for fostering cooperation in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Economics, Bilateral Relations, and European Union
Political Geography:
China, Europe, India, and Asia

8. British public opinion on foreign policy: President Trump, Ukraine, China, Defence spending and AUKUS

Author:
Sophia Gaston
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
Results snapshot President Trump Britons support an open and engaged foreign policy role for the United Kingdom. In light of the re-election of President Donald Trump, 40% believe Britain should continue to maintain its current active level of engagement in world affairs, and 23% believe it should play a larger role. Just 16% of Britons support a less active United Kingdom on the world stage. When asked what Britain’s response should be if the United States withdraws its financial and military support from Ukraine, 57% of Britons would endorse the UK either maintaining (35%) or increasing (22%) its contributions to Ukraine. One-fifth would prefer that the UK reduces its contributions to Ukraine. UK–China relations Just a quarter (26%) of Britons support the UK Government’s efforts to increase engagement with China in the pursuit of economic growth and stabilised diplomatic relations. In comparison, 45% of Britons would either prefer to return to the more restricted level of engagement under the previous government (25%) or for the government to reduce its relations with Beijing even further (20%). A large majority of Britons (69%) are concerned about the increasing degree of cooperation between Russia and China. Conservative and Labour voters share similarly high levels of concern, and Britons over 50 years of age are especially troubled about the trend of adversary alignment. Defence and security When asked whether the UK will need to spend more on defence to keep up with current and future global security challenges, a clear two-thirds (64%) of the British people agree. Twenty-nine per cent of Britons strongly agree that defence spending should increase. Just 12% disagree that the UK will need to spend more. The majority of Britons believe that collaboration with allies on defence and security projects like AUKUS will help to make the UK safer (55%) and that partnerships like AUKUS focusing on developing cutting-edge technologies with Britain’s allies will help to make the UK more competitive towards countries like China (59%). Britons are somewhat less persuaded that AUKUS will succeed as a deterrent against Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific, although the largest group of respondents (44%) agree that it will.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Bilateral Relations, Public Opinion, Alliance, AUKUS, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
China, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Australia, and United States of America

9. Brave New World – The Future of China-US relations

Author:
Thomas Eder
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
The US’s diminished leverage and Beijing’s reticence to engage an erratic US president mean that a new trade deal will likely take longer than in Donald Trump’s first administration, if it materializes at all. Prolonged trade tensions are unlikely to spiral into a security crisis in the Pacific. Both sides have economic priorities, US allies and partners lose trust in Washington, and Beijing will be loath to upset a trend towards a more accommodating region. The US-China trade and technology war will challenge the EU and its member states more than before but also provide Europe with leverage as the US and China gradually lose their economic partnership.
Topic:
Economics, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, European Union, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

10. Sino-Russian relations in a geopolitical Europe

Author:
Pierre Andrieu
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
The close relationship between Russia and China is by no means a solid, long-term alliance, but rather a temporary rapprochement, that has been strengthened by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fragility of this relationship, based on history and structural imbalances, persists and reinforces mutual mistrust. For the European Union, while all discussions with an aggressive and threatening Russia have disappeared, China remains both “a cooperation and negotiation partner, an economic partner and a systemic rival” with whom we need to maintain a sustained dialogue, commensurate with a Europe that has begun to assert its geopolitical dimension in the last two years.
Topic:
Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, Rapprochement, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and Europe