The year 2026 has begun with a level of geopolitical tension few had anticipated. Instead of ending the Russo-Ukrainian war, the self-proclaimed peacemaker, Donald Trump, chose to abduct a sitting president in Venezuela, threatened to annex Greenland, and launched another brutal war in the Middle East.
Hopes that major powers would prioritise diplomacy have instead given way to renewed rivalry, economic confrontation, and rising insecurity across regions.
In this increasingly volatile environment, one contrast stands out. Whilst Western powers, particularly the United States, continue to project power through economic pressure and military influence, China has largely maintained a posture of restraint. Beijing continues to emphasise stability, trade, and dialogue over direct confrontation.
Whether this reflects principle or strategy remains open to debate, but the contrast is difficult to ignore. Tensions between the United States and China are often framed as ideological, but at their core lies a deeper issue of competition. When China’s economic rise began to challenge American dominance, Washington responded with tariffs, export controls, and broader efforts to restructure global supply chains.
Unlike American allies, China did not beg for mercy; it hit back. Since 2018, both countries have imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods, fundamentally reshaping global trade. To many analysts, this reflects a familiar pattern of economic containment.
READ MORE: The Bomb as Passport: Do Nuclear Weapons Remain the Ultimate Guarantee of Sovereignty?
In the 1980s, Japan’s rapid industrial growth triggered similar anxieties in the United States. This culminated in measures such as the Plaza Accord of 1985, which pressured Tokyo to adjust its economic trajectory. Japan complied, and over time, its competitive edge softened.
The politics of competition
Today, China presents a far more complex challenge. Unlike Japan, it has resisted pressure, responded with countermeasures, and expanded its economic influence globally. From Africa to Latin America, Beijing has built trade and infrastructure partnerships that make it far less vulnerable to external coercion, whilst showing the way as the adult in the room.
Recent developments in Europe further illustrate how economic competition intersects with geopolitics. Germany, long regarded as Europe’s industrial powerhouse, built a deep energy relationship with Russia that sustained its manufacturing strength for years. However, the Ukraine conflict dramatically altered this arrangement, cutting off a major source of affordable energy and forcing a costly transition.
Conspiracy theorists link the war to long-standing grudges by multiple American-linked sources against a working energy-industry relationship between Germany and Russia. American officials repeatedly called on Germany and the European Union to reduce dependency on Russian gas and oil, which was the only economically reasonable practice. And to be honest, there were no issues between the two sides, except the NATO expansion grievances that Russia always held.
Whilst the causes and consequences of the conflict remain widely debated, some analysts argue that the outcome has aligned with broader American strategic interests. This includes reducing Europe’s dependence on cheap Russian energy, crucial for industrialisation, whilst increasing reliance on alternative costly suppliers, including the United States. Germany’s manufacturing capacity is now on a downward spiral, and America is a seemingly happy ally.
READ MORE:Russia’s War Won’t Kill Ukraine’s NATO Dreams—It’s Fueling Them
The United States has, over the past decades, been involved in multiple military interventions, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Vietnam and Libya. These actions have been justified on various grounds, including security and humanitarian concerns.
War and global perception
However, they have also drawn sustained criticism for their questionable grounds, long-term consequences, and perceived selectivity. This history has shaped global perceptions, particularly in the Global South, where many countries view Western interventionism with scepticism. Some theorise it as a business, where the United States and allies bomb countries, draw allies in, make them use their stockpiles, and then accelerate more arms purchases to replenish used-up stocks.
That is not to mention the resources the United States usually controls in the invaded countries. The recent open admission to taking over control of oil in Venezuela is a much more obvious observation. China, by contrast, has consistently emphasised non-interference and state sovereignty.
Rather than projecting military power across continents, it has prioritised trade, infrastructure, and diplomatic engagement. Whilst the United States delivers Hollywood-style shock and awe operations, China focuses on peace and business. Developments in the Middle East continue to test the limits of global restraint.
Escalating tensions involving Iran, the United States, and Israel have raised fears of broader conflict, with significant implications for global energy markets and geopolitical stability. China, which maintains strong economic ties with Iran, has responded cautiously. Beijing has called for dialogue and de-escalation whilst avoiding direct involvement.
READ MORE:Who Are Real Victims of Western-imposed Sanctions? Lessons From the Putin-Kim Axis
This is a repeat of the pattern we saw in Venezuela, where the United States attacks and China calls for common sense. The difference between the United States and China in reaction to global conflicts can be explained better by the Taiwan analogy.
China’s calculated restraint
Imagine the United States in China’s position, trying to bring back a breakaway island that the international community does not recognise as independent. Few would argue against the United States seizing the island decades ago. China calculates and waits for favourable conditions, whilst the United States creates conditions and then acts on them.
China’s rise has been marked by what appears to be calculated restraint. Even as it builds one of the world’s most powerful militaries, it has largely avoided direct large-scale conflict beyond its immediate sphere of interest. Instead, Beijing has focused on long-term positioning by expanding trade networks, investing in infrastructure, and presenting itself as a partner in development.
It may be tempting to describe China as the only adult in the room in an era of rising global tension. Its emphasis on dialogue, economic cooperation, and non-interference stands in contrast to a history of interventionist policies by other major powers. But history urges caution.
No superpower has risen to prominence without, at some point, reshaping the rules of the international system to reflect its own interests. China may yet follow a different path, or it may simply be in an earlier phase of a familiar trajectory. For the world, the more important question is not which power is more virtuous, but how to navigate a world where all powers pursue their own interests.
With three nuclear powers, the United States, Russia, and Israel, currently fighting wars against non-nuclear states in Iran and Ukraine, and having fought many others in the past, China shows some signs of sanity. I may be wrong, or perhaps overambitious, but the signs are encouraging. Could China 2.0 be an era of peace and prosperity? Let’s see.
Festo Mulinda is a political analyst and freelance columnist focusing on international relations and geopolitics. He can be reached at mulindafesto@gmail.com or on X as @fmulinda_III. The opinions expressed here are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Chanzo. If you are interested in publishing in this space, please contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com.
