Hong Kong External Commentary

In May 2026, Russian President Vladimir Putin paid a top-level state visit to China just four days after US President Donald Trump left Beijing. Coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation between China and Russia, Beijing defined Sino-Russian relations as "true friends who share weal and woe." This marked a shift from the emotionally charged "unlimited" cooperation of 2022 to a deep strategic partnership based on institutional realism. Amidst great power rivalry and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, the back-to-back visits to China by the US and Russian leaders were no coincidence, but rather a calculated power maneuver by Beijing. This escalation of political symbolism reflects the restructuring of the global power structure and the soaring security premium. China is demonstrating its ability to construct a parallel order to the world by recalibrating its strategic foothold with Russia.

The May 2026 summit between the Chinese and US leaders in Beijing marks a historic turning point, as the world's two superpowers enter a "gray zone" after eight years of extreme friction. This meeting, driven by a policy of "mutually assured interference," reflects the two countries' attempts to avoid a complete loss of control amidst irreconcilable structural contradictions. Faced with geopolitical turbulence, Washington and Beijing, constrained by institutional limitations, are exploring a new, constructive, and strategically stable relationship.

In late April 2026, the strategic stalemate in the Persian Gulf reached a highly deceptive turning point. Iran, through Pakistan, submitted a three-phase negotiation proposal to Washington, prioritizing a ceasefire and the lifting of the maritime blockade, while postponing the review of its nuclear facilities—a matter of utmost concern to the United States—to the last minute. The US president expressed strong dissatisfaction with this roadmap. This seemingly extremely unequal compromise was by no means a strategic capitulation by Tehran under maximum pressure, but rather a "retreat to advance" strategy employed to deflect crisis by reshaping the maritime legal order on the eve of the physical collapse of its domestic infrastructure.

The St. Petersburg Summit at the end of April 2026 formally confirmed the profound reorganization of the Eurasian geopolitical landscape. The meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi marked the formation of a survival alliance aimed at completely bypassing the Western financial and security system. While Washington's strategic attention is firmly pinned to the conflict in the Persian Gulf, Moscow and Tehran are engaged in a precise strategic coordination. This Eurasian strategic symbiosis, coupled with high-intensity military conflicts in the Middle East, is conducting a relentless test of the limits of America's global defense system and strategic resources.

The military stalemate between the US and Iran in the Persian Gulf has completely evolved into a political spectacle of maximum pressure. US President Trump has repeatedly issued ultimatums filled with profanity through social media, threatening to completely destroy Iran's infrastructure and civilization within hours. This public and emotional approach to national security decision-making has shattered the international community's traditional understanding of crisis management. Within the framework of traditional international political economy, this is not only a strategic loss of control at the geopolitical level, but also a ruthless blow to global macroeconomic stability.

Pakistan's mediation efforts reflect the strategic ambitions of middle powers to expand their influence in a multipolar world. However, the limits of this diplomacy lie in Islamabad's inability to bridge the fundamentally divergent strategic red lines of the two sides. Iran presented a tough "ten-point plan," demanding the retention of nuclear enrichment rights, the unfreezing of up to $10 billion in overseas assets, war reparations, and insistence on including a ceasefire in Lebanon in the agreement. In contrast, the United States demanded the unconditional and complete opening of the Strait of Hormuz and a complete abandonment of its nuclear program.

In the global political economy landscape, the Strait of Hormuz has always been regarded as the absolute heart of global energy supply. However, the crisis of 2026 revealed a completely new asymmetric game model. The Iranian parliament forcefully pushed through a highly controversial bill authorizing the collection of transit fees from merchant ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This system, packaged as a "passage permit," required certain vessels to pay fees of up to $2 million.

Since the end of World War II, the prosperity of globalization has relied heavily on a core premise: a global system of freedom of navigation led and guaranteed by the U.S. Navy. However, in the Strait of Hormuz crisis in 2026, this "global public good" that had been maintained for decades was declared bankrupt.

The Trump administration is reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East with "maximum pressure 2.0." Under the military deterrence of two aircraft carriers, the indirect negotiations between the US and Iran in Muscat highlight the dangers of "coercive diplomacy." When Washington's demands for "comprehensive concessions" clash with Tehran's "uncompromising" missile red line, this strategy, which deeply intertwines military threats with the diplomatic agenda, is pushing the Persian Gulf to the brink of tactical miscalculation and regional conflict.

The US's extreme financial strangulation of Iran's "shadow fleet" not only triggered hyperinflation in Iran but also conducted a live-fire stress test on the global energy landscape. Faced with potential supply disruptions and the risk of a blockade of the Taiwan Strait, China demonstrated its strong geoeconomic defense capabilities by leveraging its vast strategic oil reserves and flexible import diversion strategies.