In an era where geopolitical tensions simmer just below the surface, U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent push for trilateral denuclearization talks with Russia and China has hit a brick wall. Beijing’s swift rejection, deeming the proposal “neither reasonable nor realistic,” underscores a broader shift in global power dynamics. This isn’t just diplomatic posturing; it’s a reflection of China’s strategic calculus, amplified by its deepening military ties with Russia, including their groundbreaking first joint submarine patrol in the Asia-Pacific. As the U.S. grapples with trade wars and nuclear proliferation, Trump’s overture opens a new front—but what’s really at stake?
Nuclear Disparity and Strategic Autonomy
China’s stance on denuclearization talks is rooted in a fundamental asymmetry in nuclear capabilities. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s 2024 data, the U.S. boasts 3,708 nuclear warheads, Russia holds 4,380, while China trails with just 500—far behind even France (290) and the UK (225). Beijing argues that the onus lies on the nuclear superpowers to lead disarmament efforts, as articulated by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun: “The countries with the largest nuclear arsenal should earnestly fulfill their special and primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament.”
This isn’t a new position. China has consistently maintained a “no-first-use” policy and insists its arsenal is kept at the “minimum level required for national security,” avoiding any arms race. Joining talks now, Beijing contends, would unfairly equate its defensive posture with the expansive stockpiles of Washington and Moscow. Experts note that China’s reluctance also stems from broader suspicions: U.S. proposals could be a ploy to cap China’s growing military modernization, including hypersonic missiles and submarine-launched capabilities, amid escalating tensions in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.
Other reservations include:
- Historical Distrust: Past U.S. invitations during Trump’s first term were rebuffed for similar reasons, highlighting a pattern of perceived unequal treatment.
- Multilateral vs. Bilateral Focus: China favors global forums like the UN for disarmament, not U.S.-led trilateral setups that might sideline its interests.
- Regional Priorities: With threats from U.S. allies in Asia, Beijing views nuclear deterrence as essential for sovereignty, not negotiation fodder.
These factors paint China as a cautious player, prioritizing self-reliance over what it sees as imbalanced diplomacy.
Stalling Disarmament and Heightening Tensions
China’s rejection isn’t isolated—it reverberates across the international security landscape. The U.S. and Russia hold nearly 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal, but with Moscow suspending the New START treaty in 2023 and rescinding ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), arms control is already fraying. Excluding China, a rising nuclear power, could accelerate proliferation, encouraging nations like India, Pakistan, and North Korea to expand their programs unchecked.
Globally, this impasse:
- Undermines Non-Proliferation Efforts: Without Beijing’s buy-in, treaties like the CTBT—unratified by China and others—remain ineffective, raising risks of renewed testing.
- Fuels Regional Instability: In the Asia-Pacific, heightened U.S.-China rivalry could spark an arms race, affecting allies like Japan and South Korea, who might reconsider their non-nuclear stances.
- Amplifies Nuclear Risks Amid Conflicts: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has lowered nuclear thresholds, with President Vladimir Putin updating doctrines and deploying hypersonic Oreshnik missiles. China’s abstention signals tacit support for multipolar resistance, potentially emboldening aggressive postures.
- Economic and Diplomatic Fallout: Stalled talks could exacerbate U.S.-China trade frictions, impacting global supply chains and investor confidence.
In essence, Beijing’s no-show perpetuates a fragmented world order, where nuclear shadows loom larger over diplomacy.
The China-Russia Joint Submarine Patrol:
Adding fuel to the fire, Russia and China recently completed their first-ever joint submarine patrol in the Asia-Pacific, patrolling the Sea of Japan and East China Sea in early August 2025. Involving Russia’s diesel-electric Volkhov submarine and a Chinese PLA Navy counterpart, this followed the Joint Sea-2025 exercises, focusing on anti-submarine warfare, air defense, and maritime security.
Why now? Chinese expert Zhang Junshe highlighted “high strategic mutual trust” and enhanced “underwater interoperability,” underscoring the patrol’s role in boosting joint capabilities without targeting third parties. Yet, implications are clear: It’s a counter to U.S.-led alliances like AUKUS and QUAD, signaling a fortified Sino-Russian axis amid perceived Western encirclement.
Both nations’ reluctance to denuclearization talks ties into this:
- Shared Threat Perception: Russia views NATO expansion as existential, while China sees U.S. Indo-Pacific strategies as containment. Talks with Trump could legitimize U.S. dominance, which both reject.
- Military Synergies: Deepening ties—evident in arms sales, joint exercises, and economic pacts—prioritize bilateral strength over multilateral concessions.
- Geopolitical Leverage: Russia, post-Ukraine, has lowered nuclear use thresholds; China maintains minimal deterrence. Neither wants to negotiate from weakness, preferring to build deterrence through alliances.
This patrol isn’t just operational—it’s a strategic message: In a multipolar world, China and Russia are syncing forces to challenge U.S. hegemony.
Trump’s New Front After the Trade War:
Trump’s proposal comes hot on the heels of U.S.-China trade skirmishes, where tariffs and tech bans have defined relations. Why pivot to nukes now? Trump framed it as a path to “fairness” and potential defense budget cuts, suggesting a grand bargain to halve spending through disarmament. But skeptics see it as multi-front pressure: After imposing tariffs to curb China’s economic rise, nuclear talks could extract concessions on trade, Taiwan, or intellectual property.
Behind these developments:
- Containing China’s Ascent: With Beijing’s arsenal projected to grow, Trump aims to freeze it early, echoing first-term efforts.
- Reviving Arms Control with Russia: Amid Ukraine, including China could sweeten deals with Putin, who recently floated nuclear offers.
- Domestic Politics: Trump touts “denuclearization” as a win, mirroring North Korea rhetoric, to bolster his image amid elections or economic woes.
- Broader Geopolitics: Post-trade war “truce” in 2019-2020, this escalates to strategic domains, risking a new Cold War but offering leverage in negotiations.
Ultimately, Trump’s move reflects a U.S. strategy to multilateralize pressure, but it may backfire, pushing China and Russia closer.
Toward a Multipolar Nuclear Standoff?
China’s rejection of Trump’s denuclearization talks isn’t mere obstinacy—it’s a calculated defense of its interests in an unequal nuclear world. Coupled with the Sino-Russian submarine patrol, it heralds a resilient alliance reshaping Asia-Pacific security. Globally, this could prolong arms races and erode trust, while Trump’s post-trade war gambit reveals deeper U.S. anxieties about declining unipolarity. As tensions mount, the path forward demands equitable dialogue, not unilateral demands. Will the world heed the warnings, or edge closer to the brink? Stay tuned as these dynamics unfold.