Connect with us

China Economy

China’s Record $1.2 Trillion Trade Surplus in 2025 Defies Trump Tariffs — And Signals a New Global Order

Published

on

Beijing’s strategic pivot to Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America pays dividends as Chinese exporters outmaneuver US trade barriers

On a humid January morning at Shenzhen’s Yantian Port, one of the world’s busiest container terminals, the rhythmic clang of cranes loading shipping containers tells a story that Washington policymakers didn’t anticipate. Despite President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff regime, which slashed Chinese exports to the United States by roughly 20% in 2025, the port’s traffic has surged. The destination tags reveal the plot twist: Lagos, Jakarta, São Paulo, Ho Chi Minh City—everywhere, it seems, except American shores.

This scene encapsulates China’s remarkable trade performance in 2025. The country closed the year with a record-breaking trade surplus of approximately $1.19 trillion—a 20% jump from 2024’s $992 billion—according to data released January 14, 2026, by China’s General Administration of Customs. The figures represent not just a numerical milestone but a fundamental recalibration of global trade flows, one that challenges assumptions about America’s economic leverage and heralds what some analysts are calling a “post-Atlantic” trading order.

The Numbers: A Surplus Built on Strategic Diversification

China’s 2025 trade data reveals an economy executing a carefully orchestrated pivot. Total exports climbed 5.5% to $3.77 trillion, while imports remained virtually flat at $2.58 trillion, expanding the trade imbalance to unprecedented levels. December alone saw exports surge 6.6% year-over-year—faster than any economist predicted—defying concerns about front-loading effects from 2024’s rush to beat anticipated tariffs.

The composition of this growth tells the real story. While shipments to the United States plummeted—declining in nine consecutive months and dropping 30% in December alone, for a full-year decline of approximately 20%—Chinese exporters found eager customers elsewhere. According to customs spokesperson Lv Daliang, growth rates to emerging markets “all surpassed the overall rate,” revealing Beijing’s successful execution of what trade analysts call the most significant export diversification campaign by a major economy in modern history.

Africa led the charge with a stunning 26% increase in Chinese exports, followed by ASEAN nations at 13%, Latin America at 7%, and the European Union at 8%. These aren’t marginal markets absorbing overflow; they represent a structural reorientation. In absolute terms, China’s trade with ASEAN countries alone is projected to have exceeded $1.05 trillion in 2025, cementing the bloc’s position as Beijing’s largest trading partner—surpassing both the United States and European Union.

The product mix has also evolved. Higher-value exports—semiconductors, automobiles, and ships—all recorded gains exceeding 20%, while lower-end products like toys, shoes, and clothing contracted. Auto exports alone surged 21% to more than 7 million units, driven by electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids that are reshaping global automotive supply chains.

The Tariff Jolt and Beijing’s Long Game

The Trump administration’s tariff offensive, which escalated throughout 2025 with duties approaching 60% on some Chinese goods, was designed to bring Beijing to heel. Instead, it accelerated trends that Chinese policymakers had been cultivating since the first trade war began in 2018. The difference this time was both the scale of US measures and the sophistication of China’s response.

Beijing’s playbook drew heavily from its Dual Circulation strategy, articulated in 2020 but turbocharged after Trump’s 2024 election victory signaled renewed trade hostilities. As described by the World Economic Forum, this framework emphasized reducing vulnerability to Western pressure through trade diversification, industrial upgrading, and domestic resilience—precisely the pillars that bore fruit in 2025.

“The authorities have been preparing for this moment since at least 2017,” notes Markus Herrmann Chen, founder of China Macro Group. Trade with Belt and Road Initiative participating countries reached RMB 11.6 trillion ($1.6 trillion) by 2021, according to the Atlantic Council—far surpassing trade with the EU or United States. By 2025, this diversification had reached critical mass.

The policy infrastructure supporting this shift included export financing facilities, expedited customs clearance for emerging market destinations, upgraded free trade agreements (including the newly enhanced China-ASEAN FTA finalized in May 2025), and diplomatic campaigns that paired infrastructure investments with market access. Meanwhile, a weakening yuan—reflecting domestic deflationary pressures—made Chinese goods even more price-competitive globally, with export prices declining for their third consecutive year.

Diversification in Action: Three Theaters of Expansion

Southeast Asia: The Manufacturing Nexus

Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia have become the frontline states in China’s geographic pivot. Chinese exports to ASEAN grew 13% in 2025, but the relationship runs deeper than simple trade flows. As Rhodium Group documents, Chinese manufacturing FDI into ASEAN averaged $10 billion over the past three years—nearly four times the 2014-2017 average—with Indonesia and Vietnam together attracting 56% of investment value.

This isn’t merely about circumventing tariffs through “transshipment”—though that certainly occurs and has triggered US scrutiny. Chinese firms are establishing genuine production capacity, particularly in electric vehicles, solar panels, electronics, and steel. BYD’s multi-billion-dollar EV plants in Thailand, CATL’s battery facilities across the region, and countless component manufacturers represent a reconfiguration of supply chains that will outlast any tariff regime.

See also  Japan's $2.3 Trillion Bet: Takaichi's AI-Semiconductor Moonshot and the Fiscal Tightrope It Requires

The integration is symbiotic but asymmetric. ASEAN countries rely heavily on Chinese intermediate inputs—averaging one-third of their imported materials, according to East Asia Forum—meaning Chinese value-added content in “ASEAN-made” exports remains substantial. Vietnam’s exports to the US surged 30% in 2025, powered by electronics and textiles, but many incorporate Chinese components assembled by Chinese-invested factories employing Chinese supply chain management.

Yet this dependence cuts both ways. As Asia Society research warns, the flood of finished Chinese goods—particularly EVs, solar panels, and consumer electronics—is displacing local production. Indonesia’s textile sector shed 80,000 jobs in 2024, with 280,000 more at risk in 2025. Thailand has seen Japanese automakers like Subaru, Suzuki, and Nissan close factories as Chinese EVs capture market share. The challenge for ASEAN is navigating between benefiting from Chinese investment and protecting nascent industries from predatory pricing.

Africa: The Consumption Frontier

China’s 26% export surge to Africa in 2025 marks a qualitative shift in the relationship. While infrastructure projects and resource extraction have long defined China-Africa ties, 2025 saw Beijing pivot decisively toward consumer markets. Chinese exports to the continent in the first three quarters rose 28% year-over-year to approximately $122 billion, according to Bloomberg analysis, driven by construction machinery, passenger cars, steel, electronics, and solar panels (which jumped 60%).

Nigeria led African imports, accounting for 11% of the total at approximately 4.66 trillion naira, followed by South Africa (10%), Egypt (9%), and others. The CNBC investigation of social media posts and business registrations reveals thousands of Chinese entrepreneurs establishing small businesses across African cities—selling electronics, bubble tea, furniture, press-on nails—targeting Africa’s emerging middle class of 350 million consumers.

This expansion comes as profit margins narrow at home amid deflation and intense competition. “Africa benefits from cheap consumer goods,” observes Capital Economics, “but risks undermining local manufacturing and deepening trade imbalances.” Indeed, Africa’s trade deficit with China ballooned to nearly $60 billion through August 2025, perpetuating colonial-era patterns: raw materials (oil, minerals, cobalt, copper) flow to China while manufactured goods flow back.

Kenya exemplifies both opportunity and vulnerability. Chinese construction machinery and solar panels support infrastructure development, while Chinese EVs offer affordable transport options. Yet as ISS Africa notes, much of Africa’s exports to China are controlled by Chinese-owned firms operating on the continent, with earnings flowing back to foreign investors rather than stimulating local value chains. Without aggressive local content requirements and industrial policy, the $200 billion projected for China-Africa trade in 2025 may reinforce dependency rather than catalyze development.

Latin America: The EV Battleground

Latin America absorbed approximately $276 billion in Chinese exports by November 2025—up nearly 8% despite the ongoing US-China trade conflict. Brazil emerged as China’s prize market, with exports soaring over 25% to reach $30 billion in the first five months alone, according to Americas Market Intelligence. The star attraction: electric vehicles.

Brazil imported approximately 130,000 Chinese EVs in just the first five months of 2025—a tenfold increase from 2024—making it China’s largest EV export market globally. BYD is investing heavily in Brazilian production facilities, planning to manufacture 10,000 units in 2025 and 20,000 by end-2026. American Century Investments reports similar dynamics in Mexico, where Chinese auto exports rose 36%, and Argentina, where imports of Chinese goods nearly doubled amid bilateral RMB payment agreements that eased dollar shortages.

Beyond autos, Chinese exports span industrial machinery, telecommunications equipment, steel, and construction materials supporting infrastructure development. Peru’s Chancay megaport, a Chinese-funded deep-water facility designed to service ultra-large container ships, symbolizes Beijing’s long-term regional ambitions—creating logistics infrastructure that will funnel South American commodities to Asia while providing entry points for Chinese manufactured goods.

Yet geopolitical tensions simmer beneath the commerce. Mexico faces intense US pressure to impose tariffs on Chinese goods and guard against “transshipment” of China-made products bound for American markets. In December 2025, Mexico approved a sweeping overhaul of import taxes affecting 1,463 tariff lines across 17 strategic sectors, targeting China and other nations. The Trump administration has explicitly warned Mexico that failure to curb Chinese imports could trigger US tariffs on Mexican exports—a pressure campaign that reveals Washington’s anxieties about losing influence in its own hemisphere.

Domestic Drivers: Deflation as Export Engine

The paradox of China’s export boom is that it reflects economic weakness as much as strength. Behind the record surplus lies a structural malady: anemic domestic consumption and persistent deflation that has forced Chinese manufacturers to seek markets abroad rather than building demand at home.

See also  Yacht Boom Propels $700mn-Plus Stonepeak Marina Deal: Inside the Marina Consolidation Boom Reshaping Luxury Boating

China’s consumer prices remained flat in 2025, missing the official 2% target, while the GDP deflator—a broad price gauge—declined for ten consecutive quarters through late 2025. Factory-gate prices have been in deflationary territory since October 2022. This isn’t a statistical quirk; it reflects weak household demand, a property sector that has contracted by half since its 2021 peak, and local government fiscal crises that constrain public spending.

“No economy has recorded 5% real GDP growth while facing years of persistent deflation,” argues Logan Wright of Rhodium Group in a December 2025 analysis. He estimates China’s actual 2025 growth fell short of 3%, far below the official 5% target, with domestic demand “anemic and confined to modest household consumption expansion.”

The International Monetary Fund’s December 2025 assessment is blunt: “The prolonged property sector adjustment, spillovers to local government finances, and subdued consumer confidence have led to weak domestic demand and deflationary pressures.” IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva called for “more forceful and urgent” policies to transition to consumption-led growth, warning that “reliance on exports is less viable for sustaining robust growth” given China’s massive economic size and heightened global trade tensions.

The feedback loop is pernicious. Deflation encourages households to delay purchases and increase savings (China’s household savings rate remains among the world’s highest). Weak domestic demand forces manufacturers to cut prices, triggering brutal price wars—particularly in automotive, solar, and steel—that further erode profitability and investment. Unable to earn returns domestically, companies dump products abroad at marginal cost, creating the export surge that manifests as a trade surplus.

“The swelling surplus underscores the imbalance between China’s manufacturing strength and stubbornly weak domestic consumption,” observes Business Standard. It’s a symptom, not a sign of health—akin to Germany’s persistent surpluses during its “sick man of Europe” phase or Japan’s export dependence during lost decades of deflation.

Global Ripples: Winners, Losers, and Backlash

China’s export offensive creates ripple effects across the global economy, producing both opportunities and tensions that will shape trade policy for years.

Emerging market pressures: While developing nations benefit from affordable Chinese capital goods, consumer electronics, and infrastructure inputs, they face mounting risks. Local manufacturers struggle against subsidized competition. Capital Economics warns that “governments in Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya may seek to defend respective industries,” but most commodity-dependent African nations “are likely to prioritize trade ties with China over industrialization ambitions.” The trade-off between cheap imports and industrial development presents a Faustian bargain.

Currency effects and financial flows: China’s deflationary pressures have driven real exchange rate depreciation, making exports even more competitive. The current account surplus reached 3.7% of GDP in Q1 2025, but this was offset by significant capital outflows as Chinese investors sought returns abroad and hedged against domestic uncertainties. The World Bank’s December 2025 update notes that “larger net capital outflows outweighed the current account surplus,” reflecting private-sector concerns about China’s economic trajectory.

Protectionist backlash: The flood of Chinese goods is triggering defensive measures globally. The European Union faces growing political pressure to counter what officials describe as unfair competition from state-subsidized Chinese manufacturers, particularly in EVs, solar panels, and steel. Preliminary EU tariffs on Chinese EVs reached as high as 45%, while solar panel duties from Southeast Asian countries (themselves hosting Chinese production) range from 21% to 271%. Brazil, Turkey, and India have imposed automotive tariffs. Even Russia—China’s largest auto export market in 2023-2024—recently enacted non-tariff barriers to protect domestic production.

US strategic concerns: Washington’s anxieties extend beyond economics. The Trump administration’s “transshipment” provisions, which threaten 40% tariffs on goods deemed to have been illegally rerouted through third countries, aim squarely at Chinese supply chain strategies in ASEAN and Mexico. S&P Global analysis warns that strict rules-of-origin enforcement could “adversely affect export competitiveness” of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam—countries with low domestic value content but high Chinese integration.

The geopolitical subtext is unmistakable. As Americas Quarterly notes, China’s infrastructure investments and manufacturing presence in Latin America represent “a direct challenge to US dominance in the region.” Chinese space facilities in Argentina, ports in Peru, and 5G networks across the hemisphere trigger national security debates in Washington, revealing that trade battles mask deeper great-power competition.

What Comes Next: Risks and Rebalancing

The sustainability of China’s export-driven model faces mounting challenges that will test Beijing’s economic management in 2026 and beyond.

Overcapacity and market saturation: China’s manufacturers expanded production capacity dramatically during the pandemic, anticipating continued growth. As domestic demand faltered, this capacity became stranded, forcing companies to export at unsustainably low prices. The risk, as Rhodium Group observes, is that “overcapacity flooding” will provoke coordinated international responses—tariffs, anti-dumping duties, investment restrictions—that close off markets faster than Beijing can diversify.

See also  The $2 Trillion Question: How Democratic Socialists Are Reshaping Tech's Future

Lynn Song, chief economist for Greater China at ING Groep, warns China faces “some pushback” as its higher-end products become globally competitive. The more successfully Chinese firms move up the value chain—competing in EVs, semiconductors, renewable energy—the more likely they are to trigger defensive industrial policies from advanced economies protecting strategic sectors.

Geopolitical fragmentation: The rules-based trading system that facilitated China’s rise is fracturing. As emerging markets become battlegrounds between Chinese commercial interests and Western political pressure, countries face increasingly binary choices. The US is weaponizing market access, conditioning trade relationships on partners’ willingness to limit Chinese participation. Mexico’s tariff reforms exemplify this squeeze—economic logic suggests embracing Chinese investment, but geopolitical realities demand demonstrating alignment with Washington.

Domestic rebalancing imperatives: Every major international institution—the IMF, World Bank, OECD—agrees that China must transition to consumption-driven growth. Yet 2025 demonstrated how difficult this transformation is. Retail sales growth barely exceeded 1% by year-end, despite trade-in subsidies and consumption vouchers. The property crisis shows no signs of resolution, local government debt problems worsen, and deflationary psychology becomes more entrenched with each passing quarter.

The IMF’s December 2025 assessment projects China’s growth will moderate to 4.5% in 2026 (down from 5% in 2025) as “it would take time for domestic sources of growth to kick in.” Sonali Jain-Chandra, the IMF’s China Mission Chief, argues that “macro policies need to focus forcefully on boosting domestic demand” to “reflate the economy, lift inflation, and lead to real exchange rate appreciation”—precisely the medicine Beijing has been reluctant to administer.

The 2026 outlook: Natixis economist Gary Ng forecasts Chinese exports will grow about 3% in 2026, down from 5.5% in 2025, but with slow import growth, he expects the trade surplus to remain above $1 trillion. This would represent a third consecutive year of record surpluses—unprecedented for an economy of China’s scale and development level.

The comparison to historical precedents is instructive. Germany ran persistent current account surpluses approaching 8% of GDP in the 2010s, triggering criticism but ultimately reflecting structural savings-investment imbalances. Japan’s export dominance in the 1980s provoked “voluntary” export restraints and contributed to asset bubbles when yen appreciation finally arrived. China’s $1.2 trillion surplus in 2025 represented roughly 6-7% of GDP—a figure that would be unsustainable indefinitely without either forced adjustment through currency appreciation or external pressure through coordinated tariffs.

Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory?

China’s record $1.2 trillion trade surplus in 2025 demonstrates the resilience and adaptability of the world’s manufacturing superpower. Against expectations, Chinese exporters not only survived the Trump administration’s tariff assault but thrived, finding eager customers from Lagos to Jakarta to São Paulo. The successful execution of trade diversification—years in planning, accelerated by necessity—has reduced China’s vulnerability to any single market and cemented commercial relationships across the Global South.

Yet this triumph carries hidden costs and uncertain longevity. The surplus reflects not vibrant economic health but the malaise of a economy unable to generate sufficient domestic demand to absorb its own productive capacity. Deflation, property crisis, and weak consumer confidence reveal structural imbalances that export growth merely postpones addressing rather than resolving. Every major international economic institution warns that export-led growth is reaching its natural limits for an economy of China’s scale.

Geopolitically, China’s export offensive is hardening Western resolve to reduce dependencies and rebuild domestic industrial capacity—the very “decoupling” Beijing sought to avoid. The more successful Chinese manufacturers become at penetrating global markets, the more protectionist the response grows. We are witnessing not the end of US-China trade conflict but its globalization, as secondary markets become contested terrain and supply chains fragment along geopolitical lines.

For global policymakers, 2025’s trade data poses a fundamental question: Can the international economy accommodate a manufacturing superpower running trillion-dollar surpluses year after year? History suggests not without significant adjustment—through currency appreciation, domestic rebalancing, or external pressure. The lesson of 2025 is that Chinese firms are extraordinarily capable of adapting to barriers and finding new markets. The lesson of 2026 may be that even the most successful export diversification cannot indefinitely substitute for robust domestic demand.

As containers continue loading at Shenzhen’s ports, bound for an ever-widening array of destinations, the numbers tell a story of tactical success masking strategic vulnerability. China has won the battle against Trump’s tariffs. The war for sustainable economic growth, however, requires victories on the home front that remain frustratingly elusive.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Analysis

China’s Two Economies: AI Chip Exports Soar as Property Craters

Published

on

China’s semiconductor exports rose 110% year-on-year in May 2026, part of a broader export surge driven by AI-related demand, while fixed-asset investment fell 4.1% in the first five months of 2026 — the steepest decline since the pandemic began, driven by a 16.2% drop in property investment. The two trends aren’t contradictory; they reveal an economy being propped up by one sector while another quietly deflates.

Two data sets, one economy, almost no shared coverage

China’s economic reporting this year has effectively split into two disconnected beats. Trade desks are covering blockbuster export growth. Property and macro desks are covering a housing slump comparable to the depths of 2020. Almost nobody is putting both charts side by side — which is a shame, because the gap between them is the real story of China’s 2026 economy.

On the export side, China’s economy has grown predominantly on the back of strong exports through 2026, with May exports (in US dollar terms) up 19.6% year-on-year — the second-largest increase since January 2022 (Deloitte Insights). The composition of that growth is what matters: semiconductor exports were up 110% year-on-year, mobile phone exports rose 44%, and automatic data-processing machine exports — inputs for computers and data storage — climbed 66%. That strength is directly tied to global demand for AI-related hardware, and likely amplified by companies building up inventory ahead of anticipated further supply-chain disruptions tied to the Middle East conflict (Deloitte Insights).

Meanwhile, the property side of the ledger

At the same time, China’s fixed-asset investment fell 4.1% in the first five months of 2026 compared with a year earlier — the steepest decline since May 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Property investment specifically dropped a sharp 16.2% over the same period (Deloitte Insights). Given that roughly two-thirds of Chinese household wealth is held in property, this isn’t a niche sector problem — it’s a direct hit to consumer balance sheets that’s pushing households to save more and spend less, which in turn undermines the government’s attempts to revive the property market from the demand side.

See also  KOSPI Record Crash: South Korea's Stock Market Suffers Its Worst Day in History as the US-Iran War Detonates a Global Sell-Off

The dynamic is self-reinforcing: government stimulus targeting housing hasn’t gained traction partly because underlying demand hasn’t caught up with the excess capacity built up during years of debt-fueled construction. Until that gap closes, the sector is likely to stay under pressure regardless of policy support (Deloitte Insights).

Why the export boom can’t fully offset the property drag

It’s tempting to read the export numbers as evidence China is successfully pivoting away from its property-dependent growth model toward advanced manufacturing and tech exports. That’s directionally true, but the scale mismatch matters: property and related sectors have historically represented a much larger share of GDP and employment than semiconductor and electronics manufacturing does today, even at its current growth rate. A 110% jump in a smaller sector doesn’t automatically offset a mid-teens percentage decline in a much larger one.

China’s service trade offers a partial third data point: services trade expanded 6% year-on-year in the first five months of 2026, with knowledge-intensive services — including exports tied to intellectual property and technical know-how — climbing 12.2% (CrossPacificWatchers). That’s another leg of the “new economy vs. old economy” divergence playing out inside China’s growth data.

What this means for global markets

For businesses and investors tracking China exposure, the practical implication is that headline GDP or trade figures increasingly mask two very different stories happening simultaneously. A supply chain dependent on Chinese semiconductor or electronics inputs is riding a genuine boom. A business exposed to Chinese consumer demand — especially anything property-adjacent, from furnishings to home appliances — is navigating a multi-year balance-sheet recession that shows few signs of resolving in 2026.

Continue Reading

China Economy

China’s Economy Is Now Dangerously Dependent on One Thing: Exports

Published

on

China’s economy has held up better than many expected through 2026’s geopolitical turbulence, with growth for the second quarter tracking toward roughly 4.5% year-on-year, according to a median forecast of analysts surveyed by AFP — a step down from 5% in the prior quarter but still within the government’s 4.5–5% annual target. The headline resilience, however, is masking a structural shift that has received far less attention than it deserves: China’s growth engine has become almost entirely dependent on one lever, exports, at exactly the moment that lever faces the most geopolitical uncertainty in years.

The Domestic Engine Has Effectively Stalled

The data on China’s internal economy is stark. Retail sales fell for the first time in three years in May, despite the government pumping billions of yuan into special bonds supporting consumer trade-in subsidy programmes since 2024. Fixed-asset investment has also slumped. Rabobank’s Teeuwe Mevissen summarised the underlying problem bluntly: with no signal that the real estate crisis is ending, a recovery in consumption is hard to envision — a crisis now in its fifth consecutive year, with once-reliable home prices stagnating and dissuading buyers from treating property as a store of wealth.

The World Bank’s own July 2026 update confirms the property drag is structural rather than cyclical, projecting growth to slow to 4.4% in 2026 and 4.3% in 2027 as the property sector continues adjusting to genuinely lower housing demand. The Bank’s specific policy recommendation — strengthening the social safety net by raising benefit levels and extending coverage to informal workers — is a tacit admission that Chinese households are saving defensively rather than spending, precisely because they lack the social insurance that would let them draw down savings with confidence.

See also  Pakistan's Stock Market Renaissance: How 2025's Hottest Investment Opportunity Is Democratizing Wealth—A Complete Beginner's Guide

Exports Are Doing All the Work

What’s compensating for this domestic weakness is a genuinely resilient export sector. Goldman Sachs Research projects China’s current account surplus will rise to 4.2% of GDP in 2026, up from 3.6% in 2025 — a materially more bullish call than the Bloomberg consensus of 2.5%. The team’s reasoning rests on three pillars: rapid export expansion to emerging-market economies, limited ability among trade partners to erect meaningful new barriers given China’s dominance in critical supply chains, and falling export prices making Chinese goods increasingly price-competitive globally, even as dollar-denominated export price inflation is expected to turn positive in 2026, rising to 0.7% from -2.7% the prior year.

China’s service-sector trade tells the same story from a different angle: services trade expanded 6% year-on-year in the first five months of 2026, with knowledge-intensive service exports jumping 12.2%, reaching a combined 3.1 trillion yuan in total trade value — evidence that China’s export resilience isn’t confined to manufactured goods but extends into higher-value digital and intellectual-property-linked services as well.

The Labour Market Is the Weak Link Nobody’s Pricing

Perhaps the most underreported risk sits in China’s job market. Goldman Sachs’ own wage tracker shows year-over-year growth in urban nominal wages slowing to just 3.8% in the third quarter of 2025 — the weakest hiring environment in a decade outside of the Covid lockdown period, based on a composite of PMI employment sub-indexes. High-tech manufacturing, the sector generating China’s export strength, is simply not labour-intensive enough to absorb the workers displaced from the shrinking property and construction sector. That mismatch is a structural, not cyclical, constraint on any consumption-led rebalancing.

See also  Pakistan Budget 2026-27: Top 10 Proposals Explained

Why the Export Dependency Is a Genuine Vulnerability

The risk in over-relying on exports is not abstract. UBS’s own 2026-27 outlook flags uncertainties related to US trade and technology policy as a direct risk to the baseline forecast, noting that a burst of the global AI investment bubble could hit China’s tech-export momentum just as hard as a fresh round of tariff escalation. China’s own “new economy” sectors — estimated to already contribute roughly a quarter of GDP growth from 2020-24 — are precisely the export-exposed, high-tech segments most vulnerable to a shift in US policy or a correction in global AI capital expenditure.

The Bottom Line

China’s 2026 growth numbers look stable on the surface, but the composition has shifted meaningfully toward a single external lever — exports — at a moment when trade friction, an AI capex cycle that some analysts already worry is overextended, and a structurally weak domestic labour market all point toward the same conclusion: China’s rebalancing toward consumption, a stated priority since at least the 15th Five-Year Plan, remains more aspiration than reality. Investors and trading partners — including Pakistan, whose textile exports compete directly with Chinese manufacturing in some segments — should watch export data more closely than GDP headlines for the real signal on China’s trajectory.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

China-Russia Trade: Why Beijing Now Holds All the Leverage

Published

on

For years, the phrase “no-limits partnership” defined how Beijing and Moscow described their relationship. It’s still the phrase both governments use publicly. But look closely at what’s actually happening in the energy trade underpinning that partnership, and a very different picture emerges — one where China holds nearly all the leverage, and Russia is discovering that a lifeline can also function as a leash.

The Summit That Produced Declarations, Not Deals

The most recent Xi-Putin summit, which concluded on May 20, 2026, generated the usual round of cooperation announcements across economy, trade, education, science, and technology. But beneath the diplomatic choreography, the meeting failed to deliver the one outcome Russia actually needed: a finalized pricing agreement for the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline (OilPrice.com).

That pipeline matters enormously to Moscow. Russia’s pipeline gas exports to the European Union collapsed from roughly 157 billion cubic meters before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine to just 18 bcm in 2025, dragging Russia’s gas-related tax revenue down 7%. Power of Siberia 2 would add 50 bcm of annual capacity and could roughly double Russia’s share of China’s total gas consumption, from about 10% to 20%. Without that eastward redirection, Russia’s massive Yamal gas reserves — once feeding Europe — risk becoming stranded assets with nowhere to go (Insight EU Monitoring).

Why China Isn’t in a Hurry

Here’s the detail that gets lost in most “Russia-China axis” coverage: China doesn’t actually need this pipeline urgently, and its behavior reflects that. When Gazprom announced a 30-year memorandum on the project in September 2025, Beijing didn’t issue any matching statement. China’s own 15th Five-Year Plan, approved in March 2026, mentions only “advancing preparatory work” — deliberately non-committal language for a project Russia has been publicly promoting for years (Insight EU Monitoring).

The pricing standoff illustrates the imbalance clearly. Putin has insisted gas flowing through the pipeline should use a market-based pricing formula similar to what Russia once charged Europe. Gazprom reportedly made what one source close to the company called a “very competitive offer.” Chinese counterparts still haven’t shown willingness to move forward. Meanwhile, as Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was in Beijing promoting the pipeline, China’s Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang was simultaneously in Turkmenistan signing deals to expand gas cooperation with China’s second-largest pipeline gas supplier — a live demonstration that Beijing is actively diversifying away from dependence on any single supplier, Russia included (Insight EU Monitoring).

See also  Pakistan Budget 2026-27: Top 10 Proposals Explained

Even the project’s own timeline undercuts any sense of urgency: the head of research at China National Petroleum Corporation has noted that projects of this scale require eight to ten years to build, and Gazprom itself doesn’t expect the pipeline to reach even half capacity before 2034-2035, assuming deliveries start after 2031 (Insight EU Monitoring).

The Trade Numbers Tell an Uncomfortable Story for Moscow

Bilateral trade between China and Russia soared 55% between 2021 and 2025, comfortably surpassing the two countries’ shared $200 billion target set back in 2019. But 2025 marked the first annual decline since the pandemic year of 2020, with trade falling 7% to $227.6 billion (The Moscow Times).

Economically, the asymmetry is stark. China’s economy is nearly eight times larger than Russia’s on a nominal GDP basis, and Russia represents just 4% of China’s total international trade — while China accounts for the overwhelming majority of Russia’s trade relationships (OilPrice.com). That imbalance shows up directly in Russia’s war-fighting capacity: Russia now imports more than 90% of its sanctioned technology from China, up 10 percentage points from 2025. Some of that includes high-end Chinese components that Ukrainian forces have physically extracted from intercepted Russian Kinzhal missile warheads, while Chinese microchips reportedly provide processing power for Iskander ballistic missile and Lancet loitering munition targeting systems (OilPrice.com).

A Temporary Rebound, Not a Reversal

There has been a recent uptick worth noting: Russian oil exports to China surged 22% and oil products rose 9% in early 2026, partly a byproduct of the Iran-linked conflict disrupting Middle East energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, pushing buyers toward Russian crude that doesn’t depend on that chokepoint (The Moscow Times). Chinese exports to Russia also strengthened, helped by lower Russian interest rates and a stronger ruble reviving consumer demand — car exports nearly doubled, while telecom and computer exports both rose 21%.

See also  Agency in the Age of AI: Why Human Initiative — Not Artificial Agents — Will Define the Next Decade

But Moscow-based analysts are cautioning against reading too much into this bounce. Economist Andrei Gnidchenko of the CMAKP research center expects trade growth to slow through the second half of 2026 as China builds up energy reserves and economic activity in both countries remains subdued, projecting total 2026 trade will land just 5-10% above 2025 levels — essentially flat versus 2024 (The Moscow Times). And because energy accounts for nearly all of what Russia sells to China, Moscow has little else to offer once oil and gas demand plateaus — Russian oil shipments to China were already slowing to an average 2.2 million barrels per day by April, still above year-ago levels but below Q1 2026’s pace, while pipeline gas exports are already running at maximum existing infrastructure capacity.

The Bigger Picture: China Buys Discounted Oil Precisely Because It Can

China’s discount on Russian crude peaked at roughly 18% in 2022 before easing to around 5%, then rising again in late 2025 following new US sanctions targeting buyers. Between April 2022 and February 2026, China’s average discount stood at 7.7%, saving Beijing an estimated $18.3 billion over that period (Merics China-Russia Dashboard). That’s not a partnership priced between equals — it’s a buyer’s market where China sets the terms because Russia has nowhere else to sell.

What This Means for Global Markets and Investors

For energy traders, the practical takeaway is that Russian crude flows to China will likely keep growing in volume terms but shrink in strategic leverage, since China’s diversification into Central Asian gas (via Turkmenistan) and its patient negotiating posture on Power of Siberia 2 signal it isn’t willing to let Moscow dictate pricing terms. For geopolitical risk analysts, the widening asymmetry suggests China is positioning itself to treat the Russian Far East as a sphere of economic influence rather than a genuine strategic equal — a dynamic that could accelerate if Russia’s war-driven isolation from Western markets continues.

See also  The $2 Trillion Question: How Democratic Socialists Are Reshaping Tech's Future

For businesses assessing sanctions exposure, the growing volume of dual-use Chinese components inside Russian weapons systems is likely to keep secondary-sanctions risk elevated for Chinese financial institutions and industrial firms doing cross-border business — a trend that expanded significantly throughout 2025 and shows no sign of reversing.

The Bottom Line

The “no-limits” framing was always more useful as propaganda than as an accurate description of the relationship’s power dynamics. China gets cheap, reliable energy and expanding influence across Russia’s Far East. Russia gets a lifeline that grows thinner and more conditional with every passing quarter. Unless the trajectory of the war in Ukraine or Russia’s broader economic fortunes shifts dramatically, that imbalance is set to deepen — and the Power of Siberia 2 stalemate is the clearest evidence yet of who is actually setting the terms.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2026 The Economy, Inc . All rights reserved .

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading