Before Putin even arrived in Beijing, Spanish media had already made a comparison: his visit is "far better" than Trump's China trip.

On May 19, Spanish media outlet Público published an article with a direct headline: "Putin’s visit to China will be far better than Trump’s Beijing trip."

The article drew conclusions even before the talks began, citing two reasons: the friendship between China and Russia is "unlimited" and has been growing stronger in recent years; and the bilateral documents China and Russia are about to sign are of a different nature—there are no "hard issues" like the Taiwan question that plague Sino-U.S. relations.

Russia’s attitude was particularly telling. Before Putin’s departure, Peskov stated that Russia would not compare its delegation to that of the United States. The words were polite, but the subsequent details—39 members in the delegation, nearly all vice-premiers attending, and five key sectors—energy, nuclear power, transportation, agriculture, and education—engaged simultaneously—each hinted at one thing: this trip was truly different.

When Trump visited in mid-May, he brought nearly 20 top American business leaders, including Musk, Cook, and Huang Renxun. That was a “bosses’ team”—come to negotiate deals, sign contracts, and leave with orders.

This time, Putin brought not bosses, but decision-makers. The 39-member delegation included almost all vice-premiers, presidential office representatives, several ministers, and heads of major enterprises. The vice-premiers will each report on achievements in five fields—energy, nuclear energy, transport, agriculture, and education—during expanded meetings. This isn’t “doing business”; it’s “holding a board meeting.”

Putin came prepared, bringing plans rather than negotiating from scratch upon arrival.

The difference between the two delegations reflects a fundamental distinction in how the two countries approach their relationship with China. The U.S. wants to do business; Russia needs to survive. The U.S. seeks orders from China; Russia is already deeply integrated into the Chinese market. In 2025, Sino-Russian trade reached nearly $240 billion—China is Russia’s top trading partner, with nearly all import-export transactions settled in rubles and yuan. What does $240 billion mean? It’s roughly one-tenth of Russia’s entire annual GDP. This number is so large that no one dares to risk destabilizing it lightly.

This time, Putin made a historic move—something unprecedented in 25 years. Before departing, he delivered a video address directly to the Chinese people: “The China-Russia relationship has reached an unprecedented level. We are ready to support each other on broad issues including national sovereignty and unity. Our friendship is not aimed at any third party; we pursue peace and shared prosperity.”

This was a message shouted directly to 1.4 billion Chinese citizens—and a clear signal for the future of Sino-Russian relations. He bypassed intermediaries and spoke directly to the public. What does this mean?

Putin aims to transform the China-Russia relationship from a “mutual understanding between leaders” into a “shared consensus among peoples.” Such an approach is far more effective than signing dozens of agreements.

“Trump’s visit to China stabilized the world’s most important bilateral relationship; Putin’s visit marks a long-term strategic partnership,” said Wang Zizhan, deputy secretary-general of the Center for Globalization Studies. These two visits aren’t a competition—they’re parallel tracks.

China needs to maintain stability with the U.S., while also preserving strategic trust with Russia. These two lines don’t contradict each other—China is capable of managing both effectively.

Spanish newspaper Público claimed Putin’s visit to China was “far better.” On the surface, it seems to elevate Russia and downgrade the U.S.—but upon closer analysis, it simply states a fact.

The core outcome of Trump’s visit was the establishment of a “constructive strategic stability” between China and the U.S.—a new phrase, a framework-level consensus. How long will it last? Hard to say.

What Putin is discussing this time, however, is real, tangible “hard cooperation.” In 2025, Sino-Russian trade hit nearly $240 billion, and bilateral settlements are now mostly conducted in local currencies. The numbers are there—no filters needed.

More importantly, there’s stability. The U.S.-China relationship is one of “coexistence and competition”—today they talk amicably, tomorrow they could break relations.

The China-Russia relationship has physical connections—oil and gas pipelines buried underground, laid for decades. This kind of “physical binding” is far more powerful than any diplomatic rhetoric.

The nuclear energy cooperation, natural gas pipelines, and Arctic shipping route development that Putin is bringing are all long-term projects, spanning decades. Once signed, exiting means losing out. Such cooperation, once established, isn’t just “let’s talk”—it’s “we’ll live together.”

The underlying logic of U.S.-China relations is “transactional”—you give me your market, I give you orders. The underlying logic of China-Russia relations is “symbiotic”—you need energy, I need markets; neither can survive without the other.

Transactions can be replaced by others. Symbiosis cannot. Thus, when Spanish media says “far better,” they aren’t judging who is more pro-China—but acknowledging a fact: the structure of China-Russia relations makes it inherently more stable than that of the U.S.-China relationship.

Before Putin even reached Beijing, Spanish media rushed to make comparisons. Russia claims not to compare itself to the U.S., yet the size of the delegation and the itinerary speak volumes. Trump brought bosses; Putin brought managers. Bosses discuss “this deal”; managers discuss “our entire lives.” Trump defined a new framework; Putin is filling it with substance.

In Beijing in May, two leaders from major powers arrived in quick succession—one focused on stability, the other on development.

Which matters more?

They don’t contradict each other. On China’s diplomatic chessboard, the U.S. relationship and the Russia relationship are two parallel lines—not an either-or choice.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1865613846207561/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.