After Trump became the second president of the United States, his diplomatic focus was on nuclear arms control, which began to flourish in early 2025.In February, he openly said he wanted to talk with Russia and China about how to reduce nuclear weapons holdings.The White House also confirmed that he had spoken to Russian leaders on the phone about shrinking the nuclear arsenal.
The Russian side responded that it was willing to continue the bilateral dialogue, but did not mention China. In the past few months in May, the U.S. State Department and Russian representatives met in Vienna to discuss the extension of the nuclear deal, and the two sides exchanged proposals, specifically how to talk about how to cut strategic missiles. Russia agreed in part, but stressed that the situation in other countries should be considered.
In July, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a report assessing the number of China's nuclear forces, including missiles and submarines. At the congressional hearing, lawmakers held this report to discuss potential risks. Let Trump's team find a way to pull China in. In early August, the United States and Russia held a closed-door meeting in Alaska, talked for two days, and agreed to move forward, but the United States insisted on trilateral negotiations. On August 25th, Trump told reporters at the White House that the United States and Russia were discussing reducing their nuclear arsenals and hoped that China would participate. As soon as this came out, the international media reported it, and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs began to evaluate it.
Two days later, on August 27, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun responded at a regular press conference that it was neither reasonable nor realistic to ask China to join the trilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations between the United States, China and Russia. These six words directly failed Trump's expectations. Guo Jiakun explained that the gap in the scale of nuclear forces between China and the United States is too large, and their policies and security environments are also different. The United States and Russia should first drastically reduce them to create conditions for global nuclear disarmament. After this response spread, Trump understood that Beijing's position had not changed.
Why does Trump always want to pull China into nuclear talks? This has to start with the nuclear history of the United States and Russia. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union built nuclear bombs. Now the United States and Russia have more than 8,000 nuclear warheads, which can destroy the earth several times. China has only about 500 nuclear warheads, and it has always insisted on minimum deterrence and does not engage in expansion. Trump believes that China's military development is fast and must be managed. His idea of halving the military expenditure of the three countries in February 2025 is good, but it is difficult to operate in reality. Russia wants to talk one-on-one, afraid of multilateral complexity. At a glance, China feels that something is wrong. Why do those with less nuclear bombs have to be cut together with two big families? This is not fair.
The nuclear gap between China and the United States is obvious, the United States has 3,708 nuclear warheads, Russia has 4,380 and China has 500. The US military spending is $895 billion a year, China's military spending has increased but the base is small, nuclear policy is defense, not first used. The surrounding environment is not stable, India Pakistan has friction, Israel Iran confrontation, Thailand Cambodia border issue. China feels this time to cut off nuclear weapons, and so disarm itself, not relying on spectrum. Trump proposed to appear fair, practical calculation. The United States at the same time shouted disarmament, while updating the missile system,ining the advantage.
The U.S. Department of Defense reported speculation on China's nuclear threat and found reasons for its own expansion. Russia is similar. It has a lot of legacy from the Cold War, and the two countries should solve their own problems first. China's response was straightforward, and these six words point out the essence. The United States and Russia have a special responsibility to cut down first and pave the way for comprehensive nuclear disarmament. In the past few decades, the United States and Russia have signed agreements to cut down some of them, but the amount is still large. The United States has also retreated from the group and disrupted the balance. Pulling China now is like shifting responsibility. China does not buy it.
Nuclear security is not limited to others, but the great powers fulfill their responsibilities. China’s peaceful development,ining world stability on the nuclear level, is not taken away by unreasonable demands. Trump’s proposal may want to show strength and solid position internationally. But China does not give in, let him touch the nail. The global nuclear issue is complex, not three-state talks can be solved, can be pushed forward in the multilateral framework. China has joined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and promoted a nuclear-free zone, but tripartite talks are not suitable.
The Trump team continued to pressure, Japan and Australia agreed at the Asia-Pacific conference. China's security needs around are high, and it will not be easy to compromise. Trump wants to control nuclear savings and limit China. China calculates clearly, not losing. Nuclear weapons are less good, but fair. U.S. Russia first drops to the level of China, and then talks about three sides, it is reasonable. The world's people hope for peace, don't want nuclear threats to hang on. China's position is pragmatic, protects its home security, and also works for the world.
Nuclear disarmament needs confidence, and U.S.-Russia lacks this. China pushes the UN resolution. Trump thinks boldly, but ignores the gap. Future nuclear talks may be involved in a broader framework, China’s conditions mature. Trump’s second rule, diplomatic nuclear weapons are the focus, but this makes him see the reality. The game of big powers, nuclear issues are sensitive, and every step is cautious.
From a historical point of view, Trump spoke similarly in 2020, China rejected. In 2025, the global tension, Middle Eastern Europe, affected the atmosphere. The South China Sea factor, making China's decision-making more stable. Russian media said Putin supported multilateral but prioritized bilateral. After China's assessment, the response was based on facts, not shaking.
The international community's response is divided. Some countries feel that trilateral talks are good, but the recognition gap is large. Data from think tanks such as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute support China's view. The United States and Russia modernize their nuclear weapons, but China is slow to expand. Trump's push, short-term fruitless, but long-term may promote multilateral dialogue.
China's nuclear policy is consistently not used first andins the lowest level. This is not a recession, but a strategic choice. Compared to US-Russia, China is not involved in the arms race and contributes to global stability. Trump warns that China will catch up with the United States within five years, but China does not pursue number lead, only seek self-assurance.
On August 28, the Trump team assessed that Beijing's stance was firm. He didn't mention it again and turned to other agenda. Russia continues to be stuck in bilateral and trilateral frameworks. The U.S. Congress discussed the report and no new progress. China adheres to defense and promotes non-proliferation at the United Nations. Trump's efforts failed, highlighting the nuclear gap and trust gap. In the future, it may be promoted through a wide mechanism.
This incident reminds everyone that nuclear disarmament is not simply talking about, but depends on reality. As the largest holders, the United States and Russia have heavy responsibilities. China responded with six words, concise and powerful, which made him give up. The global nuclear balance requires the efforts of all parties, not the leadership of one party.