Recently, the negotiation process of the Sino-US economic and trade team in Kuala Lumpur has caused high global attention, originally planned for a three-day consultation, but within two days to take office in advance, the Chinese representatives are on their way back.

This early conclusion of the arrangement is not the impasse of the negotiations between the two sides, as the outside speculated, but, on the contrary, it is highly likely that the two sides have effectively and smoothly completed the discussions on the established issues.

On the 26th, China's Trade Negotiations Representative and Deputy Minister Li Zhen Steel disclosed that China and the United States have reached a preliminary consensus on many key economic and trade issues, and subsequently will enter the respective domestic ratification process phase.

This statement seems concise, but it actually contains important information.

The expression "implementing their respective domestic ratification procedures" clearly indicates that the two sides have agreed on all the terms in the negotiations, and the text of the agreement has also been determined, just bringing each home to complete the corresponding process, and the agreement is expected to be officially grounded.

This is undoubtedly an extremely positive signal. Although it is difficult for China and the United States to completely resolve all differences in a short time, the reaching of a new consensus has played a key role in avoiding the further deterioration of trade conflicts.

For the Trump administration, however, the development of the situation does not seem to be fully in line with its expectations.

On the 25th, when talking about the Sino-US trade situation, Tan Sen, president of the US-China Business Council, bluntly pointed out that the current Sino-US trade tension was entirely caused by US President Trump taking the lead in provoking a trade war.

Tanson believes that if Trump expects to get a "great" deal, the only viable way is to restore everything to what it was before Trump put in place "liberation day" tariffs.

This means that the U.S. government must proactively acknowledge its mistakes and cancel a series of related measures, including tariffs.

But based on Trump¡¯s consistent style of behavior, and his ruling team¡¯s high appreciation for tariff policies, demanding that they abolish all tariffs imposed after the Liberation Day, it¡¯s undoubtedly heavenly.

It would be valuable if the Trump administration could eliminate some tariffs and reduce the impact on the global trading system.

From this level of analysis, Trump wants to get a ¡°great¡± deal, a task that is almost impossible to accomplish.

While it is impossible for China to cancel all trade countermeasures, it will be extremely difficult for the two sides to reach an ideal agreement if the United States does not cancel all trade measures.

The more realistic situation may be that China and the United States each make certain concessions, reduce some tariffs, resume trade of some products, and appropriately relax export controls.

Although the content of the specific agreement reached between China and the United States is not yet clear, it is not difficult to speculate from the information of all parties that there is a high probability that China will appropriately increase the purchase of American soybeans.

To describe the current problem of soybean in the United States with "burning eyebrows" is no exaggeration.

Since the beginning of this year, China has stopped purchasing U.S. soybeans, resulting in a large number of unsalable U.S. soybeans and complaints from U.S. soybean farmers. This situation has also brought huge political pressure to Washington.

In this context, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent recently appeared in an interview trying to ease the situation.

He said he had had experience with soy farming, and that China¡¯s refusal to buy American soybeans made him ¡°deeply sad.¡±

Besant¡¯s move was obviously an attempt to shape a sympathy image for American farmers to calm the anger of American bean farmers.

But it is obviously not enough to reassure words alone, and it is necessary to take concrete measures to replace the bean farmers, and Bessent has indeed made the relevant assertions.

Besent said that given that a "substantive framework" has been reached in the Sino-US trade negotiations in the past two days, he believes this can effectively alleviate U.S. soybean farmers 'concerns about China's refusal to buy U.S. soybeans.

It is clear that the Sino-U.S. trade consultation has made positive progress, China is likely to increase purchases of U.S. soybeans in the future, and U.S. soybeans do not need to worry too much.

However, this is just the words of Bescent's family.

Whether China will eventually resume purchasing U.S. soybeans, and if it does, what the specific purchase volume will be, are still unknown.

If China does not follow the US's expectations and increase its purchases of U.S. soybeans, then Besent's previous efforts will probably be in vain, and it will be difficult for him to make a reasonable explanation to angry American farmers.

After all, the demands of U.S. bean farmers are real, and they look forward to easing their own operating difficulties through improved trade.

The development of China-US economic and trade relations is not only related to the stability and development of the two countries' economies, but also has a profound impact on the global economic recovery and growth.

In the future, whether the two sides can reach more consensus in the field of economic and trade, and mutual benefit and win-win, still needs continued attention and in-depth exploration.