During the Munich Security Conference in Germany, the US Secretary of State and Chinese Foreign Minister held talks for about an hour, paving the way for President Trump’s possible visit to China in April. Analysis indicates that although the US and China have resumed high-level contacts, unresolved structural contradictions such as tariffs, the Taiwan issue, and supply chain security means they are in more of a “testing and setting the stage” stage, making a breakthrough in the short term difficult.
On February 13, during the 61st Munich Security Conference, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held talks for about an hour. This was the second face-to-face meeting between Rubio and Wang since Rubio took office as Secretary of State.
According to Reuters, the talks took place in a hotel conference room in downtown Munich, with senior aides accompanying both sides for closed-door discussions without making public statements to the media. A senior US official revealed that the talks lasted about an hour.
The meeting comes at a time when preparations are being made for President Trump’s possible visit to China in April. It is widely believed that this meeting is a clear “preparatory phase”. Looking back over the past year, US-China relations have been in a back-and-forth state between high-level interactions and structural gaming. In October 2025, Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping met in South Korea, reaching a partial agreement on some trade issues, including postponing some sanctions and expanding agricultural purchases.
Additionally, the two leaders had another phone call earlier this month. Trump subsequently stated that they discussed expanding agricultural trade, including increasing soybean purchases. Some analysts view this as a goodwill signal released by Beijing ahead of Trump’s visit to China.
However, deep divisions still exist between the two sides on key issues such as tariffs, supply chain security, export controls, and the Taiwan issue. The structural competitive landscape between Washington and Beijing has not undergone substantial changes.
The day after meeting with Wang Yi, Marco Rubio delivered a speech at the conference forum. He emphasized the historical and civilizational bond between the US and Europe, stating that “the US and Europe inherently belong to each other” and called for revitalizing the transatlantic alliance.
Rubio highlighted challenges faced by Western societies, such as supply chain security, critical mineral dependence, large-scale immigration, and geopolitical security challenges. He stressed that the US hopes Europe will strengthen its defense capabilities, stating, “We don’t want our allies to be weak because that would make us more vulnerable.”
He also called for a reform of the international organizational system, noting that the current mechanisms have shown weakness in the Ukraine conflict, Middle East tensions, and the Iran nuclear issue.
In his speech, Rubio reiterated the US’s push to establish a “critical mineral supply chain not subject to coercion by other powers.” A week ago, the US convened a summit of 55 countries on critical minerals and announced the establishment of a “favorable trade group,” directly challenging China’s dominant position in critical resource areas such as rare earths.
Analysts believe that Rubio’s speech at the forum is both a signal of unity to Europe and a groundwork for shaping public opinion for future strategic coordination against China.
Regarding the meeting between Rubio and Wang Yi, Shen Mingshi, a researcher at the Taiwan Institute for National Defense and Security Studies, told Epoch Times that this dialogue is “more of a procedural contact rather than a substantive breakthrough.”
He pointed out that the current core conflicts between the US and China have not eased. On one hand, trade and tariff disputes have not been fully resolved; on the other hand, the US still views China as a “major strategic competitor.” Against this backdrop, this meeting is more about “preliminary issue exchanges” for Trump’s possible visit to China in April.
Shen Mingshi’s analysis suggests that Wang Yi’s public statements in Munich continue the traditional framework of “dialogue is better than confrontation,” but Beijing has not adjusted its core stance at the strategic level. Shen Mingshi stated, “The current stage appears to be more of a testing period rather than a turning point in the relationship.”
Regarding the Taiwan issue, Shen Mingshi believes that the US policy direction on arms sales to Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific layout will not change due to a single meeting. He emphasized that the US’s strategic deployment on the first island chain “has long-term and structural characteristics” and will not loosen in the short term due to diplomatic interactions.
He further pointed out that while there are differences between the US and Europe in economic and defense burden-sharing, the probability of closer coordination between the US and Europe in the face of strategic cooperation between Russia and China is increasing in terms of security issues.
Su Ziyun, Director of the Institute of Strategy and Resources at the Taiwan Institute for National Defense and Security Studies, analyzed for Epoch Times, stating that Wang Yi’s remarks are “basically routine diplomatic language” and do not show any clear new intentions.
He believes that the main function of this meeting is to create a communication atmosphere for Trump’s visit to China. While Beijing may show some flexibility in terms of tactics, its strategic logic remains unchanged.
Su Ziyun pointed out that the core of Washington’s policy towards China is still “containment and encirclement,” supported by strengthening the alliance system. He analyzed that the US is trying to stabilize its direction towards Europe first, pushing for an end to the Russia-Ukraine war in order to focus resources on countering China.
“The US-China relationship is a structural issue, while the US-Europe relationship is more about tactical coordination issues,” he said.
Regarding the situation in the Taiwan Strait, Su Ziyun believes that the US has clearly stated in its strategic documents the goal of “preventing Taiwan from being occupied,” making it difficult for the strategic direction to change, and “adjustments at the tactical level do not imply a strategic shift.”
He also noted that Beijing’s performance in regional affairs exhibits a pattern of “fighting and talking,” meaning seeking partial relaxation while maintaining a confrontational posture to buy time and space.
Taking various information into account, the Munich meeting shows that high-level communication channels between the US and China are still functioning. Maintaining contact between the two sides before Trump’s potential visit to China in April helps reduce the risk of misjudgment.
However, from a structural perspective, trade frictions, technological blockages, supply chain restructuring, the Taiwan issue, and strategic cooperation between China and Russia continue to be long-term sources of tension.
Shen Mingshi pointed out that the future direction of US-China relations “highly depends on internal politics and strategic assessments of both sides.” He said that if there were power changes or policy swings within the Chinese Communist Party, the US might not necessarily compromise on core issues.
Su Ziyun emphasized that the current US strategy is to rearrange the alliance system to “concentrate efforts against China.” Within this framework, even with the resumption of high-level dialogue, competitive momentum will continue to dominate bilateral relations.
During the Munich Security Conference, a traditional arena for security discussions, a mingling of US-China dialogue and signals of US-Europe unity was evident. While the window for US-China dialogue remains open, the reality of structural competition persists. Analysts generally believe that what will ultimately determine the direction of bilateral relations is not diplomatic rhetoric but concrete actions in trade, technology, and regional security in the coming months.