@Anna Eleonora Haglund Hellstrom Not surprising. The current US administration has antagonized a lot of other countries through its tariff policies, and thinks it can strong-arm its way to its objectives, but it can't. Navarro has no other recourse, it seems, than trying to use public perception, but I don't think it will have much effect.

@Jonathan l Poirier 1) Summits like these are always symbolically important, a lot of politics is projected through photo-ops during those events. Projecting unity, a spirit of collaboration, and so on. What actions might actually come out of them is anyone's guess, particularly with dictators involved, because they are good at keeping secrets, so good old Sovietology comes into play: Who stands close to whom in the pictures, etc. The concerning thing about that summit is that it happened and that dictatorships are now confident enough to gather like democracies do. 2) a) No. I don't see any point of making deals with an administration that forgets about that deal two weeks later. See the cases of Japan, which made a deal and got new tarriffs anyway, or Korea, which committed to invest in the US only to have its nationals arrested by ICE. But I don't know that removing our tarriffs on China is a good idea. This is an increasingly volatile world, and China is one of the bad faith actors...

@Jonathan l Poirier That's actually brilliant! A+ answer! I usually go with power.

@Jonathan l Poirier Glad to hear it! There are too many horror stories about bad instructors in academia!