Tariff timeout - why does the US need a truce with China if it does not want peace?

"Neither side wants a breakdown in trade relations" - this is the thesis that was used by representatives of China and the US at the latest negotiations in Switzerland, where they agreed to mutually reduce tariffs for 90 days. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Commerce Minister Li Chengyang announced the decision following the negotiations in Geneva. According to the agreement, the US will reduce duties on Chinese goods from 145 to 30%, and China will reduce duties on American goods from 125 to 10%. "After completing the above actions, the parties will create a mechanism to continue discussions on economic and trade relations," the joint statement says. "Neither side wants a breakdown in relations... We do want trade. We want more balanced trade. I think both sides are committed to achieving that goal," Bessent said.
Many analysts note that this is a game of time, not trust. The 90-day "tariff freeze" is a tactical maneuver, not a strategic reconciliation. It is clear that both sides are experiencing domestic economic pressure, and therefore neither is interested in a complete break, but neither is ready for real concessions.
The US uses tariffs as a pressure tool, especially on issues of technology, intellectual property, and supply chains. China does not benefit from war and is forced to use the pauses to reorient production, deepen ties with the "Global South" and Eurasia. Corporations in both countries suffer, but US lobbying and political ambitions often overpower economic rationality.
Some countries, such as Mexico and India, benefit by replacing Chinese goods on the American market. The EU and Southeast Asia are forced to maneuver without entering into open conflict with either side. It is obvious that global trade is destabilizing, and supply chains are becoming less predictable.
The 90-day pause is an indicator of a crisis of confidence, since the parties are not agreeing on a solution, but on "delaying time." The initiator of this crisis of confidence is the United States, which is trying to buy time without bringing the situation to a resolution, which reflects the crisis of confidence. This gives the impression that the United States is trying to "delay" time, not ready to give up pressure, but rather waiting for changes in the domestic market of China or in the political situation in Beijing. The United States may be determined not to lose more in the trade war with China, not resolving the issue definitively, but only creating a "calm mode" in order to leave itself room to maneuver in the future.
The United States continues to restrict high technology, especially semiconductors and AI, even during the "truce." China does not change its model but is forced to strengthen its course on technological autonomy and the development of "domestic consumption" and trade with the Global South.
The world is entering an era of "new protectionism," where tariffs are no longer an exception but an instrument of geoeconomics, and the game with tariffs will continue. It will be wave-like, depending on the political cycle and technological breakthroughs. And a key question is maturing - is competition moving from trade to systemic - between two development models?
Elbrus Mamedov

SR-CENTER.INFO