The saying attributed to Napoleon, "Do not awaken the Chinese dragon, for when it awakens it will shake the world," has for some time been complemented by the question, "How can the dragon be calmed when it awakens?" The Western world is undecided between restraint, taming, coexistence, release, surrender, or conflict. The great geopolitical impasse we are currently experiencing stems from the disruption of the great power hierarchy due to the awakening of the dragon. China has shifted the Atlantic-centric balance of power towards the Pacific and Indian Oceans. There is fierce competition extending from the seas to the land, from the air to space, and from there to cyberspace, and becoming increasingly intense on every front. While the two former dominant actors in the system, Russia and the US, have engaged in destructive wars to maintain their dominant status, China, with its balancing and peaceful approach, is positioning itself as a reliable element of the system in global public opinion. However, when a dragon opens its mouth, it is usually not for laughter; moreover, it can be quite burning and scorching!

While US President Donald Trump's planned visit to Beijing on May 14-15 may initially appear to be a diplomatic exchange between leaders, it is clear that it will be more than just a handshake for global showmanship. The new architecture of the global order is taking shape, and we are in a time when it will be decided whether the great powers of the system will build this new structure through agreement or conflict. China and Russia have been taking a common stance against the US for some time. Although Trump is trying to loosen this alliance with concessions to Putin, there is still no sign of tension between the two Asian giants. The US is increasingly under pressure.

History shows us that great powers collapse not on the battlefield, but because of wrong strategic choices. In his seminal book, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," British historian Paul Kennedy explains that empires often succumb not to external enemies, but to the cost of their own greatness. The concept of "imperial overstretch" describes a situation where economic, military, and political burdens exceed the capacity to bear them. According to Kennedy, great powers go through three stages: economic rise, military expansion, and overstretching. History shows that this last stage is a fatal point. At this point, a "psychological overgrowth" and a sense of complacency will also come into play. The self-confidence and belief in one's omnipotence that power creates is a real poison. Being powerful also brings the obligation to carry that power; believing one is powerful burdens oneself with this weight.

The 'narcissistic' approach of those who define the 20th century as an American age may have placed precisely such a burden on the shoulders of the USA. Indeed, looking at the last quarter century, it is possible to see that Kennedy's overstretching thesis is about to become a reality. The burden of the war with Iran following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, entered in the name of fighting terrorism; the economic cost created by 128 official military bases in more than 50 countries and approximately 800 military facilities in more than 80 countries; increasing domestic and foreign debt; deepening social polarization; unreliable institutions; a political leadership on the verge of crisis; and a unique style of governing the country, etc., are making the US's global leadership mission unsustainable. This is not due to a lack of capacity on the part of the US, but rather to the excessive self-confidence with which it has exceeded its strategic threshold. Of course, there is also the "comings," the new order with China knocking on the door.

In the US, opinions on China have never been unified. Those who believe in integrating, transforming, and taming China into the system, and those who hold the view that "you can't put a dragon in a sack," have always been positioned at opposite ends of the spectrum. The idea of ​​including China in the system provided the initial opening that began in the 1970s during the Nixon-Kissinger era. Following the recognition of the People's Republic of China during the Carter administration, the Clinton administration paved the way for China's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Democrats, eager for the market that China's integration into the global capitalist system would create, believed that China would follow a similar path. However, they were never able to Westernize China; instead, they contented themselves with patiently observing a giant growing on its own unique path.

The realist school of thought, led by the Pentagon, which believed China could be contained and stopped like the USSR during the Cold War, became more prominent in the 2000s. While alliance systems like QUAD and AUKUS were established, the goal was to prevent China's expansion from the south and east. During the Obama administration, the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement was signed with the idea of ​​achieving economic integration of the Asia-Pacific region under US leadership, excluding China. China viewed this as an economic NATO. They didn't need to be too tense, as one of Trump's first actions in 2017 was to withdraw the US from this agreement. His style was more about negotiating with China rather than transforming or forcing it. After all, he was essentially a businessman!

It's clear that Trump's approach doesn't quite fit the classic Republican line. When he looks at China, he sees both a market and a competitor. His approach is based more on a "give-and-take" balance (transactional) than on ideology or politics. Trump has a logic that likes to use force, but only to force things to the negotiating table, so he can quickly adapt. Xi Jinping, on the other hand, is a master of patience. The Belt and Road Initiative, the expansion strategy in Africa, the ideal of technological hegemony, and the tactic of monopolizing rare earth minerals all demonstrate that he has decades-long goals. He sits at the diplomatic table not just as a temporary head of state, but as a representative of the ancient Chinese civilization. Trump wants to win the day; Xi wants to win the century. Let's see how the negotiations will turn out.