The Peking order - Xi meets Putin after Trump 2
29 claims analyzed
Transcript(29 claims)
The Economist.
Hello, and welcome to the intelligence from The Economist. I'm Rosie Bloor.
And I'm Jason Palmer.
Today on the show, how did the Premier League become so successful, and why people choose holidays that are terrifying? First up, though. It's definitely summit season. Last week, fanfare for Donald Trump's visit to China. Only days later, Vladimir Putin got in there too.
And once again, the red carpet was rolled out in Beijing. It's good business for the Chinese marching bands, all those singing children, and, of course, the sumptuous banquets. Putin was waved off yesterday with smiles, handshakes, and waving flags. But this isn't just about pomp for China. There's politics too.
The timing of Putin's visit to Beijing really sends an unmistakable signal that China is not gonna sacrifice its close relationship with Russia just for the sake of better ties with The US.
Jeremy Page is a host of Drum Tower, our China podcast, and our chief China correspondent.
But it also shows how China is now moving much closer to the role Xi Jinping has always craved as the fulcrum of global geopolitics.
Let's fill in some context, Jeremy. Tell me about the relationship between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.
Yeah. It's a remarkably close relationship. They've known each other for more than thirteen years now. They've met something like 40 times. And in the past, we've seen some unusual displays of camaraderie.
They've swigged vodka together. They've made pancakes. They watched a hockey game. And I think there's a genuine personal connection. They have similar views on a lot of things.
I think similar views on history, the collapse of the Soviet Union. They've definitely got a similar leadership style. They're both very strong nationalist leaders, But they also have this deep hostility towards Western liberal democracy and a determination to challenge The US led global order that was established after the end of World War two to basically give their countries greater say in world affairs, but also to allow them to survive as autocratic regimes. That said, I think the balance of power and the relationship has really shifted dramatically since Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 because Russia is now increasingly reliant on Chinese economic support as well as dual use materials that are needed for that war in Ukraine.
So it's still something of a bromance. What do you think Putin specifically wanted from this visit?
I think one of his main goals was probably to get a readout on the Trump visit to make sure that China and America aren't planning anything that might jeopardize Russian interests, especially in Ukraine. He definitely wanted to ensure that China would continue to provide that economic support and its dual use items like drones, electronics, engine parts that are needed for the war in Ukraine. He probably wanted to coordinate positions on the war in Middle East and American policy in Latin America and Asia, and he got most of that. But the other big priority for Putin, he doesn't seem to have made progress on, was trying to get a deal to launch this long delayed project to build a new gas pipeline between Russia and China. They've been wrangling over that for years.
Basically, China's been driving a hard bargain over price and volume and other terms. And the Russians were hoping that China might show a bit more flexibility since the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz showed the vulnerability of China's seaborne energy imports. But it looks like Xi Jinping stood firm on that issue and his demands for better terms, and that's a real demonstration of the power dynamics and the relationship. Basically, Russia needs China far more than China needs Russia.
So if China very much has the upper hand then, what did Xi Jinping want out of Putin's visit?
So Xi Jinping, I think, wanted to demonstrate that he still has a powerful partner in opposing American leadership in the world. China's often tried to hide behind Russia in international affairs. So it's useful for him not to be on his own in criticizing American policy in other parts of the world. I think he also wanted to coordinate positions on Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and other issues. These are countries that China and Russia both have very close ties to.
And they've both been unnerved by America's military action against both Venezuela and Iran. Xi Jinping definitely would have wanted Russia to reiterate its support over Taiwan and to join China in criticizing Japan over its rearmament. But China was also almost certainly seeking more high end military assistance in areas like nuclear submarine propulsion, ballistic missile defense. China's also very keen to get access to drone data and tactical lessons from the frontline in Ukraine because it doesn't have any combat experience of its own having not actually fought a war since 1979.
Now, Jeremy, you're an expert in the semiotics of the Chinese Communist Party and indeed of Russia. I'm interested in your thoughts on how China's treatment of Trump and Putin differed.
It was very interesting to watch the choreography of the two summits. On the surface, the treatment was quite similar. They had very similar welcomes. They were both met by senior officials at the airport. They had welcoming ceremonies on Tiananmen Square with military honor guards, small military parade, waving children, a 21 gun salute.
And then they both had formal talks in the Great Hall Of The People next to Tiananmen Square. But for Putin, there was no equivalent of the private tours that Trump got of the Temple Of Heaven and the Chinese leadership compound, Zhongnanhai, where Trump was shown one of the gardens there, which is considered a rare privilege. And there were none of the personal touches between Xi Jinping and Putin that we've seen in their previous meetings. I think that's partly because China wanted to avoid upsetting Trump who puts a lot of emphasis on the pageantry of these meetings and probably would have been disappointed if it seen Putin getting exactly the same thing a few days later. And China and Russia were probably also trying to show that their relationship is a bit more mature and less superficial, more based on substance.
So there wasn't a joint statement from the Trump visit, but there was an extremely lengthy one that came out of the Putin visit, which detailed cooperation in extraordinary range of areas. Everything from artificial intelligence and space to border infrastructure and even the protection of tigers and leopards.
So a joint statement, but no vodka swigging then?
Exactly.
What do you think then that these consecutive visits say about how China is positioning itself geopolitically?
Xi Jinping, I think, is trying to show that he can improve relations with America without sacrificing his so called no limits partnership with Russia. And that's important to him partly because he's aware that some Trump advisers advocate rebuilding ties with the Kremlin to try to isolate and weaken China in what they call a reverse Nixon strategy, you know, the reverse of what The US did in isolating the Soviet Union by building closer ties with China from the early nineteen seventies onwards. At the same time, he wants to demonstrate that China is now the central power, the pivotal power, the strategic triangle of relations between Beijing, Moscow, and Washington, which really shaped those geopolitics in the Cold War. He demonstrated in these two summits that he now has better relations with Putin and with Trump than they have with each other, so that puts him in a very strong position. And more broadly, Xi Jinping has always aspired to put China at the center of global affairs.
So having the American and Russian leaders coming to Beijing in quick succession, both seeking business deals and help with their foreign wars, I think that would have really boosted Xi Jinping's standing at home and abroad and essentially moved him closer to his dream of a more sinocentric global order.
Jeremy, thank you very much for talking to me.
Thank you, Rosie.
And you can hear more about Trump's visit to China on this week's episode of Drum Tower, our China podcast, in which Jeremy goes deep into the significance of that summit and what it achieved. You'll need to be a subscriber.
There aren't many things that work in Britain. One thing that does is football.
Sonny Loughran writes about Britain.
The Premier League is broadcast to all but two of the UN's a 193 member states. North Koreans might not get to tune in, but a big game can reach more than 700,000,000 people. That's about three times the Super Bowl's viewership. Champions of England for the first time in '22. And if you look at Google's worldwide trends data, you can really see how much of a cultural superpower the Premier League is.
Last year, more people searched for Manchester United, one of the Premier League's most famous teams, than for Taylor Swift and the Harry Potter book series combined. And if you want a more recent indicator, the government of Botswana has issued a statement debunking a fake government press release granting all Arsenal supporters a day off work to celebrate them winning the Premier League.
Sunny, very few people are talking about anything other than football right now. Take us back a bit. Remind us how the Premier League changed football in Britain.
So English football wasn't always the powerhouse that it is today. In the nineteen eighties, it was known for all of the wrong things, hooliganism, dangerously rundown stadiums, and racism. Around the nineteen nineties, English football started to clean up its act. They clamped down on racism in the stands. They banned drinking in the stands.
And the Premier League was created in 1992, and it's just been on the up ever since then.
And why is it so much more successful or so much more popular than other international leagues?
So it really comes down to three things, imports, exports, and competition. On the exports front, for the first eight years of the league's existence, it made basically no profit on international broadcast rights. The Premier League's quite unique in that about half of its broadcast revenue comes from overseas. You look at the NFL, for example, about 98% is domestic. And the Premier League was really a first mover on that.
By the time that a lot of other European leagues realized that there was a buoyant overseas market for live football, the Premier League had already established itself as the dominant football league in the world. So the Premier League is quite unique in that about half of its revenue comes from TV rights, and about half of that comes from overseas. So a lot of it comes down to first mover advantage.
And you mentioned also imports and competition.
Yes. So the Premier League is unusually open to foreign capital coaches and players. 14 of the league's 20 managers are are foreign born, and Englishman has never won the Premier League. And 75% of the league's minutes this season were racked up by foreign born players compared to 62 in Germany and 44% in Spain. In total, a 128 countries have been represented in the Premier League, from Iceland to Togo and Suriname to Venezuela.
And when you have big name foreign players who might be the star of their national team, they bring with them fans from those countries. Mo Salah, who's been one of Liverpool's most successful players over the last few years, is called the Egyptian king, and he's a superstar in that part of the world.
And you mentioned competition, which I would think is the very point of the Premier League.
Yes. The Premier League is especially competitive. It's a bit of a cliche that it's anyone can be anyone in the Premier League. And the reason for that is that the Premier League distributes its TV money more equitably than a lot of foreign leagues. In a lot of European leagues, the money tends to get funneled to just a few top clubs.
But in England, it's spread out much more evenly. I think the least broadcast revenue that any team got last season was a £100,000,000. And what that means is that even mid tier teams in England can spend a lot more money than they can in Spain, for example. If you look at Sunderland, they were promoted from the championship last season. They spent more than £200,000,000 in the summer, whereas Spain's three promoted teams spent just €15,000,000 between them.
So you said that the Premier League makes about half of its money from TV rights. Where does the other half come from?
Partly, it's tickets. The Premier League is the most well attended league in Europe, and tickets are notoriously expensive. And it's merchandising and sponsorships. They're global businesses with global audiences.
So are all clubs making just as much money as each other?
Definitely not. No. There there is a big range. Liverpool, I think, became the first Premier League team to make £700,000,000 worth of revenue last year. Not all clubs are making that.
And to be honest, most clubs bring in a lot of revenue, but they don't make much profit. Last year, only four of the league's 20 teams made a pretax profit. The reason for that is that they spend a lot of money on player wages. Last season, clubs spent an average of 65% of their revenue on wages. And if you look outside of the big six, which is sort of the elite clubs, that rises 76%.
So a lot of that money is coming in and going straight back on players.
But we've heard about clubs going into the red as well. So what is it that makes the difference?
One of the biggest ways to make money in the Premier League is to get into the European places. The Champions League, for example, European football massively increases your prize money and your TV broadcast revenue. So clubs are spending so much money on players because it's pedal to the metal to try and get into those top places. But because everyone's doing competitive league. If you have one bad season, you fall out.
It's it can be a real spiral for teams that then don't have the money to reinvest to catch up with the rest of the league.
So as they say, it's a a game of two halves. But, Sonny, there's change on the way, isn't there? The government might move the goalposts.
Yes. The government has established an independent football regulator, which is setting up a licensing regime for clubs that's due to come in around the twenty twenty seven, twenty twenty eight season. We're not exactly sure what that's gonna mean, but people are expecting stricter financial regulations, checks around owners, and things like that. And some fear that strict regulation will make the league less vibrant. The regulator says it's trying to ensure the long term sustainability of English football.
And people worry about dodgy owners coming in, people worry about clubs being laden with unsustainable levels of debt, and those are the problems that it's trying to solve. Whether it will remains to be seen. Like anything in football, it's a bit of a gamble.
Sunny, thank you very much.
Thank you, Rosie. Alright. So arms out to the side. Bend your knees in so your feet don't don't hit the deck. And you just wanna go rag.
A few years ago, I went to Queenstown in New Zealand, which is sometimes called the adventure capital of the world.
What
you can hear is the sound of me falling around 70 meters and then swinging over a vast canyon. Obviously, I sound quite frightened.
Caitlin Talbot is a digital culture correspondent for The Economist.
But I'm not the only person who wants adrenaline and adventure filled holidays. Darecations are becoming more of a trend.
It sounds like you were ahead of the trend then. Tell tell me what the trend is like now.
So Pinterest says that these adrenaline inducing holidays are a top tourism trend for 2026. And according to the Adventure Travel Trade Association, around 14% of international travelers are keen to do such pursuits as bungee jumping, canyoning, mountaineering. And on Airbnb, bookings for nature and outdoor experiences are outpacing all other categories.
So what do you think is going on there? Why do people want to, I don't know, terrorize themselves?
So I think for me, I've always been a bit of a adrenaline junkie. I've always liked roller coasters, and this is what industry experts told me as well. People want to get out of their comfort zone. People are trying more physical activities, hiking, ab sailing, mountaineering that requires a lot of kit. And at the more extreme end, people are being extra careful taking out more sports travel insurance.
One insurance provider called Sports Cover Direct claims that the number of people buying sports travel insurance has nearly tripled from twenty twenty three to twenty twenty five. So a big leap in people doing those more strenuous activities where something could go wrong and they feel they need to be covered for that.
But what do you suppose is going on psychologically that a a much higher fraction of people want to, I don't know, put themselves at risk and and be insured?
So I think that there's a kind of move away from these holidays where you just get by a pool. People want to challenge themselves. People want to do something they can show off to their friends. They want to do something that they can post on social media. They want new experiences, and this is something we're seeing across the entire experience economy.
Know, everybody wants to do something their friends haven't done, something new. And I think the adrenaline side comes into this. These are often experiences that you can capture and post on social media. I can't say a person needed that because, the screen was too embarrassing. But they're often something very different and, yeah, you're getting an experience you couldn't maybe get at home.
And for those who don't like to be terrified though, there's still plenty of market for them.
Yes. So if you're not quite up to the swing or something like that, then there are these kind of soft adventures coming around. That's what industry people are calling them. And that might be where there are added luxuries or as one person put it to me, you're kayaking down a calm estuary rather than white water rafting or something like that. So you're still outside, and you're still getting that rarer or more exclusive experience than you might get on your traditional poolside holiday.
And as for you, what's your next element of terror you're seeking out?
So I'm actually going on a safari, which I guess would count as a soft adventure, but I am also doing hot air balloon as part of the safari. I have seen pitched on social media of people hanging off the side of hot air balloons. I don't plan to do that. Would you be tempted by a swing, Jason?
Oh, yeah. Totally. I have a little bit of adrenaline junkie still left in me to be satisfied, so I'm on board with this trend. Thanks very much for joining us, Caitlin.
Thank you, Jason.
That's all for this episode of The Intelligence. See you back here tomorrow.
No claim selected
Click an underlined phrase in the transcript to see the fact-check here.