But Edgard, can I start with you? How do you see the broad trajectory of US-China relations coming into this summit?

I think what we saw in May built on the meeting that the two leaders had in Busan almost a year ago, which was a significant shift from a period of confrontation, of increasing economic pressure, growing tariffs by the U.S., and then China finally unveiling and really fully using its rare earths and putting an embargo essentially on exports of rare earths in ways that were profoundly unsettling for the global economy.

The two leaders in Busan agreed to a truce that was reinforced by what we saw in Beijing.

And my view is the expectations coming into this were that there's been a real sea change in the relationship from a period of confrontation, certainly competition, to one where the two leaders are trying to push for some level of coexistence or detente in the form not just of a truce, but the idea of pushing for stability in the relationship.

I think what's striking about this is the degree of warmth that the president has shown for Xi Jinping.

I have never seen, and I don't think any of us have seen, an American president go to the White House or go to Andrews Air Force Base for anyone other than the pope.

The level of ceremonial at the White House itself was tremendous.

And I'm sure in the next day or two, we'll probably see both sides making it more clear what is a list of concrete outcomes to support this overall framework.

What's your take, Edgar?

I think first of all, it's really important to recognize that we've had summits going back a long time where there seem to be agreements, there seem to be positive relationship, there seem to be understandings.

And what has tended to happen is that elements of both governments have taken steps which the other side has seen as sort of either undermining the consensus or being in direct opposition to the consensus.

So I think it's premature to start to worry that, you know, hey, the US and China are gonna suddenly fundamentally change the nature of the relationship.

I think the significance of what we've seen is the fact that President Trump is open to that possibility.

So I think what's gonna matter is, are both leaders able to crack the whip on their systems? And we know on both sides, it's hard, even when, you know, the White House or Zhongnanhai is sending a clear message, to get everyone to actually repeat that message.

So I think that's one thing to watch.

Does this give us enough time for all the preparation to take place, uh, that's been missing and that you've been talking about, Elbridge? And if so, what's your reading of the tea leaves for the September meeting?

Maybe it may actually motivate China to do something on North Korea.

So look, let me just jump in, um, and just say two things.

I, I think I agree with you, Victor.

I would just note, though, that the Chinese actually put something out in their initial readout after the first day of the talks saying the Korean Peninsula had been discussed.

And so I say this because it's not just the US putting out that, that the Korean Peninsula was discussed, though the US obviously said that, that China-- that they agreed on denuclearization of North Korea, which I'm very confident there's no way the Chinese said North Korea.

Um, they said Korean Peninsula.

Uh, but I think that it does track, and the Chinese clearly signaled before we did, in fact, that, um, the Korean Peninsula was discussed.

Right.

What, what is your ben se- best sense of what both sides agreed to actually do?

So look, it's a very good question, and one of the things that's been a hallmark of recent exchanges with the Chinese is it's extremely hard to do a joint statement.

And, you know, for those of us who've had to negotiate joint statements at the leader level, even when you're doing it with very close allies or partners, it can be quite hard.

Um, and you know, I think the White House and, uh, the Chinese made a decision it wasn't worth it.

Uh, that always causes some complications because then you're left with each side putting out its own statement and its own version of what happened.

Ideally, there's some coordination, and my view is that the delay in putting the White House one out actually is a reflection of that.

Um, part of it is there, and my understanding is there were some comms issues with the plane as they were taking off, but I think part of it was they wanted to not be in a situation where they put something out and immediately had the Chinese say, "No, that's not true." So-We're left trying to look at a number of different documents.

How was it discussed, and what, if anything, changed?

Okay.

So I, I, I think that, you know, these are very well, uh, points that are, uh, very well taken.

I'm not completely surprised that we haven't seen the, um, details come out because usually, and this has been true in a number of the recent engagements, it takes a little while to, uh, for each side to feel comfortable.

And we're not seeing a, uh, joint, uh, statement or joint, um, a readout, but, uh, typically what happens is each side shares with the other, in part because they know it's damaging if it looks like they're contradicting each other.

My expectation is we will get that.

I think Scott's largely correct, um, in terms of the fact that the Chinese aren't putting much that's really new on the table.

I think that the tone matters, though.

And, and so, um, that's, that's just the only thing I wanted to point out.