Xi and Putin Unite Against U.S. Missile Defense at Beijing Summit

Why China and Russia Condemned the U.S. “Golden Dome” System

A major focus of the summit was criticism of the U.S. “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative, described as a proposed system of ground‑ and space‑based missile interceptors. In their joint statement, Beijing and Moscow argued the system would undermine global strategic stability.

From their perspective, large‑scale missile defense could weaken the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. If one country could intercept incoming nuclear missiles, it might reduce the credibility of another country's retaliatory capability—potentially encouraging riskier military strategies or prompting rivals to expand their nuclear arsenals. Analysts say such dynamics can accelerate arms‑race pressures as countries develop new weapons designed to evade or overwhelm missile defenses.

China and Russia therefore portrayed the Golden Dome plan as destabilizing and warned that it could provoke countermeasures from other nuclear powers.

The New START Expiration and Nuclear Arms Control Concerns

Another key issue was the expiration of the New START treaty in February 2026, which had been the last remaining agreement limiting the size of the U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals.

Without a successor treaty, the world’s two largest nuclear powers are no longer bound by formal caps on deployed strategic warheads and launchers. Beijing and Moscow used the summit to criticize Washington’s handling of nuclear policy and argue that the absence of a replacement framework increases the risk of strategic instability.

Although China is not a party to New START, it has increasingly positioned itself in debates about global nuclear governance and arms‑control frameworks.

Warnings About Missile Deployments and Preemptive Strike Doctrines

Beyond the missile defense issue, the joint statement also raised broader concerns about military deployments and nuclear strategy.

China and Russia warned that U.S. missile defense projects and related deployments near their regions represent what they described as a “clear threat” to strategic stability.

They also criticized military doctrines that allow for preemptive missile or nuclear strikes, arguing that such concepts increase the danger of miscalculation during crises and make escalation more likely.

These warnings reflect longstanding positions from both governments, which frequently argue that stability depends on preserving credible deterrence and avoiding incentives for a first strike.

A Push for a “Multipolar World”

Beyond security disputes with Washington, the summit emphasized broader geopolitical goals. Xi and Putin signed a declaration supporting the emergence of a multipolar world order and a “new type of international relations.”

The declaration reflects a shared objective: reducing reliance on U.S.-led institutions and strengthening alternative centers of global power. Officials framed the initiative as part of a wider effort to deepen cooperation between the two countries and reshape global governance structures.

What the Summit Signaled

Taken together, the Beijing summit served several purposes:

• It demonstrated the growing strategic alignment between China and Russia.
• It publicly challenged U.S. missile defense and nuclear policies.
• It highlighted concerns about arms control after the end of New START.
• It promoted a geopolitical vision centered on a multipolar global system.

While the meeting did not produce dramatic economic breakthroughs, it reinforced a clear diplomatic message: Beijing and Moscow intend to coordinate closely on security and global governance issues as they push back against U.S. influence.