Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev met with American officials in Washington on Monday, with the aim of “continuing constructive talks to reach a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine,” according to what a White House source told Agence France-Presse on Tuesday.
The talks also touched on “possible American-Russian initiatives in the energy sector after the end of the war,” according to the same source.
The source, who requested anonymity, added, “This visit comes as a continuation of the recent meeting between envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner with President (Russian Vladimir) Putin in Moscow, and the talks they held last week with Ukrainian officials in New York.”
Russia has recently intensified its strikes on Ukrainian territory in broad daylight, using drones, which Ukraine finds difficult to confront.
More than four and a half years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Washington-led diplomatic efforts have so far failed to reach a diplomatic settlement to the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warned on Tuesday that about 8.3 million refugees and forcibly displaced persons may lose vital aid, in light of the decline in protection services due to “severe cuts” in funding.
The UNHCR said in a report on the repercussions of the financial cuts, that “its ability to protect and assist refugees, internally displaced people, and stateless people is being eroded due to a continuing and worsening funding gap.”
It revealed that its funding declined from $5.2 billion in 2024 to $3.9 billion in 2025, while the number of people in need of its assistance is rising to unprecedented levels around the world, according to what Agence France-Presse reported.
She indicated that, as of the end of July, she had only obtained 32 percent of the $8.5 billion she needed this year to protect refugees, which is equivalent to $2.7 billion.
This decline in financial support poses a risk to about 8.3 million forcibly displaced people who “may lose UNHCR assistance,” the UN agency said. She stressed that “the continuing sharp cuts in funding are pushing support for refugees and protection structures to a breaking point, in the most difficult conditions of displacement in the world.”
The Commission indicated that it had adopted reforms and arranged priorities to protect its most prominent activities, but the reductions in their scope and continuing pace even affected the priorities of its work.
Dominique Hyde, who is responsible for external relations at the Commission, stated that “protection cannot be reduced indefinitely, without systems collapsing.”
She explained: “Below a specific threshold, services not only reach fewer people; "In fact, they stop working entirely, leaving those most at risk without the protection they need."
The Commission gave the example of Chad; 319,000 refugees faced delays in registration, which prevented them from obtaining the necessary documents to benefit from services, while about 233,000 children may lose the protection services assigned to them.
In Ethiopia, child protection coverage in some areas declined to about 85 percent.
In Sudan, tens of thousands of survivors of sexual violence and children at risk may lose access to basic protection services, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Hyde warned that when registration and child protection services stop, “the same risks that displaced people fled from will resurface: violence, exploitation and abuse.”
Canceling 5 thousand jobs
By the end of 2025, about 117.8 million people had been forcibly displaced from their homes around the world, a decrease from the record total recorded in 2024 by 123.2 million, according to UNHCR figures.
35.6 million of these displaced people were protected by UNHCR, two-thirds of whom were from Venezuela, Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan.
In 2025, the agency was forced to eliminate 5,000 jobs, or more than a quarter of its workforce, while the United States, which was one of the largest donors to the agency, radically reduced its foreign aid, and other donors also reduced their aid.
The Geneva-based agency noted that funding cuts undermine its ability to help people stop relying on aid.
In Iraq, for example, 350,000 displaced people and asylum seekers may lose access to economic integration opportunities, according to the Commission.
When displaced people return to their homes, voluntarily or involuntarily, aid also decreases, according to UNHCR.
In Syria, 162,500 internally displaced persons and displaced returns in fragile situations will not receive initial financial assistance if the agency does not obtain funding quickly, which may limit their ability to rebuild their lives.
After years of mounting trade and technology pressures, the United States and China are no closer to ending their rivalry, but they appear keen to prevent it from spiraling out of control.
Chinese President Xi Jinping left Washington, Friday, September 25, after a three-day state visit and a summit with US President Donald Trump, which kept the trade calm in place and opened additional channels for dialogue, while the issues of “trade,” “technology,” “rare metals,” and “Taiwan” remained at the heart of the competition between them.
Washington and Beijing extended the trade truce between them for two months, with a limited result compared to the size of the outstanding issues. But the importance of the summit may lie in what also did not happen: no settlement of major differences, and no return to open escalation.
Have the United States and China begun to move from escalating mutual pressures to managing a long-term rivalry and preventing it from turning into a confrontation that is difficult to contain?
From the tariff war to the truce
Over the past years, the economic confrontation between Washington and Beijing has gone through successive stages of escalation and calm, during which both countries used tariffs, technological restrictions, and export measures as tools for pressure.
Ryan Haass, director of the John L. Thornton China Center at the American Brookings Institution, believes that the relationship is experiencing an “uncomfortable calm.” The two countries continue their competitive steps, but neither of them has the superiority that allows it to escalate economically without the other being able to respond.
This equation helps explain the path of the summit. The United States maintains important leverage in advanced technology and semiconductors, while China can respond through American weaknesses, most notably rare metals and supply chains.
Rare metals...Beijing paper
The two sides' possession of mutual pressure cards was clearly demonstrated during the trade confrontation. Chinese restrictions on exports of some rare earths and the permanent magnets made from them revealed the extent of American companies' dependence on supplies that are difficult to replace quickly.
That is why the issue was not marginal at the summit. The White House said the two countries will continue to address shortages in their supply chains for rare earths and other critical minerals with the goal of returning shipments to appropriate levels.
The issue reveals the limits of each party's ability to exert pressure. American tariffs and restrictions can harm China, but Beijing, in turn, possesses tools that can affect American industrial sectors.
Artificial intelligence enters the competition
Artificial intelligence represents another field that combines competition with attempts to reduce its risks. The United States and China are racing to develop the most advanced systems, chips, and infrastructure necessary for them, but at the same time they are beginning to open channels to deal with the risks that may accompany this race.
During the summit, Washington and Beijing agreed to start an ongoing bilateral dialogue on artificial intelligence to discuss its risks and benefits, as well as a communication channel to deal with incidents related to this technology. Before the summit, officials from the two countries had begun discussing this mechanism, an indication of a parallel attempt to reduce some of the risks of the technological race between them.
This dialogue does not mean a decline in the technological race between the two countries, but it reflects an attempt to find channels to deal with some of its risks, in parallel with the continued race for artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and advanced technologies.
The Iran war tests the management of rivalry
The Iran war imposed itself on the Trump-Xi talks, and the two presidents agreed, according to the official White House website, that Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon, and to refuse to impose fees on international waterways. This comes in light of Beijing's close relations with Tehran and its continued purchases of Iranian oil, while Washington seeks to push China to exert more pressure on Iran.
Grant Rumley and Elizabeth Dent, researchers at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy based in Washington, saw before the summit that the war gave Trump an opportunity to put pressure on Xi regarding China’s relations with Iran, especially its oil purchases, while Beijing, in turn, has an interest in stabilizing energy flows from the region.
The war reveals another aspect of the complexity of the relationship between the two countries: their positions on Iran are different, but the continued unrest in the Middle East and the threat to energy supplies does not serve Chinese economic interests. Therefore; This file becomes an additional example of a competition that does not disappear, but both parties are trying to prevent its repercussions from harming their broader interests.
Taiwan... the limits of appeasement
Taiwan remains one of the most prominent files that reveal the limits of any rapprochement between Washington and Beijing. China considers the island part of its territory, while the United States maintains informal relations with Taipei and continues to support its defense capabilities.
The results of the summit did not show a settlement of this dispute. This is why “Taiwan” differs from files such as “fees” or “commercial purchases,” where specific concessions can be reached or a truce can be extended.
Buy time
Edgard Kagan, a researcher at the American Center for Strategic and International Studies based in Washington, said before the summit that Trump and Xi want to reduce tension and achieve more stability in the relationship, despite the lack of trust between officials of the two countries. He pointed out that both presidents believe that time is working in their country's interest. Trump is betting on American progress in artificial intelligence and reducing dependence on Chinese metals, while Xi believes that the United States is going through a period of decline.
From the Chinese side, Wu Xinbo, Dean of the Institute of International Studies and Director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, believes that relations between the two countries are heading towards a new, more stable phase. He says that achieving “strategic stability” requires managing competition and differences effectively, in parallel with enhancing cooperation in areas where the interests of both parties intersect.
From this perspective, the continuation of the calm gives the two sides time to strengthen their positions in the competition instead of entering into a new round of escalation. The United States continues its attempts to reduce its dependence on China in sensitive sectors, while Beijing works to enhance its technological and industrial capabilities.
At the same time, the two countries are trying to keep the channels of dialogue open on trade, investment, and artificial intelligence issues, allowing competition to continue without every point of disagreement turning into a new round of escalation.
Truce or new rules?
One summit is not enough to say that Washington and Beijing have established new rules for their competition. Disagreements over the “trade,” “technology,” “minerals,” and “Taiwan” files still exist, and the trade truce itself is temporary.
But the summit showed that competition no longer necessarily means continuous escalation. In addition to pressure tools, the two parties are working to build channels that allow managing some disputes and preventing their expansion.
This may be the most important significance of the summit: the United States and China are not moving towards ending their rivalry, but rather may be coexisting with it for a long time, while each of them is trying to strengthen its strengths and reduce its weaknesses without pushing the relationship into a confrontation that neither of them wants.
