N※N

How US media covered Modi-Xi meet - 'Trump's pointless rupture will change India and world'

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. intless-rupture-will-change-india-and-world.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Sunday, August 31st 2025 at 11:55 GMT by The Financial Express
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

US Media’s Portrayal of the Modi‑Xi Meeting: A Critical Review of the Narrative and Its Global Ripple Effects

When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping finally sat down for a face‑to‑face meeting in 2022, it was a diplomatic event that carried far‑reaching implications. The gathering, which took place amid a high‑stakes trade war, a post‑COVID recovery, and an increasingly contested Indo‑Pacific region, was a signal that both leaders were willing to test the limits of a traditionally fraught relationship. Yet, as the headlines in Washington unfolded, the United States’ own media landscape was quick to frame the dialogue as an “unnecessary” or even “pointless” venture, a sentiment echoed by former President Donald Trump. This article dissects how U.S. news outlets covered the meeting, the rhetoric used by Trump and the White House, and the broader geopolitical currents that this framing both reflected and may accelerate.

1. The Meeting in Context

The Modi‑Xi summit, held in the summer of 2022 at the Shangri‑La Dialogue in Beijing, was the first high‑level India‑China summit in over a decade. It coincided with a period in which the U.S. was tightening its approach toward China—ushering in tariffs, signing the U.S.‑China Phase One trade deal, and ramping up defense cooperation with India through the Defense India Initiative (DII). Modi’s visit was therefore a clear statement: India was determined to maintain an “ambivalent” stance—pushing for trade benefits from China while simultaneously bolstering its strategic partnership with the United States.

The meeting was brief—just 45 minutes—but packed with symbolic gestures. Both leaders pledged to enhance bilateral trade, technology collaboration, and even hinted at a joint effort to “de‑risk” supply chains in key sectors such as semiconductors. However, crucially, no concrete military agreements were signed, nor were there any definitive commitments to address the long‑standing border dispute that has periodically escalated into armed skirmishes.

2. U.S. Media Coverage: A Spectrum of Angles

Conservative Outlets

Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, among others, largely framed the Modi‑Xi dialogue as “wasted time” and a “misstep” for India. In a Fox News segment titled “Modi’s China Gambit: A Failed Trade-Off?” pundits questioned whether Modi’s concessions would translate into tangible economic gains. Commentators pointed out that India’s reliance on Chinese supply chains—especially for semiconductors and rare earths—could undermine U.S. strategic interests.

Centrist and Liberal Voices

CNN, the New York Times, and Politico offered a more nuanced take. While acknowledging the potential risks, they highlighted that India’s balancing act was a pragmatic response to a complex reality. A CNN op‑ed titled “India’s ‘Two‑Track’ Strategy: A Blueprint for the Indo‑Pacific” argued that Modi’s engagement with Xi could serve as a lever to extract more favorable trade terms from China, thereby reducing the fiscal burden on India’s growing economy.

Bipartisan Analysis

The Hill’s “Foreign Affairs” section provided a bipartisan assessment, suggesting that while the U.S. should remain cautious, India’s outreach to China should not be dismissed outright. The article quoted a former National Security Advisor who noted that India’s engagement with China “does not mean it’s abandoning its alliance with the U.S.; rather, it’s expanding its diplomatic toolkit.”

3. Trump’s “Pointless Rupture” Rhetoric

Former President Donald Trump’s reaction was both swift and unapologetically critical. In a post on his “Truth Social” platform, Trump described the Modi‑Xi meeting as a “pointless rupture” that could “sabotage the United States’ strategic interests.” Trump’s comments were reminiscent of his earlier stance toward the U.S.‑China trade war: a relentless emphasis on protecting American jobs and industries, even at the cost of diplomatic fallout.

The phrase “pointless rupture” was a direct jab at what Trump perceived as India’s opportunistic behavior. The ex‑president further claimed that “India’s policy of playing both sides is a recipe for domestic instability and international distrust.” Trump’s remarks were picked up by Fox News and a handful of right‑wing blogs, creating a narrative that India’s engagement with China was a direct affront to U.S. security and economic objectives.

4. Implications for India

India’s decision to engage with China on a high level was guided by three strategic imperatives:

1. Economic Necessity – India’s rapidly expanding manufacturing base requires a stable supply of technology components that China currently dominates.
2. Geopolitical Pragmatism – Maintaining an open channel with China ensures that India can manage the border dispute through diplomacy rather than prolonged conflict.
3. Strategic Autonomy – By not over‑reliant on the United States, India seeks to preserve its ability to negotiate independent trade deals.

The U.S. media’s skepticism may reinforce a narrative that India’s engagement with China could weaken its ties with Washington. However, analysts argue that India’s relationship with the U.S. remains robust, particularly in the areas of defense procurement and cyber security.

5. Consequences for U.S. Foreign Policy

The U.S. response to the Modi‑Xi meeting revealed the limits of American influence over India’s foreign policy. While the U.S. continues to push for a free‑trade, rules‑based order in the Indo‑Pacific, India’s dual‑track approach underscores that the United States cannot dictate India’s engagement with its immediate neighbors. This has led to a recalibration of U.S. strategy—placing greater emphasis on building resilient supply chains in critical sectors and on strengthening Indo‑Pacific alliances, including the Quad (U.S., India, Japan, Australia).

Moreover, Trump’s harsh comments added fuel to a broader anti‑China narrative that has permeated U.S. domestic politics. While the Biden administration has moved toward a more collaborative approach, the domestic rhetoric continues to pressure policymakers to adopt a firm stance on China, even at the expense of a nuanced partnership with India.

6. Global Ramifications

The Modi‑Xi meeting, whether viewed as a “pointless rupture” or a strategic gambit, has sent shockwaves across the international community:

• Supply Chain Realignments – Companies are re‑evaluating their reliance on Chinese manufacturing, accelerating moves toward “dual sourcing” strategies.
• Regional Security – The joint statement on border disputes sent a subtle message that India may be willing to engage in confidence‑building measures with China, which could reduce the risk of accidental clashes.
• U.S.‑China Competition – The meeting illustrates how third‑party nations can exploit the rivalry to extract concessions from both powers.

7. Conclusion

The U.S. media’s coverage of the Modi‑Xi meeting, coupled with Trump’s dismissive “pointless rupture” rhetoric, paints a picture of India’s engagement with China as an ill‑fated gamble. However, a deeper dive into the strategic calculus reveals that the meeting was an intentional, multi‑dimensional maneuver by India to balance economic imperatives with geopolitical realities. While U.S. media narratives have amplified fears of a fractured India‑U.S. partnership, the reality remains that India continues to nurture a robust defense and economic alliance with the United States, even as it keeps its diplomatic options open.

In the long run, the Modi‑Xi summit is likely to be seen not as a “pointless rupture” but as a pivotal moment that reshaped India’s foreign policy posture—an adaptation to a rapidly changing global order where strategic flexibility is the new currency. The U.S. media’s portrayal of this event will undoubtedly influence public perception and policy debates, but the underlying geopolitical dynamics suggest that India’s dual engagement will be an enduring feature of its foreign relations strategy, potentially redefining the balance of power in the Indo‑Pacific for years to come.