Single combat, the practice of ritualized one-on-one fighting for enormous stakes, dates back to antiquity. In The Iliad, Achilles and Hector engage in a duel that stands in for a larger conflict between vast armies. The Hebrew Bible includes the account of David and Goliath, whose single combat determines the victor of a growing conflict between opposing forces, the Israelites and the Philistines, that are otherwise prepared to do battle. In Medieval Europe, single combat evolved into a legal practice grounded in the belief that divine intervention would reveal the rightful party, while in Japan, the legendary Samurai duel between Musashi and Kojiro in 1612 became a cultural touchstone shaping Japanese thinking in business and strategy for centuries.

The allure of single combat is the belief that larger and more complex military or political struggles between civilizations or clans can be settled through individual tests of courage, acumen, and legitimacy. When U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping meet in Beijing this week, it will be a modern standoff with the unmistakable overtones of single combat. Summits are often less historically significant than advertised, but this one has the feel of a geopolitical heavyweight matchup. With the broader relationship at a crossroads, each man comes to the table with remarkably few institutional constraints, substantial personal latitude, and manifest ambition to shape the next phase of the U.S.-Chinese relationship. Trump has largely silenced, sidelined, or ignored the China experts in his midst, and Xi is the absolute first among equals on the ruling standing committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Not since Richard Nixon’s historic meeting with Mao Zedong in 1972 has each country’s leader had so much personal authority in deciding the future of the relationship.

Adding to the suspense is the fact that both men have insisted on this meeting even though the conflict still smoldering in Iran is politically awkward for each of them. For Trump, Iran increasingly looks like the kind of Middle East quicksand that he promised to avoid, while Xi is warmly welcoming a leader who has just laid siege to one of China’s closest partners. Despite this, both leaders are determined to test their proverbial mettle on a field of battle, where the stakes include global primacy in technology, the potential trajectories of the U.S. war against Iran, the balance of regional power in Asia, and the status of Taiwan.

There is still considerable uncertainty, however, about whether this meeting will be pro forma or transformative. Unlike previous U.S.-Chinese summits, which have perhaps suffered from too much advance planning and staff choreography, this meeting veers sharply in the other direction, at least on the U.S. side. Much will be decided by the leaders themselves, and the key factors in play are less the merits or technical criteria associated with each bilateral agenda item and more the characteristics and experience of the two men. Trump, especially, is a wildcard, and some worry that his unpredictable China policy may inadvertently lead the United States into unilateral concessions and unintentional appeasement. Onlookers, as they have done throughout moments of single combat in history, will be gauging each combatant’s stance and utterances for clues as to wounds inflicted and thrusts parried behind closed doors.

A quick comparison of Trump and Xi reveals two leaders who, despite operating within vastly different political systems, share certain instincts about power, nationalism, and global competition. Yet they diverge sharply in style, governing philosophy, and long-term ambition. Trump’s personal style is rooted in improvisation, confrontation, and sometimes impolitic direct communication. His leadership style emphasizes disruption, including challenging norms, questioning institutions, and privileging his instincts over bureaucratic processes and traditional intermediaries. Whereas Asian interlocutors almost always search for the hidden stratagem behind a particular Trump gambit, Trump’s behavior is often better explained by transactionalism or temperament. His MAGA movement is more about attitude than architecture.

Xi, by contrast, embodies a highly disciplined, opaque, and centralized leadership style shaped by harsh and punishing decades within the Chinese Communist Party. His persona is carefully curated to project steadiness, authority, and ideological commitment. Xi communicates through formal speeches, party documents, and controlled media channels, emphasizing unity and continuity rather than disruption. His leadership reflects a Leninist model: hierarchical, methodical, and deeply institutional. Whereas Trump thrives on unpredictability, Xi prioritizes control—over information, political actors, and societal narratives.........

© Foreign Affairs