The evolving landscape of international trade deals showcases the delicate balance between short-term gains and long-term stability; and as the US and the UK navigate the aftermath of disruptive trade policies, other global regions are reaping the benefits of strategic patience and integration
In the first part of this two-part blog series, we explored how the self-styled disruptors of global trade — led by the United States and the United Kingdom — have fared after a decade of upheaval. Their record, so far, is marked by volatility, short-lived truces, and an ongoing scramble to manage the chaos they helped create. If those agreements offered any relief, it was fleeting and fragile.
This time, we’ll shift focus to the other side of the ledger: the powers and regions that choose patience over provocation, structure over spectacle. From China’s quiet deepening of regional ties to the European Union’s methodical expansion and Africa’s ambitious trade integration, these actors are demonstrating that long-term stability, not drama, may be the true source of competitive advantage in today’s global economy. And as we turn away from the noise of the disruptors, we examine what it looks like when the builders, not the breakers, set the pace.
Stability profits as disruption proves costly
If the past decade taught us that disruption can be a powerful political tool, 2025 is teaching us something else: economically, stability wins. The loudest actors on the trade stage — those countries that tore up agreements, imposed sweeping tariffs, or promised new deals at every podium — are now grappling with the aftershocks of their own volatility. Meanwhile, nations and blocs that prioritized continuity, scale, and long-term cooperation are quietly reaping the rewards.
As we turn away from the noise of the disruptors, we examine what it looks like when the builders, not the breakers, set the pace.
The US and the UK, current and former respective champions of shaking up the system, are discovering the costs of their endeavors. American manufacturers are contorting their operations just to stay afloat. For example, there’s been a surge in US firms converting warehouses into bonded facilities to try to delay tariff payments on Chinese goods amid mounting uncertainty. British exporters, still navigating Brexit’s long tail, find themselves hemmed in by patchwork agreements with little to show for their Global Britain strategy. Indeed, they’re more a satellite nation now than ever before. Even May’s new UK/EU deal, meant to reset relations and reduce friction, felt more like a belated course correction than a strategic breakthrough.
By contrast, China is doubling down on regional integration, finalizing an upgraded trade pact with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that expands cooperation into digital and green sectors. The deal’s substance reflects a broader strategic pivot: while Western leaders chase headlines, Beijing is investing in trade predictability. Similarly, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is gaining traction, with nearly 50 countries ratifying the agreement and using it to lay the groundwork for intra-African trade stability, independent of Western volatility.
Even within the transatlantic sphere, the EU stands out. It has maintained cohesion, weathered global shocks, and moved steadily to secure new trade partners. In this context, it’s not just size that matters — it’s steadiness. Capital flows to the predictable, and investment favor reliability. And while the disruptors get airtime and expensive cease-fires, the builders get the contracts.
Past trade failures leave lingering scars nearly a decade later
If stability is now proving its worth, the costs of earlier disruptions are coming into sharper focus — none more so than Brexit. Sold as a chance for the UK to seize control of its economic destiny and strike bold new trade deals, Brexit instead triggered a cascade of economic strain. The UK’s decision to break from the EU gutted its most important trade relationships and left exporters to navigate a fragmented global landscape without the leverage or infrastructure needed to thrive.
What followed was a decade of compounding crises. The initial Brexit shock rolled directly into the COVID-19 pandemic, which was quickly followed by the energy crisis spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and then compounded by the global inflationary shock. These blows landed hardest on a nation already adrift. And while this May marked a flurry of long-delayed trade activity, including renewed ties with the US, EU, and India, there’s little evidence that these efforts will meaningfully reverse the long-term damage.
If stability is now proving its worth, the costs of earlier disruptions are coming into sharper focus — none more so than Brexit.
Public sentiment also has turned sharply. Only 24% of Britons still support being outside the EU, according to a mid-2024 report, which reflects a staggering collapse in confidence. The deals struck in May might be politically useful, but economically, they resemble damage control more than triumph. The India deal may offer the best terms, but it arrives too late to serve as a panacea for Britain’s stalled growth and sagging investor confidence.
Nearly a decade since Brexit’s inception, the lesson is clear: while disruptions may begin as ideology, their ultimate test is in the domain of economics. And as the UK is currently exemplifying, the cost of failure may be brutal.
There is a defender’s advantage
One underappreciated reality of today’s trade environment is that disruption favors the defender. In times of chaos, the players with already-built supply chains, entrenched market share, and deep domestic subsidies can weather the storm far better than upstarts and disruptors.
Nowhere is this defender’s advantage more evident than in the US/China trade standoff. While both countries have suffered, the pain has not been symmetrical. Chinese firms, already supported by extensive state-backed infrastructure and increasingly diversified trading partners, have managed to reroute exports, absorb losses, and shift into friendlier markets. By contrast, many US companies, especially smaller manufacturers and retailers that may be reliant on predictable cost structures, have been caught flat-footed. Their defensive capabilities lie not in subsidies or centralized coordination but in adaptability — a trait that’s much harder to exercise amid constantly shifting policy terrain.
The same pattern plays out globally. The UK’s sluggish recovery from Brexit has made it less of a player and more of a proving ground for just how punishing trade realignment can be. The EU, despite internal frictions, remains one of the only major blocs capable of playing both defense and offense simultaneously — shielding its members with internal consistency while expanding market access abroad.
In geopolitical terms, this is the defender’s advantage: the strategic strength that comes from having established positions, clear expectations, and fewer self-inflicted wounds. While aggressors burn time and political capital in tit-for-tat escalation, defenders quietly build networks, deepen ties, and move forward.
The irony is that, in trade — an arena once dominated by bold deals and sweeping liberalization — the most competitive stance in 2025 may be the one that changes the least. Stability has become the new disruptor.
For more on the current trading environment, check out the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2025 Tariff Survey here
