Global Finance Chiefs Weigh New Risks as China Fades from the Top of the List

Preface

Finance ministers, central bank leaders, and international institutions gathered in Bangkok to assess the pressures shaping the global economy. Their discussions pointed to a changing set of concerns: rising debt, artificial intelligence investment, and trade imbalances featured prominently, while China—once a leading source of anxiety in such debates—received less attention. The meetings also unfolded against the backdrop of renewed tensions over Russia and Ukraine, and disagreement between the International Monetary Fund and U.S. officials about the country’s debt outlook. This article reviews the issues raised during the gathering, explains why AI-related investment has become a source of both optimism and risk, and considers what China’s reduced prominence may indicate about investor perceptions. It also describes the political divisions and Ukraine support announcements that shaped the week’s discussions.

Lazy bag

The Bangkok meetings reflected a broadening risk agenda: public and private borrowing, the uneven economic effects of artificial intelligence, and persistent trade imbalances are now central concerns. The IMF cautioned that AI investment could raise debt and borrowing costs, and that disappointing productivity gains could have serious consequences. U.S. officials challenged the Fund’s warnings about federal debt, while signs of coordination among major economies remained limited. Russia’s return to G20 discussions brought visible disagreement, even as the G7 announced support for Ukraine’s Chornobyl infrastructure repairs. China, by contrast, drew less discussion than in earlier meetings, with some investors viewing U.S.-China relations as relatively stable.

Main Body

Finance chiefs who met in Bangkok spent the week examining a range of threats to the global economy. Debt, artificial intelligence, and trade imbalances were among the leading subjects. China, which had often been treated as a major risk in previous discussions, was no longer at the top of the list. The shift did not mean that the country had become irrelevant to global finance; rather, it suggested that officials and investors were directing more attention toward other pressures and were assessing China in less exceptional terms.

The Bangkok meetings were the first held in Asia since 2018, when the gathering took place in Bali, Indonesia. Thailand last hosted in 1991, six years before the baht was unpegged from the U.S. dollar, an event that set off the Asian financial crisis. The historical setting gave the discussion of potential future crises particular weight. Looking ahead to 2026, Kevin Gallagher, director of Boston University's Global Development Policy Center, said that several different developments could prompt a new financial crisis. These included global imbalances, the artificial intelligence boom, or a substantial buildup of debt in the “Global North.” Gallagher spoke with reporters in Beijing after attending meetings of the IMF and World Bank.

Artificial intelligence was a prominent theme because its economic impact could be uneven. The IMF expressed optimism about economies positioned to benefit from the global AI supply chain, including South Korea, Japan, and China. It was more cautious about economies that are less well placed to take part, warning that the expansion of AI infrastructure could widen gaps between countries. In this view, the benefits of the technology may accrue disproportionately to economies with the capacity to supply, build, and adopt the systems behind it.

The investment boom also carries financial risks. Borrowing tied to AI development is adding to debt and competing with governments for access to capital. Increased competition for funds can push borrowing costs higher, creating additional pressure on public finances. The IMF warned that if AI technology fails to deliver the productivity gains that have been promised, the consequences for the global economy could be severe. The concern is not simply that investment might disappoint, but that elevated borrowing and expectations could leave companies and governments exposed if the gains do not materialize.

Gallagher said he was watching whether the IMF, the Federal Reserve, and the People's Bank of China could coordinate their actions. If they instead moved in different directions, he warned, their responses could “make things worse.” His observation highlighted a broader issue raised by the meetings: economic risks cross borders, but the institutions responsible for monetary and financial policy may not always act in concert. Divergent decisions could complicate efforts to manage debt, investment, and economic instability.

Debt also produced a direct disagreement between the IMF and the U.S. Treasury. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said that strong economic growth alone would not put the United States on a sustainable path, given federal debt above $40 trillion. David Zervos, a counselor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, dismissed the warning and questioned the reliability of the Fund’s projections. “It's good to remember how messy their forecasts have been in the past,” he said. “So take it all with a grain of salt.” The exchange showed that even when officials agree that debt is an important issue, they may disagree sharply about how serious the problem is and how much confidence to place in forecasts.

There were also few visible signs of coordination between the United States and China. According to a meeting layout seen by CNBC, Chinese and U.S. finance officials were seated at a distance during Thursday’s G20 finance ministers’ and central bank governors’ meeting in Bangkok. On Saturday, Chinese central bank Governor Pan Gongsheng addressed the International Monetary and Financial Committee. He said China supported stronger IMF monitoring of spillovers from “major advanced economies' fiscal risks.” Pan also argued that countries should address their own fiscal deficits, while countries running surpluses should increase consumption and investment. His remarks placed responsibility for economic adjustment on both deficit and surplus economies.

Russia and Ukraine returned to the center of the week’s discussions as tensions flared. Russian officials again attended a G20 finance chiefs’ meeting held on the margins of the IMF gathering last Thursday. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov attended in person for the second time this year. His participation followed an August G20 session in Asheville, North Carolina, where criticism from European leaders led to his exclusion from a group photograph.

German finance minister Lars Klingbeil repeated his objection to the Russian delegation’s presence. In a statement to CNBC, he said, “pretending that Russia's returning as a normal member of the G20 and sitting at the table again — that won't happen with me, and it won't happen with the other Europeans either.” The disagreement was also visible during the International Monetary and Financial Committee meeting: nearly half of its delegates walked out when Siluanov addressed the group in Russian on Saturday.

Ukraine’s central bank chief, Andriy Pyshnyi, told Reuters he was surprised by the number of finance officials who expressed solidarity with Ukraine. He described the moment as “deep and emotional.” Separately, after a three-hour meeting Thursday evening, the Group of Seven announced 260 million euros ($300 million) in funding for Ukraine to repair infrastructure at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant. The group expects to raise that support to 500 million euros, an amount that would cover the whole project, at a donor conference in Paris next month.

The Ukraine funding discussion came as the IMF warned that higher public debt is limiting governments’ capacity to spend on other priorities, including defense. This creates a difficult policy balance: governments face urgent demands for support and security spending, while rising debt narrows the room available to meet them. The issue links the week’s geopolitical discussions to its economic concerns, since fiscal choices are shaped by both immediate needs and long-term borrowing pressures.

China’s reduced prominence was one of the clearest contrasts with the 2018 meetings. China had featured heavily then, as the U.S.-China trade war was just beginning. This year, panels and interviews had comparatively little to say about the country. Tim Adams, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute of International Finance, said China had rarely come up in his conversations during recent visits to Singapore and Bangkok.

Adams recalled that discussions might once have focused on U.S.-China relations, China’s impact on the [exports] shock 2.0 in Europe, and its influence on global trade and manufacturing. In his view, the relative silence reflected a perception that U.S.-China relations had reached “some sense of stability,” prompting investors to reduce their worries about China as a risk. He described the relationship as “stable and solid, without much visible tension beyond the nagging set of issues that have been around for some time.”

That assessment does not suggest that investors have stopped weighing China-related risks. Adams said investors remained reluctant to commit direct investment to the country, while showing interest in Chinese technology IPOs in the pipeline. He also pointed to strong appetite for Chinese bonds and a currency that was stable to slightly stronger. These differing signals illustrate how investor views can vary across asset classes: caution about direct investment can coexist with interest in technology listings and bonds.

Adams summarized the change in tone by saying that China now seemed to receive a standard assessment, “like China is any other risk rather than something unique and special.” The distinction is meaningful. China remained part of the global economic picture, but the meeting’s attention had shifted toward debt, AI, fiscal pressures, and geopolitical disputes. Overall, the Bangkok discussions showed that global finance chiefs are not focused on a single source of danger. Instead, they are weighing a collection of interconnected risks, while confronting uneven cooperation and competing views about how to respond. CNBC's Penny Chen contributed to the report.

Key Insights Table