Editor's note: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday concluded his visit to China, where he held meetings with top Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping. Both sides reached an agreement to stabilize China-U.S. relations. While Secretary Blinken's remarks addressed some of China's concerns, it remains to be seen whether the U.S. will follow through on its commitments. To gain insights into the outcomes of this visit and its impact on China-U.S. relations, CGTN's Senior International Editor Abhishek G. Bhaya spoke with Josef Gregory Mahoney, professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University. The views expressed in the video are his own and not necessarily those of CGTN.

CGTN: How do you assess the overall tone and outcome of Blinken's China visit?

Mahoney: I think overall, there are three positives to note. The first is that he actually showed up. He came. That he had a civil diplomatic tone and this， I think, opened the door to him meeting President Xi. And there was some modest progress on cooperation, perhaps most notably on fentanyl, and maybe this paves the way for other steps forward on other fronts.

CGTN: Blinken at his press conference remarked that coming into China, it was clear that the bilateral relationship was at a point of instability and both sides recognized the need to work to stabilize it. Would you say that this visit could be seen as the first step towards stabilizing of China-U.S. ties?

Mahoney: This is what China wants, it wants a stable relationship. It wants to return to some sort of normal that both sides can build positively around. And I think this is what many around the world want. But I think the key concern is that it's not yet clear that this is what the U.S. really wants, even in this moment, and whether it will want it next year or two years from now, especially if a new administration takes office. I think there's still some concern given the separation that we see between what the U.S. says and what the U.S. does.

And what will really be imperative is over the next few weeks and few months, especially over the course of summer, if we see additional high-level meetings taking place is whether it will actually see constructive change whether the words will actually turn into action. Until that is the case, I don't know that we can really say this meeting signifies turning a corner and the relationship that they're looking forward in a positive way.

CGTN: Meanwhile, Wang Yi, the director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, after meeting Blinken he also admitted that China-U.S. ties are at a low point, while noting that the U.S.'s wrong perception of China is the root cause of the current situation. Do you agree with this assessment?

Mahoney: The U.S. has by far been the key source of provocation and antagonism, crossing many of China's red lines related to sovereignty, security, development, international relations, trade and so on.

And we're in this now and this is something that the U.S. has instigated. It's instigated because China has risen and because the U.S. is in a period of relative decline, and wants to maintain its hegemony over global affairs, both militarily and financially. And China, of course, is looking towards a more equitable world, greater democracy and international relations in a multi-polar framework. So yes, in this case, Wang Yi's comments were well-founded.

CGTN: China has shown some sincerity in its commitment for a dialogue with the U.S. as evident by the welcome Blinken received from the top leadership here. He was received by President Xi Jinping, Wang Yi and also China's State Councilor and Foreign Minister Qin Gang. Blinken still thought it pertinent to raise the most speculative and unfounded U.S. concerns over China providing military assistance to Russia at his presser. How do you read this?

Mahoney: You know, it's not surprising that Blinken slipped something negative into the discussion. It's certainly the case that the U.S. hates China's good relationship with Russia, hates the fact that China avoided global inflation in part by buying discounted oil from Russia and hates that Chinese neutrality has put Beijing in the best position among all of the nations to mediate peace in Ukraine.

So, the strange thing is I view this merely as a rhetorical strategy of appearing to talk tough, and to pretend that he's representing American and Ukrainian and European interest against Russia and China, while also saying something that most people don't believe. Consequently, I'm inclined to view it is not that bad.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)