In a world ravaged by wars in Gaza and Ukraine, it is good news when two superpowers withdraw from tensions that have increased the danger of a new war in Asia.

That’s what happened last week when President Biden met China’s Xi Jinping at an estate in the ridges west of Silicon Valley.

The two presidents met after a year of icy non-communication, touched by China’s suspected spy balloon that roamed US airspace last winter, by aggressive Chinese military actions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, and by US restrictions on advanced technology.

The presidents agreed to bury some of their differences for the simple reason that neither needs another crisis now.

Beijing’s stocks have fallen, literally and figuratively. The Chinese economy, once the world’s superpower, has slowed to a low growth rate of 5% for China. Foreign investors are pulling money out of the country, reversing a decades-long trend.

On the diplomatic front, Xi appears to have recognized that he must soften China’s image as a bully that has driven other countries into the arms of the United States.

Biden also hoped to reduce tensions. In the coming presidential election year, he does not want to face a third foreign policy crisis, in addition to Gaza and Ukraine. He probably won’t get much credit from voters for reducing friction with China, but

he could win points if Xi makes good on his promise to curb the supply of chemicals used in fentanyl production.

Xi also responded to US requests on other issues. He agreed to reopen talks between the two countries’ military leaders, including a red line for communications in emergency situations such as near-collisions in the waters and airspace around Taiwan.

Even before the summit began, China agreed to strengthen cooperation with the United States on climate change. And Xi agreed to open talks on managing the dangers of artificial intelligence in military systems.

The Chinese leader was clearly on a charm offensive. He told American business leaders that China wants to be a partner and a friend, not an adversary. He even considered the possibility of sending pandas to the San Diego Zoo.

Those were easy concessions; they do not cost much economically or politically.

Still, China observers have been skeptical about how much Beijing will actually deliver.

It’s still a bit early to pop the cork on champagne, says Bonnie Glaser, China scholar at the German Marshall Fund. I’m not convinced that they will actually take serious action to prevent military accidents. They do not want to eliminate all risk to the U.S. military if it operates near their coastline. I’m not sure if they will answer the phone in an emergency.

Whether China delivers on its specific promises should be easy to measure. If there is a reduction in the supply of fentanyl ingredients, know about it. When Chinese officers appear for joint military conferences, pay attention, even if it is unclear how much cooperation this will result.

They have never taken it that seriously in the past, warned Bates Gill, executive director of the Asia Society Policy Institutes Center for China Analysis.

And if a FedEx cargo plane arrives with pandas on board, know that too.

The key test is whether these small steps lead to bigger openings such as cooperation on nuclear arms control or peace efforts in Gaza and Ukraine.

The Biden administration is testing the proposition that we can have fierce competition and cooperate with China at the same time, Glaser said. If anything, these agreements have created opportunities for the two countries to show that they can cooperate in some areas.

But it is equally remarkable that there has been no discernible movement on the big, fundamental issues that divide the two countries, starting with their military standoffs over Taiwan and the South China Sea.

That is where clashes, both figurative and literal, are not only possible but probable, and where fundamental differences are impossible to gloss over.

This meeting did not change the foundations of the relationship, Gill said. There is a wide divide on issues that cannot be resolved by military dialogues or actions against fentanyl.

In superpower relationships like this, breakthroughs don’t happen often.

The test is whether clashes can be averted, and whether the clashes that do arise can be managed more successfully than the months-long row over the spy balloon, not whether the two countries agree to share symphony orchestras or pandas.

Breakthroughs would be nice. But if they are not available, stability will do just fine.