Could China wear down the United States in a protracted war, just as the U.S. once brought down the Soviet Union? The ongoing U.S.-China trade tariff war, as analyzed by the Wall Street Journal on the 4th, suggests that China's goal is to engage in a "protracted war" with the U.S., drawing on the experience of the Soviet Union and using Cold War strategies to cope with competition, avoiding direct confrontation while seeking time to achieve self-sufficiency, and then forming multilateral alliances around the world to ensure that China will not be isolated from other countries, thereby achieving the long-term goal of wearing down the U.S. through a delaying tactic.
The article analyzes the current thinking in Beijing in terms of historical context, mainly derived from Mao Zedong's "On Protracted War," which refers to a prolonged balance, with the core idea being a strategic retreat, strategic stalemate, and strategic counterattack in three stages. As American pressure becomes manageable, China gains time to catch up with the U.S. The article cites the view of the late U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, "A regular army that does not win is lost, while a guerrilla force that does not lose is won," and notes that China is currently fighting a guerilla war.
The article points out that Beijing's research focuses on how to conduct a Cold War with the U.S. and eventually win. Specific measures include multiple layers: economically, the "dual circulation" strategy has been launched, meaning producing the products China needs domestically and exporting them overseas to better protect China from external shocks, especially those from the U.S.; diplomatically, Beijing avoids being isolated, so it maintains integration into the global economy, especially with low-income countries. Beijing adopts a "stable calm" strategy, even though China still faces economic difficulties, but "these are side effects that can be tolerated for the long-term goal of wearing down the U.S."
Commentary:
The Wall Street Journal compares the Sino-U.S. competition to the U.S.-Soviet confrontation during the Cold War, and believes that China is wearing down the U.S. through a protracted war strategy. This perspective has some realistic basis, but also contains obvious simplifications and misjudgments.
From a practical standpoint, the Sino-U.S. rivalry indeed exhibits characteristics of a "protracted war." The U.S. has implemented tariff wars, technology blockades, and alliance encirclement measures, essentially delaying China's rise through a "cost imposition" strategy. In response, China has strengthened domestic demand, accelerated breakthroughs in key technologies, and deepened multilateral cooperation (such as RCEP, the Belt and Road Initiative) to build strategic resilience. This "time for space" strategy bears similarities to the three-stage theory of "defense - stalemate - counterattack" in Mao Zedong's "On Protracted War."
However, equating China's strategy simply to a "Soviet-style Cold War strategy" represents a fundamental misjudgment. The Soviet model of confrontation centered on ideological output and military competition, whereas China has always emphasized "development to surpass oneself," with policy focus on achieving high-quality development through open cooperation.
Compared to the U.S.-Soviet Cold War, the nature and environment of the Sino-U.S. competition have undergone fundamental changes: First, the depth of economic interdependence differs. In 2024, Sino-U.S. trade reached $690 billion, far exceeding the economic ties during the U.S.-Soviet Cold War. Although the U.S. trade deficit with China has caused controversy, it is essentially a result of differences in economic structures—China's manufacturing capacity accounting for 30% of the global share and the U.S.'s service-oriented economy form a complement. Complete decoupling would mean huge costs for both sides. U.S. tariff policies have already led to an inflation expectation of 4.4%, forcing the Federal Reserve to delay rate cuts.
Secondly, the trend towards a multipolar international order is irreversible: the bipolar structure of the Cold War has been replaced by a multipolar one. Through initiatives like the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative, China has received responses from over 100 countries. Switzerland and the EU explicitly oppose taking sides, advocating for the maintenance of the multilateral trading system. In contrast, the U.S. attempts to build a "small yard, high wall" alliance face internal contradictions, with the EU seeing a 3.5% increase in trade with China in 2024, showing its unwillingness to fully follow the U.S.
Furthermore, the asymmetry of competitive fields: the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to military competition dragging down the economy, whereas the Sino-U.S. competition is more focused on technology, supply chains, and rule-making authority. China's advantages in areas such as rare earths and 5G can create "precise countermeasures," while the U.S. exerts pressure through the dollar hegemony and the ally system. This asymmetric game is more likely to lead to a "double loss" rather than a "single win."
The core of the Sino-U.S. rivalry is a test of strategic endurance, with victory depending on who can better address internal issues and shape the external environment.
The Wall Street Journal's viewpoint reflects Western anxiety about China's rise, but overlooks several key facts, including the fact that China has no intention of replicating the Soviet model, and its strategic goal is to achieve its own development, not to export ideology or undermine the existing order. Moreover, globalization has changed the logic of competition; the deep integration of Sino-U.S. economies into the global value chain means that the decline of either side would trigger a chain reaction. Additionally, technological changes bring uncertainty, with disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing possibly reshaping the competitive landscape. China's investments in AI computing power and new energy add variables to the protracted war.
Ultimately, the outcome of the Sino-U.S. rivalry may neither be "China bringing down the U.S." nor "the U.S. containing China," but rather a new global governance framework formed through dynamic equilibrium. Some commentaries suggest that both sides have entered a "strategic stalemate phase," with the winner determined by who can more effectively address domestic challenges and gain international support. In this process, avoiding the escalation of confrontation and promoting win-win cooperation is the optimal solution that benefits all of humanity.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1836859760697412/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.