Mearsheimer: There will inevitably be a war between China and the United States

Applying Hegel's dialectical lens unveils a nuanced counter to Mearsheimer's assertion of inevitable U.S.-China conflict, dissecting the deep structural contradictions at play.

In September, the famous American scholar John Mearsheimer and the American economist and professor of economics at Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs had a very exciting and world-shaking debate. The debate had a very in-depth discussion on Sino-US relations and the future trend of China and the United States.

We are all very familiar with Mearsheimer. He is the author of the book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics". In the book, he repeatedly studied specific cases of competition and even war between various great powers in history, and extracted the so-called "tragedy of great power politics", the most basic argument.

The so-called "tragedy of great power politics" refers to the inherent and structural contradictions between the rising great powers and the established great powers. This contradiction will eventually lead to war. In Mearsheimer's view, it is inevitable, so it is indeed a "tragedy". After all, this contradiction between the great powers and its evolution into the subsequent war has caused extremely serious disasters to the people of the two countries and even the people of the world.

Let's not talk about the distant past. Take the Second World War that ended in 1945 as an example. The Second World War caused the deaths of more than 50 million people and countless property losses. China, the Soviet Union (Russia), the United States, Britain, France, and even Germany, Italy, and Japan, which started the war, all suffered very serious war losses.

This is also the reason why Mearsheimer calls this great power contradiction and the war that evolved later a "tragedy".

Then Mearsheimer's view on the contradiction between China and the United States is still consistent, that is, "China and the United States will have a war", which is inevitable in Mearsheimer's view. Of course, a war between China and the United States is also what Mearsheimer does not want to see, but this is a fact.

We can say that the biggest difference between Mearsheimer and Sachs is that Mearsheimer is objective and rational, while Sachs is emotional. Mearsheimer made the judgment that "China and the United States will have a war" not because he hates China, but because he deduced the conclusion that "China and the United States will have a war" from the structural nature of the contradiction between China and the United States and strict, even cold logic.

Professor Sachs, on the other hand, only made the opposite argument from his sentiments and dislikes, from his perspective on world peace and the safety of life and property of the people of the two countries, and strongly opposed the belligerent remarks in his speech. He also asked the United States to stay away from China, "Keep Distance", which Professor Sachs repeatedly said.

In other words, Professor Sachs neither considered the interests of the United States in the Sino-U.S. conflict nor argued his point of view from logic and reasoning. He argued his point of view purely based on his sentiments and dislikes. Although I agree with such a point of view, unfortunately, the persuasiveness of his argument is very weak, and it can even be said to be pale and powerless.

Because the core of academic argumentation is logic and reasoning, not personal sentiments and dislikes. This is Professor Sachs's problem. Of course, I fully understand and agree with Professor Sachs's point of view. From the perspective of maintaining world peace and security, maintaining the survival of human civilization development, and maintaining the safety of life and property of the people of the two countries, I support Professor Sachs.

So how exactly does Mearsheimer argue this point? This is what we need to figure out.

Here, I use the analytical method of Hegel's dialectics to divide Mearsheimer's views into five logical levels, and then discuss them separately.

To analyze a problem using Hegel's dialectics, we need to first grasp the main contradiction of the problem, and then divide the problem into five logical levels, namely, "existence->essence->phenomenon->reality->concept", and at each logical level, analyze it according to the dialectical contradictory movement of "thesis, antithesis, synthesis", so as to derive the entire logical reasoning process.

Main Contradiction Analysis: The contradiction between China and the United States

For the argument that Mearsheimer wants to discuss, this main contradiction is very obvious, that is, the contradiction between China and the United States. To be precise, it should be the contradiction between China in its rising period and the United States in its declining period.

There is no doubt that China is rising. Whether it is the strength of China's industrial strength or the conquest of Chinese products in the world, it reflects the fact that China's economic strength is rising and strong. There should be no doubt about this.

At the same time, due to its own economic difficulties, the United States has declined its own economic, military and political strength. This is a basic fact that everyone with a discerning eye can see. The US national debt has exceeded 35 trillion, and the US fiscal out of control is very predictable.

Like any other historical power, the United States is unwilling to give up its global dominance but will choose to maintain it vigorously. At the same time, China's goal of developing its own economy and improving the people's living standards will not change. Therefore, in this case, the contradiction between China and the United States will become inevitable.

Existence Analysis: the structural nature of the Sino-US contradiction

There are two major contradictions in the existential layer, one is quantitative change, and the other is qualitative change. Quantitative change leads to qualitative change, and qualitative change leads to new quantitative change. After the dialectical movement of the two, they will form a combination, that is, scale.

For the Sino-US contradiction, quantitative change refers to China's development after 30 years of reform and opening up, especially after joining the WTO, China's economic and military strength has been significantly improved. However, due to the adoption of the "neoliberalism" route of the United States, that is, "strong finance, weak industry", after 30 years, the "success" of the US manufacturing industry has been hollowed out by this wrong economic development route.

Compared with China, the infrastructure of the United States is seriously backward. The subways were built during the Cold War in the 1960s. They are rusty, sewage flows, and are seriously aging and backward. Compared with China's developed infrastructure, it is simply not like the superpower that once dominated the world. Now, any African country, with the support of China, is dozens of times stronger than the United States.

It can be said that the backwardness of the United States is very obvious.

Under this circumstance, that is, China is rising rapidly and the United States is obviously declining, the Sino-US contradiction has changed from a quantitative change in the past to a qualitative change. That is, the Sino-US contradiction is no longer a simple ideological dispute, but a conflict between countries and even civilizations. This level of conflict cannot be easily resolved and must end in a bloody battle.

Because the United States cannot give up its hegemonic position in the world. If it leaves its hegemonic position, given the current situation of excessive money issuance and financial out-of-control in the United States, the US economy will collapse rapidly, and there may even be a possibility of a change of dynasty in the United States, that is, the collapse of the United States of America, which is something that the American elites will never allow to happen.

In other words, the hegemonic position of the United States is related to the survival of the US regime, which cannot be easily compromised. Therefore, the contradiction between China and the United States is structural and irreconcilable. It will definitely evolve into a war. This is inevitable.

In other words, if we analyze it from the dimension of scale, the severity of the Sino-US contradiction and the scale of the evolution of the Sino-US contradiction has already affected the survival of the United States and China. In this case, the two sides cannot compromise and can only fight to the death.

Essence Analysis: Anarchy in international relations

When things develop to the scale of the existence layer, they will not stop moving forward but will continue to develop and evolve to the essential layer.

At the essential layer, there are two main contradictions, one is identicalness and the other is difference. identicalness refers to the part of a thing that is the same as other things, while difference refers to the part of a thing that is different from other things.

For the Sino-US contradiction, identicalness refers to the Sino-US contradiction, which has many similarities with the contradictions between other major powers in history. For example, the Anglo-German contradiction before World War I, the Anglo-Spanish contradiction in the 16th century, the Franco-German contradiction during the Napoleonic Wars, the Anglo-French contradiction, and so on, all have many similarities, that is, the contradiction between the rising power and the established power.

Take the Anglo-German contradiction before World War I as an example. Before the outbreak of World War I, Germany (that is, the German Empire at that time) had a very significant increase in strength after the Second Industrial Revolution, that is, the electrical revolution. As the hegemonic country at that time, Britain was very proud of its strength at this time. The colonies of the British Empire were all over the world, and it was known as the "Empire on which the Sun Never Sets".

In this case, Germany, as a latecomer, naturally also wanted to occupy a place in the world colonial system. Germany hoped to get a share of the frenzy of dividing colonies set off by Western powers. Naturally, this was intolerable to the British Empire, which had already occupied the top of the colonial food chain. Therefore, the contradiction between Britain and Germany gradually rose to become the main geopolitical contradiction in the European political situation at that time.

France was only attracted by Britain because it lost the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, so it had resentment towards Germany. Together with the later Tsarist Russia, the Triple Entente was formed, namely the Allied Powers. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey formed the Triple Alliance to fight against the Allied forces. After the situation of group confrontation was formed in Europe, the war was of course inevitable.

Today's Sino-US contradictions are actually similar to the contradictions between these great powers in the past. This is the identicalness of the Sino-US contradictions.

Of course, the Sino-US contradictions are unique, and there are naturally many differences.

For example, China does not seek to replace the United States. Everything China does is actually for its own development. It is not like Germany in the Anglo-German contradiction, which wants to grab British colonies. China does not seek this kind of hegemony. This is different from the Sino-U.S. conflict and the Anglo-German conflict before World War I, as well as other conflicts between major powers in history.

So that is the difference of the Sino-US contradiction.

Moreover, the Sino-U.S. conflict is also different from the US-Soviet conflict. The trade volume between China and the United States is many orders of magnitude higher than that between the United States and the Soviet Union. According to statistics, the trade volume between China and the United States is as high as 500 billion US dollars, which is incomparable to the US-Soviet conflict. At the same time, there was no war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The factor of nuclear weapons was only one aspect. On the other hand, the United States destroyed the Soviet Union in one fell swoop by planning a peaceful evolution.

In other words, the main reason why there was no war between the United States and the Soviet Union was that the United States was stronger than the Soviet Union. The strength of the United States had not declined to such a serious extent as it is today. This is also the fundamental reason why the United States could finally use the method of peaceful evolution to destroy the Soviet Union. It was not the "freedom and democracy" of the United States, but in the final analysis, it was because the United States was stronger than the Soviet Union.

But can the United States today still use the same tricks to fight against the rise of China? It is difficult because China has surpassed the United States and its strength is constantly increasing. This is a fact that everyone understands. What about the United States? There is no end to the civil unrest, homeless people are everywhere, and the two parties are fighting fiercely. In this case, what is the attraction of the so-called "American freedom and democracy"? Of course not.

This is also the fundamental reason why the appeal of "American-style freedom and democracy" has declined. In the final analysis, it is still the United States' lack of strength, because people are material after all, and it is human nature to pursue a better material life and quality.

An important prerequisite for the effectiveness of "American-style freedom and democracy" is that the United States is stronger than other countries in terms of material, which can attract enough lickers to come and lick, but once the United States is not strong enough, it will not attract lickers to come and lick, so the appeal of "American-style freedom and democracy" will naturally decline.

This is actually the fundamental reason why the United States can no longer use "freedom and democracy" and other means to peacefully evolve China. If the United States cannot use peaceful evolution, the United States will only have one way left, which is to start the military machine to start a war, because the United States has no way to go. Only those who have no way out resort to extreme means, and so do people and countries.

So why do these identicalness and differences happen?

This involves the fundamental reason why Mearsheimer discusses the "tragedy of great power politics". According to Mearsheimer's point of view, he believes that the reason why the "tragedy of great power politics" occurs is because there is a lack of the highest authority in the world. If we watch Mearsheimer's speech carefully, Mearsheimer mentioned this point more than once in his speech, so this is the fundamental reason for the tragedy of great power politics that Mearsheimer believes. Therefore, it is very appropriate to put this factor based on the essential layer.

This is the so-called "anarchy of international relations", that is, there is no supreme authority to manage relations between countries.

What does it mean? Mearsheimer believes that due to the lack of a supreme authority in the world, the world is a jungle society where the strong are always strong, the weak are always weak, and the strong prey on the weak. The strong are respected and the winner is the king. This is the constant truth of this world.

In this jungle society-style world pattern, if a country wants to survive, it can only continue to make itself stronger, and cannot let itself decline, because once a country declines, it will immediately become the "prey" of other countries.

This kind of thing has happened before, that is China. China lost the Opium War in 1840, which opened up the painful history of China becoming a semi-feudal and semi-colony of the West. From the Opium War in 1840 to the founding of New China in 1949, it took the Chinese more than a hundred years to grow from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society to an independent and powerful country.

Everything in China is not a gift from someone, but a product of China's own struggle. This confirms Mearsheimer's point of view, that is, the world is a jungle society. China's rise and China's struggle can be said to be an excellent footnote to Mearsheimer's assertion.

It is precisely because the world is a jungle society and the world lacks supreme authority that there is a history of struggle, development, independence, and even war among various countries. This is also the fundamental reason for the tragedy of great power politics.

Because the world lacks supreme authority and the world is a jungle society, in this case, the United States must use all means to maintain its hegemony for its own interests, in order not to become the "prey" of other countries, and in order not to become a toy played by the great powers like China in the past.

This is the fundamental reason why the United States does not hesitate to launch a war with China, that is, because the United States does not want to become a third-rate country, and the United States does not want to become a colony of other countries. It is purely helpless to launch a war with China for its own survival.

This is the most fundamental, core, and essential problem of the Sino-U.S. contradiction and even all the contradictions in other countries in the world. In the final analysis, the world lacks a clear operating rule and a set of operating mechanisms that can enable all countries to develop equally. The so-called "all countries are equal regardless of sovereignty" is only a slogan on paper so far.

Phenomenal Analysis: China and the United States compete in various fields

Things will certainly not stop moving when they develop to the essential level. They will move in the next direction of development, that is, the phenomenal level, that is, the contradictions between China and the United States have begun to be concretely displayed, so that all of us can see and feel the intensity of the contradictions between China and the United States.

This is of course that China and the United States compete in various fields.

There are two main contradictions in the phenomenal level, one is the form and the other is the content. The final combined question is the relationship. When we examine the phenomenon, we mainly examine the connection between things, that is, the relationship.

The contradictions between China and the United States, form and content of the contradictions between China and the United States are of course various sanctions and counter-sanctions. The United States brazenly launched a trade war against China in 2018 and has since continued to extend to science and technology, the economy, and various fields except the military. China and the United States have almost carried out various competitions.

Then this phenomenon reflects that the relationship between China and the United States is constantly and steadily deteriorating. In other words, the deterioration of Sino-US relations is a stable decline in the relationship, not a sharp deterioration. Because the result of a sharp deterioration is war, China and the United States are not ready for war between each other, so both sides can only control the pace of deterioration of relations.

But this trend will not change, the reason is of course the rise of China and the decline of the United States, this process is irreversible.

Of course, both sides know that China and the United States may eventually go to war, but neither side is willing to admit it directly, at least not now.

Reality Analysis: the long-term trend of Sino-US competition

When a phenomenon develops over a certain period, it will evolve into reality, that is, a phenomenon that occurs for a long time will evolve into reality. Hegel said: "Reality is universal", which means a phenomenon that occurs for a long time.

There are two main contradictions in the reality layer, possibility and reality. Possibility means that Sino-US competition may have a variety of development trends, such as the development model of the British-German contradiction, that is, the First World War, which is a possibility. It may also be a development model of the French-German contradiction, that is, the Franco-Prussian War.

And reality refers to the reality of the Sino-US contradiction, such as the issue of nuclear weapons, and the problem that both sides are not ready for direct conflict. These are the reality of the Sino-US contradiction.

Possibility and reality will eventually evolve into a combination, that is, inevitability.

Regardless of the final direction of the Sino-US contradiction, whether it is a world war or a local war, the final result is certain, that is, the two countries, China and the United States, must have a winner.

It's just that the way to decide the winner may change, whether it is a cold war, a hot war, or a nuclear war. Whether it is a local war or a world war, these methods are all possible. But no matter what method is used, China and the United States must determine the winner. Only one of China and the United States can survive. This is inevitable.

Conceptual Analysis: China and the United States must have a war

The Sino-US contradiction is structural. In a jungle society, the Sino-US contradiction is almost unsolvable, because both the United States and China understand that in a jungle society world order, in a world lacking supreme authority, the United States and China cannot fail. After all, once they fail, they will become colonies of other countries and be eaten up by other countries. This is the most fundamental reason for the Sino-US contradiction.

Because the cost of failure is too high, China, needless to say, understood this truth more than a hundred years ago. Whether it is the Westernization Movement, the May Fourth Movement, the Revolution of 1911, or even the later New Democratic Revolution, they are actually China's struggle to get rid of the plight of losers since the defeat in 1840.

And the United States cannot fail either, because Americans have a deep understanding of how they massacred Indians back then. Therefore, if the United States fails, then the Indians are likely to retaliate against the Americans, which is unbearable for Americans. In the minds of Americans, the United States is "supreme" and "cannot fail". What can they do if they cannot fail? They can only go to war. Whoever stands in the way of the United States, the United States will go to war with.

This is the logic of the concept level of "China and the United States will inevitably have a war". There are two main contradictions at the concept level, one is subjectivity and the other is objectivity. The final conclusion is the truth.

For the Sino-US contradiction, the so-called subjectivity can actually be understood as Professor Sachs's point of view, that is, Professor Sachs believes that a war between China and the United States is disastrous. This is actually the main reason why we oppose the Sino-U.S. war. China and the United States are both nuclear powers. If the two countries go to war, the people of the two countries will suffer greatly. Subjectivity is our personal feelings likes and dislikes.

Then objectivity refers to the inevitable and irreconcilable part of the Sino-US contradiction, that is, the rise of China and the decline of the United States. More importantly, the unshakable nature of the United States in maintaining its own interests and hegemony.

The final truth refers to the fact that although a war between China and the United States will not benefit the two countries and their people, it may still be inevitable because the United States cannot accept defeat, which is destined to "China and the United States will inevitably have a war"! This is actually what Mearsheimer calls the "tragedy of great power politics".

The reality is very close to Mearsheimer's analysis. In October 2023, the U.S. Congress issued a report stating that "The United States must be prepared to fight two wars at the same time, with China and Russia."

At the end of October 2024, the New York Times published an article titled "The US Army Prepares for War with China". The article pointed out that the U.S. Land Force is transforming to prepare for a war with China.

These messages from the United States accurately show that although the United States has repeatedly declared verbally that "it does not want to be an enemy of China", it is actually making actual preparations for war. This shows that the United States is very clear that war with China is inevitable, or at least the Americans are already making clear preparations.

In addition, US presidential candidate Trump has publicly stated that after taking office he will be committed to severing the cooperative relationship between China and Russia to further isolate China. This is an important step in the US containment plan against China.

Is the Sino-U.S. war really inevitable? Discussing the solution to the Sino-US war and even the future conflicts between major powers

In the end, I want to talk about my personal opinion, that is, is the war between China and the United States really inevitable? Can we humans avoid the "Thucydides" trap? Of course, it is possible.

Because there is a saying in China that "things are in people's hands", there is almost nothing inevitable in human affairs, there is only the question of whether we are willing to do so.

We have analyzed earlier that the fundamental cause of the Sino-U.S. conflict and other conflicts between countries in history is that the world is a jungle society where the strong prey on the weak, and the world lacks a supreme authority to regulate and guide the behavior of various countries.

Then reasoning from this logic, it is not difficult to find that as long as we establish a set of effective international laws, as long as we establish a supreme authority in the world, then under the norms and guidance of this supreme authority, countries will certainly not have to fight to the death for their interests.

The world can avoid the "Thucydides" trap and avoid the "tragedy of great power politics."

So there is a solution, it’s just a matter of whether we do it or not. Of course, this supreme authority will definitely bring new problems, that is, the issue of national independence. This is certainly a new topic, but it is undoubtedly very helpful in solving our current problems.