The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy with Edward Luttwak (Conversations with History)

(Visit: www.uctv.tv/) Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Edward N. Luttwak for a discussion of the dilemmas posed for China by the logic of strategy. Luttwak argues that the Chinese perspective on its role in the world is hindered by several factors. Blinded by its history of intra cultural conflict, it is not prepared to deal with a world of sovereign states, a world of intercultural conflict which requires treating other states as equals and not dependents. A third challenge is China's autonomous bureaucracies often characterized by an aggressive perspective on global affairs. Finally, because of the Communist party's lack of a meaningful ideology as it consolidates a capitalist miracle, elites manipulate Chinese nationalism as a substitute for Chinese identity. Series: "Conversations with History" [3/2013] [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 24828]

[@merocaine]

I disagreed at the start, but by the end I began to see his point. Especially his point about antagonizing your neighbours. If you look at the history of Spain in the 16th century, France in the 17/18th century, Germany in the 19th century you can see how a rising power will garner an opposing coalition if they have territorial ambitions. England and later Britain had by the mid 15th century abandoned their territorial ambitions on mainland Europe, and had even been come to be seen as a safe guard for European territorial integrity because of it. There rise to dominance in the Europe came despite their abandonment of their claims on their neighbours territory. But I think he contradicts his point about the Chinese having no strategic culture when he mentions the Peaceful rise policy, here is an example of the very thing he bemoans as being absent. There is also the one one road one belt initiative, which could count as another example. He does make some good points about the counterproductive policies in the South China sea, so a mixed bag from him, his thesis omits some important counter examples, but he makes good points about the damage the south china sea policy is causing as a whole.

[@samteedum]

7:37 Colonial intervention or “peace keeping” or “humanitarian” basically taking your troops abroad looking for trouble

[@iamraymondip]

Very happy if all Americans think this way.

[@Longlius]

Luttwak is Romanian.

[@knorkeize]

39:12 "more communists in Berkeley than in China" 😂

[@guangyipan7755]

Partly disagree with his theoretical judgment on Chinese history of the idea of "strategy" but totally agree with his argument on the strategic mistakes that Beijing has been doing.

[@YingLekkerding]

Did he just say that all small countries around China should stand up while the US should not antagonize China? That's really a job of a strategist well done.

[@TheUnchosenOne]

gunna have to share this around a lot more now lmao

[@grayburst]

Very very accurate, and a very wise book.

[@Megan-hq6jd]

Wow. I've just been in and out the mind of a genius.

[@sushrutabatsya]

Just one word- 'Prophetic'

[@aimaarashurshe1562]

Great scholar with efficient explanation ability.

[@defenestrator1210]

'There are more communists here at Berkeley than in China' (about 39:50)...hilarious and I have not doubt the underlying point is true.

[@sivanagarjuna5376]

My steeve ❤the legend of cricket 🎉🎉🎉

[@Megan-hq6jd]

Two words: FUCKING GENIUS

[@mingshi6138]

I mostly agree with Mr. Luttwak by saying that the chinese ruhler, even the modern ones, does not have a sense for strategy. My question, though, is: Does strategy in the first place mean looking around towards the "others"? In my feeling, strategy means that also by stating "I'd like to deal with the others in a long-run and therefore I have to think out ways for my interactions with them". This "long-run" matters a lot, especially by studying the way chinese CCP-Leader like Xi Jinping howadays are really thinking: First they put forward a "strategy of one belt and one road". Then, several monthes later, they told their think-tanks to analyse which countries on their ways to that strategy are facing what kind of risks. Is that not crazy?

[@pandamister1569]

"I'd like to deal with the others in a long-run and therefore I have to think out ways for my interactions with them". > China may be trying to do togeteer. It is good thing. However, China does not realize they are asking other country to submissive. It is good to have a long run relatioship means China wants to have control the region. Tibet is a good example. That is always Chinese idea, Submissive. It does not work to the other country.

[@linyang9890]

I'm surprised that you don't even get it. When "one belt one road" strategy made public, it was a firm decision based on years of study and debates. The process is dynamic and ongoing. The think tank you mentioned was one of hundreds that still ongoing even to date, to spot any changes or new ideas as value-added efforts.

[@linyang9890]

One example, the road that the Chinese built to Gwadar port, which is a major part of the one-road strategy started in June 2013. They conducted many initial implementation works prior to the announcement sometimes as testing trial. It is normal practice in China when they make any major plans to have tons of brainstorms, trials or stress tests prior to official launch and dynamic reviewing process aftermath. i bet they're having their think tank working right now after Trump being elected.

[@cheikh_anta_dioplivraria1689]

(00:03:10) (00:15:00) (00:46:40)

[@shawxu]

这个采访居然是7年前了，我故意用中文留言了

[@Megan-hq6jd]

I thought I was intelligent...until I watched this video.

[@joem0088]

So apparently Luttwak does not understand BRI as grand strategy. This is contrary to what many analyst say. Of course Luttwak's book was 2013 and China did not explain BRI (initially OBOR) to anyone (much less Luttwak) until 2014.

[@674292714]

this is an amazing analysis, especially like the developing of strategy part. But one thing that I don't agree with is that China also want to limit the conflicts with her neighbors. By knowing the fact that China will continue to rise for quite a while, Chinese gv just want to keep the territory issue remaining controversial so that in the future Chinese gv will have some cards to play no matter it's been used in competition or cooperation with Japan, Vietnam etc.

[@rebharath]

after listening to this lecture, i'm not sure "strategy", in luttwak's conception, has much to say about how/what china will develop over the coming years.

[@danieleciccone854]

Lol, This guy has an English accent when speaking Italian and an Italian accent when speaking English

[@VeronicaChia]

a bucket half-full make the most noise!

[@2011sjw]

remember Viet Nam? they had U.S.strategists for that too.

[@2011sjw]

thanks kindly Best Regards sjw

[@TomskyEugeny]

I really admire and respect mr. Luttwak and his strategic view on war and peace,but * Even uneducated Chinese peasants are smiling listening about frightening "growing fat man" on an escalator :) -- it's too much of escalators around :) * They say, that everyone around the globe are frightened not of Fat Man but by Great Evil Power :) that is flying all around the escalators * Last words of mr. Kaddafi under the shovel pressure was: don't afraid of fat man -- he's not too much dangerous :)

[@truezyf]

2018年了，我看得懂你，你却看不懂我，这就叫策略。

[@weewilly2007]

China may not have a strategy (according to this speaker anyway), but UCTV certainly does. Prompting American allies in the region to act antsy and jumpy and then rationalizing the entire performance as only logical. When it is really a question of perception (if not strategy itself). The fact of the matter is the rise of China economically is a numbers game that demands legitimate spending by the government, versus illegitimate spending that is, in proportion to gains made. Thus arms buildup (like it or not). Thanks to the global system in place. Alternatively, as they are often encouraged to do, China could invest in civil infrastructure and expand domestic markets too of course. Although this is something they may be hesitant in doing for the same reason as above. It will indubitably open up the floodgates for more of the fore mentioned illegitimate and illegal activity at the end of the day. Within segments that the army would have less control over, namely a civilian and commercial population. Whereby chronic corruption (much more than is already the case) may prove to be too much to bear. More so when hyper consumerist competition reaches fever pitches With vast legions of profiteers of every stripe already standing by the gates, looking to make the next big killing and looking for a local partner whom they can do this with. And promise to make rich in the process, or tempt by other means still. Like promising them reputability or legitimacy perhaps, after some period of hands being dirty. How the cops and robbers symbiosis developed in the west, with the judiciary, mass media, commercial banking systems, and arguably religious organizations, in the middle. Putting entire populations through a long process of distillation to launder ill-gotten gains and bad deeds of the past. Versus what is probably presently the case in China, whereby the single party state is the only gate keeper you are forced to do business with (whether above ground, or underground). And the law is whatever the person with the gun says it is. For these reasons, the fear that China could very easily be turned into some giant underworld HQ (with THAT being the over arching agenda for some?) may not be preposterous at all. Trading in CONTRA-band worldwide, in the way that america dominates Global trade on the surface levels. Already the case to some large degree as it is, but possibly not enough by some standards.

[@TomskyEugeny]

I think that this interview is just an example of Byzantine policy which USA is trying to conduct and mr. Luttwak is trying to set neighbours against each other :) -- in this case against China :)

[@johngordon1175]

The example of wishing to acquire space is a poor one if applied to China as it only wants to be not interfered with or else. The west discount Judaea Christian religion so wanting some other country to adopt its values on top of the current culture which Americans have done to suit their set of traditions.

[@woodensurfer]

The assertion that the Chinese today are still mostly unaware of the importance of other states is absurd. Chinese behavior is logical in that it believe in its territorial claiming and are doing the best under the circumstance. China's is successful in its Tibetan policy because "cultural genocide" is happening. What comes after "cultural genocide" sociological?"

[@donokeefe3960]

Luttwak's analysis is completely worthless. It is one thing to misunderstand or mistake the historical facts of an issue, and another to construct an argument that does not even have internal legitimacy. Most of his claims can actually be disproved or contradicted using other claims he himself makes in the same program. 1. Luttwak claims that China has had no historical concept of the Other, except for as a tribute state, but then also admits that the Yuan and Qing are foreign controlled dynasties (there were several others, not to mention the plethora of "domestic" conflict like the war with the Shu Kingdom). He further undermines his point by stating that one of China's key "techniques" is placating barbarians or playing barbarians against barbarians. He himself recognizes that this implies a foreign policy relationship outside of the tributary framework he previously claimed was China's sole method for dealing with other states. He cites the US as an example, but could have just as easily used the Jin during the Southern Song Dynasty or many other examples. The CCP after the Sino-Soviet split effectively played up Cold War tension and survived the period without external threats to its legitimacy. This is obviously a strategy, but Luttwak won't recognize it as such because that would contradict his specious argument. 2. He says that dealing with equal powers made Europe develop diplomacy which, in his words, led to the ruling out of military force as an option for resolving disputes with one's neighbors. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of European history can see that this is false (see WWI, WWII). He then transfers this cultural know-how to the US which, according to Luttwak, does not engage in domination of surrounding powers while studiously ignoring all of US history. Of course, he has to admit that it has engaged in domination, but at least not blatantly since 1914 (he disregards the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, and others without reason). If the US and European political cultures can change so drastically since the early 20th century, why is he so convinced that his (baseless) claims about medieval Chinese foreign policy continue to apply? 3. He attempts an answer by saying that the Chinese lack of strategy prevents them from learning to stop dominating those in their sphere of influence with violence. He says that the US has taken violence "of the table" when dealing with its neighbors. But what counts and in the neighborhood? He doesn't define it, but no matter how you do, it doesn't change the fact that the Chinese have not been involved in a single major offensive war, against neighbors or otherwise, since WWII (we can exclude the Korean conflict using the same framework he uses to excuse US aggression against Cuba). Scores of American interventions including protracted ground war in Vietnam, Iraq, etc. are just "exceptions" for Luttwak. And of course you could go on with the contradictions for pages... He is infuriatingly ignorant.

[@merocaine]

Excellent post, couldn't agree more on his arguments lack of internal logic. He does make good points about chinese foreign policy in the South China sea, and the lack of outward focus large states have. If divorced from his larger argument they have some validity. Hard to believe he is a professor.

[@decem_sagittae]

What qualifications do you have to question Mr. Luttwak?

[@GatoDeHeisenberg]

"the Chinese have not been involved in a single major offensive war, against neighbors or otherwise, since WWII (we can exclude the Korean conflict using the same framework he uses to excuse US aggression against Cuba)" @Don O'Keefe: You are truly ignorant, and yet you question the credentials of Ed Luttwak. Since WWII, and excluding the Korean wars, the Chinese have fought wars with India(1962, 1967, 1986), Russia (1969), and Vietnam (1979). In addition, they also attacked Taiwan multiple times while Mao was alive, in order to 'liberate' Kinmen Islands but failed.

[@phillipwong4283]

Taoism is a better guide, and the use of "virtue" as something natural, and to act on it is advantageous for oneself.

[@woodensurfer]

The Chinese are not feckless against Japan. Even today, many in the Japanese business community are losing sleep about Japanese products being vandalized in China. Erosion of trade will cause recession in China but depression in Japan. In another 20 years, this feature will be even more pronounced.

[@leezhieng]

This guy talks like as if he have read the Art of War by Sun Tzu but the fact he's talking non-sense showing he never really read through and understand it.

[@moymoy123ish]

I am not sure if he has read Sun Tzu. However, he said that it is not quite strategy he calls. Michael Pillsbury said something. More like trick. In according to Sun Tzu, tricking people for defeating opponent is one of strategy? I have not read the book either. lol

[@mingtaoshi]

满嘴荒唐言，一脸精明笑......

[@prc6075]

中國想成為世界減去美國的壞男孩，這沒有發生，這使中國感到緊張

[@mengwise36]

This guy claims to be a historian of sort but he really lack historical knowledge. US did have wars with pretty much all of its neighbors. US invaded Canada in 1812. US invaded Mexico is 1846. If you look at US as the 13 colonies, then it had to fight its way all the way to the Pacific coast. How many "neighbors" namely the Native Americans were eliminated because of that? When did US ever treated anyone other than maybe the Western Europeans as equals? Native Americans were genocides in the name of expansion. African slaves were 3/5 of a person written in the constitution. When did US ever respected any other country's sovereignty? How many coups are US behind from South and Central America to Middle east? How many countries have US invaded? (70 since independence, 50 since WWII) How many military bases US have around the globe in how many countries? (Try 800 bases in 70+ countries). If there is one thing that the Chinese need to learn from the US, it is that China needs more shameless "academia" like Mr. Luttwak.

[@adrianmander3576]

If you listen to what he said, you'll understand that he *does* have historical knowledge. He talked about US invasion of Canada and Mexico, and he talked about the more minor interferences in Mexico in 1916 and in other countries. When he mentioned wars with neighbors by the US, he was putting it in the context of the US no longer being a power that attempts to conquer territory for itself. He compares that truth with the reality that China continues to build up an army, with at least partial intent to capture (or coerce through the threat of force) territory from its neighbors (such as Taiwan, such as parts of India, such as some islands belonging to Japan, Philippines, or Vietnam) Not only do you misunderstand what he says about the US and it no longer being aggressive toward its neighbors, you read far far too much into what he says as him justifying American brutality and aggression toward others over history, and then saying that China is somehow worse in a historical sense. No, that is not what he is saying. You are definitely coming to conclusions based on your own pre-existing ideas and opinions, and not listening to what he says.

[@woodensurfer]

The elite within China are far less influenced by historical characteristics. The elite in China have a strategy re other states. That China does not have democracy, rule by the masses, is one key factor why China has a strategy. China also needs not and hence is unlikely to actually use the military power that will have.

[@mkjeang1]

Amazing lack of insight! All great powers wants military, economic, and political power; and China is no different. He argues that China cannot have military power because it frightens its neighbors! He argues that American has never had territorial disputes with its neighbors. Did he forget that we took large chunks of land from Mexico and the Mexicans haven't forgotten that but is simply too weak militarily to solve that problem. I can name 10 other territorial disputes....etc.

[@stephentsang2000]

"Chinese forgets the existence of another?" Haha~ He should read the whole book of Sun Tze all over again. Chinese strategies require thorough understanding of oneself and the opponents.

[@TedSeay]

...and you need to learn and understand Luttwak's concept of "great-power autism"...

[@cion191]

28:51

[@MrWowfire]

Luttwak thinks the American pivot to Asia and the Pacific is a smart strategy to "contain" China because China is having all these quarrels with its neighbors since the pivot. he sees this is where China is "weak" strategically because China is being forced into a position of conflict with so many of its neighbors over some of the "long dormant" territorial disputes. In a way, America has found the right button to push against China's growth, in the name of coming to aid to its allies.

[@bbsmonk]

what loads of rubbish

[@linyang9890]

OMG, this guy is still in the dark. He has no clue at all. As little as he knows about the Chinese civilization, how could he claim that "the Chinese culture has no strategic logic at all". Totally ignorant. A nation of 1.3 billion people can collectively move forward at such a speed only by random "behaviours", this does not make any logical sense. Talking about wars that he referred to as example, how could the poorly equipped PLA defeated the superpower US army during Korean War? All by strategies that you don't understand. Well, stay in dark, you arrogant American strategist. Yoo'll never learn. Then just don't take China as your enemy, or you will never win. Sun Tze taught us 2500 years ago, don't fight the enemy that you don't understand. Otherwise it will be "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong enemy", a déjà vu all over again.

[@luckychops2162]

Lin Yang, there is a certain truth to the idea China has historically never had a peer competitor, and that can leave them at a disadvantage in modern foriegn politics.

[@MrWowfire]

Luttwak also claims that China is lacking any good strategy to deal with the pivot because by quarreling with so many neighbors over territories, China is defeating its own strategy of a peaceful rise, how wonderful ! The American will be so happy to see China in trouble with this pivot. Strategically Luttwak may be right in the short term. Indeed China is in trouble. Its neighbors are emboldened by the pivot to challenge China'r rise. How should China handle this challenge in the long term ?

[@comedianman7237]

What is mediocre? Just listen to this guy. You talk like politician, but why do we need you as a scholar? I know, that is for job security. Got it?!

[@MrWowfire]

The best strategy for China is to have "no strategy". Luttwak constantly referred to the Senkaku issue as if it they are already Japanese territories, ignoring the complexity of the second world war, and the long history behind these islands. In a way, Luttwak is blaming China for this and all other territorial disputes. His judgement is questionable. China is not going to fall into the American trap, it it is wise. China will not use military force, but to do what it does best: trade.

[@Mehrine88]

That dude is talking real nonsense...

[@anonymous-kw2cu]

he`s full of bullshit..

[@woodensurfer]

Appallingly lacking in insight!

[@phillipwong4283]

Well, he is wrong.

[@jungleinthesky]

this seems to me another biased analysis supported by one-sided evident. If Mr. Lutwak had been able to go deeper into more discussions, discourses, and even debates among Chinese elites and politicians, he would find many Chinese from the ruling class do think in the logic of strategy, as defined by Mr. Lutwak, and it's improper to give a generalized feature to the way China deals with other countries when her diplomatic policies, principles and strategies differ from case to case.

[@VeronicaChia]

这样的人实在让人反感！如果美国的决策层采纳他的意见，世界和平将很可虑！