06/04/2026
Most geopolitical discussions right now frame China as “not doing much” or sitting it out in the current Middle East tensions as their junior partner, Iran, gets hammered by US-Israeli airstrikes. But I think that vastly misses the underlying strategy.
China appears to be applying something closer to a Wu Wei strategic approach. It harkens back to ancient military strategies of Sun Tzu and Han Fei. Instead of direct intervention, it is allowing conditions to develop while extracting advantage from how others respond.
So, there are a few layers to this.
First, there’s an intelligence advantage. U.S. operations in the region are highly observable. Carrier deployments, missile interception rates, escalation patterns, and logistics all generate real-time data. Chinese satellites, cyber assets, and HUMINT on the ground are observing this in real time. That information has long-term value for Chinese war planners, especially for scenarios like Taiwan.
Second, there’s an economic and industrial asymmetry. The U.S. is using high-cost systems to counter relatively low-cost threats. The US is expending 1.3 million dollar Patriot interceptors (depending on the variant) to take down Shahed-100 series drones that cost roughly $30,000 a pop. Over time, that creates a burn rate problem, but also tied to stockpiles and production capacity. US missile production is finite and even with the expanded contracts of late, it still will lead to depletion of stockpiles in a prolonged war of aerial missile attrition.
Third, there’s the diplomatic layer. China can position itself as a stable economic partner while avoiding direct entanglement, especially as the U.S. becomes more associated with disruption of the international order with its tariffs and threats against allies and the persistent military interventionism since the turn of the millenium.
Taken together, this isn’t "inaction" or a "wait and see" approach.
It’s a strategy of letting competitors expend resources while preserving your own and letting the battlefield develop. While final outcomes are still yet to be seen, and China stands to lose influence in the region should the US prevail and alter the regional dynamics in its favor, it seems like a very pragmatic approach.
Curious how others see this. Is this deliberate restraint, or just risk aversion being reframed as strategy? I wrote a piece that echoes these sentiments recently and I'd like some thoughtful critiques and some eyes on my work. Its here: https://open.substack.com/pub/coldwarsandhotzones/p/doing-without-doing-chinas-wu-wei?r=e6vs9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
