Despite boasting formidable military capabilities and engaging in loud sabre-rattling, China consistently avoids direct military entanglements, choosing instead a path of deception, diplomacy and economic entrapment

Chinese philosopher, Sun Tzu (author of Art of War) has influenced the thinking and policies of the Chinese leadership, for eons. Amongst his most potent and famous treatise is on the military doctrine of asymmetrical warfare, which is increasingly relevant in a VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) world of constant churn and dissonance.

One key feature of expansionist China’s strategy has been to follow Sun Tzu’s very cost-efficient dictum of “subduing the enemy without fighting”. Much has been made of China’s militaristic prowess, aggressive postures, 6th Generation technology and weaponry, “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy et al, but a quick scan of all recent global conflicts and wars will show the stark absence of Chinese boots-on-ground, despite much noise of China’s positions on the conflict.

As seen, when the US-NATO abandoned Afghanistan, in the Israel-Gaza war, Russia-Ukraine war, or even very recently in the four-day Indo-Pak conflict, the much-bandied intervention by Pakistan’s ‘iron-clad brother’ i.e, China, was limited to adopting a pro-Pakistan position, diplomatically only.

In India, specifically, imagined scenarios like the “two-front war” led to much discussion and strategising to ensure deterrence and dissuasion of a simultaneous conflict along the China-Pakistan border. The sense of acute vulnerability was heightened by the reality of the already-stretched, resource-constrained, and over-deployed Indian wherewithal, which would test its ability to take on two powers simultaneously (one of which would be China).

Yet again, those fears came to nought as the Chinese reaction to Indian retaliation against China’s ally, Pakistan, led to support in terms of words and not boots-on-ground, as feared. Has the Chinese appetite for an all-out conflict waned or does it prefer to bide its time (with some sabre-rattling thrown in) and use other levers to push its agenda?

Despite siding with Putin on the Russia-Ukraine war, it has remained steadfastly out of militaristic presence (unlike other countries like North Korea or NATO countries who have supplied weapons and personnel). Similarly, it hasn’t exactly swooped down on the anti-West sensibilities of the Afghan Taliban or attempted to co-opt the same despite the vacuum left by the abandonment of US-NATO troops.

In the violent Middle East theatre too, China seems to please all sides, without attempting to irate any, leaving no clear picture if it is pro-Israel, pro-Iran, or even pro-Palestine — mealymouthed platitudes and generous Chinese doles (economic) to whichever party looks like controlling the ground, are offered. All this has ensured that China is the favourite fallback option for all illiberal, autocratic, option-less or even paralysed nations when all other doors close.

But, as the United States of America remains busy piling up the body bags and burning precious amounts of dollars to pursue prohibitively expensive wars in the Middle East, and Afghanistan, or even supporting the Russia-Ukraine war, the Chinese sit out and instead plough their resources to win over territories through economic, diplomatic and technological influence.

However the Chinese do not shy away from arm-twisting their commercial imperatives (eg, taking over Hambantota port in Sri Lanka for a 99-year lease), economic and cyber coercion (eg, “Volt Typhoon” attack on critical infrastructure in Australia) and even cartographical expansionism (eg, making artificial islands in South China seas) — but do so, without provoking full-on conventional warfare.

Right throughout Sun Tzu’s pearls of wisdom seem apparent in Chinese tactics, “All warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity. When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are to lure him; feign disorder and strike him. When he concentrates, prepare against him; where he is strong, avoid him.  Anger his general and confuse him. Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.”

Chinese have become masters at playing geopolitical mind games which may suggest a lot, but lead to rather muted material action, ultimately. Therefore, while China shows intent (typically to adopt an anti-US position to attract traction towards itself) to take a daring position, it stays away from militaristic intervention and indulges in sabre-rattling, at best.

The four-day Indo-Pak conflict may have resulted in China (along with Turkey and Azerbaijan) adopting a decidedly pro-China stance — but the support of the ‘iron clad brother’ did not extend to it intervening militarily or even adopting an aggressive posture along its border with India, which would have led to discomforting dynamics for Delhi.

The Chinese seem to choose their militaristic target rather selectively as they shadow-box with the Filipinos on the high seas, invoke ‘Salami tactics’ to creep onto Bhutanese territory, or even conduct reckless exercises in proximity to Taiwan — but remain cautious in not overstepping their belligerence.

China understands that intervening militarily could disrupt its trade, commercial and economic stability which is already under stress with the ensuing US-China trade war, domestic weakening of demand, unemployment, and demographic decline. Therefore ensnaring vulnerable countries with ‘debt traps’ will remain its most potent weapon to fructify its expansionist and hegemonic dreams.

Another aggressive and alternative means is via technological-cybersecurity wherewithal using companies like Huawei that have raised many suspicions, globally. China is expected to pursue its calculated “shoot-and-scoot” approach at best but perhaps not beyond that. As Sun Tzu also said, “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle”.

(The writer is Lt Gen  (Retd) and former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands & Puducherry. Views are personal)