Do China War-hawks Exist? The Geopolitical Chessboard Says Yes
Do China war-hawks exist? This question lingers in the shadows of global discourse, where Beijing’s official rhetoric champions “peaceful development” and a “community with a shared future for mankind.” Yet, a closer examination of the geopolitical chessboard—marked by ancient philosophical undercurrents, sprawling border vulnerabilities, and modern strategic maneuvers—reveals a cadre of hawks within the Chinese leadership and military apparatus. These figures advocate not for reckless conquest but for pragmatic, ethically justified force to safeguard “core interests,” echoing the ancient wisdom of Xunzi while navigating a precarious ring of weak points. In this hypophora, we unravel how China’s modern People’s Liberation Army (PLA) strategy draws from Confucian roots, demands a war-ready economy and leverage-based alliances, intersects perilously with U.S. doctrine under Trump, and risks tipping into aggression—potentially signaled by early indicators that the world must watch closely.
Ancient Echoes in Modern PLA Strategy: From Xunzi to “Active Defense”
China’s military posture today is a tapestry woven from ancient Confucian threads, where war is condemned as destructive yet justified for restoring order and combating “evil.” Xunzi, the Confucian philosopher, opposed war for personal gain but endorsed necessary military action to uphold ethical governance and the people’s welfare—transforming anti-war ideals into a pragmatic framework for limited, moral conflicts. This duality permeates Confucianism: it prioritizes diplomacy, ethical conduct, and benevolence (ren) over brute force, yet allows defensive wars to preserve harmony (he).
In contemporary China, this manifests in the PLA’s “active defense” doctrine, which blends strategic restraint with tactical offensives. As outlined in the Pentagon’s 2025 China Military Power Report, the PLA emphasizes “effective control” and “war control,” using integrated domains of power to deter escalation while seizing initiative in crises. This aligns with Xunzi’s ethical pragmatism: China frames its military as a shield for sovereignty, not expansion, but prepares for preemptive strikes if “core interests”—like Taiwan, the South China Sea, or border regions—are threatened. The 2025 white paper “China’s National Security in the New Era” reinforces this by positioning Beijing as a “central source of peace” in the Asia-Pacific, rooted in tianxia (all-under-heaven) philosophy, which envisions China as a benevolent hegemon fostering shared prosperity. Yet, this “defensive” stance masks hawkish elements: omissions of “peaceful unification” in recent Taiwan rhetoric signal a shift toward coercion, echoing Confucian justifications for force when diplomacy fails.
Compounding this is China’s geographic reality: eight critical weak points encircling the Han core like a besieged island. These include (1) Xinjiang’s Uyghur region, vulnerable to internal unrest; (2) Tibet’s high-altitude frontiers; (3) Mongolian borders, prone to nomadic influences; (4) the Karakoram Highway (KKH) link to Pakistan; (5) contentious Indian borders in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh; (6) Myanmar’s unstable frontiers; (7) the vast Russia-Central Asian Republics (CARs) expanse; and (8) maritime chokepoints in the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and Malacca Strait. Defending this periphery stretches the PLA thin, demanding a fortress mentality where the central heartland becomes an impregnable redoubt.
Scanning Chinese Strategic Documents: The Imperative of a War Economy and Leverage Alliances
Chinese strategic documents, such as the 2025 defense white papers and PLA guidelines, reveal a blueprint for resilience amid these vulnerabilities: a “war economy” mindset fused with alliances built on economic and military leverage. The PLA’s revised guidelines emphasize “national total war” mobilization, integrating civilian sectors, militias, and governments into a whole-of-nation effort against a “strong enemy” (implicitly the U.S.). This draws from Ukraine war lessons—emphasizing logistics, autonomous systems, and protracted conflict preparation—while accelerating military-civil fusion (MCF) to channel commercial innovations (e.g., AI, hypersonics) into defense. China’s announced defense budget rose 5.2% to $231 billion in 2024, but total spending likely exceeds $300 billion, funding nuclear expansion (over 600 warheads, on track for 1,000+ by 2030) and a “no-first-use” policy that still allows for self-defensive escalation.
Economically, China wobbles in transitioning from export-driven growth to domestic consumer demand, strained by slowing GDP (projected 3-4% by 2030). Strategic docs highlight “economic security” as intertwined with military might: MCF subsidies private firms for dual-use tech, while resource grabs in Africa and Latin America secure critical minerals for weapons - Alliances amplify this leverage - The Ukraine crisis has deepened Russia ties—via joint patrols (e.g., intrusion into Alaska ADIZ in 2024) and dual-use exports—extending to BRICS for influence in Brazil, Indonesia, and Africa. Longstanding Pakistan alliances counter India, with arms deliveries like 20 J-10C fighters and JF-17 co-production, plus modest Iran links through naval exercises and missile tech. No formal pacts exist—China avoids entanglements—but these “partnerships” prioritize influence over mutual defense.
Intersections with U.S. Doctrine Under Trump: Pivots, Proxies, and the Risk of Collapse
This Chinese framework clashes with U.S. strategy under Trump 2.0, marked by tariffs, tech curbs, and “America First” onshoring [and, isolationism]. Economic pivots see China eyeing ASEAN, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and India for trade diversification, countering U.S. BIOSECURE Act and 145% tariffs on Chinese goods. Militarily, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) stretch from Southeast Asian rails/ports to Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, fostering proxies like Pakistan and Iran (via support in providing satellite imagery and weapons to IRGC in Iran and Ansar Allah [Houths] in Yemen) to project power into the Gulf and Red Sea. A burgeoning navy (e.g., Fujian carrier trials) probes Japan and the Philippines, with aggressive South China Sea tactics—ramming, water cannons—challenging U.S. alliances.
A major kink: these “shields and Trojans” risk colossal collapse. Forward deployments in Gwadar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia’s Ream base strain resources, prompting escalations like buffer zones via India incursions—mirroring Russia’s Special Military Operation (SVO) in coordinated Pakistan moves on Siachen and Aksai Chin glaciers. Risks abound: (1) Economic pressures on populations from sanctions and trade wars; (2) U.S. military suction via alliances (e.g., “iron-clad” pacts with Philippines); (3) Nuclear escalation, hinted by Japan’s warnings and Pakistan-India tensions, amplified by China’s low-yield weapons for “escalation control.”
Conclusion: Leverage Over War, But Inevitable Clashes—and Early Indicators to Watch
Ultimately, China favors leverage: boosting trade with CARs, Russia, and even India; maintaining peripheral balance by arming Pakistan; and rejecting U.S.-led frameworks like the Indo-Pacific. Yet, Trump’s tariff wars and tech decoupling ensure clashes—potentially in trade, Taiwan, or the South China Sea—where pragmatic détente masks underlying rivalry.
Early indicators of a shift from non-military leverage to aggressive military posture include:
(1) A surge in named operations or incursions, like the 3,067 Taiwan ADIZ [Alaska] violations in 2024, signaling lower thresholds for coercion; (2) Rhetorical hardening, such as omitting “peaceful” from unification language or vowing to “fight to the end” against external pressures; (3) Accelerated forward deployments and exercises, e.g., joint Russia patrols or new bases in Africa/Asia; (4) Economic coercion spikes, like trade bans tied to military probes; (5) Nuclear or tech milestones, such as ICBM tests or AI-integrated wargames; and (6) Internal purges or mobilization reforms indicating war readiness. These harbingers, drawn from patterns in strategic docs and historical shifts, could alert the world to hawks gaining ascendancy—turning the chessboard into a battlefield.