1.This post is the first part in a series I'm writing.
Hello everyone, I've noticed this forum already features many high-quality discussions, but there seems to be a lack of systematic analysis understanding the conflicts in the West Pacific from a higher perspective. I'm attempting to use the framework of Political Level - Grand Strategy - Strategy (Military Strategy) to analyze this and fill this gap.
This approach is intended to complement the many excellent discussions we already have on more granular aspects like campaigns, operations, and specific weapons systems.
Simply put, the political level tries to describe the ultimate goals pursued by a nation. It answers two fundamentally identical questions: What do we want? And what are we working and fighting for?
For example, from the end of the Cold War until now, the United States' political goal has consistently been to maintain its superpower status and the world order most favorable to itself. China's political goal has consistently been the faster and higher-ceilinged development of its own comprehensive national power and the enhancement of its position within the world order.
Strategy refers to the pathways and means in different domains, serving to achieve political ends. Strategy is divided into domains, such as Economic Strategy, Technology Strategy, Cultural Strategy, Ecological Strategy, Military Strategy, etc. It answers the question: What means should we use in areas like economy, technology, etc., to achieve our ultimate goals?
For example, from the end of the Cold War until the mid-2010s, the United States' economic strategy domestically relied on loose monetary policy and stimulating consumption, while internationally it promoted free trade and globalization. China's economic strategy was driven by investment and exports, and internationally it actively integrated into free trade and globalization.
Grand Strategy is a concept that emerged relatively late. It attempts to rationally allocate resources among various strategic domains, thereby generating more comprehensive means to achieve political objectives. It answers the question: How should we comprehensively integrate and prioritize our efforts in domains like economy, technology, etc., to generate a more synthesized pathway for achieving our ultimate goals?
Perhaps due to my own limited capability, I find it very difficult to summarize the Grand Strategy of both nations during this period. It might also be because Grand Strategy functions more as a transitional layer between Politics and Strategy, less independent. My preliminary attempt is: from the end of the Cold War to the mid-2010s, the Grand Strategy of the United States was to expand its sphere of influence and promote its own order. Whereas China's Grand Strategy was to develop in a compliant and peaceful manner within this order.
