Professor of Theory of State and Law, Dimitris Kaltsonis, examines the nature of the competition between the US and China and Greece’s position in it.
With US President Donald Trump waging a tariff war with China, the question arises of whether Greece is stuck in a Thucydides trap.
This is the presentation of Professor Dimitris Kaltsonis at the Marxist Research Group conference on the topic “Crisis and War. What Prospects for Peace?”, which took place at Panteion University on March 29, 2025:
USA
Let’s start with the USA. What is their main goal? It is none other than to maintain global hegemony in perpetuity. The capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union and the other former socialist countries marked a period of absolute re-dominance of capitalism and now planetary dominance of the USA. However, new contradictions were inevitable to emerge gradually. These new contradictions are what the US state, as a collective capitalist, is trying to manage.
The 1990s were a moment of euphoria in which many in power saw the chances of challenging American dominance as slim, if not non-existent. To some extent, some of them may have fallen victim to their own propaganda about the end of history, etc.
This does not apply to all political representatives, as the most far-sighted, such as Andrew Marshall, saw, especially since 2000, when China became a member of the WTO, that the Asian country is the only one that can emerge as a great power and challenge the omnipotence of the United States.
Moreover, let us not forget that in 1999 a message was given in this direction with the supposedly accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Much earlier, in 1992, an American strategy document for the post-Cold War world set its main goal to prevent the emergence and rise of competing great powers. In this spirit, various proposals for managing the situation were made, including Brzezinski’s famous work, The Grand Chessboard, published in 1994.
In the first two decades after the dissolution of the socialist bloc, the US was mainly concerned with consolidating its interests in the Middle East and Central Asia (Iraq, Afghanistan), Africa, and Eastern Europe. Only in 2011, when the economic crisis had already broken out, did the Obama administration adopt the policy of “repositioning to Asia,” which meant containing China.
However, this was initially done slowly. The steps were accelerated during Trump’s first presidency when he effectively launched the trade war against China. They were further strengthened during Biden’s presidency as the technological war was added and the propaganda war intensified.
In the current Trump presidency, the US focus on confrontation with China is already clearly visible. US pressure includes, in addition to economic measures, the intensification and strengthening of US alliances, especially in the Pacific, and the encirclement of China with bases.
Rearrangement of alliances?
The developments in Ukraine and the attempt to seek an economic and military-political settlement with Russia aim precisely at this. The US aspires to close this front in order to focus on China.
Even more, the US ambition is the possible rearrangement of alliances with the detachment of Russia from its cooperation and alliance with China, or at least the relaxation of cooperation between them. However, the success of the venture does not seem likely. However, it is reminiscent of the reverse pattern of the US approach to Maoist China in 1972, which aimed at isolating and weakening the USSR.
The realignment of alliances is not something new, especially in conditions of global economic crisis and intensification of competition for the redistribution of economic and political spheres of influence. Let us not forget that the British-Russian competition in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for Central Asia and the British-French competition of the same period for Africa were sidelined in 1914 in the face of the need to jointly confront the rising Germany.
But a realignment of forces is not a given. Every great power takes into account economic, political, and military parameters, historical ties, prospects, possibilities and risks, and the correlation of forces and weighs the pros and cons, without meaning that errors cannot be made in this calculation.
China
Let us now look at China’s foreign policy since 1990. It can be divided into two periods: the first was dominated by the principles outlined by Deng Xiaoping. These were summarized in the typical Chinese way as follows: 1. observe calmly, secure your position, deal with affairs calmly, hide your abilities and bide your time, keep a low profile, never claim leadership. 2. Do not raise the banner of socialism, do not get involved in conflicts, do not make enemies, go beyond ideologies, distance yourself from concrete events.
The Chinese leadership has demonstrated admirable strategic patience based on the above principles. For decades, they kept a low profile, pursuing the country’s economic and technological development and then, especially after 2001, when the country became a member of the WTO, quiet economic penetration into other countries, without dictating political terms.
Its policy has begun to diverge slightly since the advent of Xi Jinping’s leadership. However, nuggets of a different foreign policy can be detected a little earlier. This change is not mainly related to the leader’s personality but expresses deeper processes. China is emerging as a powerful country, having become the second-largest economy in the world. If there are no surprises and a reversal of the trend, it will relatively soon become the first economy in the world. It is already the first country to invest in Latin America and Africa, while its presence in Asia (especially Southeast Asia) and Europe is significant. It is the first exporting power in the world.
At the same time, its diplomatic activity and successes are strengthening daily. Especially after Trump’s furious policy, China seems to be a calm power.
At the same time, developments in China’s military potential are also significant. Just a few decades ago, China was a military dwarf in front of the US. Today, things have changed, despite the US being far ahead in terms of military potential.
China is systematically strengthening its military capabilities. Its defense budget has been increasing by 7% annually since 2019. Since 2016, it has had a military presence in Tajikistan, while since 2017, it has had a military base in Djibouti in the eastern horn of Africa, which is strategically important as a passage from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. It is preparing a military presence in the Pacific island states of Vanuatu and Kiribati, located east of Australia, in the African Equatorial Guinea, and in Cambodia. (No comparison, of course, with the almost 800 US bases around the world!)
Diametrically dispersed US bases strategically surround China. It feels particularly vulnerable because the US can relatively easily control the Straits of Malacca, through which most of its imports and exports pass. This could potentially strangle the Chinese economy.
Ripe fruit strategy
Since 2013, the foreign policy of the new Chinese leadership under Xi Jinping has become more ambitious and active, without completely distancing itself from previous directions. The low tone and the policy of soft diplomacy continue to some extent, but the dosage is changing. It develops multi-level alliances, follows a flexible policy, and tries to form diplomatic majorities in various forums.
Already at the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2017, the president emphatically declared that “it is time for China to take center stage on the international stage.” At the same congress, he explicitly advocated globalization and free economic borders, accusing the US of protectionism.
Xi expressed Chinese foreign policy aspirations more comprehensively at the 12th BRICS Summit in 2020. “We must, he stressed, promote the principles of common, global security, lasting and cooperative, mitigate contradictions through negotiations and consultations, reject interference in others’ internal affairs, unilateral sanctions, and national laws of extraterritorial force, to create an environment of stable and peaceful development.”
This position, which essentially reiterates a series of fundamental principles of the UN Charter, clearly shows the sharp edge against the policy of the US and NATO. Although there are questions about its consistency, in 2014, China, through Xi Jinping, declared that the principles of peaceful coexistence on which the UN was based are not outdated.
Therefore, China has no interest in escalating the confrontation with the US. Following its strategic tradition, it wishes to reap global primacy as ripe fruit that will fall into its hands as a consequence of its economic boom. However, as is obvious and expected, it is preparing for all eventualities, and it has recently publicly stated this.
Conclusions
The US, unlike China, is a superpower in decline. 50 years ago its share of global production was 28%, 20 years ago it was 23.5%, and today it has fallen to 15.6%. That is why they react with the logic of a wounded beast.
They use their military superpower to ensure their hegemony and prevent the rise of Chinese power. They even threaten nuclear weapons, as their unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002 already shows, as well as the fact that at least part of their staffs does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against China, as they consider that the latter’s potential is not at a level that ensures mutual destruction (MAD).
However, the objective winner from this policy is China. In its desperate attempt, the US risks alienating even its traditional allies (EU, Britain). It is not excluded that there will be some kind of EU-China rapprochement.
Slipping into war?
Is the slide into war inevitable, which may take the form of a direct confrontation between the two powers? Is it fatal for humanity to be trapped in what G. Allison calls “Thucydides’ trap”, which may lead to destruction?
The tendency for the conflict to escalate is inevitable, not for the reasons Allison analyzes but because the nature of the imperialist system is such. We know from the theoretical analysis of Marx and Lenin, as well as from historical experience, that the redistribution of power in the capitalist system is solved by force.
However, “breaks” with agreements are not excluded. Only extremely special conditions can allow the concession of the dominant position, as was exceptionally done in 1945 by Britain to the USA.
Today, the few voices in the US calling for a consensual settlement and distribution of spheres of influence with China are not being heard. On the contrary, the most extreme voices prevail under both Biden and Trump.
The most predatory forms of foreign policy are openly emerging, formulated, and implemented with incredible cynicism.
The principle of “grab where you can” clearly prevails, both from the adversary and the ally, as shown by the example of the US colonialist stance towards Ukraine, or the friend, as shown by the US stance towards the EU or Canada. The tatter, or rather the practices of rape, of international law reach as far as the US intention to withdraw from the UN.
What can prevent the slide into a world war? Only the struggle of the peoples can put some brakes on it. The possible reappearance of a victorious revolutionary project will arrest this course as the fear of the alternative solution will appear before the bourgeois classes.
At the same time, the struggle of the peoples for peace, against military armaments, for observance of the UN Charter can contribute to a certain extent. A critical issue for Greece and the Greek people is to completely disengage from the conflict of the giants and to turn primarily against “its own imperialist”.
This means that the demand for disengagement from Ukraine and the Middle East and the country’s withdrawal from NATO has acquired vital importance for our lives and futures. Greece’s active, neutral, peace-loving policy could contribute to world peace.
I summarize with two scenarios for discussion:
A. The conflict escalates (even if it starts out as limited) and leads to untold destruction and suffering or even the annihilation of humanity.
B. The US begins the confrontation through “proxies” but retreats so as not to lose everything, under the weight of military and economic defeat, global outcry, and popular reactions.”
READ MORE: Netanyahu: Trump is Perfect Mediator to Prevent Israel-Turkey Conflict.
