Japanese sneak attack, is the US retreating to advance? They don't have that strength anymore

In this segment, when discussing the comparison between China and Japan, the issue of Japan's sneak attack, and the recent discussions on US strategic adjustments, we see many friends who are not very familiar with us commenting below our video, saying, hey, aren't we being too optimistic, or being too careless? Don't underestimate the opponent, is it the opponent's scheme? Even, is it retreating to advance? Then I say, this is not optimism, not carelessness, and not some scheme of the opponent; it's a matter of changes in strength comparison. The foundation of international relations and international strategic analysis is the comparison of strength. When the strength comparison changes, the relevant strategies must be adjusted; if not adjusted, it becomes irrational, and such adjustments are rational.

Regarding the issue of Japan's sneak attack, some people cite Pearl Harbor as an example, but the problem is that during Pearl Harbor, the naval strength of Japan and the US was roughly comparable, approximately at a level close to 1:1; whereas now, the strength comparison between us and Japan is not 1:1, but a matter of 20:1. This gap is too large. When both sides have similar strength, a sneak attack can easily seize the initiative, which is advantageous; however, when the strength gap is too large, a sneak attack is akin to courting death. For example, can you imagine Mexico sneaking up on the US, using the strength of the entire nation to attack the US? Many people wouldn't imagine that because they think the US is very powerful and Mexico is very weak, and that a sneak attack would be courting death. Similarly, Japan's sneak attack on China is somewhat comparable; although the gap is not as large, it is still similar.

So, when people say things like being too optimistic, careless, or conspiracy theories, it's unnecessary; it's unnecessary. It's a matter of strength comparison. The US side is also experiencing changes in strength comparison. Regardless of what some people say, the current state of strength comparison is evident; it is now roughly comparable to us, unable to defeat us, or at most achieving a Pyrrhic victory; it has reached this state, and they themselves recognize this. Therefore, their strategic adjustments are very rational and a wise choice. Some people are always worried that the US is trying to deceive us, or that they are retreating to advance, which shows they still don't understand this change in strength. They do not grasp the change in strength comparison, and they still believe the US is strong and we are weak. They think the US is strong and we are weak, then why is the US behaving this way? Are they trying to deceive us?

Are they retreating to advance? This kind of thinking arises. In reality, they still do not fully understand the changes in strength comparison; once you understand this change in strength comparison, it becomes easier to comprehend. Just like I saw someone saying that the US is retreating to advance, and this person is supposed to be an expert. Then I replied—retreating to advance, retreating again and again… right, their idea of retreating to advance is based on the assumption that the US first contracts, then becomes stronger, and then counterattacks China. The problem is this assumption basically does not exist; the trend is that the US will only become weaker and China stronger, with China surpassing the US more and more. Under this trend, if you retreat to advance, you cannot advance.

Retreating to advance, and becoming increasingly weaker, will only result in more retreat; retreating to advance, retreating again and again. They will not retreat to advance and then make a comeback—this situation is currently not visible. That expert used the US-Soviet rivalry as an example, saying there was a period, for instance, in the 60s and 70s, when the Soviet side was hardline, and the US appeared weak, then retreated to advance, eventually making a comeback and defeating the Soviet side. But the problem is that the current situation is completely different from the US-Soviet rivalry; during the US-Soviet rivalry, the Soviet side was much weaker than the US overall strength, and in the end, the US developed rapidly while the Soviet Union collapsed. But the current China-US situation is completely different; China’s development speed is faster than that of the US, and by a considerable margin, and China has significantly greater potential than the US, which the US cannot foresee. What retreating to advance and making a comeback? They cannot see such hope. Now, retreating will only lead to weakness, resulting in more retreat, right?

Therefore, there is no need to worry; this is a wise choice. Those who are worried are, first, unaware of the changes in strength, and second, they overestimate the US, still seeing it too highly. First, they overestimate the current strength of the US and underestimate our current strength. Second, they overestimate the prospects of the US and underestimate our prospects. Overall, this is still a matter of strength comparison and changes in strength comparison; this is a fundamental issue. Therefore, we always say that the issue of strength comparison is a foundational issue in international problems and international strategic analysis. Once you understand this clearly, there won't be so many doubts and worries. Is it too optimistic? Is it careless? Are we underestimating the opponent? Are they trying to deceive us? Such matters are not that complicated; they become clear.