The U.S. War on China
The Backdrop
In the light of the Gospel, we are called to be peacemakers, yet as citizens of the modern American Empire, we find ourselves entangled in a web of perpetual provocation. To understand how we have arrived at the precipice of conflict with China since the end of the Cold War, we must look past the “rules-based order” rhetoric and see the “Imperial Economy” for what it truly is: a system that demands dominance to survive.
I intend to examine the trajectory of U.S.-China relations through the lens of stewardship, peace, and the dismantling of the warfare state, and asses the likelihood of a great power war in the Pacific.
The Architecture of Provocation: Chaining the Dragon to the Imperial Mint
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the architects of U.S. foreign policy did not seek a “peace dividend” and embrace a circumspect foreign policy. Instead, they embraced a unipolar world where the U.S. dollar, and the military might that backs it, would reign supreme. The provocation of China did not begin with missiles; it began with the arrogance of “End of History” thinking.
The Economic Snare
For decades, the U.S. elite encouraged China’s entry into the global trade system, not out of a desire for brotherhood, but under the assumption that China would become a “responsible stakeholder” in the U.S. debt-based monetary system. The United States outsourced its labor to China’s shores, hollowed out its own communities, and then became indignant when China used that very wealth to seek its own path. By weaponizing the dollar and using sanctions as a primary tool of statecraft, the U.S. has signaled to Beijing that their prosperity is only permitted so long as it serves the interests of the Imperial Mint. To a sovereign nation, there is no greater provocation than the threat of economic strangulation.
This brings up a key point; I am not saying that China does not want to expand. Of course it does, all nations do. I am saying that China is playing a long game and at the moment they are rationally aware of what they can and cannot accomplish. This desire to extend its influence does not take away from the fact that the U.S. is the aggressor.
The Encirclement of “Peace”
While the U.S. talks of “freedom of navigation,” they have systematically constructed a “noose” of military bases around the Chinese coast. Since the 1990s, the U.S. has expanded its presence in the Indo-Pacific, revitalizing Cold War-era alliances under the guise of “containment.” Imagine the response if China were to conduct “freedom of navigation” exercises in the Gulf of Mexico or establish a chain of bases in the Caribbean. The United States calls its actions “defense,” but through the eyes of the “other,” it is a clear preparation for siege. A visual should help:
The Taiwan Tripwire
The most dangerous provocation lies in the U.S. “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan. In the years following the Cold War, the U.S. has steadily chipped away at the foundational agreements that kept the peace. By increasing high-level diplomatic visits and accelerating arms sales, the Empire uses Taiwan as a “pivot point” to needle Beijing. The United States claims to support democracy, yet it often uses these noble ideals as a shield for geopolitical maneuvering that risks a nuclear exchange, the ultimate violation of God’s command to love our neighbor.
The Technology Crusade
In recent years, the provocation has moved to the digital realm. By blacklisting Chinese firms and pressuring allies to ban their technology, the U.S. is attempting to “freeze” China’s development. This is not about security; it is about maintaining a monopoly on the means of communication and surveillance. When the U.S. denies a nation the right to innovate, it is not waging peace; it is waging a “cold” war that seeks to keep half of humanity in a state of technological subservience.
Now it is true that the U.S. has backed off somewhat from the most draconian of tariffs and export restrictions. This is due to China’s control of key rare earth minerals and magnets that the U.S. tech sector needs. The presages a time when the U.S. will have no coercive leverage over China at all, if that time is not here already. Nonetheless, the U.S. is still maneuvering toward maintaining a position of dominance both economically and militarily. If either side thinks they have an advantage they may very well miscalculate and stumble into a war as a result. The greater risk lies in the U.S. thinking is still has coercive leverage over China when in fact they do not.
The Odds of War
Since the U.S. has been so provocative and has China ringed with bases and military assets, and China seeking to expand its influence, what are the odds of a Great Power war between China and the U.S.?
In November of 2025 the Trump Administration released the annual National Security Strategy, a document that outlines the U.S. military posture for the coming year. There was heavy emphasis of securing the U.S. borders, reviving U.S. economic performance, particularly manufacturing, and a heightened focus on the Western Hemisphere (which brings its own set of risks).
To the extent that it suggests the U.S. wants to withdraw from a super active presence in the Pacific this can help as a way to defuse tensions. Many, especially neocon Trump critics, have criticized this as an “abdication” of U.S. leadership in the world. However, the document also states that the U.S. seeks “military overmatch”, presumably to deter an attack on Taiwan. The document also states that the U.S. is not willing to cede economic dominance of the Pacific. It talks of stopping “unfair” trade practices, and “fair” relations with China. This is code for U.S. domination. While there is some rhetorical genuflection towards restraint, the U.S. still clearly wants to dominate the region and is willing to materially assist Taiwan. In short, there is not much substantive change in U.S. policy. While there is some “strategic ambiguity” regarding U.S. policy toward Taiwan, it is clear that the U.S. is not changing its force posture toward this island. Therefore, if Taiwan makes a clear break for independence, or either the U.S. or China makes a tragic miscalculation the U.S. would be highly likely to involve itself in hostilities over Taiwan. This makes Taiwan a major potential flashpoint for the two nuclear armed nations.
Another flashpoint is the South China Sea. China wants this area of water to be essentially considered as Chinese territorial waters, not a part of international oceans. This runs them headlong into conflicts with the key U.S. ally in that area, The Philippines. China is likely overstating its case to control these waters in that manner, yet the threat of a run in with a U.S. ally remains high. The U.S. has never said that it would not come to the aid of the Philippines.
Then there is the ever present area of economic friction. The NSS document does not back down from a desire for the U.S. to forcibly keep China from developing freely. The U.S. is busy refining what is a “bounded order”, that is a regional or limited membership organization to further a nation’s foreign policy goals. This includes NATO, the “free” trade agreement in North America, as well as the alliance system in the Pacific, and IMF and World Bank in the finance realm. China is countering with BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. To lessen the ties of trade between two blocks does not necessarily mean war, but it does lower the economic cost of war, as trade between the two camps lessens.
I am not saying that war between the U.S. and China is a fait accompli, or a matter of historical destiny. The risks of war are policy choices, and the moral opprobrium always falls heaviest on the aggressor, which is, as in so many other cases, the United States.
The Way of Peace: A Call to Repentance
The purpose of recognizing these provocations is not to excuse the faults of the Chinese state, but to practice the “radical Christian perspective” of removing the plank from our own eye. The warfare state thrives on the creation of enemies. It tells us that China is an “existential threat” so that we will continue to fund the military-industrial complex and ignore the crumbling of our own moral and economic foundations. I have left unexamined in this essay the deep structural weaknesses of the Chinese economy, which makes them much less of a threat than the empire realizes.
Blessed are the peacemakers. To be a peacemaker today is to demand that the United States stops the slow grind toward war. We must strip the state of its means of waging war, starting with the debt-fueled “Imperial Economy”, and begin to see the people of China not as rivals for hegemony, but as siblings in God’s creation.
The battle for peace is the only battle worth waging. Let us stop the provocations, withhold our consent from the empire of debt, and seek a world where “believe and obey” applies to the Prince of Peace, not the gods of war.
Praise Be to God
