Overview
The question of which nation—the United States or China—is the aggressor in their ongoing geopolitical rivalry resists simple categorization. Rather than assigning blame, the focus should be on contrasting their distinct methods of power projection, historical traumas, and strategic imperatives. Flashpoints such as U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and China’s potential engagement with Cuba reveal not a clear-cut aggressor, but a complex cycle of mutual suspicion.
Argument for U.S. Aggression
Critics of U.S. foreign policy highlight its extensive global military footprint—approximately 750 bases in over 70 countries—and a post-WWII legacy of military interventions. While Washington frames these as essential to maintaining global stability, others interpret them as evidence of hegemonic overreach.
A clear double standard emerges when comparing U.S. policy in Taiwan and its reaction to China’s rumored cooperation with Cuba. Both scenarios involve major powers supporting strategic partners near their rival’s sphere of influence. Yet the U.S. invokes doctrines like Monroe to justify its own behavior while opposing China’s equivalent moves in Asia.
America’s recent history of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, alongside an $877 billion defense budget and $50 billion in arms sales to Taiwan since 2010, suggests a persistent preference for military tools. Critics argue this reflects a system driven by a powerful military-industrial complex rather than consistent principles.
Argument for Chinese Aggression
Proponents of the opposing viewpoint to China’s increasingly assertive regional behavior despite its limited overseas base presence. Its militarization of disputed islands in the South China Sea, rejection of international legal rulings, and frequent incursions into Taiwan’s air defense zone (125 reported in 2024) suggest coercive intentions.
China’s broader strategic ambitions are evident in the Belt and Road Initiative and military or surveillance partnerships in places like Djibouti and Cambodia. Though framed as developmental or defensive, these efforts are perceived as part of a wider push to reshape the global order.
China’s historical memory—especially the “Century of Humiliation”—drives a deep suspicion of Western motives and a belief that encirclement is a modern replay of past domination. This worldview reinforces an increasingly assertive posture, often described as “wolf warrior diplomacy.”
Conclusion: A Feedback Loop of Perception
Labeling either nation as the definitive aggressor oversimplifies a fluid, historically loaded competition. The U.S. views its global posture as a stabilizing force; China sees it as encirclement. China interprets its assertiveness as defense of sovereignty; the U.S. sees expansionism.
Both nations operate within a paradigm where strategic imperatives often override principles of restraint. The result is a feedback loop of action and reaction, where each side’s moves reinforce the other’s fears, escalating tensions in an increasingly polarized world.