Modelling Chinese strategic power

Technologies, Time, and the Architecture of Global Dominance

________________________________________

1. Strategy and Power

1.1. Strategic Power: Definitions and Components

Strategic power can be understood as a state's ability to exert sustained, structural, and anticipatory influence within the international system. This influence is not limited to the use of hard power—military or economic—nor to soft power—cultural or institutional—but is exercised through the control of the enabling conditions for future power: infrastructures, technologies, value chains, global norms, and standards.

We thus define strategic power (P) as a multivariable and systemic function composed of: economic size (T), state investment in key sectors (Ie), human capital (H), market scale (S), innovation capacity (I), strategic synchronization (σ), soft power (SB), military power (M), and strategic time (t). This last dimension is not merely a chronological variable, but a qualitative time linked to the accumulation and timely deployment of strategic potential, aligned with the Chinese concept of strategy represented by the sinogram shi (勢).

________________________________________

1.2. The Concept of Shi (勢): Strategic Time and Advantage Calculation

One of the fundamental contributions of Chinese strategic tradition is the notion of shi (勢), which can be translated as "configuration of potential" or "propensity of the situation." This concept, present in classical texts such as Sunzi Bingfa (The Art of War) and reinterpreted by François Jullien (2020), refers to the ability to shape the terrain and conditions such that victory becomes inevitable, without direct confrontation.

From this perspective, strategic time (t) is not a simple chronological unit, but an endogenous and cumulative variable. Accumulated power generates strategic time, which in turn allows for greater reach in planning and influence. Shi acts as a silent force of advantage—the art of shaping the environment until the situation itself favors the actor who knew how to wait, accumulate, and synchronize. Shi is not accumulated power, but the dynamic of its time-oriented deployment.

________________________________________

1.3. China–U.S. Systemic Competition: Global Context

Following the Cold War, the international system has shifted from unipolar hegemony to unstable multipolarity. China presents itself as a systemic power not only seeking growth but aiming to redefine the structural rules of the global order. While the U.S. model centers on tech corporations, open markets, and global platforms, China orchestrates a directed economy where the state acts as a planner and strategic investor, coordinating industrial, technological, and military policies.

The contest is not decided solely by GDP figures or arsenals but by who sets the standards of innovation, data flows, algorithmic logic, and critical 21st-century logistics chains.

________________________________________

1.4. Scale as a Structural Advantage

As highlighted in Foreign Affairs (2024), scale represents an accumulative advantage. China possesses a critical mass of population, industry, and data that enables it to create national network effects, reduce costs, train superior AI models, and coordinate large-scale policies. This mechanism creates a virtuous circle:

More users → more data → better algorithms → more users.

In the model proposed here, this dynamic is formalized as a function where economic size (T) and state investment (Ie) feed scale (S), which boosts innovation (I) and reinforces strategic power (P).

________________________________________

1.5. Artificial Intelligence and Chinese Digital Dominance

According to the Stanford AI Index Report 2025, China has surpassed the U.S. in several key AI implementation metrics, especially in strategic sectors such as software-defined vehicles (SDVs), urban planning, and cyber defense.

Unlike the U.S. decentralized and private-sector-dependent approach, China deploys a sovereign digital architecture where hardware, software, and digital infrastructure converge in a national model. This vertical integration and state control create a systemic form of dominance over the technical conditions of the future.

2. Visual and Conceptual Justification

To represent the development of China’s strategic power, the following visual representations were chosen. It begins with a static hierarchical tree model and evolves into dynamic models: wheel graph (internal feedback), heatmap (zones of relative dominance), and finally hypercube (interaction of multiple dimensions simultaneously).

Each graph visually represents a distinct layer of the strategic conflict:

• Tree: structural causality
• Wheel: internal power cycles
• Heatmap: spaces of comparative advantage
• Tesseract: multidimensional system complexity

This approach visualizes how China’s strategic power consolidates over time through synchronization and scale, as suggested by the notion of shi (Jullien, 2020).

2.1. Hierarchical Tree of Structural Causality

Show original animation

Hierarchical Tree and Strategic Power

Source: Own elaboration

The initial model is represented as a hierarchical tree where nodes show the dependency between variables. The root is anchored in base factors: Size (T), State Investment (Ie), and Human Capital (H), which feed a key transformation variable: Scale (S). This, in turn, enhances Innovation (I), reinforced by Strategic Synchronization (σ). From this innovative core, the model converges on the final node: Strategic Power (P).

The model also incorporates other dimensions that directly influence the final outcome: Soft Power (SB), reflecting the country’s institutional and cultural appeal; Military Power (M), associated with deterrence and force projection capacity; and Strategic Time (t), understood as the maturation of a favorable environment for deploying accumulated power.

This tree reflects a linear structure, without feedback. It represents a classical view of causality, useful for showing layers of dependency and functional hierarchy, but insufficient to capture temporal dynamics, feedback processes, or nonlinear interactions that appear in more complex models like the wheel graph or multidimensional tesseract.

2.2. Wheel Graph: Feedback and Circular Dynamics

Show original animation

Wheel Graph and Strategic Power

Source: Own elaboration

As the analysis progresses, the graph becomes a wheel. The central node is Strategic Power (P), connected to peripheral nodes representing its determining factors. In this model, Strategic Power generates a feedback effect on Strategic Time (t), which in turn reinforces the central node, forming a virtuous cycle of influence expansion.

This model visualizes synchronization as a structural loop: the greater the power achieved, the greater the capacity to project in time and amplify one’s environment.

2.3. Two-Dimensional Heatmap: Zones of Relative Advantage

Show original animation

Two-Dimensional Heatmap and Strategic Power

Source: Own elaboration

To comparatively measure the evolution of power, a heatmap is introduced representing combinations of Innovation (I), Scale (S), and eventually Military Power (M). Each cell represents the relative power difference between China and the U.S.:

The color gradient indicates which country dominates a given variable configuration. This approach translates a complex outcome matrix into an intuitive visualization.

In this model, Relative Advantage (V) between China and the U.S. is calculated:

• Negative values: greater U.S. power
• Positive values: China surpasses the U.S.
• Zero: relative balance, neither clearly dominates

The animation dynamically illustrates how, under model assumptions, the U.S. starts with a clear advantage (intense cool colors) and, over time, this advantage diminishes (colors lighten, approaching intermediates) until reaching near-relative equilibrium.

2.4. Strategic Tesseract: Multidimensional Interaction

Show original animation

Strategic Tesseract and Power

Source: Own elaboration

The traditional heatmap clearly visualizes how the relative advantage metric (V) varies between China and the U.S. based on two variables, enabling immediate pattern identification: blue tones indicate U.S. advantages, while red tones signal China’s superiority. This approach has the great advantage of synthesizing large amounts of information into an intuitive image, using a diverging color scale to quickly highlight the magnitude of differences.

However, despite these advantages, the heatmap has significant limitations in representing complex strategic systems. In our case, the model integrates multiple essential dimensions such as Innovation, Scale, Military Power, and Strategic Time. These elements interact non-linearly, and their complexity is reduced when forced into a 2D representation. The loss of information on multiple state combinations and the inability to simultaneously observe the impact of all factors make the heatmap, though useful, insufficient to capture the full strategic dynamic.

Thus, the hypercube is used. This approach creates a multidimensional state space where each vertex represents a particular combination of conditions: a 4D hypercube is defined from the Cartesian product of [−1,1] for each dimension. Each dimension is reinterpreted as follows:

• Innovation (I)
• Scale (S)
• Military Power (M)
• Strategic Time (t)

In summary, while the heatmap is useful for quickly observing the variation of a single metric in two dimensions, its capacity is limited when capturing the complexity of a multidimensional system. The hypercube, on the other hand, offers a more complete and integrated representation of the strategic model, allowing detailed analysis of interactions between various variables and how they drive power balance evolution over time.

Here, the value of V is not the relative advantage but the arithmetic mean of all V values from the hypercube vertices. This average summarizes, at a global level, the system’s tilt at that moment.

• Slightly positive: model configurations generally favor China
• Negative: favor the U.S.
• Near zero: approaching a state of equilibrium

3. Conclusion: Between Strategic Chaos and Systemic Flow

The comparison between the Chinese model and the U.S. strategic model—as developed in the analysis of Trump’s tariff policy through game theory—reveals two diametrically opposed visions of how power is built.

On one hand, the U.S. model operates under a disruptive, sequential, and confrontational logic. As shown in the article "Trump and Game Theory: Chaos as a Calculated Move", the Trump-era tariff strategy can be understood as a sequential game with a credible threat, where initial tension is used to induce favorable renegotiations. Chaos is not a mistake but a tactical move within a game expecting rationality from the adversary. It is a strategy of direct pressure, based on dominance of short timeframes, costly signaling, and confrontational leadership.

In contrast, the Chinese model follows a cumulative, indirect, and structural logic. Its power is not deployed from open conflict but from the accumulation of shi, strategic synchronization, and control over future conditions. The key is not in inducing immediate responses but in shaping the environment so that possible responses are already tilted in its favor.

While the U.S. acts as a player on the board, China appears to be redesigning the board itself. One operates on a tactical surface, the other in systemic depth. 21st-century supremacy will not be decided only in international forums or open conflicts, but in the invisible architecture that determines who can influence, when, and how—in other words, who dominates strategic power.

________________________________________

References

• Jullien, F. (2020). The Propensity of Things: Toward a History of Efficacy in China. Siruela.
• Sunzi. (6th century BCE). The Art of War. Various editions.
• Foreign Affairs. (2024). “Why Scale Is Everything in Geopolitics”.
• Stanford HAI. (2025). AI Index Report. Stanford University.
• Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.
• Kissinger, H. (2011). On China. Penguin Books.
• Gevatschnaider, S. (2025). Trump and Game Theory: Chaos as a Calculated Move. Economía y Ética. Available at: economiayetica.blogspot.com