China's dramatic economic and military ascent over three decades did not trigger the sharp containment predicted by structural power transition theories, according to analysis of a new book by Oriana Skylar Mastro. Instead, Beijing's expansion unfolded gradually, with the U.S.-Chinese rivalry deepening without decisive American pushback. The United States maintained economic engagement, and its alliances were not fully mobilized to balance Chinese power, while many nations opted to hedge rather than align definitively.
This outcome suggests China successfully managed Washington's reaction through strategic restraint, avoiding the hubris that typically provokes earlier and more aggressive counterbalancing from a dominant power. The analysis points to a deliberate Chinese strategy of incremental capability growth without overtly threatening the existing international order's core tenets, thereby delaying a unified adversarial response.
The strategic dynamic allowed Beijing to widen its diplomatic footprint across regions while modernizing its military at speed. Many countries, observing this managed rise, chose hedging strategies over clear alignment, complicating U.S. efforts to build a cohesive coalition for containment. This period of gradual rivalry, punctuated by crises but not explosion, provided China critical space to solidify its great-power status.
From a defense and security perspective, the delayed response represents a significant strategic cost. The period of engagement and hesitation allowed China to close capability gaps in critical domains without facing the full weight of coordinated Western technological and military countermeasures. The budget and opportunity cost of this delayed mobilization is a central question for current U.S. defense planning.
The historical pattern raises questions about current escalation risks. Analysts assess whether China's past strategy of restraint is sustainable as its power approaches parity, or if a more assertive posture will inevitably trigger the containment it previously avoided. The shift from managing reactions to asserting dominance marks a critical inflection point in the bilateral relationship.