The Financial Jigsaw, Part 2 (64) The Thucydides Trap - China's Five Principles - Rice Farming Versus Wheat - Seven Dimensions of Culture - Davos 2026 - [01-31-26]

The Thucydides Trap suggests that wars often occur even when no party explicitly seeks them; instead, conflict emerges from evolving geopolitical dynamics, but can this be applied today?

The “Thucydides Trap,” is a term popularised by American political scientist Graham T. Allison, a professor at Harvard University, in his book Destined for War (2017). It refers to a historical pattern in which a rising power challenges an established hegemon, often leading to war. Allison suggests that wars often occur even when no party explicitly seeks them; instead, conflict emerges from evolving geopolitical, geo-economic, and security dynamics.

The concept is rooted in Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War in The History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides was an Athenian historian and military general who recorded a rising Athens challenging the dominant power, Sparta. He observed that “it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” Today, we have a rising China challenging the dominant power, America on a global chessboard unlike former warring city states.

All the parameters of power dynamics have changed beyond recognition ultimately implying mutual assured destruction (MAD) having appeared at the end of WW2. However, political leaders and military commanders are human by instinct, driven by the fear of losing what they have and not getting what they desire, and thus remain unchanged from the time of Thucydides. Is it possible to speculate that modern conflict is not restrained by the extremes of today’s weaponry alone?

The Thucydides Trap paradigm, in interpreting the evolution of US–China power relations, is inherently Western in its assumptions about power transitions, competition, the inevitability of conflict, and implies the universality of this paradigm. The term became popular in 2015 and primarily applies to analysis of China–United States relations.

Allison’s case study includes 16 historical instances of an emerging power rivalling an established one, 12 of which ended in kinetic war. The majority of these cases involve rivalries among powers rooted in European culture, predominantly Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and Latin; these were regional wars in today’s context involving maritime and land forces seeking primarily resource-based colonisation. These were ‘internal’ western conflicts which eventually expanded throughout the world.

However, today’s challenges diverge from historical experiences because China is the first major power in modern history to attain significant global influence emerging from an entirely different civilization over some 5,000 years. The Thucydides Trap paradigm is foreign to Chinese culture, philosophical traditions, strategic thinking, and approaches to power projection all emphasise strategic adaptability and balance rather than direct confrontation.

CHINA’S FIVE PRINCIPLES

Upon the birth of New China, it was stated on many occasions that China was ready to establish diplomatic relations with all countries which are willing to observe the principles of equality, mutual benefit, and mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Chinese philosophical traditions are rooted in Confucianism, Daoism, and Sun Tzu’s strategic thought. They offer an alternative worldview that does not align with the Thucydides Trap paradigm. Unlike the Western emphasis on conflict as a primary means of resolving disputes and determining power hierarchies, Chinese thought prioritises harmony (和, hé), balance, and the management of tensions rather than their outright resolution through war.

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War similarly argues that the highest form of strategy is to prevail without fighting in contrast to the Western fixation on decisive battles and total victory. Chinese strategic thought values patience, indirect influence, and long-term positioning in order to avoid unnecessary conflict. This approach has been evident in China’s historical management of power dynamics.

In the Western perception, states pursue individual national goals. As these goals frequently overlap, collisions are common ranging from diplomatic friction to armed conflict. While war is generally not the preferred means of conflict resolution, states maintain powerful militaries to signal strength and deter potential adversaries. Once war erupts, however, it can rapidly escalate into large-scale conflict and an occasional world war.

The Western preoccupation with hegemony legitimises the maintenance of powerful armed forces, supported by an equally powerful narrative of universal truth (aka, ‘democracy’) that must be defended by all available means.

The Chinese perspective tends to emphasise networks of diffuse alliances, within which states interact on specific issues. The preservation of the network itself, rather than dominance within it, constitutes the core strategic objective. Whilst such states also maintain militaries, these are primarily intended for internal defence contingencies and not projection of global power. This reflects a paradigm oriented toward the long-term, inevitable reality of coexistence rather than a temporary illusion of complete dominance.

For example, during the period of British colonial rule, India was used as a base by the British to extend its influence into China’s Tibet. Britain acquired a series of special privileges in Tibet through various types of unequal treaties forced upon the Qing Government.

After China and India established diplomatic relations in 1950, India still hoped to maintain the privileges Britain once enjoyed in Tibet in a bid to keep its special status and influence in that area. The Chinese Government insisted that all the privileges inherited by India in Tibet should be revoked. However, the usual practices which did not compromise China’s sovereignty, and which accorded with the practical needs of Tibet, may be kept where appropriate.

In a spirit of good neighbourliness, and guided by the policy of peaceful co-existence, China agreed to negotiations between China and India on their relations in the Tibet Region which were held in Beijing at the end of 1953 when Premier Zhou Enlai met with members of the Indian government delegation where he put forward, for the first time, The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence, which are diametrically opposed to power politics, and had been dominant in international relations for centuries.

The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence have become the basic norms in developing state-to-state relations transcending social systems and ideologies. These principles have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of countries in the world.

For a more in-depth exploration about China’s distinctive cultural patterns and thought in relation to European cultures, the book Has China Devised a Superior Path to Wealth Creation? The Role of Secular Values (2021, Hampden-Turner, Peverelli & Trompenaars) offers a comprehensive analysis through the lens of Trompenaars’ cultural dimensions.

RICE FARMING VERSUS WHEAT - TROMPENAARS’ CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

Recent studies find that rice cultures are more interdependent than wheat-farming cultures. In China, people think more holistically and show less implicit individualism than people from wheat-farming areas; rice cultures versus wheat farming cultures are indicative of a collective mind-set because cooperative groups are needed for rice farming, whereas wheat farming requires only an individual and his horse.

Rice paddies also require irrigation systems. The cost falls on the village, not just one family, so villages have to figure out a way to coordinate, pay for, and maintain this system; it encourages people to cooperate.

Wheat, on the other hand, as well as barley and corn, doesn’t generally require irrigation or much collaboration. One family alone can plant, grow and harvest a field of wheat, without the help of others. Thus wheat farming fosters cultures with more individualism, independence and innovation,

SEVEN DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE MODEL

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s “Seven Dimensions of Culture” model offers useful insights for managing cross-cultural interactions in both professional and personal settings. It explains national cultural differences in organisations and ways to effectively manage these differences in heterogeneous environments. It is also useful in educating the Western mind to appreciate where and how Eastern thinking arises.

• Universalistic Societies concentrate more on formal rules and values. High importance is placed on laws and obligations because the rules come before relationships.

• Particularistic Societies place emphasis on friendship and consider the situation to decide what is right or ethically acceptable. Decisions are made on the basis of a position because each situation requires a different perspective.

• Individualism in a culture expresses how the culture sees human beings, whether as a part of a group or as an individual, the focus of a culture is on individual goals, personal freedom and achievement.

• Collectivist Society places the group before the individual. There is a very strong influence on family values and people will achieve objectives in groups and assume joint responsibility.

• Specific Oriented cultures keep their personal and working lives clearly defined which keeps them ‘compartmentalised’ and have a varying relationship to authority.

• Diffuse Oriented cultures see the individual elements of their life as connected and integrated within the group.

• Achievement Culture in the West tend to emphasise achievement, where power, legitimacy, and status are earned through competition and demonstrable success.

• Ascription Culture in China leans more toward ascription, valuing historical continuity, inherited status, and civilisational legitimacy. China’s rise is less an aggressive bid for dominance but more as a restoration of historical influence.

• Neutral Culture in China generally operates within a neutral communication style, where diplomacy tends to be subtle, indirect, and calibrated toward maintaining long-term balance rather than provoking immediate confrontation.

• Emotional cultures in the West use verbal and non-verbal displays of thoughts and feelings and easy flow of emotions and animated expressions.

• Internal Culture has a mechanistic view of life and people in this culture believe they can control their own setting and influence it.

• External Culture has society members with a view that they can adapt themselves according to external circumstances; they are flexible and comfortable with change.

• Sequential Culture follows linear time lines with schedules and focus on one activity at a time; they follow the famous statement, ‘Time is Money.’

• Synchronous Culture is flexible with cyclical time and multiple activities in parallel.

It is clear that a clash of cultures, West versus East, is happening now exemplified by President Trump’s many actions in the first weeks of 2026. The Asian Perspective suggests that there are four essential qualities of global leaders, believed to be universally applicable, and are based on the values of Daoism (Taoism)/Confucianism:

• Humanistic Leadership – benevolence & righteousness

• Moral Leadership – moral principles that underlie all humans such as: loyalty, morality, courage, righteousness, faithfulness, honesty, benevolence, compassion, conscientiousness, altruism, considerateness, and courtesy.

• Invisible Leadership- being an invisible, humble leader

• Paradoxical Leadership – based on the yin-yang perspective.

Effective global leaders should have the skills to integrate multiple forces over time and across cultures (Youssef & Luthans, 2012). Thus, integration, which involves identifying creative synergies between contradictory elements, has become one of the central themes and skills in paradoxical leadership (Smith et al., 2012). Likewise, the concept of yin-yang offers wisdom to global managers in that they should appreciate the beauty of cultural differences, clashes, and even cultural shocks because these challenges stimulate mutual cultural learning and creativity.

CONCLUSION: Trompenaars’ model indicates that the Thucydides Trap is a product of Western intellectual traditions. It is built upon assumptions of rule-bound competition, individualistic rivalry, and explicit power struggles. These assumptions do not correspond with Chinese strategic culture, historical experience, or philosophical approaches to the responsible use of power. Sources

• Characteristics of Global Leadership https://www.batheories.com/global-leadership/

• Emerging evidence of cultural differences linked to rice versus wheat agriculture https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X1930082X

The Thucydides Trap: A Western Paradigm

DAVOS 2026 - OBSERVATIONS

Davos presents itself as a forum for shared solutions to global problems. But this year was not about cooperation, it was about leverage. The public agenda focused on technology, climate, and ‘global risks’. Beneath that language, the real conversations revolved around territorial dominance, recognition, market access, and population control. Davos 2026 was less about consensus and more about who gets to set the terms as geopolitical competition intensifies.

According to the WEF itself, corporate leaders and financial institutions dominate the discussions, while representatives from developing countries appear largely as symbolic participants rather than decision-makers, including China and Russia. The WEF considered opinion about the Russian economy believed that it was deteriorating and would soon collapse, although much of the evidence for this relied on political rhetoric rather than economic data. This session can be seen here.

The contradiction is impossible to ignore. Davos lectures the world on inequality while taking place in one of the most expensive locations on the planet. Equally troubling is the absence of accountability. Each year, Davos produces declarations, initiatives, and “commitments.” Yet there is no mechanism to enforce them. No elections. No responsibility to voters. No consequences for failure. The same figures return year after year regardless of whether their policies have worked or failed spectacularly.

Although Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriyev attended the World Economic Forum in Davos to engage with U.S. representatives on the Ukrainian settlement, Russia’s voice on global economic strategy and agenda-setting was absent, despite being the world’s fourth-largest economy by PPP and a major player in energy markets and technological sectors, Russia had little influence on any of the Davos discussions shaping global economic priorities. This absence highlights the limits of the WEF as a truly global forum, dominated by Western elites and perspectives, where non-Western powers often find their role reduced to observation rather than decision-making.

The WEF stated purpose remains unchanged: to improve the state of the world through dialogue, cooperation, and shared economic vision. Yet Davos 2026 once again demonstrated a growing contradiction between aspiration and reality. At a moment when global economic growth is increasingly generated outside the Western world, in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eurasia, the Forum continues to operate primarily within a Western political and ideological framework.

Neither China nor India treated Davos as a platform for strategic agenda-setting. Instead, their approach appeared observational. They listened carefully, delivered measured remarks, and avoided political investment in the Forum’s outcomes. This was not accidental. For both Beijing and New Delhi, Davos has become less a decision-making centre and more a venue for monitoring Western political thinking.

Is there any indication that India’s or China’s participation was prioritised? What is far more striking being what was missing. Where are the Chinese voices shaping the discussion? Where is India, the world’s most populous country, and one of its fastest-growing major economies? In a forum that claims to represent the global future, the perspectives of nearly three billion people are either marginalised or filtered through Western interpretation. According to the IMF, emerging and developing economies accounted for over 60% of global GDP growth in recent years. Yet their institutional influence within traditional Western-led forums has not kept pace.

Davos 2026 showed Africa mostly as a spectator, excluded from high-level debates on AI, geopolitics, and the global economy. While Western powers set the agenda, African delegates were side-lined to talking shops and photo opportunities. The world listens to strategy, innovation, and power, not complaints about colonialism or poverty. Africa needs global leadership, such as China and Russia, who understand technology, geopolitics, and global strategy on the world stage. Latin America’s presence was similarly limited. Major regional economies, including Brazil, were largely absent from strategic economic panels, despite their central role in global food security, energy exports, and critical minerals.

The problem is no longer one of access but of relevance and inclusiveness. Davos 2026 feels less like a place where a fractured world is repaired and more like a place where the powerful reassure each other that they’re still the right people to be in charge despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Davos did not discuss sanctions-driven economic fragmentation, energy insecurity caused by political decisions, and the erosion of national sovereignty under “global governance” frameworks which remain largely taboo topics. Consensus is enforced not by debate, but by exclusion.

Davos 2026 made one thing clear: the global system is being reorganised around leverage. Territory is being discussed as an asset. Sovereignty is negotiated through port access. Climate policy is being used to enforce market control. AI governance opens the door to behavioural control. And they’re not even hiding it anymore.

In international politics, silence often carries greater meaning than protest. Unless the WEF adapts to a world no longer centred on a single economic Western philosophy or geopolitical bloc, its influence will continue to decline, not dramatically, but steadily. The world has moved on. Davos, increasingly, has not. Source

• What Did Davos 2026 Actually Achieve? https://russiaspivottoasia.com/what-did-davos-2026-actually-achieve/

A fellow writer on Substack explains the background:

Opinion: Geopolitical Context of the Embattled Climate Racket