Appeasement or Resistance: Su Xun’s Warning and China’s Modern Strategy

In the heart of classical Chinese political thought lies a powerful and haunting essay titled 《六國論》 (On the Six Kingdoms), written by Su Xun, a scholar of the Tang dynasty. Despite being nearly a millennium old, the text remains deeply relevant in the modern age, particularly in the context of global power competition and the intensifying trade war between China and the United States.

Su Xun’s essay analyzed the downfall of the six non-Qin states during the Warring States period (475–221 BCE). He argued that their demise was not because the Qin state was militarily invincible, but rather because the other states failed to form a united front. Instead, they chose to appease Qin by ceding territory and offering concessions in hopes of buying peace. His warning is delivered in stark terms:

“今日割五城，明日割十城；諸侯之地有限，暴秦之欲無厭；奉之彌繁，侵之愈急，故不戰而強弱勝負已判矣。”
 (“Today they cede five cities, tomorrow ten more. The lands of the feudal lords are finite, but the appetite of a violent Qin is endless. The more you offer, the more aggressive it becomes. Thus, without battle, the outcome between strong and weak has already been decided.”)

This passage is not merely a cautionary tale from history—it is a lens through which modern China views the present world order. In particular, it shapes Beijing’s approach to the escalating trade and technological tensions with the United States.

To Beijing, the current trade war is not a simple matter of economic disagreement—it is a high-stakes confrontation over national sovereignty, technological self-reliance, and the future of global power. The Chinese leadership sees an unsettling parallel between the behavior of today’s hegemon and the expansionist Qin of Su Xun’s time. From their perspective, each demand from Washington to restrict Chinese tech development, each sanction or blacklist, mirrors the Qin’s endless hunger for dominance. Each concession, no matter how small, is interpreted as a slippery slope toward strategic submission.

The Chinese government has taken particular note of U.S. moves to ban or limit the global reach of companies like Huawei, ZTE, and more recently TikTok, along with sweeping export controls on semiconductor technology and AI tools. These actions, which Washington justifies under the rubric of national security, are seen in Beijing as calculated efforts to curb China’s technological ascent. The logic of Su Xun’s warning echoes here: the more one gives in to such pressure, the more emboldened the aggressor becomes.

In this context, Beijing’s strategy has shifted dramatically. Rather than retreat or compromise on core technological ambitions, China is doubling down on its long-term vision. The state has pumped billions into achieving breakthroughs in semiconductors, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and renewable energy. Self-reliance is no longer an aspirational slogan—it is a national imperative. The emergence of homegrown chip design firms, the acceleration of state-supported R&D, and the localization of critical supply chains all reflect a growing sense that the country must become “unblockable” to external pressure.

This internal fortification, however, is not the only front on which China is moving. Su Xun’s essay also laments the fatal disunity of the six kingdoms, which chose appeasement over alliance. In contrast, modern China has committed to expanding its global partnerships, particularly across the Global South. The BRICS grouping—now bolstered by new members—is one example of a rising counterweight to Western-dominated institutions. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China has established itself as a key infrastructure and trade partner in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This diplomacy serves not only economic interests but also the strategic purpose of building a coalition of countries that, like China, oppose unilateralism and hegemonic dominance.

By creating alternative networks for trade, finance, and technological collaboration, China is pursuing a multipolar vision of the world—one that seeks to reduce dependence on the West and to diversify the sources of influence and innovation. This multipolarity, in Beijing’s view, is essential to resisting the coercive power of a single hegemon and ensuring national resilience.

There is also a deeper cultural and historical current informing China’s posture. The trauma of the “Century of Humiliation”—a period in which China was carved up by foreign powers and forced into a series of unequal treaties—remains a potent force in national memory. It reinforces the determination never to repeat the passive submission of the past. In this collective memory, the six kingdoms are not just historical states—they are symbols of fragmented weakness, of failing to resist when resistance was needed most.

Thus, China’s response to the current pressures is rooted not in belligerence, but in historical consciousness. The belief is that to secure peace, dignity, and long-term prosperity, one must first be strong enough to stand independently. As Su Xun articulated, strength is not just about battlefield victories—it is about refusing to cede space, whether physical or strategic, to an aggressor whose demands grow with each appeasement.

China’s Conceptualization of Global Order

In today’s context, Beijing views compromise in strategic industries—like 5G, AI, and semiconductors—as the equivalent of the six kingdoms offering land to Qin. To yield is not merely to delay conflict—it is to invite greater pressure. And once the ability to resist is lost, so too is the ability to decide one’s own destiny.

Su Xun’s timeless words thus serve as more than just literary reflection. They form a philosophical foundation for China’s foreign policy and economic strategy in the 21st century. His conclusion is clear, and it resonates with particular force in the corridors of power in Beijing today: “The more you offer, the more aggressive your enemy becomes. Without a single battle, the fate of strong and weak is already sealed.”

For modern China, the choice is equally clear. In the face of external attempts to restrict, contain, or isolate, retreat is not prudence—it is surrender. And surrender is not an option. Instead, China is committed to a path of strategic clarity, technological resilience, and international solidarity. It will not negotiate its future behind closed doors. The lessons of the past are being remembered not as warnings, but as mandates.

Su Xun’s ancient voice continues to echo into the modern age: Those who give up ground for peace will find neither.