Thucydides Trap on Note TLDRLSS

What is the "Thucydides Trap" in the Workplace? What Happens When a Senior Veteran Meets a Super Rookie? Why is Reasoning Useless? Turning the "Zero-Sum Game" into a "Win-Win Situation" Can Break You Out of the "Thucydides Trap"!

Sun, 17 May 2026 23:35:00 +0800

Have you ever encountered this situation? A highly capable newcomer is parachuted into the company, and their performance is approaching that of the senior manager at a rate of 20% per month. The manager praises them on the surface, but starts using “company processes” and “compliance risks” to block the newcomer’s projects.

This is not targeted at individuals, but the “Thucydides Trap” in human nature at work.

What is the Everyday Version of the “Thucydides Trap”?

Thucydides Trap is an international political theory describing how when a newly rising number two threatens the status of the number one, both sides are highly likely to head toward conflict.

But its essence is not “international politics”, but rather “the fatal flaw of human nature and power structures”.

As long as three conditions are met, this trap will automatically activate.

Condition	Explanation
An established interest holder (Number One)	The party that occupies the position and controls resources
A rapidly catching-up pursuer (Number Two)	The party that grows quickly and threatens the Number One
A closed environment with limited resources	Limited promotion spots, a market of fixed size, only one dominant power in the company

Whether between nations, within companies, or inside families, as long as these three conditions exist simultaneously, fear and insecurity in human nature will push the situation toward conflict.

What Does the “Thucydides Trap” Look Like in the Workplace?

Senior Manager vs. Parachuted Rookie

Imagine you are a senior manager who has been in the department for ten years, sitting comfortably in your position. Suddenly, a super newcomer graduated from a top university, full of AI automation talk, working late into the night, is parachuted in, and he shortens a report that originally took three days into three minutes.

Role	Mindset
Senior Manager (Number One)	“This guy keeps proposing new ideas in meetings, is he trying to usurp my position? The general manager recently skipped me to ask for his opinion directly, am I about to be laid off?”
Parachuted Rookie (Number Two)	“This veteran is so inefficient, why does he get the highest bonus? He blocks my new proposals again, he is simply jealous of my talent!”

At this point, the trust mechanism between the two has completely collapsed.

One day, just because of a trivial matter like “the microwave in the pantry wasn’t wiped clean” or “an email missed CC’ing someone”, both sides will directly form factions and start a full-scale confrontation.

In the end, it is usually a lose-lose situation, with one person leaving in anger and the team’s morale heavily damaged.

Business Giant vs. Disruptive Innovator

This trap also plays out every day in the business world. The number one usually doesn’t bother to compete with the number two on products, but directly uses “legal/capital encirclement” to resolve the threat.

Scenario	Number One’s Reaction	Number Two’s Situation
Traditional Taxi Industry vs. `Uber`	Mobilize political and business relations to lobby the government: “This is illegal! Crack down on it completely!”	Suppressed by administrative means
Large Tech Giant vs. Independent Developer	Copy features and build them in, or directly acquire them at a premium	Subsumed or blocked

When the number one feels fear, the first reaction is not to improve themselves, but to directly strangle the number two before their wings are fully grown.

Family Relations: Parental Authority vs. Adolescent Child

This is the most micro-level Thucydides Trap that everyone has experienced.

Before the age of 12, parents are the absolute authority, controlling all resources. But by age 16, the child is fully developed physically, has independent thoughts, and knows how to use logic to argue with parents.

Parents feel the fear of “loss of control” and often subconsciously use a harsher attitude to suppress them. The child feels “freedom is unreasonably deprived” and rebels even more fiercely.

Just because of trivial matters like “not eating dinner today” or “the bedroom door wasn’t locked”, both sides might directly flip the table, leading to years of silence.

Why is Reasoning Useless?

You might think: “Wouldn’t it be better if both sides sat down and communicated well?”

But the problem lies in the “structural contradiction” and the “limited resources” of the closed environment.

When trust collapses, any “communication” will be interpreted as “what trick is the other party playing again”.

Dilemma of Communication	Result
The `number one` hears the `number two` say “I’m not trying to take your position”	The `number one` thinks: “People who say this are usually the ones who want to take it the most”
The `number two` hears the `number one` say “I’m doing this to help you”	The `number two` thinks: “Helping me? You are clearly blocking me!”

Fear causes people to interpret all neutral signals as hostility.

This is why so many wars in history were not planned, but caused by “miscalculation”.

The number two makes a move they think is harmless, but the number one interprets it as “he is going to usurp me”, and opens fire directly.

The same goes for the office. When both sides already distrust each other, an email forgotten to CC, or a meeting not invited, can become the trigger for an all-out war.

How to Avoid a Lose-Lose Situation? Pragmatic Breakthrough Strategies

Since reasoning is useless, structural and pragmatic strategies must be adopted. These methods apply whether in international politics, business, or office infighting.

Strategy One: Bind Interests, Making “Action Equivalent to Suicide”

Peace is not built on mutual trust, but on “mutual hostage-holding”.

When the interests of both sides are deeply bound together, and taking action is equivalent to suicide, the trap will automatically fail.

Scenario	Binding Method
Workplace	The manager brings the rookie into core projects, making the rookie’s contribution become the manager’s performance
Business	`Apple's` top-tier screens are supplied by `Samsung`; both sides depend on each other and cannot afford to fight
Family	Parents let the child participate in major family decisions, giving a sense of responsibility rather than suppression

Strategy Two: Draw Red Lines, Building “Collision Barriers”

Conflicts often stem from “miscalculation”. When responsibilities are vague and boundaries are unclear, any action can be interpreted as an intrusion.

Scenario	Line-Drawing Method
Workplace	The manager directly and explicitly divides territory: veterans are responsible for maintaining existing large clients, while rookies are responsible for developing brand-new product lines
Business	Sign non-compete agreements between enterprises, or divide respective market areas
Family	Agree with the child: You can decide these things yourself, but these things need to be discussed first

When rules are clearly written in black and white, it can drastically reduce panic caused by “suspicion”.

Strategy Three: Open Up Blue Oceans, Making the Cake Bigger

People fight usually because “they are fighting for the same feed in the same small fish bowl”.

Since fighting for the top spot in the same battlefield is endless, the smartest approach is to jump out of this fish bowl.

Scenario	Blue Ocean Approach
Workplace	Veterans focus on deepening client relationships, while rookies explore brand-new markets that veterans haven’t touched
Business	Two similar influencers fighting for fans? One continues with short videos, while the other shifts to in-depth interviews or co-branded products
Family	The child wants independent space? Let them be in charge of a family project (like planning a trip), satisfying autonomy needs without clashing with authority

When the battlefield is pulled apart and each other’s goals no longer overlap, the competitive relationship will transform into parallel lines of respective development.

Strategy Four: The Art of Co-optation: Number One Becomes Investor, Number Two Becomes Partner

This is the clever trick that tech giants have loved using in recent years: “If you can’t beat them, join them (or buy them)”.

Scenario	Co-optation Method
Business	`Facebook` sees `Instagram` rising and directly pulls out $1 billion to buy it
Workplace	Instead of suppressing the rookie, make them your capable assistant and turn their contributions into the team’s achievements
Family	Instead of going head-to-head with the child, let go and let them handle part of the affairs, becoming your “partner”

The number one releases resources and a stage, the number two gets room to develop, and the trap is directly transformed into a thruster for progress.

See Through the Power Structure to Resolve Interpersonal Crises

Whether at work or in life, fear is often more likely to trigger conflict than hatred.

As long as you can see through this power structure, you can resolve interpersonal and workplace crises with more wisdom.

Next time you feel “suspicion” and “defensiveness” beginning to appear in a relationship, stop and ask yourself first:

Am I the number one or the number two?
Where does the other party’s fear come from?
Is there a way to turn a “zero-sum game” into a “win-win situation”?

Once you see the structure clearly, you won’t be dragged away by emotions.

Reference

What is the 'Thucydides Trap'? Why are the Hegemon and the Challenger Always at Loggerheads? What Do the 16 Historical Rivalries Look Like? How Did the 4 'Peaceful Exceptions' Achieve It?

Sun, 17 May 2026 22:30:00 +0800

Whether watching international news or reading historical stories, it seems that every time a new power emerges rapidly, the ruling hegemon begins to worry, and the relationship between the two deteriorates rapidly.

The ancient Greek historian Thucydides said 2,500 years ago:

The rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta made war inevitable.

Today, this statement has become one of the most important keys to understanding contemporary international relations: the “Thucydides Trap”.

Why Are the Hegemon and the Challenger Always at Loggerheads?

Imagine you are a student who has always ranked first in class. One day, a transfer student arrives, closing the gap in grades every time and progressing at a breakneck speed.

What would you think?

“Is he trying to take my spot?”

This is the core of the “Thucydides Trap”.

The Thucydides Trap is an international relations theory proposed by Harvard University scholar Graham Allison, describing a recurring historical pattern:

When a rising power threatens the position of a ruling power, war is highly likely.

This is also a classic case of the Security Dilemma. Wars often occur not because both sides truly desire to fight, but because three forces are intertwined:

Driver	Description
Fear of the ruling power	The hegemon worries that the challenger will seize its leadership position and interests
Self-confidence of the rising power	As its strength grows, the challenger begins to demand a greater voice and sphere of influence
Structural pressure	Friction in security and economy intensifies, leading to potential miscalculations or being dragged into war by third-party conflicts

What Does a War in Ancient Greece 2,500 Years Ago Have to Do with Us?

In ancient Greece 2,500 years ago, there were two superpowers in the Mediterranean world:

State	Role
Sparta	Land hegemon (Hegemon)
Athens	Rapidly rising through trade and navy (Challenger)

As Athens grew stronger, Sparta became increasingly anxious. Thucydides wrote in his record of this history:

“The rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta made war inevitable.”

Eventually, the two sides fought the Peloponnesian War, resulting in a lose-lose outcome, with the entire ancient Greek civilization declining together.

In 2012, Graham Allison formally introduced the term “Thucydides Trap” in a Financial Times article discussing potential conflicts between the US and China.

16 Historical Cases of the Thucydides Trap Over 500 Years

Over the past 500 years of human history, there have been a total of 16 cases of power transition that fit the “hegemon meets challenger” scenario.

This historical record is tragic: out of 16 power transitions, 12 led to all-out war, and only 4 were successfully avoided peacefully.

Period	Ruling Power (Hegemon)	Rising Power (Challenger)	Outcome
Late 15th Century	Portugal	Spain	Peace, Pope intervened to draw the line, signing a treaty to divide the New World
First Half of 16th Century	France	Spain	War, Italian Wars broke out, France suffered a crushing defeat
16th-17th Century	Spain	Ottoman Empire	War, fighting for control of the Mediterranean, Battle of Lepanto
First Half of 17th Century	Spain	Sweden	War, Thirty Years’ War, shattering Spain’s European hegemony
Mid-to-Late 17th Century	Netherlands	Great Britain	War, three Anglo-Dutch Wars, Britain seized the monopoly of maritime trade
Late 17th to Mid-18th Century	France	Great Britain	War, all-out conflict in Europe and overseas colonies
Late 18th to Early 19th Century	Great Britain	France	War, Napoleonic Wars, France defeated
Mid-19th Century	Great Britain, France	Russia	War, Crimean War, Russia was pushed back
Mid-19th Century	France	Germany (Prussia)	War, Franco-Prussian War, France ceded territory and paid reparations
Late 19th to Early 20th Century	China (Qing Dynasty), Russia	Japan	War, Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War
Early 20th Century	Great Britain	United States	Peace, Britain recognized reality, chose to back down, and peacefully transferred hegemony
Early 20th Century	Great Britain (plus France, Russia)	Germany	War, World War I
Mid-20th Century	Soviet Union, France, Great Britain	Germany	War, World War II
Mid-20th Century	United States	Japan	War, Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Pacific War
1940s-1980s	United States	Soviet Union	Peace, nuclear weapons formed a balance of terror, ultimately leading to the self-dissolution of the Soviet Union
1990s to Present	United Kingdom, France	Germany	Peace, reunited Germany bound within the European Union and the Eurozone

As high as a 75% probability that conflicts were resolved through war

How Did Those 4 “Peaceful Exceptions” Achieve It?

Since most transitions ended in war, how did the few peaceful cases successfully avoid the trap?

Period	Ruling Power (Hegemon)	Rising Power (Challenger)	Key Factor
Late 15th Century	Portugal	Spain	Third-party mediation, the `Pope` directly drew the line, cutting the New World in half
Early 20th Century	Great Britain	United States	Hegemon recognized reality, `Great Britain` pragmatically chose concession and cooperation, actively sharing power
1940s-1980s	United States	Soviet Union	Balance of terror, both sides had nuclear weapons, Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D), whoever shot first died first
1990s to Present	United Kingdom, France	Germany	Alignment of interests, binding Germany to the EU and the Eurozone, defusing conflict through economic integration

Peace is not built on mutual trust, but on the fact that the cost of action is too high.

The US-Soviet Cold War was one of the most perilous. Although the two sides fought numerous regional proxy wars, because they both possessed nuclear weapons and knew that an all-out war would mean the end of the world, they established a mechanism known as Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D. mechanism).

The most dangerous moment was the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba, while the United States placed nuclear weapons in Turkey and Italy.

Ultimately, through a political bargain between Kennedy and Khrushchev, the Soviet Union withdrew its nuclear missiles from Cuba, and the United States guaranteed not to invade Cuba, defusing the crisis.

US-China Relations: A Thucydides Trap in Action?

Currently, the most watched dynamic in the world is the structural contradiction between the United States (Hegemon) and China (Challenger).

Role	Perspective
US looking at China	You are trying to challenge the international rules I established and take my position as the tech leader
China looking at US	You are uniting with allies to contain me, simply because you do not want to see me strong

Chinese leader Xi Jinping once publicly cited this term and warned:

“We all need to work together to avoid the Thucydides Trap.”

In 2018, then-US President Trump initiated a trade war against China, imposing tariffs on almost half of the goods exported from China to the United States.

The outside world generally believes that this is a classic response to falling into the Thucydides Trap. The consequences of the trade war are very real:

Restructuring of global supply chains
Rising prices
Accelerated decoupling of the tech industry

This is not a superficial problem that can be solved by changing a president or negotiating a trade agreement; it is a structural contradiction.

Does the Academic World Really Agree with This Theory?

Although the Thucydides Trap theory has had a massive influence, there are also different voices in academia.

American foreign policy scholars Hal Brands and Michael Beckley proposed an opposite viewpoint:

The driver of war is not because the challenger is rising, but because the challenger’s rise has begun to plateau.

They believe that several of Graham Allison’s cases actually conform to another model:

Model	Logic
Thucydides Trap	The `challenger` continues to grow stronger → the `hegemon` becomes fearful → War
Alternative Theory	After rapid growth, the `challenger` suddenly plateaus → expects a sharp decline → rushes to seize resources before it’s too late → War

They gave a few examples:

Event	Trigger Cause
World War I	Germany’s economic growth began to slow down, prompting it to take aggressive action
Pacific War	Japan foresaw that its resources would be insufficient to sustain long-term competition
Russo-Japanese War	After its peak development, Japan was eager to consolidate its existing gains

The most dangerous trajectory in world politics is a long-term rise, followed by an expectation of a sharp decline.

This viewpoint has also been used to analyze current US-China relations.

They argue that China’s current slowing economic growth and international resistance, generating anxiety that “the peak has passed”, might be the real driver of conflict.

Only by Understanding the Underlying Logic Can You Make Sense of the News

Whether or not you agree with the Thucydides Trap theory, one thing is certain:

Understanding this framework helps you see through the power structures behind international news.

The next time you see news like “US and China sanction each other again” or “a country’s military exercises have escalated”, try to think using the “hegemon vs challenger” framework:

Who is the ruling hegemon? Who is the rising challenger?
Where do the fears and anxieties of both sides originate?
Is anyone building “guardrails”? Or are both sides accelerating toward a collision?

In an era of volatile international relations

Maintaining the capacity for independent thinking is more important than taking sides.