Everyone wants to succeed. Parents naturally hope their children will excel. They push hard to get their kids into elite schools and into medical school at university, believing this is a straight path through life. But this often misses the point entirely.
Since entering the workforce, I've met many successful people. I always chat with them and probe one question: How did they succeed? Having attended a prestigious school is usually not the real answer.
I have long been fascinated by history and politics, especially the secrets behind the success of political parties and nations. Back in secondary school, one puzzle already caught my attention. The Kuomintang launched two campaigns trying to wipe out the Communists. The Chinese Party of China (CPC) endured the brutal Long March, a trek across thousands of miles that left only 50,000 survivors fleeing into the mountains. Yet by 1949, the Communists had won the civil war, seized power, and unified China. That outcome seemed almost unbelievable, and it left me wondering how the Party fought and won so effectively.
After entering university, I watched China swing from the extreme leftism of the Cultural Revolution to a complete reversal under Reform and Opening Up. At first, this looked erratic and unpredictable. But tracing the Party's trajectory more closely changed my view.
I came to see an extraordinarily strong capacity to learn, to admit mistakes, and to pivot when needed. During university, I wrote a short thesis on exactly this: how the Chinese Communist Party engages in systematic learning.
In recent years, I've been even more astonished. I never imagined China could take the lead over the United States in new energy, electric vehicles, and even cutting-edge technology such as hypersonic missiles and sixth-generation fighter jets. More striking still, the United States launched trade and tech wars against China twice, in 2018 and again in 2025, and both times came away empty-handed.
This pushed me to ask why the Chinese Communist Party possesses such a powerful ability to advance against the wind. These are questions that define our era.
Anti-China sentiment still dominates Western discourse, yet wave after wave of serious China research keeps surfacing underneath it. Professor Mariana Mazzucato of University College London recently released her latest book, The Common Good Economy: A New Compass. In it, she acknowledges that China has outperformed the West, describing it as a form of co-creation between government and people with Chinese characteristics.
Mazzucato clearly is not fond of China's political system, yet she cannot deny its capacity to get things done. She notes that China is the only country seriously tackling poverty, hunger, and climate change on a large scale.
Mazzucato points to considerable hypocrisy in the West, which talks about these grand goals but never examines what China has actually accomplished. On hunger, poverty, and climate action, she says, China leads the world in practice, not merely in rhetoric.
Mazzucato adds that a key feature of China's approach is genuine collaboration between government and people. The two sides co-create and participate together, rather than the government simply issuing directives from above. She contrasts this with so-called democracies that talk about serving the people.
In practice, she argues, those governments fail to serve their people and certainly do not work alongside them. Her critique essentially amounts to this: Western nations talk the talk, while China delivers results.
Another prominent Russian figure, Alexander Bastrykin, has also weighed in on China. The 73-year-old Bastrykin is a university classmate of Russian President Vladimir Putin and chairman of Russia's Investigative Committee, often dubbed "Russia's FBI." Speaking recently at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum, he bluntly stated that Russia is now in crisis, lacking clear ideological guidance.
Bastrykin recalled that Soviet children grew up steeped in Soviet patriotism, and it was precisely this that allowed the Soviet Union to win the Great Patriotic War. Today, he argued, Russians, especially younger generations who never experienced the Soviet era, simply do not know where Russia is headed or what they are supposed to be striving for.
The root cause of this confusion, Bastrykin said, is that Russia lacks an ideology of its own. In other words, Russia has lost its soul.
Bastrykin called on Russia to learn from China's experience. He argued that China's ability to develop at a pace far exceeding the norm stems from having fundamentally established its own ideology, with the goal of building a strong socialist nation.
He then turned pointedly critical. "And what about Russia? What exactly are we building? Capitalism?" he asked angrily. "I honestly do not understand what we are building here. It is just a market economy, nothing more. There is no ideology whatsoever behind it."
Many people may not realize that as a major power, Russia's constitution does not lay out any national goal. In 1993, under Russia's first president Boris Yeltsin, Article 13 of the Russian Federal Constitution stated in black and white that the Russian Federation recognizes ideological diversity and a multi-party system. No ideology may be established as a state or mandatory ideology. Under the guidance of Western advisors at the time, Russia legally castrated its own ideology, primarily to prevent any return of communism. This has since left it a nation that has lost its spirit.
President Xi Jinping recently stated at an assembly marking the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party: "One must have great ambition and make tireless efforts to achieve success." He called on the Party to fulfill its mission on this new journey in the new era. He urged all Party members to strengthen their resolve, continue striving without pause, and keep creating new achievements worthy of the times and the people.
A Russian official spoke of China's ideology. A British scholar spoke of China's execution capability. President Xi's eight-character phrase, "One must have great ambition and make tireless efforts to achieve success," sums up both issues. China has set its sights firmly on building a strong, modern socialist nation, with a clear ideological goal. It also possesses formidable execution capability, underpinned by a stable political system under Communist Party leadership that enables sustained, continuous effort.
It’s always easier said than done. A child who sets clear goals and works diligently toward them stands a good chance of success. But that is not achieved simply by attending endless tutoring classes or getting into a famous school. That is not how these eight characters are truly fulfilled.
Many parents themselves drift through life without direction, so how can they expect their children to set ambitious goals? If parents spend their time gaming and traveling, how can they expect their children to study diligently? Everything must be learned from those who have truly succeeded, starting with leading by example.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
China's strategy is simple: throw one punch to avoid a hundred.
On Wednesday, August 5, China fired back with five consecutive moves to counter a string of recent US measures that Beijing sees as hostile. A spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce called the countermeasures "generally restrained." The message was clear: since the China-US presidential meeting in Busan, the US Federal Communications Commission has ignored China's strong opposition and industry appeals. It keeps stretching the concept of national security to roll out restrictions on China.
Meanwhile, the US has added over 40 Chinese entities to the so-called Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act entity list. China demands the US immediately revoke these measures. And if Washington insists on new restrictions, "China will further retaliate."
China's moves are a direct answer to a series of petty US actions that fall into two main areas.
First, the FCC. Before the government took action, the People's Daily fired a warning shot. Under the byline "Zhong Sheng," it blasted the FCC for hiding behind banners like "non-discrimination" and "national security" to discriminate against and suppress Chinese companies.
The FCC recently added foreign-made power inverters and advanced robotic equipment to its so-called "Covered List." That means new models can't get certification and are locked out of the US market. The paper called the tactic typical unilateral bullying.
This isn't new. Back in 2021, the FCC put telecom and video surveillance gear from five Chinese companies on the list. Since then, it has steadily widened the net. In April, it proposed revoking the qualifications of testing and certification bodies from countries that haven't signed a "Mutual Recognition Agreement" with the US. That artificially raises the compliance bar for Chinese products.
And now, Reuters reports the FCC is drafting a ban on imports of new Chinese-made optical communication transceivers for data centers.
Second, the Xinjiang sanctions. On July 30, the US Department of Homeland Security added over 40 Chinese entities to the entity list under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The move, effective August 3, swells the list from 144 to 187, the biggest expansion since it was created. The new targets span food, clothing, and cotton. They include snack maker Qia Qia melon seeds, frozen food producer Zhengzhou Synear dumplings, and apparel brand Fujian Septwolves.
When the news hit the Chinese internet, netizens erupted in mockery. The joke going around teasing that "eating melon seeds can easily damage US soldiers' teeth."
China didn't waste a second. It fired back with five countermeasures, and the first one hits where it hurts: drones. Beijing is tightening export controls on drones and related technologies to the US. From now on, every shipment of drones, key components, and controlled technologies will face a strict case-by-case review.
And forget about any 'licensing facilitation' exemptions—those are off the table. Think about it: China is the world's drone superpower. The US wanted to block Chinese drones from coming in. Now China is flipping the script—it's restricting what goes out. The message is blunt: just because you want to buy doesn't mean we'll sell. Especially not advanced drones and components with military uses.
The second measure is a highly targeted strike: China has added six US entities to its Countermeasures List, all of which it says assisted US sanctions on Xinjiang-related companies.
Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. is believed to provide DNA-based traceability and verification services for relevant products.
Stratum Reservoir, LLC is believed to conduct stable-isotope testing and related analysis to determine the origin of Xinjiang-linked materials.
Altana Technologies, Inc., which operates a global supply-chain mapping and management platform, is believed to help the US government trace supply chains involving Xinjiang-linked products.
The Responsible Business Alliance, which promotes responsible business conduct in global supply chains and operates assessment programmes for member companies, is believed to help companies exclude Xinjiang-linked products from their supply chains.
Verité Group, Inc., a nonprofit focused on labour rights and human rights, examines alleged forced labour in global supply chains.
Human Rights in China, a New York-based human-rights organization, advocates sanctions related to Xinjiang.
China’s countermeasures against these six entities are therefore highly targeted.
The third measure targets a US compliance testing company that helped the FCC impose China-related sanctions. That company will now be locked out of the compliance testing business in the Chinese market. The ripple effect: it could drive up compliance costs for US products trying to enter China.
The fourth measure hits at the heart of product certification. China is suspending the entrustment of US agencies to conduct factory follow-up inspections for CCC certification. Remember, CCC certification is a must-have for US products to enter the Chinese market. By pulling the plug on US inspectors, China shifts the review work to its own agencies. That spells more time and more uncertainty for American exporters.
The fifth measure, a national security investigation into imported US printing and copying office equipment. On the surface, this one looks like a light tap.
China imported about $2.08 billion worth of such equipment in 2025, mostly from Japan ($1.72 billion). The US slice was small. But this is just the opening move.
The US has banned Chinese software and hardware from connected and autonomous vehicles on American roads—and until now, China held its fire.
Now Beijing is investigating US printers and copiers on national security grounds. The message is unmistakable: if Washington plays the national security card at every turn, Beijing can just as easily slap an 'unsafe' label on American phones and EVs running US software.
But that's not the main battlefield. Artificial intelligence is the real arena. Over the past month, Chinese companies have rolled out one high-performance, low-cost AI model after another, sending US AI giants reeling. When Anthropic released a new model in June, the US government demanded it be kept out of non-American hands. The clash forced Anthropic to pull the model. Trump signed an executive order in June setting up an AI safety framework, including a voluntary program for companies to submit cutting-edge models for government review.
Then Chinese developers like Moonshot AI and DeepSeek unleashed open-source systems that rival top-tier US models, fueling a fierce debate in Washington over how to regulate open-weight models. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei pushed for mandatory government safety reviews for both open and proprietary models, taking direct aim at Chinese open-source systems. He won backing from Treasury Secretary Bessent and others, but ran into a wall of opposition from US tech giants, including Nvidia.
On August 4, the Trump administration delivered its verdict. In a meeting led by the Office of the National Cyber Director, top US AI companies were told that under the new AI safety framework, open-source models from Chinese rivals would not face US government safety testing.
For Anthropic, it was a crushing defeat. US National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross later spelled out the thinking at a cybersecurity conference in Las Vegas: the US government wants to back the American open-source AI ecosystem. He called such models 'tremendously valuable' and insisted the regulatory framework must stay 'flexible.'
Otherwise, he warned, 'it would not only stifle growth, development, and innovation, but the regulatory regime would become obsolete within 48 hours of completing its process.'
The bottom line: Washington keeps chipping away at China with petty moves. But when the pile gets high enough, Beijing punches back hard—and signals it has heavier blows ready.
President Xi is due to visit the US in September, and Trump will be in Shenzhen in mid-November for the APEC summit. Trump doesn't want things to spiral out of control; at crunch time, he'll yank the leash on his officials.
The real battlefield is artificial intelligence. It was almost certain that the White House's decision to leave Chinese open-source models alone came after fierce pushback from China.
Lo Wing-hung
