R — Original Text (Reading)
"China from inferiority to balance to superiority, Japan from superiority to balance to inferiority, China from defense to stalemate to counteroffensive, Japan from offense to conservatism to retreat—this is the course of the Sino-Japanese War, the inevitable trend of the Sino-Japanese War." — On Protracted War (May 1938)
I — Methodological Skeleton (Interpretation)
- When facing a strong enemy, do not fantasize about quick victory (theory of quick victory), and do not believe defeat is inevitable (theory of national subjugation). The correct understanding is: the weak can ultimately win through protracted war, but the process is long and divided into stages.
- Three-stage model:
- Defense period: the enemy is strong and we are weak; the core task is "survive." Hold the base, do not confront head-on, accumulate strength.
- Stalemate period("the pivot of transformation"): the two sides' strength tends toward balance; the most painful and also most critical. Deeply cultivate a segmented field, accumulate data and trust, and wait for the opponent to make mistakes.
- Counteroffensive period: the advantages we have accumulated begin to be released, and the opponent's weaknesses are exposed. Expand across the board in areas beyond the opponent's reach.
- The driving force of the three stages is not time but the transformation of contradictions: the four pairs of contradictions—strong/weak, large/small, progressive/retrogressive, many helpers/few helpers—change dynamically. The strong consume, the weak accumulate, and the balance of power ultimately reverses.
- The strategic tasks and operating principles of each stage are different—one cannot use the tactics of the counteroffensive period during the defense period, and vice versa.
- The second stage (stalemate period) is the most painful but also the most critical. Whether one can endure the stalemate period determines the final victory or defeat.
A1 — Application in the Book (Past Application)
Application 1: On Protracted War — construction and verification of the three-stage model
- Problem: In the early period of the War of Resistance, two erroneous views prevailed—the "theory of national subjugation" (China is doomed) and the "theory of quick victory" (it will end in three months)—making it impossible to form a correct strategy.
- Method use: Mao Zedong constructed the three-stage model when the War of Resistance was only 10 months old. He did not rely on intuition but derived it from the patterns of change of the four pairs of contradictions over the dimension of time: in the first stage the enemy's advantages would be consumed, in the second stage the two sides would tend toward balance, and in the third stage the advantages accumulated by China would be released.
- Conclusion: Protracted war has three stages—defense -> stalemate -> counteroffensive—and final victory belongs to China. The key is not to launch an all-out counterattack in the first stage (theory of quick victory), nor to give up because one feels unable to win (theory of national subjugation).
- Result: The actual course of the eight-year War of Resistance (1937-1945) basically developed according to the three-stage model, verifying the predictive power of this framework.
Application 2: A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire — long-term development prediction for a weak force
- Problem: In 1930 the Red Army was extremely weak, and pessimism pervaded the Party—"How long can the red flag be kept flying?"
- Method use: Mao Zedong did not offer chicken-soup comfort, but used the method of contradiction analysis to argue the inevitability of the development of weak forces: irreconcilable contradictions within the ruling class -> warlord infighting -> rural power vacuum -> the red regime can exist and develop.
- Conclusion: It is not that "hope" will win, but that it will win "by logical necessity." The balance of forces will transform over time.
- Result: From fewer than 10,000 Red Army troops in 1930, through wave-like advances, it ultimately achieved nationwide victory in 1949.
A2 — Trigger Scenarios (Future Trigger)
- Giants enter: A large company announces it is entering your track, and the team panics or wants to surrender. Users will say: "Google/Tencent/ByteDance is also going to do this" "They have money and people, how can we fight" "Should we pivot?"
- Extreme resource disadvantage: A competitor's funding, team, and brand far exceed your own. Users will say: "The opponent's resources are 10 times ours" "They can lose money for three years, we cannot."
- Trapped in a war of attrition: Competition with the opponent becomes a tug-of-war, with no end in sight. Users will say: "We've been fighting for a year and it's still a stalemate" "At this rate, who will die first" "When can we win."
- Low team morale: Being at a disadvantage for a long time causes the team to doubt the direction. Users will say: "The team is starting to doubt whether we can win" "Some people want to give up" "Morale is very low."
- Impulse to gamble everything at once: As soon as the situation improves slightly, they want all-out confrontation. Users will say: "The opportunity has come, time for an all-out attack, right" "I think we can confront them head-on now."
Language signals: When users mention words such as "can't beat them" "giants" "weak defeating strong" "long-term competition" "get through it" "when can we turn it around," this skill should be activated.
Distinguish from adjacent skills：
- vs Concentrating superior forces for annihilation warfare: this skill = time planning for the overall war (strategic level), the latter = how to fight a specific campaign (tactical level)
- vs Contradiction analysis method: this skill is a concrete application of the contradiction analysis method in the "weak versus strong" scenario
- vs Strategy-tactics dialectics: this skill plans the rhythm of macro stages, while the latter handles dialectical issues within each stage such as "offense within defense"
E — Executable Steps (Execution)
Step 1: Determine the current stage
- Use four pairs of contradictions (resource comparison, scale comparison, growth momentum/innovation capability comparison, external support/ecosystem advantage comparison) to assess the balance of forces between the enemy and ourselves.
- Determine which of the three stages you are currently in: if the opponent is on a full-scale offensive and we are contracting = defensive period; if both sides are in a tug-of-war and forces are tending toward balance = stalemate period; if we are beginning to take the initiative in certain areas = counteroffensive period.
- Completion standard: Clearly answer "We are currently in the ___ period, and the basis for judgment is ___."
Step 2: Formulate stage-specific strategy
- Defensive period strategy: Hold the core customer base and differentiated barriers, and do not engage in all-out confrontation. The goal is to "survive," and the metrics are cash flow and core customer retention rate. Cut non-core expenditures and concentrate resources on defending the core.
- Stalemate period strategy: Deeply cultivate a segmented niche and accumulate data/user trust/industry know-how that opponents cannot replicate. The goal is to "build asymmetric advantages," and the metrics are vertical market share and user stickiness. This is the most painful stage, so prepare psychologically in advance.
- Counteroffensive period strategy: Expand comprehensively in areas the opponent cannot match. The goal is to "expand the gains," and the metrics are market share and revenue growth. Leverage accumulated trust and data advantages to advance rapidly.
- Stop points: If during the defensive phase you want to launch an all-out counterattack (the impulse toward the theory of quick victory), stop immediately—retreat to defense. If during the counteroffensive phase you are still hesitant and timid (cowardice), immediately escalate—the window of opportunity is limited.
- Completion criteria: Produce a phased strategy card—"Current phase ___, core goal ___, key metrics ___, absolutely will not do ___."
Step 3: Set phase transition conditions and review checkpoints
- Set a clear "transition signal" for each phase: what data/events indicate that you can move to the next phase?
- Defense -> Stalemate: The opponent slows the pace of attack + our core customer churn rate stabilizes
- Stalemate -> Counteroffensive: We rank first in market share in the niche segment + the opponent reduces investment in or exits the niche segment
- Set quarterly review checkpoints to reassess the balance of power among the four pairs of contradictions.
- Completion criteria: Write out a "phase transition conditions checklist"—when ___ appears, we move from the ___ phase into the ___ phase.
B — Boundary
Scenarios not to use
- Evenly matched or yourself advantaged: The three-phase model is designed for "the weak against the strong." If both sides are comparable in strength or you are advantaged, a more direct competitive strategy is sufficient.
- Challenges solvable in the short term: If the problem can be solved within 3-6 months, long-term three-phase planning is not needed; concentrate forces for a quick decisive battle.
- Non-competitive decisions: Non-competitive scenarios such as internal management and product development do not need the three-phase model.
Failure modes (from counterexamples)
- Theory of quick victory (ce05): Rushing toward a decisive battle during the defensive phase—"The impatient advocates of quick victory cannot endure the arduous course of protracted war and attempt a quick victory." After a slight success, they want to "take down" a bigger goal in one stroke. This plays exactly into the strong side's hands: the strong side fears protracted war most and most hopes the weak side will rush into a decisive battle.
- National subjugation theory/defeatism (ce06): Facing a strong enemy, giving up directly—"We can't win, so we might as well surrender or pivot." Without analyzing the four pairs of contradictions behind strong and weak, only the surface resource gap is seen.
- August defeat (ce03): Advancing rashly when conditions are not ripe—adopting the tactics of the next phase without analyzing the current phase. During a period when the opponent is temporarily stable, adopting a rash strategy that applies only when the opponent is internally divided.
- Flightism (ce16): Upon setbacks, jumping from the extreme of rash advance to the extreme of flight—giving up entirely without rational analysis.
Author's blind spots
- Mao Zedong's three-phase model was based on the special conditions of the War of Resistance (just/unjust, large country/small country, etc.) and cannot be mechanically applied. In business competition, the "strong" may become stronger (winner-take-all internet effects), and the "weak" may not naturally accumulate advantages. It must be applied only after analyzing the actual conditions for the transformation of contradictions.
Related skills
- Contradiction analysis method (depends-on): The three-phase protracted war model is a concrete application of the contradiction analysis method in the "weak against strong" scenario—using the transformation of four pairs of contradictions (strong/weak, large/small, progressive/regressive, many helpers/few helpers) to derive the three-phase strategy. Only after mastering the contradiction analysis method can one understand the derivation logic of protracted war.
- Strategy-tactics dialectics (composes-with): The timeline of the three macro stages in protracted war planning; the strategic-tactical dialectic handles the micro-level operation of "offense within defense" in each stage. The coordination of macro-stage planning with the micro-level dialectic of offense and defense.
- Strategic contempt, tactical seriousness (composes-with): The long-term nature of protracted war requires the team to maintain strategic confidence ("ultimately able to win"), while the operations in each stage require tactical caution (neither rash advance nor timid retreat). Strategic contempt, tactical seriousness provides mindset management that runs through all three stages.