If Andrew Lambert is correct, China is a sea power “wanna be” and not a seapower state. That Means she will ditch her current naval aspirations if things go economically or politically south internally just as quickly as Russia did when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Sea Power and Seapower are different things according to Andrew Lambert in his thought-provoking book “Seapower States.” Mr. Lambert postulates that any nation with enough money and resources can build a sea power navy whether the reason is to beat a competing navy or merely for purposes of prestige; said another way, sea power is nice to have. On the other hand, seapower states build their entire identities around a maritime existence; this includes economy, politics, and culture. According to Mr. Lambert, seapower states are not born, they are deliberately made.
When I was in high school at the height of the Cold War, many scholars believed that the United States was doomed to lose the competition with the Soviet Union — which was a land power. America would go the way of Athens and Carthage which were seapowers defeated by continental hegemons — Sparta and Rome respectively. I had a history teacher who took exception to this. He made two key points. First, America is not a seapower in the classic sense. Second, states relying on seapower can prevail against great continental powers if they develop smart alliances as Great Britain did against Napoleon and Imperial Germany. In his concise argument, my teacher summed up Mr. Lambert's premise.
