Defense Think Tank DARC Criticizes RUSI's "No Tradeoffs" Approach to China Policy

Arlington, VA – The Defense Analyses and Research Corporation (DARC) has publicly criticized the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) for what it terms a "fantasy" of "no tradeoffs" in economic engagement with China. In a tweet posted on October 29, 2025, DARC asserted that this perspective, which it likened to thinking "it's 1997," represents a "safety blanket" for a "feckless establishment" avoiding difficult decisions.

DARC, an emerging defense think tank, emphasized the urgency for policymakers to confront hard truths and make challenging choices regarding China. The organization, headquartered in Arlington, VA, and El Segundo, CA, with offices in London, UK, positions itself as fostering "courageous, iconoclastic work" to guide American strategy in a rapidly changing global landscape.

The critique specifically targeted a #RUSICommentary by Eliza Lockhart, a Research Fellow at RUSI's Centre for Finance and Security, published on October 28, 2025. Lockhart's commentary, titled "What the Chinese Spy Scandal Reveals about UK Resolve," argued that "The Australian experience demonstrates that security resolve and economic engagement are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they can be mutually reinforcing." She highlighted Australia's resilience against Chinese economic coercion as evidence.

RUSI, established in 1831, is recognized as the world's oldest and the UK's leading defense and security think tank. Its research often informs global discussions on international affairs. Lockhart's analysis pointed to Australia's ability to diversify markets and endure pressure without compromising its security stance, ultimately leading to a pragmatic reset in relations with Beijing.

This exchange underscores a significant ongoing debate within Western defense and foreign policy circles: how to balance deep economic interdependence with China against growing strategic distrust and national security concerns. DARC's strong stance reflects a segment of opinion advocating for a more confrontational and less economically intertwined approach, contrasting with RUSI's perspective on the potential for mutually reinforcing engagement.