The reply is quite interesting. While the first text has to be read as a condemnation of the line of People’s War being universally applicable, his second text is kind of a retreat. It is even less clear than the first article on the the question of People’s War. While the question is raised to the level of the title, it is not clearly answered in the article itself. Not directly and beyond doubt that is. It is still impossible to read these texts as anything else than an attack on the universal applicability of Protracted People’s War, but the door is left with a tiny crack open.