China’s military upgrade, a strategy slip-up?

China’s stated intent is to become a world-class military power by 2049 – “world-class” is subject to interpretation as it implies both quality and reach. From a Chinese perspective, a world-class military power can deter, fight and win modern hi-tech wars against technologically advanced militaries such as the US and its allies.

In given times, apart from the US, no other major power can claim the status of a global military power. This status is not just an outcome of having a modern combat force and weapon systems, but also of geography.

The US’ global power status stems from its unhindered access to two oceans: the Atlantic and the Pacific. Under no circumstance will continental powers such as Russia or China be endowed with such a military advantage.

Although under debate, China has indeed come a long way to now become a military science and technology powerhouse. At the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, President Xi stated, “Chinese people will score more remarkable achievements and make greater contributions to the noble cause of peace and development of humanity”.

However, the advances China is making as a military power are breeding insecurity and an arc of instability around its immediate periphery – success breeds failure. China has made an unintentional blunder by deviating from its strategic culture that prefers ‘defence’ over ‘offence’.

This has induced strategic instability which is at the core of deterrence and balance of power in the region. With strategic stability now tilted in favour of offence, armed conflicts are more likely than when China was solely fielding defensive weapon systems.

It is interesting to note that it was perhaps China that may have indirectly caused the war in Ukraine by creating the strategic need for the US to break away from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty which limited the types of weapons systems the nations involved could pursue.

According to President Vladimir Putin, “INF Treaty was an important element of the architecture ensuring international security and strategic stability. The Treaty played the most particular role in maintaining predictability and restraint in the missile sphere in the European area”.

China, unrestricted by any arms control agreement, fielded a robust force of Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) on its eastern flank which unnerved its neighbours, especially Japan. This was, of course, done to secure China’s defence requirements. Yet it violated the core principle of China’s Global Security Initiative concept, the idea that the security of one nation is inseparable from the security of other nations.

Unintended consequences

China’s military security strategy in the Indo-Pacific caused military insecurity for Russia which was forced to research, develop and field strategic weapon systems after the US withdrew from the INF treaty in 2019, thus weakening the Euro-Atlantic security architecture, built painstakingly since the 1980s.

While the US only cited Russian violations of the INF Treaty as grounds for withdrawal, officials in the Trump administration made clear that concerns about the need for longer-range missiles in maritime Asia to match Chinese capabilities also informed the decision. In May 2024, for the first time, the US deployed to a foreign country (Philippines) ground-launched missiles previously barred by the now-defunct INF Treaty – a new Mid-Range Capability (MRC) missile system, Typhon.

Most countries in the Indo-Pacific region are deeply invested in fielding long-range counter-strike and land attack capabilities including Japan, a major change for a state that has not had a substantial offensive strike capability since the Second World War. This military requirement is further strengthening the dependence of countries in China’s periphery on the US for connective tissue, including space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, and joint commands – an undesired outcome for China.

By far the most consequential counter-productive military modernisation undertaken by China is its naval modernisation. According to Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd), China’s investment in its navy is the largest so far in world history. In theory, China’s naval modernisation has violated the cardinal principle of geopolitics which is – any land power located on the Eurasian landmass must not invest in a large naval fleet.

As a land power cursed by its geography, China is left with a naval modernisation that is unintentionally threatening the maritime order. For example, China’s unveiling of the sixth generation fighter aircraft will inevitably force countries such as India to pursue space-based surveillance systems, extending the battlefield beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

(The writer teaches Indian History and Politics at Sichuan International Studies University, Chongqing, China)