Category Archives: Global Analysis

A Geographical Breakdown of What’s Going on in the World

Asia-Pacific

Operation Highmast: UK Eastern Deployment for a “Two-Carrier Navy”

1 Comment

By David Scott

Operation Highmast, running from April to November 2025, took a UK Carrier Strike Group (CSG), led by HMS Prince of Wales, over 40,000 nautical miles to the Sea of Japan and back. The CSG consisted of five UK vessels, with eight others joining the CSG at various stages from other navies. Three strategic considerations underpinned this deployment as per Prime Minister Keir Starmer: successfully operating a two-carrier navy (HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales), sending a “clear message of strength to our adversaries,” and “a message of unity and purpose to…allies.”

Operating a Two-Carrier Navy

Operation Highmast was announced in May 2023 by Conservative Party Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the signing of the Hiroshima Accord, which was a landmark agreement focusing on “an enhanced UK-Japan global strategic partnership” and included “the future deployment of the UK Carrier Strike Group to the Indo-Pacific.” The deployment was carried out by the Labour Party administration after it came to power in July 2024, and it proceeded despite some calls to “mothball” of one of the carriers after the exchange of power between parties.

Another strategic decision illuminated by Operation Highmast was that despite growing concerns over Russian aggression in Europe, the Royal Navy maintained an Indo-Pacific commitment, albeit modified. The March 2021 Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy announcement of an “Indo-Pacific tilt” underpinned the Queen Elizabeth CSG deployment in that year’s Operation Fortis. Four years later, the June 2025 Strategic Defence Review mantra of “NATO first does not mean NATO only” guided the Prince of Wales CSG deployment in Operation Highmast.

Strategically, the UK’s punch increased as both its Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are the largest vessels ever constructed for the Royal Navy (80,000 ton displacement). This is almost four times the displacement of the three Invincible-class aircraft carriers (22,000 ton displacement) they replaced. Additionally, the Initial Operating Capacity (IOC) for the Wildcat helicopter Sea Venom anti-ship missile, carried on the Prince of Wales, was announced at the start of October. The Royal Navy considered this “a step-change in [its] combat power.”

After deciding to build the aircraft carriers, the UK government chose to embark F-35B fighters, considerably more advanced than the retired Harriers used on the previous Invincible-class. Strategically, the F-35B decision would enhance interoperability with the US, Italian, and Japanese navies. Eighteen UK F-35Bs embarked at the start of the Prince of Wales deployment and were joined by six more in October for a total of 24. Unfortunately, these jets had embarrassing engine malfunctions including one that was temporarily grounded in India as well as another in Japan. Nevertheless, Full Operational Capacity (FOC) was declared in November, signifying that the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales, could operate with purely UK F-35B complements.

Working with Allies and Partners

The Royal Navy’s ability to work with others was illustrated in cooperation with various European navies as well as in operations with India, Australia, Japan, and the United States—denoting a tacit balancing against China.

Operation Highmast represented a European rotation of CSGs, under the European Carrier Group Interoperability Initiative (ECGII), which has been guiding defense movements since 2008. The 2023 UK-France Summit had agreed on “the sequencing of more persistent European carrier strike group presence in the Indo-Pacific.” In this vein, the Italian CSG deployment in the second half of 2024, led by ITS Cavour, was followed by the French CSG deployment in the first third of 2025, led by FNS Charles de Gaulle, and then by the UK CSG deployment, led by HMS Prince of Wales, in the following months of 2025.

Operation Highmast had other European nations embedding their ships within the UK CSG. The Norwegian frigate HNoMS Roald Amundsen was in support throughout the CSG deployment. This reflects the Joint Statement on Enhanced Defence Cooperation between Norway and the United Kingdom signed in February 2025. Portugal’s frigate NRP Bartolomeu Dias joined the CSG from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean. Spain’s frigate ESPS Mendez Nunez joined from the Atlantic to the Philippines, and Italy’s ITS Luigi Rizzo joined the CSG in the Mediterranean.

Close UK-Italy ties were on show as Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Defense Secretary John Healey hosted their Italian counterparts on board the Prince of Wales in November at the conclusion of the Falcon Strike exercise, which was the NATO exercise at the end of Operation Highmast of the coast of Naples, Italy. Their Joint Statement noted:

The presence of the F-35-equipped UK Carrier Strike Group in Naples underlines deep British-Italian defense ties. Complex joint exercises during the deployment have further enhanced the interoperability of our Armed Forces.

The dual carrier exercises with Italy’s ITS Cavour in the Med Strike exercise in May as well as the Neptune Strike exercise in November represented a European willingness to carry the burden in the Mediterranean, enabling US carrier strength to be deployed elsewhere.

The UK CSG interaction with India reflected the February 2025 Defense Partnership-India (DP-1) as well as the UK decision in 2022 to co-lead India’s Indo-Pacific Ocean Initiative (IPOI). The CSG exercised in the Arabian Sea with India twice on its way to and from Japan. In June 2025, the CSG exercised with INS Tabar, a P-8I Neptune plane, and an Indian submarine. The October Konkan exercise was particularly powerful. It involved dual carrier operations with the INS Vikrant CSG for the first time, which included seven ships in the Indian CSG and six ships in the UK CSG. Port calls to Mumbai and Goa coincided with Keir Starmer’s visit to Mumbai. Not surprisingly, the India-UK Joint Statement on October 9 declared: “Prime Minister Modi welcomed the port call of UK’s Carrier Strike Group and the Royal Navy’s exercise Konkan with the Indian Navy.” An implementing agreement on electric-powered engines, currently in development by Rolls Royce for India’s next generation navy, was on show with the Prince of Wales’s and HMS Richmond’s Full Electric Propulsion System.

Australian involvement with the CSG was noticeable. Having just carried out freedom of navigation activity around the Spratley Islands with HMS Spey in June, Australia’s HMAS Sydney joined the UK CSG in July on their way to Australia for Exercise Talisman Sabre. The Sydney participated in the CSG exercises in the Timor Sea with the USS George Washington CSG, representing a trilateral Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) format. On July 27, the third day of the Australia-UK Ministerial (AUKMIN) talks were held in Darwin, Australia on the Prince of Wales under Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA). These talks involved Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Defense Secretary John Healey, and their Australian counterparts. The AUKMIN Joint Statement welcomed that “the [CSG] deployment demonstrates the UK’s ongoing commitment to increase interoperability with Australia in the Indo-Pacific.” HMAS Brisbane joined the CSG in August in the Philippine Sea as part of the trilateral Japan-UK-US CSG and again in the bilateral UK-Japan carrier drills southwest of Japan in September.

UK convening power was on display as—for the first time—the Prince of Wales led the Bersama Lima exercise in September, off the Malaysian coast, under the Five Power Defense Arrangements (FPDA). This involved other naval units from Malaysia, Singapore, Australia (HMAS Ballarat) and New Zealand (HMNZS Aotearoa). New Zealand’s HMNZS Te Kaha had earlier joined the CSG from April to July across the Indian Ocean from the Arabian Sea to the Timor Sea, while Canada’s HMCS Ville de Québec joined the CSG from April (Devonport) to August (North Philippine Sea).

UK cooperation with Japan was further strengthened by Operation Highmast. When the Prince of Wales moored in Tokyo Bay on August 28, UK Defense Secretary John Healey, First Sea Lord General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, and Japan Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani were present to welcome the carrier and participate in the Pacific Future Forum onboard. At the Forum, Healey stressed UK-Japan defense cooperation: “[T]his carrier strike route deployment is the operational demonstration of this truth,” and “that is why the presence of the Prince of Wales here in Tokyo is not just symbolic — it’s strategic.”

Naval cooperation with Japan was on show with the trilateral carrier exercises involving JS Kaga in the North Philippine Sea in August, the F-35B bilateral exercises in the Sea of Japan on September 6, and the bilateral carrier exercise off south-west Japan, which again involved JS Kaga as well as JS Akebono, on September 9. It was particularly helpful to provide proof of concept when UK jets landed on JS Kaga as it was converted from a helicopter carrier to a fixed-wing F-35B-capable aircraft carrier. It was also noticeable that JS Akebono stayed with the UK CSG on its way back across the Indian Ocean.

The trilateral carrier exercise in the North Philippine Sea was a particularly striking visual moment, involving as it did four flat-top F-35B carrying battle groups, involving the USS George Washington, the USS America, Japan’s JS Kaga, and the UK’s Prince of Wales. This trilateral naval format reflects the Japan-UK-US agreement signed by naval chiefs in October 2016, that “as Chiefs of three highly capable and like-minded Services, [the nations] share a common vision of enhancing the operational effectiveness of… maritime forces through increased cooperation.” This was furthered in their Joint Statement in November 2019 about maintaining a “routine forward presence“ for cooperating over “the security of the Indo-Pacific region.” In the case of operational effectiveness, the common F-35B choices made by all three navies aids inter-operability, which was very much on show with the crossdeck activities carried out in Operation Highmast between these various carriers.

Last but not least, cooperation with the US was present throughout. The UK CSG was led through the Bab-el-Mandeb by USS Truxtun. Twice the USS George Washington CSG exercised with the UK CSG: once bilaterally in the East Timor Sea and another time trilaterally with Japan in the Philippine Sea. In another first, the USNS Wally Schirra, alongside RFA Tidespring, carried out a simultaneous Replenishment at Sea (RAS) with the Prince of Wales. The USS Higgins accompanied HMS Richmond on its transit of the Taiwan Strait in September before briefly joining the main UK CSG group as it sailed across the South China Sea. When the CSG transited into Red Sea in October, anti-drone and missile cover was provided by USS Forrest Sherman.

Deterring Adversaries?

On the eve of departure, the UK Defense Secretary John Healey had been upbeat in April, commenting, “[The] Royal Navy is once again demonstrating its formidable capability while protecting British values and sending a powerful message of deterrence to any adversary.”

In terms of operations, the CSG was able to twice deploy through the troubled Red Sea. When transiting in late May/early June, the CSG had been put on “defense station” in the light of continuing Houthi activities in the Red Sea. The context was that the UK had carried out strikes on Houthi drone facilities on April 29, joining the US in Operation Rough Rider. However, despite Houthi outrage, all was calm a month later for the CSG. Upon the CSG’s return in September, a diversionary tactic was employed. A fake Bahr Guardian sea exercise was announced for the Arabian Sea, with an accompanying press blackout, leaving the CSG free to instead slip though the Bab-el-Mandeb and up the Red Sea. It is unclear as to whether this move was an indication of the UK’s cunning  or a fear that a publicly announced transit was still too dangerous.

China remained the elephant in the room as the UK refused to acknowledge the deployment was China-motivated. Though China did not use official public channels to announce its displeasure, its state media, namely the Global Times, was ready to express China’s negative opinions. Back in 2023, when the deployment was first announced, a Global Times editorial on December 17, titled “The UK’s sunset fleet should just stay surfacing the internet,” warned that the UK was “closer to becoming a laughing stock.” The article derided UK collaboration with Japan as a vain attempt to restrain China. These protestations more likely revealed a sensitive subject for Beijing over UK-Japan security collaboration.

During the 2025 CSG deployment, the Chinese state media was ready to comment again. Starmer’s announcement about meeting threats was immediately denounced in the Global Times on April 24 with a piece titled “Can the UK aircraft carrier’s ‘return to the Indo-Pacific’ deter anyone?” Global Times journalists, Liu Xuanzun and Liang Rui, scoffed over UK problems with the F-35B jets in their August 10 article titled: “UK carrier-based F-35B reportedly makes emergency landing in Japan; Chinese expert says incidents highlight Britain’s struggling with aircraft complexity.”

There had been advance speculation whether the UK would be deterred from freedom of navigation activities in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. It was significant that both were carried out. The CSG detached HMS Richmond for a transit of the Taiwan Strait alongside USS Higgins on September 12, which was immediately denounced as “provocative” by the PLA Eastern Theater Command. Some Chinese harassment had taken place. “Constructive kills,” or in layman’s terms tactical drills run with no missiles fired, were carried out around HMS Richmond with Chinese jets following the path they would take if they were launching an attack. Immediately after, the CSG transited the South China Sea, during which RFA Tidespring and HNoMS Roald Amundsen carried out specific freedom of navigation activities around the Spratleys in mid-September. The CSG was followed by several Chinese ships broadcasting messages for the CSG to stay away. However, the details on this only came to light in a Times report on September 29 followed by the Royal Navy briefing on 30 September, by which time the UK ships had long left these waters.

Unsurprisingly, the UK exercising with other China-concerned actors attracted further criticisms from China. On July 14, Zhang Changyue and Guo Yuandan denounced the Talisman Sabre exercise in their piece titled: “US-Australia largest ever war drill underway, hyping it may draw ‘Chinese observation’ to boost attention.” The subsequent trilateral exercising drew more Chinese fire with Liu Xuanzun and Liang Rui’s piece on August 6 titled: “US, UK, Japan, others hold drill in Pacific; move undermining regional peace.” One can surmise that such Chinese criticisms would not appear unless the UK deployment was having an impact regarding freedom of navigation issues and a tacit balancing of China.

Looking forward

Five strategic questions remain to be answered for the future concerning the operation of a two-carrier Navy:

  1. With two carriers scheduled for active service until 2029, should the UK maintain a two-carrier navy and resist any further calls for ”mothballing?”
  2. What is the right balance between Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific CSG deployments? If Indo-Pacific deployments continue regularly should the four-year gap between Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales missions become the norm, or should it be shortened or lengthened?
  3. How far should carriers operate as “crewed aircraft” carriers. The Strategic Defence Review recommends that:

Much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier airwings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single-use drones. Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck.

It can be noted that in a “historic first,” the Prince of Wales used drones to transfer supplies between ships as opposed to traditional helicopters.

  1. How will the Royal Navy manage its fleet’s numbers to support its strategic goals? The structural problems of being hollowed out, in terms of other naval assets, remain acute. The continuing challenge of numbers expected to decline before eventual increase in numbers as eight Type-26 and five Type-31 replacements for the nine current Type-23 frigates are completed.
  2. How will the Royal Navy manage its new F-35Bs moving forward? Questions and choices still remain surrounding the numbers and capabilities of the F-35B planes. At present, the UK currently has 34 F-35Bs with initial plans to acquire 48 and potentially 138 in the more distant future. F-35B capabilities await the replacement of their Paveway-series guided bombs by more advanced Spear-3 cruise missiles. These were originally slated for delivery and use on F-35Bs by 2025 but face delays due to software configuration problems at Lockheed Martin and US export control regulations.

“Quo Vadis?” indeed, for a two-carrier UK navy.

Dr. David Scott is an associate member of the Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies. A prolific writer on Indo-Pacific maritime geopolitics, he can be contacted at davidscott366@outlook.com.

Featured Image The U.K. Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales (R09)’s participation in WESTLANT 23. (US Navy photo by Dane Wiedmann)

Asia-Pacific

Charting a Course: Addressing Chinese Maritime Coercion Around Taiwan

1 Comment

By Anthony Marco and Nils Peterson

On September 13th, 2025, a Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) vessel entered the restricted waters around the Republic of China’s (ROC) Dongsha Atoll, also known as the Pratas Island, located approximately 400 kilometers southwest of the ROC’s main island of Taiwan. The CCG intrusion prompted a swift response from the ROC’s Coast Guard Administration (CGA), which consisted of a CGA vessel chasing the CCG intruder from the area. Over the next four days, the CCG mounted four separate incursions into the restricted waters around Dongsha, a worsening symptom of a wider Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maritime gray zone campaign against the ROC in which the CCG has a prominent tool of coercion.

This article employs the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) definition of gray zone coercion, the “deliberate use of coercive or subversive instruments of power by, or on behalf of, a state to achieve its political or security goals at the expense of others, in ways that exceed or exploit gaps in international norms but are intended to remain below the perceived threshold for direct armed conflict.”

The ongoing coercion by the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) aims to erode the ROC’s sovereignty by sending a message to the international community that the CCP has both the capability and the will to exert control over the waters near Taiwan, but this activity also threatens the United States’ national security interests. It is in America’s interest that the ROC remains a political entity distinct from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for two primary reasons. First, at the operational level, Taiwan is a key maritime terrain in the First Island Chain or FIC, forming the foundation of American strategy in East Asia to counter the CCP’s territorial revisionist ambitions from a geographic standpoint. Second, at the strategic level, a CCP takeover of Taiwan would severely undermine the confidence of key regional and treaty allies, such as Japan and the Philippines, in the United States’ ability to defend them against further CCP aggression.

In the immediate term, CCG gray zone activity also displays the potential to endanger hard US economic interests by threatening major sea lines of communication (SLOCs) that enter the Taiwanese main island’s major ports at Kaohsiung, Keelung, Mailao, Taichung, and Taipei. Taiwan produces over 90% of advanced semiconductor chips and is the seventh-largest merchandise trading partner of the United States, underscoring the importance of SLOCs entering Taiwan for American economic welfare.

If the PRC expands its gray zone maritime activity in a manner that threatens SLOCs, potentially leading to a maritime quarantine of Taiwan, this presents the US and its Pacific partners with the decision of whether to employ a military response. Recognizing, at a minimum, the economic damage and escalatory risks tied to potential CCP attempts at threatening the vitality of SLOCs, it behooves American policymakers to take steps to deter the expansion of this CCG-spearheaded maritime gray zone campaign.

The Nature of the CCG Threat

Over the past two years, the CCP has taken substantial steps to intensify its maritime gray zone campaign in ROC waters. In February 2024, a Chinese motorboat violated Kinmen’s restricted waters, prompting a CGA-mounted chase, which resulted in the deaths of two Chinese nationals when their boat capsized. The PRC has since used the incident to justify mounting a concerted effort to undermine ROC territorial sovereignty over the Kinmen Islands and Matsu Islands–located four miles and six miles off the coast of the People’s Republic of China, respectively–by routinely dispatching CCG vessels that violate the islands’ restricted waters: CCG activity reached a total of 85 violations around Kinmen in September 2025.

While Kinmen and Matsu lie just a short boat ride away from the PRC mainland, the CCP’s effort to undermine ROC territorial sovereignty has more recently extended to Dongsha. According to the CGA, an “unprecedented” flotilla of Chinese fishing vessels, numbering six “mother ships” and 29 “smaller boats,” entered restricted ROC waters around Dongsha on February 15th, 2025, prompting a swift response from local CGA vessels.

During this incident, a CCG vessel violated Dongsha’s restricted waters by attempting to intervene in the CGA’s law enforcement response. Since this incident, the CCG has sought to normalize this activity with consistent intrusions into the waters around Donghsa. Although Dongsha, like Kinmen and Matsu, lies on the ROC periphery, its recent targeting by the CCG is demonstrative of a graduated coercive campaign.

The CCG has also recently demonstrated its capacity to perform in a role that is specifically more dangerous to US interests. In a noticeable departure from past practice, the CCG, in what appears to be a PRC attempt to hybridize a potential blockade, debuted in PLA live-fire exercises around Taiwan during Joint Sword 2024-A in May 2024. This was followed up by Joint Sword 2024-B in October 2024, featuring approximately seventeen CCG vessels circumnavigating the Taiwanese main island as part of coordinated blockading drills with the PLAN.

During Joint Sword 2025-B, this year’s inaugural exercises in February, the CCG played a higher profile role that included carrying out mock vessel boardings and inspections–suggestive of potential actions that would interdict commercial shipping, a cardinal feature during a blockade or gray zone “quarantine”–in addition to violating, for the first time, the Taiwanese main island’s 24 nautical mile contiguous area.

Although the CCP has not yet made a serious effort to dispute SLOCs to Taiwan, its multi-pronged gray zone activities suggest an intensifying trend that makes this a growing concern for the future. One potential route entails mounting infrequent CCG patrols of SLOCs that evolve into routine patrols, activities the CCP has attempted to normalize in other places through consistent effort, justified under the auspices of a contrived or provoked maritime incident. Patrols could evolve into the boarding and inspection of international commercial vessels, setting the conditions for a partial or full and temporary or indefinite maritime quarantine of the main island.

From a US standpoint, whether such gray zone maritime activity forms a deliberate, calibrated irregular warfare strategy to achieve unification non-kinetically or broadly aims to isolate Taiwan economically and politically, wherever and whenever the PRC can, any attempt to threaten SLOCs in this manner jeopardizes hard US and partner-nation interests. Thus, taking preventive measures to preserve SLOCs prior to PRC efforts to sever them is necessary, especially since attempting to roll back the latter’s efforts after the fact is more difficult and could risk a more dangerous escalation.

Policy Recommendations

The US Government (USG) should pursue a nested set of policy goals to address the CCG threat to American interests. At the operational level in the immediate term, the objective should be to deter CCG activity that would threaten American SLOCs. At the political level in the immediate term, the USG should accept the unpleasant reality that the existing CCG activity erodes ROC sovereignty, as it lacks the capacity to substantially roll back CCG presence. At the operational and political levels in the future, the objective should be to have a coalition prepared to deter a PRC maritime quarantine of Taiwan.

These policy goals rest on three key assumptions; if any of these is invalidated, the recommendations would no longer hold. First, the CCP does not deploy CCG assets in such numbers that they overwhelm our capacity to defend key SLOCs. Second, the CCP continues its salami-slicing strategy to degrade the operational environment around Taiwan, which involves minimizing direct confrontation between the PLA and foreign coast guard assets in waters that the party views as its own. Third, the CCP leadership thinks it still has time to achieve its political objective to gain control of Taiwan and therefore decides it does not now need to launch a maritime quarantine, blockade, or invasion.

The ROC, on its own, will likely struggle to preserve SLOCs. During a 2024 House Subcommittee Hearing on Transportation and Maritime Security, Senior Policy Researcher at the RAND Corporation, Captain Eric M. Cooper, USCG (Ret.), estimated that there are a total of 700 CCG vessels operating in the Indo-Pacific. The entirety of the CCG’s complement is not dedicated to gray zone activity against Taiwan, but it has a growing presence deep in the South China and East China Seas. The CGA, on the other hand, maintains a smaller, but not insignificant force of approximately 250 vessels. Since 2018, the CGA has implemented a ten year indigenous shipbuilding program, with a target goal of 141 newly constructed vessels, but it remains and will remain overmatched by the sheer quantitative advantage retained by the CCG. Thus, it is unreasonable to expect the CGA to adequately deter potential CCG activity that jeopardizes SLOCs.

Recognizing the vulnerability of SLOCs, the US Coast Guard (USCG) is uniquely positioned to preserve them. Already, throughout the Indo-Pacific, the USG maintains a series of bilateral Maritime Law Enforcement Agreements (MLEA) that authorize the USCG to carry out activities such as conducting legally protected patrols to help safeguard a partner country’s maritime security.

Traditionally, bilateral MLEAs stipulate that the USCG dispatch personnel and or vessels to assist in maritime law enforcement within a partner country’s territorial waters (12 nautical miles), contiguous zone (24 nautical miles), and EEZs (200 nautical miles). For example, as provisioned under a bilateral MLEA, the USCG boarded six vessels illegally fishing within the Cook Islands’ EEZ this past June. The USCG also conducts maritime law enforcement exercises with regional partner countries.

In June 2024, the USCG trained alongside the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) in the South China Sea to buttress the latter’s law enforcement and search and rescue capabilities. The USCG has also scaled up exercises in the Indo-Pacific region into trilateral events: in June 2025, the USCG, PCG, and Japanese Coast Guard (JCG) participated in drills outside Japan’s territorial waters for the first time. According to the senior participating USCG officer, Captain Brian Krautler, “By operating together, we strengthen our collective forces, ensuring readiness against threats to maritime safety and security.”

With the specific intent of maintaining SLOCs entering Taiwan, the USCG should seek to replicate similar activity with the CGA as would be provisioned in a bilateral MLEA. The USCG already has a pre-existing cooperative relationship with the CGA that is guided by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed between the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in March 2021. Under this MOU, the USCG and CGA formed a Coast Guard Working Group (CGWG) to establish a common understanding of maritime security priorities and advance cooperation between the USCG and CGA. In addition to the dialogues within the CGWG, instances of security cooperation have occurred. For example, in 2024, the USCG dispatched an International Port Security (IPS) Program team to Taiwan to exchange knowledge with CGA officials regarding how to enhance maritime cybersecurity and general port security.

Despite these positive developments, current USCG and CGA cooperation is inadequate, with it being limited to informal bilateral talks, workshops, and occasional practice sharing. Thus, the MOU should be updated to deepen security cooperation or an unofficial agreement, akin to a bilateral MLEA, established that extends USCG authorities in ROC waters, specifically granting the USCG the ability to conduct patrols along SLOCs, sending a clear message to the CCP that the US will protect its interests.

In line with past practice, whenever the US deepens security cooperation with the ROC, the CCP will likely vehemently protest such a move; however, given the recognizable and public economic interests at stake in preserving SLOCs, the USG should frame USCG presence patrols in Taiwanese waters within the context of that specific end rather than communicating an intent to buttress ROC claims to sovereignty, although this would be an undeniably favorable byproduct.

It must be acknowledged that, compared to the CCG, the current and near-term potential force posture of the USCG in the region is problematic. Presently, the USCG has eight vessels forward deployed in the region and possesses another 79 vessels capable of serving in the region, but this would practically amount to the USCG’s entire inventory of high seas vessels. Despite this modest vessel count, the USCG could afford to apportion a couple of cutters and a handful of smaller craft, based on existing deployments in the Indo-Pacific region, communicating the USG’s resolve concerning the preservation of SLOCs.

A comprehensive analysis is warranted to assess the impact this deployment would have on other USCG priorities in the theater. Still, such deployments would communicate the USG’s resolve to preserve SLOCs. This is especially the case due to the escalatory risks the CCP would incur by contemplating a confrontation with a USCG vessel performing its duties. The USG could also establish a shiprider agreement, a type of MLEA, with the CGA, permitting USCG personnel to board CGA vessels: the USG maintains twelve such agreements with regional partners such as Papua New Guinea and the Republic of Vanuatu. Although typically partner force personnel board USCG vessels, USCG personnel have boarded Royal Navy vessels under a shiprider arrangement, which can be replicated with the CGA.

Moreover, the USG should seek ways to internationalize any USCG efforts to preserve SLOCs entering Taiwan. USCG Captain (Ret.) Eric Cooper has made compelling arguments for the establishment of a multilateral maritime law enforcement task force in the form of the US-led Bahrain Combined Maritime Force (CMF). Headquartered in Bahrain and consisting of 46 participating countries, the CMF maintains maritime security in major waterways around the Middle East. Organizing a task force akin to a CMF with the aim of preserving Taiwan’s SLOCs could include countries like Japan and the Philippines, especially when considering these two countries’ significant economic interests linked to these SLOCs and their recent combined participation in USCG-led exercises.

If these recommendations are implemented, the following would be benchmarks to measure success: In the immediate future, the continued absence of CCG vessels in key SLOCs. In the longer term, a stable rotational presence of up to three USCG cutters and between five and ten smaller craft regularly operating in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in areas proximate to Taiwan, in conjunction with a CMF-style task force.

The deteriorating security situation around Taiwan due to the CCP-initiated gray zone coercion shows no signs of improvement in the near future. In addition, the United States no longer enjoys being the unrivalled seafaring power in East Asia. In this security environment, the creative employment of USCG assets and personnel in combination with regional partner countries becomes an important policy pathway toward achieving American national interests.

Anthony Marco is a First Lieutenant in the U.S. Army and holds a BS from the United States Military Academy at West Point and an MA from Reichman University as an Anna Sobol Levy Scholar. He also serves as a special advisor on the Irregular Warfare Initiative’s Proxies and Partners Special Project.

Nils Peterson is a Marshall Scholar studying for an MA in Taiwan Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies and holds a BA in History and Chinese from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He previously led the China Team at the Institute for the Study of War as a War Studies Fellow.

The views and opinions presented herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of DoD or the Army. Appearance of, or reference to, any commercial products or services does not constitute DoD or Army endorsement of those products or services. The appearance of external hyperlinks does not constitute DoD or Army endorsement of the linked websites, or the information, products or services therein.

Featured Image: The Wanshan Vessel formation conduct towing exercises in waters off Huangyan Dao in South China Sea in July, 2024. (China Coast Guard photo)

Middle East

Peace in Gaza May Not Mean Peace in the Red Sea

Leave a comment

By Matt Reisener

Since October 2023, the Houthis, a Yemeni rebel group that seized control over much of the country over a decade ago, have waged a campaign against shipping vessels in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and Gulf of Aden, attacking over 100 commercial maritime vessels. The Houthis have long cited Israel’s war in Gaza as the raison d’être for its campaign, claiming that the attacks on Israeli ships or any vessels conducting business at Israeli ports are intended to punish Israel for its role in the conflict. However, in the wake of the recent ceasefire in Gaza, one might reasonably expect these attacks to end, particularly since there has already been a decrease in the number of attacks conducted since the Houthis’ May 2025 agreement with the US to avoid targeting American vessels in exchange for an end to US airstrikes on Yemen. Houthi leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi reportedly ordered a cessation of attacks on ships flying the Israeli flag or docking at Israeli ports, and the group’s message to Hamas’ Qassam Brigades indicating that its campaign against Israel is on hold has been interpreted by some as a sign that the Houthis are shifting their focus away from the Red Sea.

An end to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea would be a welcome development given how disruptive the campaign has been to global commerce. Traffic through the Suez Canal has decreased by roughly 50% due to concerns that ships will be targeted in the Red Sea. Many vessels have instead chosen to sail around the Cape of Good Hope, adding significant time and expense to their journeys and contributing to global inflation. Given that as much as 15% of global trade and 30% of global container traffic transits the Suez Canal yearly, the global impact of the Houthi attacks cannot be understated.

However, the Gaza ceasefire may not herald the return of safe and stable maritime commerce in the Red Sea. The ceasefire remains tenuous in the wake of Hamas’ attempt to reassert control in pockets of Gaza City, both sides have already accused the other of violating the agreement. Countless potential pitfalls remain on the path to a permanent peace which could easily prompt the resumption of hostilities, including the return of the remains of the outstanding Israeli hostages, fate of Hamas, and Israel’s willingness to accept a Palestinian state. Even then, a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Gaza may be insufficient to permanently end the Houthis’ maritime attacks. The reason for this speaks to the Houthis’ underlying motivations behind their efforts to disrupt Red Sea commerce, which go beyond the group’s stated intent to destroy Israel and support the Palestinian cause.

The Houthis’ Red Sea attacks are primarily intended to address the legitimacy crises the group faces both domestically and abroad. While the Houthis succeeded in capturing Yemen’s capital city of Sana’a and forced the resignation of then-President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the group remains opposed by Yemen’s internationally recognized government and other armed groups such as the Southern Transitional Council and Yemeni National Resistance which control significant swaths of territory within the country. Within Houthi-controlled territory, the group remains unpopular with much of the population due to its imposition of restrictive social control measures, the poor state of Yemen’s economy, endemic government corruption, and the Houthis’ struggles to pay public sector salaries. Internationally, Iran is the only country to recognize the Houthis as the legitimate ruling government of Yemen, and the group has been diplomatically and economically isolated from most of the global community.

Through this lens, the group’s campaign in the Red Sea can perhaps best be viewed as an effort to strengthen the image of the Houthis as a fully functional governing entity and a powerful geopolitical force capable of waging war against regional and global powers and single-handedly disrupting global commerce. While Houthi attempts at striking the Israeli mainland have been largely unsuccessful, the group identified attacks against maritime vessels as a more achievable means of inserting themselves into the broader conflict against Israel while also elevating their global threat profile. This interpretation is further supported by the Houthis’ decision to offer “safe transit” waivers to ships hoping to transit the Red Sea without being targeted. To the Houthis, every shipping company that applies for such a waiver helps cement the perception of the Houthis as a legitimate governing authority. Similarly, securing a peace agreement with the United States served as a significant propaganda win for the Houthis, allowing them to portray themselves as a peer competitor of the Americans capable of inflicting enough damage on US interests to necessitate such a deal.

While the Houthis’ embrace of the Gaza War cause is consistent with the group’s prevailing pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli beliefs, the Houthis also had several strategic reasons to tie their Red Sea campaign to this conflict. First, Houthi involvement in the Gaza War is one of the few policies undertaken by the group that has been widely popular due to the Yemeni public’s widespread opposition to Israel. While 2024 polling from the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies shows that the Houthis themselves remain unpopular in Yemen, it also shows that the attacks themselves have produced positive feelings among Yemenis living in areas of Houthi, government, and divided control. These maritime attacks lend credibility to the Houthis’ claims that they are waging war in support of Palestine on behalf of the Yemeni people, while Yemen’s internationally recognized government has been largely unable to criticize the Houthi campaign since doing so would lend credence to the Houthis’ portrayal of this government as a Western-backed puppet that represents foreign rather than domestic interests. The attacks have also been a boon for recruitment to the Houthi cause. The UN estimates that the number of Houthi fighters increased from 220,000 in 2022 to 350,000 in 2024, and successful propaganda campaigns centered around the Houthis’ war against Israel served a major driver of this increased recruitment. Every successful strike and foreign retaliation against the Yemeni homeland in response to these attacks risks producing a rally-around-the-flag effect that engenders greater public sympathy.

Additionally, the Houthis’ embrace of the Palestinian cause as a justification for its Red Sea attacks has helped deepen its partnership with Iran. Despite the Houthis’ growing capacity to manufacture weapons domestically, Iran remains an invaluable patron for the Houthis which has continued to supply the group with munitions, as evidenced by the Yemeni National Resistance Force’s interception of over 750 tons of Yemen-bound Iranian weapons in July. Iran’s arming of the Houthis was originally intended to oppose the Saudi-led coalition’s efforts to topple the group and prevent Yemen from becoming a proxy state of Iran’s geopolitical adversaries. However, the Houthis’ willingness to wade into the Gaza conflict in opposition to another of Iran’s primary adversaries (Israel) has helped establish the Houthis as a reliable partner worthy of continued support at a time when Iran’s regional proxy network has been significantly degraded following its disastrous Twelve-Day War against Israel.

Furthermore, the Houthis have used the Gaza War as cover for their Red Sea attacks in part to undermine public perceptions of other regional Arab powers. While countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE are ostensibly supportive of the Palestinian cause, the Houthis have repeatedly highlighted that these states have proven unwilling to match that support with military action, drawing favorable contrasts between this perceived inaction and the Houthis’ successful maritime campaign. In doing so, the Houthis have sought to weaken regional opinion of the countries which once actively worked to topple them after their capture of Sana’a.

While the Houthis’ embrace of the Palestinian cause has been largely successful for the group, there is reason to believe they will continue to target commercial shipping interests in the Red Sea even if the conflict in Gaza remains frozen. First, the Houthis could continue to shift the goalposts on their justification for targeting vessels in the Red Sea in opposition to Israel. The road to peace between Israel and the Palestinians will be full of stops and starts, and the Houthis can weaponize each roadblock as a sign of Israeli aggression and resume their Red Sea attacks.

Should the fragile peace in Gaza hold, the Houthis could also adopt the United States as the primary public face of its Red Sea campaign, drawing on the broad unpopularity of the US among Yemenis in the wake of America’s lengthy drone campaign against extremist groups in Yemen. The aforementioned US-Houthi détente may be insufficient to deter future attacks, as evidenced by the Houthis’ March 2024 attack on a Chinese ship despite making similar promises to avoid targeting their vessels. The Houthis’ decades of insurgency experience have made them adept at surviving airstrikes while preserving their ability to conduct maritime attacks. This is not to say that airstrikes against the Houthis have been wholly ineffective. The strikes launched by the US this spring inflicted over $1 billion in damage, killed several prominent Houthi figures, and played a role in bringing the Houthis to the negotiating table, and a recent Israeli strike succeeded in killing Houthi military leader Muhammad Abdul Karim al-Ghamari. However, the Houthis may calculate that they would gain more militarily from the increase in aid they would receive from Iran if they began attacking ships which have made port calls to the United States than they would lose as a result of retaliatory American strikes, especially since such strikes would further encourage more disaffected young men to join the Houthi cause.

Finally, the Houthis’ growing proficiency in carrying out Red Sea attacks may embolden them to continue these efforts. The Houthis have increased their coordination with both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Somali extremist group Al Shabaab in recent months. Greater cooperation with these groups could allow the Houthis to extend the range of ships they are able to target in the region and add further risk to ships hoping to hug the coast of Africa to avoid attacks, while also providing the Houthis with additional sources of regional intelligence and material support. Rather than relying exclusively on long-range munitions to harass their targets, recent attacks have also shown the Houthis adopting a greater variety of tactics, including using a combination of both remotely operated ships and vessels crewed by combatants who boarded and planted explosive devices on ships. These tactics suggest that the Houthis can continue harassing ships in the region even if the group’s supply of missiles and drones begins to dry up.

While Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and adjoining waterways may wax and wane in the coming months, safe transit through the Red Sea is unlikely to become a reality in the foreseeable future. The Houthis’ Red Sea campaign is not intrinsically linked to the Gaza conflict and may therefore continue even if that war ends peacefully. The Houthis will likely continue to use these attacks as a leverage point to press for more favorable final-status peace negotiations with both Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s internationally recognized government to help secure them a more advantageous political position in Yemen moving forward. Only an end to the decades-long conflict between the Houthis and their enemies within Yemen will bring an end to the group’s efforts to disrupt maritime commerce in the region.

Matt Reisener is the Senior National Security Advisor for the Center for Maritime Strategy. He previously served as Senior Program Manager for the Middle East and North Africa for the National Democratic Institute, where he managed international development programs in Yemen.
Featured Image: USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group Conducts PHOTOEX with ITS Cavour Carrier Strike Group in the Red Sea (Photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Kade Bise Carrier Strike Group Two)
Asia-Pacific

China’s Coming Small Wars

3 Comments

By Michael Hanson

The world took note of the meteoric growth of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), both in size and capability. Specifically, the PLA and PLAN’s amphibious capabilities development is impressive and alarming. According to many experts, the reason for this rapid development is the forceful reintegration of the island of Taiwan into the People’s Republic of China (PRC).1 Analysts argue that a PLA cross-strait amphibious invasion of Taiwan would be the largest amphibious assault in history, greater in scale and complexity than invasions of Normandy and Okinawa, the largest amphibious operations in each theater during World War II.2

A cross-strait operation would be a serious challenge for a world-class military. Though the Chinese military is quickly reaching peer status with the United States military in many areas, the PLA is not currently ready for a daunting amphibious invasion of Taiwan. The PLA remains untested. Chinese leaders will likely subject their prototype to a series of test runs before committing to such a fateful mission. History and current events show small wars and limited interventions serve as useful training grounds to develop the leadership, processes, and capabilities of military forces for larger designs. At present, North Korean troops are active participants in the war in Ukraine to presumably gain combat experience of their own.3 Likewise, before China embarks on a major war, it will likely hone its edge in small ones.

According to the renowned military historian Basil H. Liddell Hart, “A landing on a foreign coast in the face of hostile troops has always been one of the most difficult operations of war.”4 To establish a lodgment, not only does the offensive force have to overcome a defending force, but significant geographic and climatic factors. Once successfully seizing a beachhead, the attacker must break out from it and begin a land campaign in which it can still meet defeat if it does not have adequate logistics to sustain its campaign. Even once ashore, the challenges of sustaining a campaign overseas are significantly greater than doing so overland. It is for these reasons that successful amphibious campaigns have been the domain of a relatively few militaries in modern history.

China seeks to join the small pantheon of militaries effective at amphibious operations. However, China’s military last combat experience occurred during the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979. In that conflict Vietnamese militias stymied Chinese offensive thrusts while the bulk of Vietnam’s People’s Revolutionary Army was simultaneously engaged in Cambodia. Though the Chinese never officially acknowledged their casualty figures, independent estimates contend China suffered up to 25,000 killed in action and 37,000 wounded in the month-long war.5

The PLA made enormous strides in the 45 years since its last war. In 1979, China possessed a peasant army organized and equipped for what Mao Zedong called “Peoples’ War,” or guerrilla war.6 However, modern conflict changed China’s calculus. Following the American overwhelming triumph in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, China embarked on a massive military modernization.7 Chinese President Xi Jinping, recently charged the PLA to prepare for war, even uttering the words “dare to fight” during a visit to the Eastern Theater Command, the military district responsible for Taiwan.8,9 Experts assert President Xi is referring to forceful reunification of Taiwan.10

Before undertaking such an enormous and consequential operation the PLA must demonstrate its proficiency. China has conducted numerous exercises and drills, but these displays of military might will not prove sufficient. 11 The crucible of real combat must test PLA leadership, units, and operational methods before attempting an invasion of Taiwan. China’s adversaries should remain attuned to China’s engagement in small wars as means to advance political objectives and test its forces in preparation for a Taiwan invasion.

Contingency operations provide a wealth of knowledge and experience. For these reasons, these limited engagements serve as the most effective training operations. Indeed, throughout history countries have used active battlefields as schoolhouses for improving their combat capabilities, especially engaging in small wars to prepare for a larger one.

From 1937 to 1939, civil war raged in Spain and outside powers supplied troops and equipment to both sides. Though volunteers came to Spain from around the world, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union provided support with the express purpose of gaining knowledge and experience, and testing equipment and doctrinal methods with an eye on the future. Germany, rearming from the severe restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles, exploited this opportunity to test its new tanks and airplanes, while employing new concepts.12 Germany’s famed Condor Legion, a unit consisting of both air and ground elements, was the vessel that gave some 19,000 German soldiers and airmen experience in a warzone.13 This was to be an investment that would pay off handsomely in a few short years.

As German arms and ideas were subjected to experimentation in Spain, the Wehrmacht learned other valuable lessons during Adolf Hitler’s bloodless conquests. In Germany’s remilitarization of the Rhineland, as well as its annexations of Austria, the Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia, and finally Klaipeda, the Wehrmacht gained valuable experience in these unopposed invasions. These campaigns without battles allowed the German military to execute planned movements to seize objectives and secure key terrain and critical infrastructure. The Germans employed tactical and operational methods to set conditions for mutual support when contested. Though the Germans faced little opposition, they experienced other friction and fog inherent in war. In the process of working through these challenges, the Germans profited enormously, specifically in the areas of mobilization, deployment, logistics, and command and control.14

The United States, in fact, has a long history of developing its military in small wars close to home, but perhaps the most notable are in the period between the world wars known as the Banana Wars. Many American senior commanders in World War II cut their teeth as junior officers in these Latin American interventions, from the soldiers who chased Pancho Villa on the Mexican Border just before World War I, to the Marines who fought bandits in Haiti, Santo Domingo, and Nicaragua during the interwar period. More notable than the personalities who served in these small wars are the lessons in warfighting they brought back with them, such as the Marine development of close air support to tactics in jungle fighting that the “Old Breed” passed to their new recruits in preparation for Guadalcanal.15

More recent small-scale interventions in America’s near abroad have had notable impacts on the American military as well. Early confusion in Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada exposed gaps in intelligence, planning, and joint interoperability in execution that helped instigate the reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Act which dictate high level organizations and processes to this day.16 On the other hand, the rapid success of Operation Just Cause in Panama seemed to validate doctrinal planning and training methods.17 Both short and decisive operations did much to improve America’s military stature in the rough wake of the Vietnam War.

Other countries have learned from limited adventures abroad as well. The severe shortcomings of Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia with its rusty leftover Soviet military served as a wake-up call to President Vladimir Putin. The poor performance of Russian leaders, personnel, units, equipment, and procedures led to massive overhaul of the Russian Army, with a modernization program to upgrade all of these areas of disappointment.18 After several years of development, President Putin utilized Syria as a testing ground for new Russian weapons as well as a stage to advertise their capabilities to the world.19 The results of this build-up, combined with Russia’s initial proxy war in Ukraine, served to convince the world of a daunting Russian military machine, an image that was only dashed when Putin squandered these reforms with his ill-advised and poorly planned conventional invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Yet while the Russian war machine is bogged down in cratered and shell-blasted Ukrainian landscapes reminiscent of the battlefields of World War I, China continues developing its own capabilities. Chinese military spending rose significantly in 2024 to $236 billion.20 Recent Chinese developments include the 2022 launch of a Type-003 Fujian aircraft carrier, comparable to an American Nimitz class super carrier.21 In addition to this crown jewel of power projection, the PRC launched their fourth Type 075 Helicopter Landing Dock (LHD) ship, comparable to the American Tarawa and Wasp class amphibious ships, and other amphibious dock landing ships that complement this platform to round out the Amphibious Ready Group construct.22 Like the American Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs), these acquisitions give China a suite of crisis response and power projection capabilities. They have even built several classes of at-sea replenishment ships to support their fleet far from home waters.23

PLAN Type 75 LHD CNS Hubei during a training exercise. (China Daily photo)

The question remains whether platforms similar to Nimitz class aircraft carriers, Tarawa/Wasp Class helicopter ships, and underway replenishment ships are necessary for a cross-strait invasion of Taiwan when the island is already within range of airfields on the Chinese mainland. More likely these are intended for power projection in their near abroad. In other words, the world may witness a coming era of Chinese gunboat diplomacy and small war interventions similar to the Banana Wars during the period of rising American hegemony. With over $1 trillion invested since 2013 and as of 2023, 147 countries signing on to the Belt and Road Initiative, China has lots of opportunities to intervene in overseas contingencies to defend its national interests.24 In line with former Chinese President Hu Jintao’s call for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to conduct “new historic missions,” the PLAN is already at work flexing its muscles abroad.25

Since 2009 the PLAN has participated in international counter-piracy operations in areas such as the Gulf of Aden, Bab-el-Mandeb, and Arabian Sea.26 Since the start of the Israel-Gaza War, the PLAN dispatched naval forces to the region following Houthi attacks on merchant ships in the waters off of Yemen.27 While the PLAN routinely operates from a military base in Djibouti, one expert warns this outpost will only be the first of many Chinese overseas military bases.28, 29 Yet Chinese involvement in multilateral military missions extend to the land as well.

In recent years, over 2,000 Chinese troops deployed to conflict zones in Mali, Darfur, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.30 These deployments are not a recent developments. Since 1992, China has deployed over 50,000 troops to no less than 29 United Nations peacekeeping missions, losing 24 killed in these operations.31 Of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, China contributes the most personnel to UN missions. President Xi Jinping offered to provide 8,000 troops to a United Nations standby force in 2015.32 As Chinese sailors, soldiers, and airmen gain experience in overseas contingencies, the Chinese military builds its capability to pursue larger missions, like an invasion of Taiwan.

Conclusion

The world has time before China could attempt to use force to bring Taiwan under its heel. However, every year that passes, they increase their readiness. Drills and training exercises certainly increase a military’s abilities. However, only so much can be learned in sterile, controlled training environments. China will likely test its military might in small wars before embarking on a larger one. The world should take note of China’s entry and actions during a small war. When the People’s Republic of China does engage in a small war, the world will know China is preparing for the forceful reunification of Taiwan.

Major Michael A. Hanson, USMC, is an Infantry Officer serving at The Basic School, where the Marine Corps trains its lieutenants and warrant officers in character, officership, and the skills required of a provisional rifle platoon commander. He is also a member of the Connecting File, a Substack newsletter that shares material on tactics, techniques, procedures, and leadership for Marines at the infantry battalion level and below.

References

[1] Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat, (Manchester, UK: Eastbridge Books, 2017) Foreward.

[2] Council on Foreign Relations. “Why China Would Struggle To Invade Taiwan.” https://www.cfr.org/article/why-china-would-struggle-invade-taiwan. Accessed March 26, 2024.

[3] Karolina Hird, Daniel Shats, and Alison O’Neil, “North Korea Joins Russia’s War Against Ukraine: Operational and Strategic Implications in Ukraine and Northeast Asia,” Institute for the Study of War, last updated October 25, 2024. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/north-korea-joins-russias-war-against-ukraine-operational-and-strategic-implications. Accessed July 31, 2025.

[4] Joint Chiefs of Staff, Amphibious Operations, JP 3-02 (Washington, DC: Joint Staff, 21 January 2021). I-1.

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_02.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2024.

[5] Zhang Xiaoming, “China’s 1979 War with Vietnam: A Reassessment,” The China Quarterly 184 (Dec 2005)

[6] Edmund J. Burke, Kristen Gunness, Cortez A. Cooper III, Mark Cozad, People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts, (RAND Corporation, 2020). 4.

[7] Edmund J. Burke, Kristen Gunness, Cortez A. Cooper III, Mark Cozad, People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts. 4.

[8] Miriah Davis, “President Xi Jinping orders Chinese military to prepare for war over concerns national security is ‘increasingly unstable, uncertain’”, Sky News Australia, November 9, 2022. https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/president-xi-jinping-orders-chinese-military-to-prepare-for-war-over-concerns-national-security-is-increasingly-unstable-uncertain/news-story/db8ca191e86fd81a23b3b794ff4f2a0e. Accessed March 26, 2024.

[9] “China’s Xi Jinping says army must ‘dare to fight’ during military inspection,” The Straits Times, last updated July 6, 2023. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-xi-jinping-says-army-must-dare-to-fight-during-military-inspection. Accessed March 26, 2024.

[10] Brad Dress, “China will be ready for potential Taiwan invasion by 2027, US admiral warns,” The Hill, March 21, 2024. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/china-will-be-ready-for-potential-taiwan-invasion-by-2027-us-admiral-warns/ar-BB1kjib7. Accessed March 26, 2024.

[11] Kristin Huang, “Chinese military drills simulate amphibious landing and island seizure in battle conditions,” South China Morning Post, July 28, 2021. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3142851/chinese-military-drills-simulate-amphibious-landing-and-island. Accessed March 26, 2024;

[12] John T. Hendriz, “The Interwar Army and Mechanization: The American Approach,” Journal of Strategic Studies 16:1 (1993). 87-88.

[13] John T. Correll, “The Condor Legion,” Air & Space Forces Magazine, February 1, 2013. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0213condor/. Accessed March 26, 2024.

[14] Williamson Murray, The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938-1939: The Path to Ruin, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984) 152-153.

[15] Mark R. Folse, “Never Known a Day of Peace,” Naval History 35:4, August 2021. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/august/never-known-day-peace. Accessed March 26, 2024; Joseph H. Alexander, “Close Air Support: The Pioneering Years,” Naval History 26:6, November 2012. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2012/november/close-air-support-pioneering-years. Accessed March 27, 2024.

[16] Ronald H. Cole, Operation Urgent Fury, (Washington, DC, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1997). 6. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/History/Monographs/Urgent_Fury.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2024;

Daniel Bolger, “Operation Urgent Fury and its Critics,” Military Review LXVI:7, July 1986. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Directors-Select-Articles/Operation-Urgent-Fury/. Accessed March 27, 2024;

John J. Hamre, “Reflections: Looking Back at the Need for Goldwater-Nichols,” Center For Strategic & International Studies, January 27, 2016. https://www.csis.org/analysis/reflections-looking-back-need-goldwater-nichols. Accessed March 27, 2024.

[17] R. Cody Phillips, “CMH PUB No. 70-85-1 Operation Just Cause: The Incursion Into Panama,” U.S. Army Center for Military History 2004, 47-48. https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-85-1/cmhPub_70-85-1.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2024.

[18] Ariel Cohen Dr. and Robert E. Hamilton Colonel, The Russian Military and the Georgia War: Lessons and Implications (US Army War College Press, 2011), 49-54. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/576. Accessed March 27, 2024.

[19] Lester Grau and Charles Bartles, “The Russian Ground-Based Contingent in Syria,” Russia’s War in Syria: Assessing Russian Military Capabilities and Lessons Learned (Philadelphia, PA: Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2020) 68. https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/russias-war-in-syria.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2024:

Anton Lavrov, “Russian Aerial Operations in the Syrian War,” Russia’s War in Syria: Assessing Russian Military Capabilities and Lessons Learned (Philadelphia, PA: Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2020) 93. https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/russias-war-in-syria.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2024.

[20] Gordon Arthur, “China unveils new defense budget, with a 7.2% increase,” Defense News, March 6, 2024. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2024/03/06/china-unveils-new-defense-budget-with-a-72-increase/. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[21] H.I. Sutton, “China Launches First Aircraft Carrier Which Rivals U.S. Navy’s,” Naval News, June 17, 2022. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/china-launches-first-aircraft-carrier-which-rivals-u-s-navys/. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[22] Xavier Vavasseur, “China Launches 4th Type 075 LHD For The PLAN,” Naval News, December 14, 2023. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/12/china-launches-4th-type-075-lhd-for-the-plan/. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[23] Felix K. Chang, “Sustaining the Chinese Navy’s Operations at Sea: Bigger Fists, Growing Legs,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, May 3, 2023. https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/05/sustaining-the-chinese-navys-operations-at-sea-bigger-fists-growing-legs/. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[24] Council on Foreign Relations. “China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative.” https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[25] Daniel M. Hartnett, “Chapter 2 The ‘New Historic Missions:’ Reflections on Hu Jintao’s Military Legacy,” Assessing the People’s Liberation Army in the Hu Jintao Era, (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College April 1, 2014). 31-36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep11946.5. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[26] Guo Yuandan and Liu Xuanzun, “PLA Navy’s 14 years of missions in blue waters safeguard intl trade routes, win more overseas recognition,” Global Times, Aug 1, 2022. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1271933.shtml. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[27] Aadil Brar, “China Sends Warships to the Middle East,” Newsweek, February 22, 2024. https://www.newsweek.com/china-warship-red-sea-missile-east-houthi-1872284. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[28] Ben Blanchard, “China formally opens first overseas military base in Djibouti.” Reuters, August 1, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1AH3E1/. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[29] Eric A. Miller, “More Chinese Military Bases in Africa: A Question of When, Not If,” Foreign Policy, August 16, 2022. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/16/china-military-bases-africa-navy-pla-geopolitics-strategy/. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[30] Thomas Dyrenforth, “Beijing’s Blue Helmets: What to Make of China’s Role in UN Peacekeeping in Africa,” Modern War Institute, August 19, 2021. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/beijings-blue-helmets-what-to-make-of-chinas-role-in-un-peacekeeping-in-africa/. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[31] “China touts role in UN peacekeeping, Middle East peace,” Associated Press, June 25, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-middle-east-china-government-and-politics-6014343ada529a978436dec343c1f04e. Accessed March 28, 2024.

[32] Courtney J. Fung, “China’s Troop Contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping,” United States Institute of Peace, July 26, 2016. https://www.usip.org/publications/2016/07/chinas-troop-contributions-un-peacekeeping. Accessed March 28, 2024.

Featured Image: Rigged with combat loads, paratroopers assigned to a brigade under the Chinese PLA Army file into a Mi-171E transport helicopter during a parachute training exercise in September 2025. (Photo via eng.chinamil.com.cn/by Hu Qiwu)