
China's aircraft carriers in Pacific signals ability to ‘contest' US power
Moscow and Beijing have been reinforcing their military partnership in recent years as they seek to counterbalance what they see as the United States-led global order.
But what did raise eyebrows among defence analysts and regional governments had occurred several weeks earlier when China sent its aircraft carriers into the Pacific together for the first time.
Maritime expert and former United States Air Force Colonel Ray Powell described the 'simultaneous deployment' of China's two aircraft carriers east of the Philippines as a 'historic' moment as the country races to realise Chinese President Xi Jinping's ambition of having a world-class navy by 2035.
'No nation except the US has operated dual carrier groups at such distances since [World War II],' said Powell, director of SeaLight, a maritime transparency project of the Gordian Knot Center at Stanford University.
'While it will take years for China's still-nascent carrier capabilities to approach that of America's, this wasn't just a training exercise – it was China demonstrating it can now contest and even deny US access to crucial sea lanes,' Powell told Al Jazeera.
China's state-run news agency Xinhua described the exercise by the aircraft carriers as a 'far-sea combat-oriented training', and the state-affiliated Global Times reported that China was soon poised to enter the 'three-aircraft-carrier era', when its Fujian carrier enters service later this year.
East Asia is a 'home game' for China
China currently has two operational aircraft carriers – the Liaoning and Shandong – and the Fujian is undergoing sea trials.
While the Chinese navy operates the world's largest naval fleet with more than 370 ships compared with the US's 251 active ships in commission, Beijing still lacks the global logistics network and advanced nuclear submarine technology required of a truly mature blue water force, Powell said.
Beijing's three aircraft carriers run on diesel compared with Washington's 11 carriers, all of which are nuclear powered.
But 'gaps' in naval capabilities are closing between the US and China.
'[China] fully intends to close these gaps and is applying tremendous resources toward that end, and with its rapidly improving technical prowess and vastly superior shipbuilding capacity, it has demonstrated its potential to get there,' Powell said.
Beijing's more immediate focus is not directed towards competing with the US globally, Powell added.
Rather, China is focused on changing the balance of power and convincing its allies and adversaries to accept China's dominance within its chosen sphere of influence in East Asia.
The second option, if ever necessary, is to defeat them.
'East Asia is a 'home game' for China – a place where it can augment its small carrier force through its far larger land-based air and rocket forces – including so-called [aircraft] 'carrier killer' missile systems that can strike targets up to 4,000km [2,485 miles] away,' Powell said.
Regionally, while the Philippines engages in increasingly frequent high seas confrontations with the Chinese coastguard, it is Japan that is watching China's naval build-up with concern, experts said.
Japan's Defence Minister Gen Nakatani said in June – after confirming that China's two carriers had operated simultaneously in the Pacific for the first time – that Beijing apparently aims 'to advance its operational capability of the distant sea and airspace'.
With the US increasingly perceived as becoming more inward-looking under President Donald Trump, Japan is considered a growing force in the contested maritime terrain in the Asia Pacific region amid what Tokyo has called 'the most severe and complex security environment since the end of World War II'.
'Preparation for a more uncertain future'
Even before Trump's second stint as US president, Japan had embarked on the most pivotal shift in post-World War II military spending.
Tokyo's defence spending and related costs are expected to total 9.9 trillion yen (about $67bn) for fiscal year 2025, equivalent to 1.8 percent of Japan's gross domestic product (GDP), and the government has committed to raising spending on defence to 2 percent of GDP by 2027, according to Japanese media reports.
'[Japan's] naval capacity is growing steadily, not just in support of the US alliance but in quiet preparation for a more uncertain future – perhaps even one in which America withdraws from the Pacific,' said Mike Burke, lecturer at Tokyo-based Meiji University.
Collin Koh, senior fellow at the Singapore-based Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), also said that China's growing military might, assertiveness and proclivity to resort to coercive behaviour have 'aggravated Japan's threat perception'.
But Japan alone cannot guarantee security in such a regional hotspot as the South China Sea, said Burke.
Instead, Tokyo's goal is to check Beijing's growing power through a Japanese presence and building partnerships with other regional players.
This year alone so far, Japan has deployed two naval fleets to 'realise' what Japanese officials describe as a free and open Asia Pacific region. The first fleet was deployed from January 4 to May 10 and docked in 12 countries, including Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Oman.
The second was deployed on April 21 and is ongoing until November, with port calls in some 23 countries, as well as roles in multilateral military exercises.
Japan aims to build trust with other allies, Burke said, noting that Japan has worked on its soft power by funding radar systems, investing in civil infrastructure from ports to rail networks in Southeast Asia, and supporting maritime domain awareness initiatives in the region.
Noriyuki Shikata, Japan's ambassador to Malaysia, described Tokyo's approach as a strength at home and reinforcing collaboration abroad with 'like-minded countries and others with whom Japan cooperates', in order to uphold and realise a free and open international order.
'Japan has been strengthening its defence capabilities to the point at which Japan can take the primary responsibility for dealing with invasions against Japan, and disrupt and defeat such threats while obtaining the support of its [US] ally and other security partners,' the ambassador told Al Jazeera.
Zachary Abuza, professor of Southeast Asia studies and security at Washington, DC-based National War College, said the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) is a world-class navy that is focused on building the highest level of capabilities.
Abuza also described Japan's submarine force as 'exceptional', while it is also building up its capabilities, including more high-end antiship missiles.
'All of these developments should give the Chinese some pause,' Abuza told Al Jazeera in a recent interview.
'That said, they [the Japanese] are nervous about Trump's commitment to treaty obligations, and you can see the Japan Self-Defence Force is trying to strengthen its strategic autonomy,' he said.
'Chinese assertiveness could result in an accident'
Geng Shuang, charge d'affaires of China's permanent mission to the United Nations, said earlier this year that China was committed to working with the 'countries concerned' to address conflicting claims in the South China Sea through peaceful dialogue.
He also lambasted the threat posed by the US navy's freedom of navigation operations in the contested sea.
'The United States, under the banner of freedom of navigation, has frequently sent its military vessels to the South China Sea to flex its muscles and openly stir up confrontation between regional countries,' Geng was quoted as saying by Xinhua.
China claims almost all of the South China Sea, a vast area spanning approximately 3.6 million square kilometres (1.38 million square miles) that is rich in hydrocarbons and one of the world's major shipping routes.
Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei are claimants to various parts of the sea.
Ralph Cossa, chairman of the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum research institute, said 'the challenge to freedom of navigation is a global one'.
But the challenges posed are particularly worrying when it comes to the rival superpowers China and the US.
'I don't think anyone wants a direct conflict or is looking to start a fight,' Cossa said.
'But I worry that Chinese assertiveness could result in an accident that it would prove difficult for either side to walk away or back down from,' Cossa said.
Speaking on the sidelines of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies' Asia Pacific Roundtable 2025 summit in Kuala Lumpur earlier this year, Do Thanh Hai, deputy director-general at Vietnam's East Sea Institute Diplomatic Academy, said no one will emerge unscathed from an incident in the disputed region.
'Any disruption in the South China Sea will affect all,' he told Al Jazeera.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Qatar Tribune
an hour ago
- Qatar Tribune
Russia-Ukraine ceasefire close, says US president
WASHINGTON: The US President Donald Trump has said that he believes a deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war is very close, stressing that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky now bears the responsibility to advance this process. In remarks to Fox News following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Trump explained that the burden now rests on Zelensky to build on yesterday's summit and ensure that an agreement is reached to end Russia's military campaign, which has been ongoing in Ukraine for three years. He emphasized that Zelensky must take the lead, while also noting that European countries should contribute in some capacity. Trump added that if there is another meeting, he would attend. He also said that Ukraine needs to be ready to agree, though there is a chance it might not. He urged Zelensky to strike a deal and revealed that Zelensky and Putin are expected to hold their own meeting soon in an attempt to reach a ceasefire. Trump noted that his negotiations with Putin covered issues such as NATO, security arrangements, and territorial matters, which he described as very straightforward. The US and Russian presidents met on Friday, at Elmendorf-Richardson Air Base in Alaska to discuss ways to stop the war between Moscow and Kiev. Both leaders described their talks as highly productive.


Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
The Alaska summit was not a ‘new Munich', but it could be a ‘new Yalta'
These days, the Russian army has a hard time scoring any major successes. Its soldiers face a grinding slog in Ukraine, dying by the hundreds, sometimes to advance just a few hundred metres or not at all. On the diplomatic front, however, the situation is different. Russian President Vladimir Putin secured a major diplomatic victory by holding a summit with United States President Donald Trump. At Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, it was all bonhomie. Trump clapped as Putin made his way onto the red carpet for a handshake before Trump escorted him into his presidential limo as the Russian leader smiled like a Cheshire cat. The two came away from their nearly three-hour meeting without much to say. Both spoke of agreement on a host of matters. Putin invited Trump to Moscow, who demurred – for now. Little has leaked thus far on exactly what Putin and Trump discussed. The Russian leader sought to suggest in his remarks to the media that the talks were on his terms, bringing up Russia's security concerns and praising his US counterpart for trying to 'understand the history' of the conflict. According to Russia's ambassador to the US, Alexander Darchiev, apart from Ukraine, there were some concrete bilateral issues discussed. He claimed two major diplomatic questions were raised: 'the return of six Russian diplomatic properties that were de facto confiscated' during former US President Joe Biden's administration and 'the restoration of direct air traffic' between Russia and the US. Trump for his part appeared to drop the demand for a ceasefire in Ukraine – something he had publicly called for before the summit. Instead, he agreed to take the Kremlin's demand for a full settlement of the conflict rather than a ceasefire to Ukraine and its European allies. Later, he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the European Union and Ukraine agreed with him that 'the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement'. Although Trump seemed to take the Russian position on a ceasefire, the worst possible outcome of the summit was still avoided. The meeting did not turn into a 'new Munich', where Trump would appease Putin just like the French and British leaders appeased Adolf Hitler in a meeting in the German city in 1938 by agreeing to a German takeover of part of Czechoslovakia. The US president did not accede to Russian territorial claims. That said, for Putin, the summit was a tactical win because it broadcast to the world that the US president himself was casting off the pariah status the Kremlin had earned for its unilateral invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the subsequent war crimes it has overseen. The Russian president was treated like the leader of a 'great power' – a status he has long been obsessed with returning Russia to – who had to be negotiated with, on his terms. So where does all this leave Ukraine and its European allies? Trump is clearly unwilling to change his position on Ukraine. He admires Putin – his personality and his governing style – immensely. But Brussels, London, and Kyiv cannot give up on him. The truth is that continued US support is indispensable to Ukraine maintaining its defence. Europe has moved to pick up more of the burden of funding since Trump was inaugurated for his second term, but its military capabilities and defence industry supply chains cannot replace those of the US anytime soon, even if they increase investments exponentially. Trump wants peace in name and cares nought about the details. For Kyiv, the detail is its very survival, and for the rest of Europe, Ukraine's fate shapes the potential that it could be the next target of Putin's aggression in his would-be geopolitically rebalanced world. That does not mean that there is no way to turn Trump. There is – Ukraine and Europe can use a page or two out of Putin's playbook in dealing with the US president. Trump clearly likes his ego to be stroked, which is what Putin repeatedly did in his remarks to the media, echoing, for example, Trump's claim that if he had been president in 2022, the war in Ukraine would not have happened. Continuing diplomatic engagement is the way forward, as is seeking to change the frame in which Trump sees the Ukrainian conflict. The US president cares more about the future of US energy exports, US competition with China, its challenge to US economic dominance and the exploitation of the Arctic than he does about Ukraine. It was Trump's choice to host the meeting in Alaska, after all, and his obsession with Greenland – so seemingly strange to European allies of the US – makes far more sense in this context. The key is to persuade the US president that Russia is a threat to Washington's interests in all of these matters. An easing of sanctions could see Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects flood into the market and depress the price for US LNG exports. Putin has reshaped Russia's economy to be dependent on minerals exports to China, fuelling its ability to compete economically thanks to cheap inputs. Putin has also repeatedly sought to push Beijing to be more assertive in economic competition by calling on it to dump the dollar and push new trade and finance frameworks that exclude the US. And Russia is hoping to dominate the Arctic by expanding its Arctic fleet with new nuclear-powered icebreakers and submarines. For Putin, his war in Ukraine has never been just about the dividing lines in the Donbas or his claimed injustices from the Soviet Union's collapse. It is a war to reshape the world. On the other hand, Trump sees the war as a distraction and a drag on his own efforts to reshape the world. Only if Kyiv and the wider West understand Trump's approach could they persuade him what is at stake. They must focus on how Putin hurts American interests and Trump's perception thereof. If they fail to do so, while Alaska may have proven to be no 'new Munich', its legacy could be that of one of a 'new Yalta' in which Europe's future is to be shaped by new exclusive spheres of influence drawn by Moscow and Washington. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump set to meet Ukraine's Zelenskyy after ‘successful' talks with Putin
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday will meet US President Donald Trump in Washington to discuss an end to the more than three-year war in Ukraine, hours after Trump's talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska ended without a concrete deal. In a post on his Truth Social platform after holding phone conversations with European Union and NATO leaders, Trump said the talks with Putin 'went very well'. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' Trump's pitch for the peace agreement, analysts say, came after no deal was announced in the Alaska talks. Prior to the meeting, Trump had threatened Moscow to agree to a ceasefire. Al Jazeera's Osama Bin Javaid, reporting from Moscow, said there has been an atmosphere of success in Moscow. 'Trump's remarks on the need for a larger peace agreement fall in line with what Putin has been saying for the last few months,' he said. The Ukrainian leader and his European allies, who have been seeking a ceasefire, welcomed the Trump-Putin talks on Saturday but emphasised the need for a security guarantee for Kyiv. Zelenskyy, who was publicly berated by Trump and his officials during his last Oval Office meeting, said, 'I am grateful for the invitation.' The Ukrainian leader said he had a 'long and substantive conversation with Trump'. 'In my conversation with President Trump, I said that sanctions should be tightened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia evades an honest end to the war,' the Ukrainian leader said. 'Sanctions are an effective tool. We need to reliably and long-term guarantee security with the participation of both Europe and the US,' he also said, adding: 'All issues that are important for Ukraine should be discussed with the participation of Ukraine, and no issue, including territorial ones, can be resolved without Ukraine.' Trilateral meeting In his first public comment after the Alaska talks, Zelenskyy said he supported Trump's proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the US, and Russia, adding that Kyiv is 'ready for constructive cooperation'. 'Ukraine reaffirms its readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace,' the Ukrainian president posted on X. But Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, said on Russian state television on Saturday that a potential trilateral meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy has not been raised during the US-Russia discussions. 'The topic has not been touched upon yet,' Ushakov said, according to the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti. Trump rolled out the red carpet on Friday for Putin, who was in the US for the first time in a decade, but he gave little concrete detail afterwards of what was discussed. Trump said in Alaska that 'there's no deal until there's a deal,' after Putin claimed the two leaders had hammered out an 'understanding' on Ukraine and warned Europe not to 'torpedo the nascent progress.' Al Jazeera's Charles Stratford, reporting from Kyiv, said Trump has been heavily criticised by the US media over the meeting in Alaska. 'They are concerned about what has been described as far more of a conciliatory tone by Trump towards Putin, without coming out of that meeting with even a ceasefire,' he said. Stratford said that the eyes are now on the meeting in Washington as Zelenskyy and Trump try to set up a trilateral meeting with Putin. 'If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin,' the US president said. During an interview with Fox News Channel after the talks, Trump insisted that the onus going forward might be on Zelenskyy 'to get it done,' but said there would also be some involvement from European nations. Meanwhile, several European leaders on Saturday jointly pledged to continue support for Ukraine and maintain pressure on Russia until the war in Ukraine ends. Europe's stance In a statement, EU leaders, including the French president and German chancellor, outlined key points in stopping the conflict. They said: 'Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity'. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to the EU and NATO, the statement said. 'It will be up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory. International borders must not be changed by force.' Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Brussels, said reaching a ceasefire in Ukraine is the priority of European leaders. 'They believe that there needs to be an immediate ceasefire before reaching a comprehensive deal on the future of Ukraine,' he said. 'Then they seek to provide security guarantees by deploying their own forces to make sure Russians will not violate the terms of that agreement,' our correspondent stressed, adding that European countries reject the notion of changing the borders by force.