The South China Sea Is Not Your Playground, Netherlands

A Dutch warship sailed boldly into the waters of the Paracel Islands. What it got in return was a swift, forceful response from the PLA. Do European nations genuinely believe the South China Sea is some kind of tourist hotspot?

The Dutch warship sailed in flying the banner of "freedom of navigation." The reality is that banner amounts to a direct challenge to China's sovereignty over the South China Sea. The PLA Southern Theatre Command promptly issued a statement declaring that the vessel had "illegally intruded into the waters of China's Xisha Islands" and had "repeatedly launched its shipborne helicopter to intrude into China's territorial airspace." The result was decisive: the military drove the ship away using electronic jamming measures.

The Dutch side handled the expulsion incident with striking restraint. The Netherlands refused to disclose any details about the "interference" and made no public comment whatsoever — an unusually subdued posture that struck many observers as odd. "Freedom of navigation" operations are designed to project strength.

To be effective, they must maximise the humiliation of China at every turn. America's European allies have long operated on the assumption that China would never dare sink one of their "freedom warships."

And so they sail in and sail out, back and forth — treating the South China Sea like a picturesque Western promenade.

The numbers tell a stark story. According to the South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative (SCSPI), a Chinese Mainland military think tank, nearly 200 warships from 18 "extra-regional countries" operated in the Western Pacific in 2025 alone — with US vessels making up the majority.

Other extra-regional warships came primarily from Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. By informal estimates, the Western Pacific sees an average of around two surface vessels present each day.

The air picture is equally crowded. In the same year, extra-regional military aircraft flew more than 20,000 sorties over the Western Pacific — including fighter jets, helicopters, transport aircraft, reconnaissance planes, tankers, and bombers — again predominantly American.

In 2025, excluding the United States, six warships from four countries — Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand — transited the Taiwan Strait on five separate occasions. Notably, since 2024, the number of transits by non-US extra-regional countries has risen sharply. More European nations, along with Australia and New Zealand, are joining the rotation. Freedom of navigation operations in the Taiwan Strait are becoming routine — the transits are growing ever more frequent.

The PLA now faces a clear strategic choice. It can deliver a genuine, forceful military strike. Or it can develop a means of action that is both peaceful and measured — a tactic of deterrence without combat, one that quietly but unmistakably removes the Western Pacific, the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea from the "freedom playground," while safeguarding China's sovereign interests.

The silent, seamless expulsion of the Dutch warship is likely to become a defining example of the PLA's "civilized" toolkit.

Chinese Mainland media reported that following the electronic attack, international confidence in the Dutch Navy has visibly declined, with its combat capabilities now under serious scrutiny. At the same time, observers noted that having been burned in the electronic warfare arena, European navies are likely to seize this as an opportunity to ramp up investment in areas such as hardened communications systems, electronic countermeasures, and electromagnetic resilience training.

The final verdict, however, is pessimistic about Europe's prospects: Given the sluggish pace at which Europe has developed advanced weapons systems in recent years, even if significant funding is committed, it remains uncertain when any meaningful results will materialize.

The United States suffered catastrophic blows in the Gulf during the Iran war. Its strategic assets have been squandered without restraint under President Trump. Going forward, projecting power in the Asia-Pacific will require marshalling the full strength of all its elite allies just to have any hope of containing China and securing the strategic island chain.

Yet if even America's electronic warfare capabilities proved insufficient against Iran, the prospect of facing China as an adversary is sobering. Frankly, "freedom of navigation" operations should be growing more cautious with each passing round — not less. Otherwise, playing this game all the way to a fatal miscalculation would be a very unpleasant outcome indeed.

Postscript: The Southern Theatre Command spokesperson stated that the Dutch vessel's actions "seriously infringed upon China's territorial sovereignty, maritime and air security, contravened international law and basic norms governing international relations, undermined peace and stability in the South China Sea, and were highly likely to lead to misunderstandings and misjudgments."

That language carries a veiled threat — and not without reason. China's electronic jamming capabilities are formidable. If things go wrong, aircraft could fall from the sky and warships could run aground. At that point, you will have no one to blame but yourselves.

Deep Blue

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

A superpower like the United States has resorted to playing the victim. That is almost bewildering. It remains unclear whether this reveals China's rising strength or America's weakening grip. Either way, a sobering sign of the times.

The dust has not yet settled after China's navy conducted an underwater launch of a submarine-launched ballistic missile into the Pacific on July 6. A US State Department official claimed that "China's notification to the United States came only a few hours before ​the launch and failed to provide sufficient detail, falling considerably short of standards adopted by all other P5 nuclear weapon states." A check of the US Department of Defense's website tells a different story. Washington is only telling half the truth, and such hypocrisy does not look good on the world stage.

The agreement actually being invoked reads as follows: "On May 31, 1988, in Moscow, U.S. Secretary of State Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze signed the Agreement on Notifications of ICBM and SLBM Launches. The Agreement provides for notification, no less than 24 hours in advance, of the planned date, launch area, and area of impact for any launch of an ICBM or SLBM. The Agreement also provides that these notifications be provided through the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers. The Agreement entered into force on the date it was signed."

This is a bilateral pact between the United States and the Soviet Union, now 38 years old. Yet somehow, when it gets dredged up again, it "automatically" morphs into "the standard jointly observed by the UN Security Council's permanent five." How does that work? Perhaps the US and Russia believe they alone are qualified to represent the entire "P5." Perhaps the White House cannot even be bothered with proper wordplay anymore and simply decides it gets to set the rules for the whole world. 

China, however, holds even more tricks up its sleeve. Following the usual rule that "one thing leads to another," a show of force from China's space program came hot on the heels of the missile launch. Global Times reported: "China's Long March 10B carrier rocket lifted off from the Hainan commercial space launch site at 12:15 pm on Friday. Approximately six minutes after the separation of the rocket’s first and second stages, the first stage made a vertical return and was successfully recovered by an offshore recovery platform.” It noted that it is the world’s first net-based recovery system.

Elon Musk's SpaceX has carried out multiple successful rocket recoveries in the past. Its mature technology has earned it the title of "the undisputed leader in global commercial spaceflight." This time, though, marks China's first successful rocket recovery using a net-capture system, and the first such feat achieved globally. It has been described as "China’s first successful implementation of controlled recovery of a launch vehicle’s first stage." In simple terms, China has developed its own recovery method, distinct from SpaceX's "vertical powered landing" approach. The advantage lies in lower fuel consumption compared to traditional vertical landings, plus lighter equipment since landing legs are not needed. This could well become a viable alternative path outside the US-dominated model.

China has already flexed its muscles in artificial intelligence. Seedance 2.0, unveiled earlier this year, showcased the dominance of homegrown Chinese technology. Then there is Huawei's "Tao chip," a disruptive force challenging Silicon Valley's grip on Moore's Law. If China now has its own model for reusable space rockets too, how many strongholds of advanced technology does the US have left to claim as its exclusive turf?

Of course, the US has its own playbook for going after China on all these fronts. It can slap China with accusations of copying or stealing technology. Just tack on the word "future" and call it "copying America's (future) technology." Suddenly Washington gains the moral high ground to demand explanations, or better yet, to slap on punitive tariffs whenever Trump feels like it.

Still, it has to be said that a submarine-launched intercontinental strategic missile, chips and AI, and space technology are not merely civilian tools. They are either purely military or dual-use instruments of national power. Together, they show that China's comprehensive national strength has pulled ahead of the US by a generational. What is truly unnerving is that China now stands to gain a real voice across technical standards, the international order, and trade rules alike. 

When China rules the world, the US may one day struggle even to stage a convincing "victim" act. This matters. Ye be warned.