New Delhi (ABC Live): The post–Cold War system was shaped by a clear structure. The United States acted as the main military guarantor of global stability. It protected sea lanes, reassured allies, and responded to crises across regions.

Today, however, the global order looks very different. Power is more dispersed. As a result, institutions are weaker. Consequently, many states hedge instead of choosing sides.

Within this shifting system, China is no longer only modernising its forces. Instead, it is testing whether military power can be converted into global leadership.

At the same time, this debate connects with earlier ABC Live analysis:
👉 https://abclive.in/2025/07/06/can-any-country-replace-u-s-hegemony/

Similarly, China’s rise fits into a broader shift where Asian powers seek larger roles in global governance:
👉 https://abclive.in/2025/06/21/india-and-china-all-set-to-lead-new-world-order/

Therefore, this report evaluates China’s military readiness for global leadership using data-backed assessments.

Why Military Size Is Not the Same as Military Leadership

First, military size alone does not define leadership. Ship counts and budgets show only part of the picture. In reality, global leadership is not just about winning a regional war.

Rather, leadership requires the ability to:

• Provide security for other states
• Sustain long-term overseas deployments
• Operate inside alliances
• Manage economic and political pressure

In short, leadership depends as much on trust and coalition-building as on weapons.

China’s Rapid Military Build-Up

Over the past two decades, China’s military expansion has accelerated.

• The Navy is growing.
• Missile forces are expanding.
• Space surveillance is improving.
• Nuclear forces are increasing.

Taken together, these trends show preparation for high-intensity conflict. Consequently, the balance of power in the Western Pacific has shifted.

Moreover, China’s presence is now visible in the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and Africa.

Regional Primacy Versus Global Leadership

At this stage, a clear distinction must be made.

• Regional primacy means control of nearby seas and airspace.
• Global leadership means managing security across many regions.

In practice, China’s forces focus mainly on nearby waters, especially Taiwan and the First Island Chain.

By contrast, global leadership requires strong alliances, overseas bases, and long experience working with partners. So far, China does not meet these conditions.

The Strategic Paradox

Because of this gap, a paradox emerges:

China is strong enough to challenge U.S. military power in Asia, but not yet built to replace the United States as the world’s main security provider.

Analytical Framework

To evaluate this issue, three areas are examined:

1. Material capability
2. Structural capacity
3. Political–military conversion

Only when all three align can global leadership emerge.

China Military Readiness for Global Leadership: Material Capability

On the one hand, China has invested heavily in ships, missiles, aircraft, and satellites. Therefore, in some local scenarios, it now matches the United States.

On the other hand, important gaps remain. China is strong in numbers and production speed. Meanwhile, the United States remains stronger in submarine warfare, carrier operations, and joint missions.

At the same time, Russia keeps a large nuclear force but has limited global naval reach.

Overall, China’s build-up supports regional dominance, not full global leadership.

Structural Capacity: Industry Strong, Global Network Limited

Importantly, China’s factories and shipyards give it strong production power. Thus, it can replace losses quickly.

However, China has very few overseas military bases. It depends on civilian ports and temporary access.

By contrast, the United States maintains a worldwide network of bases and logistics hubs.

Therefore, China can deploy abroad, but it cannot sustain major global operations for long periods.

Political–Military Conversion: The Alliance Gap

In addition, global leadership requires allies willing to fight together.

So far, China has many partners. Yet, most ties are based on trade and arms deals.

By comparison, the United States leads NATO and holds formal alliances in Asia.

Consequently, China has influence, but not a leadership-grade alliance system.

Platform Snapshot

For reference, key force indicators include:

Overall, China is closing the hardware gap. Still, the United States retains key qualitative advantages.

Regional Risk Outlook (2026–2035)

Looking ahead, risk varies by region:

2035 Scenarios

Baseline:
China dominates regionally. The United States remains a global security manager.

Crisis-Prone World:
Crises harden blocs. As a result, China gains leverage but loses access.

War Scenario:
Conflict speeds learning. However, sanctions and isolation block leadership ambitions.

Final Judgment

Overall, China can challenge U.S. power in Asia and expand global influence.

Nevertheless, China is not yet ready to become the world’s main security provider.

Today, China’s trajectory supports:
➡ Regional primacy
➡ Global influence

But not yet:
➡ Global military leadership

Editor’s Note | ABC Live

China’s military rise is one of the defining trends of the 21st century. However, leadership in the New Global Order requires more than hardware. Instead, it requires alliances, trust, and global sustainment.

Therefore, this ABC Live analysis shows that while China is approaching regional primacy, structural and political limits still constrain its global military leadership ambitions.

ABC Live will continue to track this shift through data-driven reporting and strategic assessment.

Sources & Data References

The data used in this report comes from the following institutional sources:

1. U.S. Department of Defence – 2025 China Military Power Report (CMPR)
   https://media.defense.gov/2025/Dec/23/2003849070/-1/-1/1/ANNUAL-REPORT-TO-CONGRESS-MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2025.PDF
2. Congressional Research Service (CRS) – China Naval Modernisation (RL33153)
   https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL33153/RL33153.284.pdf
3. U.S. Naval Institute (USNI)
   https://news.usni.org
4. CSIS – Unpacking China’s Naval Buildup
   https://www.csis.org/analysis/unpacking-chinas-naval-buildup
5. IISS – The Military Balance
   https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/
6. NTI – Russia Submarine Capabilities
   https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russia-submarine-capabilities/
7. Lockheed Martin – F-35 Production Data
   https://www.f35.com