26 September 2026

Constructive strategic stability or strategic accommodation?

Upi | David Maxwell

Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump will meet in Washington on September 24 to discuss bilateral relations and strategic stability. The concept risks becoming asymmetric if Beijing uses it to normalize maritime coercion, political warfare, and pressure against Taiwan while framing legitimate American countermeasures as destabilizing.

Unification through isolation, psychological coercion, and political capitulation remains a primary Chinese objective to avoid the costs of a direct military conflict. Gaining predominant influence over Taiwan would allow China to project power eastward through the first island chain and control critical maritime trade routes. This strategic shift carries severe economic consequences for Europe, which depends heavily on free navigation and advanced manufacturing imports from Taiwan. Although the Taiwan Strait falls outside NATO treaty boundaries, a major Asia Pacific crisis would strain U.S. global force allocations and alter security calculations for Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran.

Comment

Beijing frames strategic stability around reciprocity, yet operational practices in the Taiwan Strait rely on persistent gray-zone coercion through the People's Liberation Army Navy and China Coast Guard. This asymmetrical baseline normalises military pressure while categorising routine American freedom of navigation operations as escalatory. Consequently, the People's Liberation Army uses continuous maritime patrols near the median line to gradually shift the baseline of acceptable operational activity without triggering a conventional military response.

This incremental approach mirrors historical maritime pressure campaigns where incremental presence outpaced institutional deterrence frameworks. Controlling vital chokepoints along the first island chain alters regional perceptions of allied resolve long before any formal blockade occurs.

Strategic Question for Discussion
If the People's Liberation Army continues its routine median line crossings and coast guard patrols around Taiwan without triggering a direct military response, does the traditional deterrence framework still hold, or has normalization already redefined the operational baseline?
The pattern suggests that deterrence has already shifted from preventing incursions to managing the rate at which Beijing alters the status quo. This points to a gradual erosion of allied response thresholds as routine patrols become accepted facts on the water.
Share your assessment in the comments below.