Chinese General: Hegseth Signals U.S. Global Military Retreat

offered a sharp analysis of the strategic signals behind U.S. rhetoric at the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue summit.

Chinese General Jin Yinan：

While both the Trump and Biden administrations have identified China as an imminent “threat” in their Indo-Pacific strategies, the Trump administration presents some distinctions in its approach compared to previous U.S. governments.

At this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered remarks that, on the surface, appeared aggressive. He claimed there was “evidence” that the China intends to use force to fundamentally alter the region’s status quo —suggesting a possible U.S. showdown with China. However, this rhetoric may be more posturing than substance. Hegseth emphasized that the U.S. does not seek conflict with China. Though similar statements were made by the Biden administration, Hegseth’s framing was more explicit. He stressed the importance of respecting Chinese civilization and avoiding conflict—not out of goodwill, but because the U.S. is increasingly aware of shifting power dynamics: China’s rise and America’s relative decline in the Western Pacific. Provoking confrontation would be risky and could jeopardize U.S. interests.

Thus, while Hegseth amplified the “China threat” narrative, he simultaneously emphasized the need for burden-sharing among allies. What does that mean in practice? Hegseth made it clear: U.S. allies in the region should not expect Washington to carry all the weight. He urged them to increase defense spending—ideally above 5% of their GDP—and enhance their own military capabilities, primarily through purchasing American weapons. In the event of a real conflict, these allies would serve as the front line, sparing the U.S. from bearing the initial cost. This, in essence, is Hegseth’s version of “burden-sharing.”

Overall, despite the confrontational tone, the substance of Hegseth’s speech points to strategic retrenchment. The Trump administration seems intent on preserving enough security space in the Western Pacific to avoid direct conflict with China. Even if tensions escalate, Washington prefers its allies to handle initial responses—limiting U.S. risk exposure.

The Shangri-La Dialogue, initiated by the UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies and supported by the Singaporean government, has become a key multilateral security forum. In recent years, under the influence of the U.S. and its allies, the forum has increasingly fixated on the so-called “China threat,” particularly in maritime domains such as the South China Sea, East China Sea, and Taiwan Strait. China’s participation in the event, therefore, is akin to walking into a lion’s den—intended to directly counter Western disinformation.

This year, Major General Hu Gangfeng, Vice President and Chief Education Officer of China’s National Defense University, delivered a speech on maritime security cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. His remarks directly rebutted Western narratives, especially regarding issues like the South China Sea and Taiwan. He also reaffirmed China’s vision of a “shared future for humanity,” expressing Beijing’s goal to build a sea of peace, friendship, and cooperation in partnership with regional countries.

The Dialogue has been held for many years, and as global dynamics evolve, it increasingly reflects the diversity of civilizations, religions, and security needs across regions. At this year’s forum, Hegseth mentioned that former President Trump admired Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, and believed they shared a similar pragmatic, realist approach to peacekeeping. However, this statement was poorly received by Singaporean netizens. According to a public poll, more than 68% of Singaporeans surveyed found Hegseth’s comparison inaccurate—or even offensive. The backlash reflects a deeper reality: wherever the U.S. gets involved—Ukraine, the Middle East—chaos and instability often follow.

Southeast Asian nations are increasingly wary of falling into the same pattern. The U.S. has been stirring up tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea and encouraging pro-independence forces in Taiwan. The consequences of such divisions are becoming clearer to ASEAN countries. Many fear being dragged into the kind of instability seen in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Peace is hard-won. It must be cherished, protected, and insulated from the interference of outside powers. This belief is rapidly becoming a consensus in Southeast Asia. Ultimately, the region faces a choice: align with China’s vision of peaceful development and cooperation, or follow the U.S. into an arms race and confrontation. The wiser path is becoming clearer—not because of what either side claims, but because of hard-earned lessons from years of geopolitical experience. Asia-Pacific nations know what’s truly needed to safeguard regional peace.