Blog

Posted on

Britain Joins the Fray: South China Sea Alliance Grows as UK Considers Troop Agreement with Philippines

Britain Signals New Military Role in Indo-Pacific

In a major development, the United Kingdom is considering deploying troops to the South China Sea under a new Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the Philippines. This move, announced by the Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr., comes as China intensifies its claims over virtually the entire South China Sea—threatening the sovereignty of key regional allies.

A VFA would give the UK legal grounds to base forces in the Philippines for training, cooperation, and potential conflict readiness. It marks a new chapter in Britain’s Indo-Pacific posture and could eventually bring British troops within 200 kilometers of Taiwan—a critical flashpoint in the U.S.-China rivalry.

Why This Matters

The South China Sea is more than a disputed body of water—it’s a global trade superhighway and a strategic military corridor. A British military presence adds to a growing list of nations pushing back on China’s coercion and militarization of the region.

If finalized, this deal would place the UK alongside the U.S., Japan, Australia, and France in holding joint access agreements with the Philippines. It reinforces a growing international coalition determined to uphold freedom of navigation and resist revisionist claims that threaten peace in the Indo-Pacific.

Background on the Philippines’ Strategic Role

The Philippines’ northernmost islands in the Batanes chain are only 120 miles from Taiwan. These islands have become a focal point for U.S.-Philippines joint drills—including the recent deployment of the U.S. Marine Corps’ NMESIS “ship-killer” missile system.

As tensions rise over Taiwan and Chinese interference at sea escalates, the Philippines is building deeper defense ties not just with the United States, but also with regional and global allies.

Implications for the U.S. Navy

A stronger allied presence in the region could bolster logistics, interoperability, and rapid response capability—all crucial for countering China’s area-denial strategies. It also eases the burden on the U.S. Navy by increasing multinational deterrence capacity.

The move may encourage other NATO and European partners to follow suit, diversifying the military footprint in the Pacific and reinforcing the global rules-based order.

Implications for Our Allies

For Japan, Australia, and South Korea—nations already aligned with the Philippines and the U.S. in multilateral exercises—Britain’s involvement signals a maturing trilateral-plus framework. As these alliances deepen, they collectively raise the cost of aggression and ensure no single country bears the burden alone.

Why Americans Should Care

Every product you rely on—from cars to phones to food—moves through global sea lanes, and much of that commerce passes through the South China Sea. If those lanes are choked, the ripple effects would hit every American household.

A stronger presence of allied nations protects those trade routes, deters aggression, and reassures nations on the front lines of Chinese expansionism that the world is watching—and prepared to act.

This isn’t just about Britain and the Philippines. It’s about defending peace, stability, and freedom of the seas.

Closing Note:

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

Strategic Ambiguity: A Heavy Burden for the Navy, a Confusing Signal for America

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

For more than two years, I’ve been writing about the Navy, America’s role in the Pacific, and the choices our leaders face. What I’ve learned is simple: policies that sound abstract in Washington — like “strategic ambiguity” — land hard on the decks of U.S. Navy ships and in the lives of everyday Americans.

As a former destroyer sailor, I see the burden ambiguity places on today’s fleet. And as a citizen, I see the confusion it creates for the American public and the Congress that reflects their will. RAND and other respected voices have warned of the risks, but too often the public doesn’t hear the full story. That’s why I’m weighing in directly.

The Policy of Ambiguity
Since 1979, U.S. policy toward Taiwan has rested on “strategic ambiguity.” Washington avoids clear promises, keeping adversaries guessing but leaving options open. It worked for decades, deterring Beijing without emboldening Taipei. But under President Trump’s return to office, ambiguity is back in sharper form — and it carries consequences.

Trump’s Ambiguity and Taiwan’s Uncertainty
President Trump has made it clear he will not commit publicly to Taiwan’s defense. When asked, he replied: “I never comment on that. I don’t want to ever put myself in that position.” That is strategic ambiguity in its rawest form.

Even more striking is his transactional framing: “Taiwan should pay us for defense … We’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” Rather than signaling clarity of purpose, this remark underscores uncertainty. For naval planners, it adds complexity. For the American public, it raises questions about whether Taiwan is seen as an ally or a customer.

Clarity in the South China Sea, Ambiguity in the Strait
Contrast that with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent words on Scarborough Shoal: “Beijing claiming Scarborough Reef as a nature preserve is yet another coercive attempt to advance sweeping territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea at the expense of its neighbors, including by preventing Filipino fishermen from accessing these traditional fishing grounds.”

Here, the U.S. drew a firm line. But in the Taiwan Strait, ambiguity still rules. The Navy now faces a dual challenge: enforcing clarity in one theater while operating under uncertainty in another.

Why Americans Should Care
Taiwan’s leaders know the stakes. As Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng warned: “If Taiwan were to be taken over by China by force, it will trigger a domino effect, undermine the regional balance of power, and directly threaten the security and prosperity of the United States.”

RAND research reinforces that point: Taiwan’s ability to resist depends heavily on the speed, clarity, and credibility of U.S. support. Delay or hesitation in Washington could tip the balance, not only for Taiwan’s survival but for America’s security and economic stability.

Ambiguity also creates a chain reaction at home: Public → Voters → Congress → Navy.
When the public struggles to understand why Taiwan matters, voters hesitate to back costly commitments overseas. And when voter sentiment wavers, Congress hesitates to fully fund the Navy’s needs. Ambiguity at the top becomes confusion on Main Street, which turns into hesitation on Capitol Hill — all of it compounding the burden on sailors at sea.

Implications for the Navy
Strategic ambiguity translates into an enormous burden for the Navy. Without knowing if or when the order to act will come, the fleet must prepare for every possibility:

  • Breaking a blockade.
  • Resupplying Taiwan.
  • Responding to missile strikes.
  • Countering a full-scale invasion.

RAND findings emphasize that even as Taiwan strengthens its defenses and increases spending, U.S. naval power remains indispensable. Only the Navy has the forward presence, logistics, and strike capacity to counter China’s military pressure. Ambiguity at the top means complexity at sea.

Implications for Our Allies
Mixed U.S. signals ripple outward. Allies like Japan and Australia watch Washington’s every move. If America is clear about Scarborough Shoal but vague about Taiwan, they are left to wonder where the next line will be drawn. RAND analysts describe Taiwan as facing “strategic anxiety” with its primary security partner — a sentiment likely shared across the Indo-Pacific.

The Bottom Line
Strategic ambiguity may give presidents room to maneuver, but it burdens the Navy with complexity and leaves Americans confused about what is truly at stake. Taiwan’s security — and the stability of the Indo-Pacific — depend on clarity of purpose, credible deterrence, and above all, a strong Navy.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

Mapping China’s Grip: The Islands, Reefs, and Bases Reshaping the South China Sea

Introduction

This post is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — our ongoing educational series at Americans for a Stronger Navy examining the strategic threats facing the U.S. Navy and why they matter to every American. In this installment, we focus on China’s maritime buildup. China isn’t just making claims — it’s building infrastructure, militarizing reefs, and transforming sea features into forward bases. This map-driven guide walks you through where China has control, what they’ve built, and why it matters for U.S. strategy, regional allies, and global maritime security

Map & Visuals

  • Use one or more of the mapped images above to show:
    • China’s “Nine-Dash Line” claim
    • Areas with Chinese military build-up (Subi, Mischief, Fiery Cross, etc.)
    • Overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZs) claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.

Key Chinese-Controlled Features
Here are the major reefs, atolls, and islands China controls or heavily influences. For each, we’d provide location, current state (military infra, runways, radars), and why it’s strategically important.

FeatureMilitarization (Yes / No)What’s Built / Recent ActivityStrategic Importance
Subi ReefYesRunway, radars, missile systems, hardened sheltersForward base; near Thitu Island; high capability to surveil / interdict
Mischief ReefYesAirstrip, hangars, radar, anti-ship missile systemsMajor Chinese hub; within Philippines’ EEZ
Fiery Cross ReefYesSimilar infrastructure; airstrip, radar, etc.Power projection over Spratlys; enhances range
Gaven ReefsYesSupport buildings, radar / comms sitesPart of island chain to extend Chinese reach
Cuarteron ReefYesBuild-up like hangars, radarControls access routes; supports larger operations
Scarborough ShoalDe facto controlCoast guard, militia presence; possible construction; blocks Filipino accessSymbolic and strategic choke point; EEZ stakes
Paracel IslandsYesMany features; garrisons, military infrastructureProximity to mainland China; strategic flank toward Vietnam / Philippines

Why This Map Matters

  • Mapping shows how much of the Spratly / Paracel archipelagos are now “ militarized territory”
  • It reveals how close China’s bases are to other countries’ claimed waters (especially the Philippines)
  • Visual clarity helps Americans see this is not abstract — it’s real geography being altered, with legal, military, and economic implications

U.S. Strategic Implications

  • Presence: Where and how the U.S. Navy can operate
  • Deterrence: What it takes to make these bases costly for Beijing to use aggressively
  • Alliances: How neighboring countries feel and what they do (e.g. Philippines’ diplomatic protests, joint patrols)

Call to Action
Let the map sharpen our resolve. Knowing the terrain is step one. Step two is educating, advocating, and ensuring our Navy, our Congress, and our allies are equipped for what’s next.

Closing Thought
Geography doesn’t shift overnight — but power can. When maps are redrawn, either by diplomacy or force, everyone involved must choose whether to respond or concede. That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Let’s roll.

Posted on

China’s Fortress in the Sea: Why Subi Reef Should Alarm Every American

Subi Reek- Wiki

A Satellite Snapshot of Aggression

New satellite images released this month show just how far China has gone to entrench itself militarily in the South China Sea. On Subi Reef—a once-submerged shoal that lies far outside China’s legal maritime claims—Beijing has built a full-blown fortress.

We’re talking about:

  • A 10,000-foot runway capable of launching fighter jets and bombers
  • Radar domes, missile systems, and hardened aircraft shelters
  • A deepwater port designed to host military resupply and forward-deployed forces
  • Communications and surveillance arrays capable of watching everything from the Philippines to Vietnam

This is no routine development. It’s an armed island outpost, built in defiance of international law, smack in the middle of one of the world’s most vital shipping corridors.

Why Americans Should Care

Some may look at this and think: “So what? That’s half a world away.”
But here’s why it matters:

  • Trade flows through here. Over 30% of the world’s maritime trade—around $3.5 trillion annually—transits the South China Sea. That includes oil, food, tech, and the microchips in your phone.
  • Allies are at risk. The Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, is within spitting distance of Subi Reef. China has already harassed Filipino vessels near Thitu Island, which lies just 12 nautical miles away.
  • The U.S. Navy is being challenged. These island bases are not for defense. They’re forward-operating platforms designed to deny access to American forces, intimidate our allies, and project Chinese power deep into the Pacific.

This isn’t just regional bullying—it’s strategic dominance by cement and steel.

What the U.S. Navy Is Up Against

Back in 2015, President Xi Jinping told President Obama he wouldn’t militarize these reefs. Less than a decade later, that pledge lies in ruins, just like China’s empty promises to Hong Kong.

The satellite photos don’t lie.
China is building fortresses.
We’re arguing about ship counts.

Former U.S. Indo-Pacific Commander Admiral John Aquilino said it plainly:

“They can fly fighters, bombers, plus all those offensive capabilities of missile systems. They threaten all nations who operate in the vicinity and all the international sea and airspace.”

This is a new kind of warfighting posture—a blend of gray-zone tactics, artificial island militarization, and legal warfare.

Implications for the Navy

Our Navy doesn’t just need to “keep pace”—it needs to regain strategic initiative in this critical region. That means:

  • Maintaining a strong forward-deployed presence
  • Supporting allied maritime forces with training, resources, and joint patrols
  • Investing in new platforms, undersea warfare, and AI-driven ISR
  • Holding the line on freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) to demonstrate resolve

These reefs aren’t about fishing rights—they’re about who controls Asia’s future.

Implications for Our Allies

Beijing’s message is clear: “We’re not leaving. What are you going to do about it?”
If we abandon the rules of the sea, smaller nations like Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines will be forced to bow—or arm themselves.

In the vacuum of leadership, fear grows.
But if the U.S. Navy stands strong—with support from the American people—freedom still has a fighting chance.

Final Thought

Subi Reef isn’t just an island. It’s a symbol.
A symbol of what happens when unchecked ambition meets apathy.

Americans must understand: this matters. It’s not just about China.
It’s about supply chains. Peace. Power. Stability. Your economic future.

Let’s wake up—before the tides turn too far against us.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

A Clear Pretext for Occupation: Philippines Pushes Back on China’s Nature Reserve Claim

.

Philippine Officials Raise the Alarm
Top Philippine defense and maritime officials have condemned China’s recent declaration of a “nature reserve” at Scarborough Shoal, calling it a “clear pretext for occupation.” This bold response comes in reaction to Beijing’s move to designate the disputed shoal—known locally as Bajo de Masinloc and internationally ruled to be within the Philippine EEZ—as a Chinese national marine reserve.

Philippine officials aren’t mincing words. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, former Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, and Coast Guard Commodore Jay Tarriela are among those warning that the “reserve” designation masks a broader strategy: to lock down access, increase Chinese presence, and project power deep into Southeast Asia’s maritime heart.

Part 1 — Broken Promises and Growing Risks
In 2012, after a tense naval standoff, the U.S. brokered a deal: both China and the Philippines would withdraw their ships from Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines complied. China didn’t. The U.S. didn’t press the issue. The result? Beijing solidified its control and sent a message that international mediation wouldn’t be enforced.

Part 2 — International Law Ignored
In 2016, an international tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating clearly that China had no legal claim to Scarborough Shoal. Beijing ignored the decision, accelerating militarization and disrupting Filipino fishing. Once again, global rule of law was challenged—and left unenforced.

Part 3 — The “Nature Reserve” Play
Now, in 2025, China has unveiled a new maneuver: using environmental language to advance military and political objectives. The creation of the “Huangyan Island National Nature Reserve” is being widely viewed as part of a creeping campaign to normalize Chinese administrative control.

Despite the label, this is not about conservation. China has repeatedly blocked Filipino fishermen, driven out environmental research vessels, and deployed maritime militia under the radar. Calling this a “preserve” is like calling a fortress a flower garden.

Why Americans Should Care

  • Strategic Sea Lanes: The South China Sea is a maritime superhighway. If China controls it, they can control access to vital markets and resources.
  • U.S. Credibility Is on the Line: American influence is measured by what we protect—not just what we promise.
  • Civic Responsibility: Understanding how foreign policy, trade, and defense intersect isn’t just for experts. It’s for every American who relies on secure energy, stable prices, and a functioning global order.
  • Environmental Lawfare: Americans should be wary of tactics that exploit noble causes—like conservation—to advance authoritarian control.

Implications for the Navy
The U.S. Navy has long played a vital role in ensuring freedom of navigation and stabilizing flashpoints. But gray zone tactics like these require more than just ships—they require intelligence, strategy, and public support. The Navy cannot succeed without a civilian base that understands the stakes.

Implications for Our Allies
This isn’t just a Philippine problem. What happens at Scarborough sends ripples across the Pacific. Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Australia—all are watching to see whether the U.S. will back its allies when it counts. So are our adversaries.

Call to Action
The future of maritime freedom—and American leadership—may hinge on places like Scarborough Shoal. When China tests the limits, Americans need to respond—not just with ships, but with awareness and resolve.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

U.S. Marines Expand Presence on Strategic Pacific Islands

Overview
The United States is increasing its forward military presence near China by deploying Marine forces aboard the expeditionary sea base ship USS Miguel Keith. This afloat platform extends the reach of the Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D), based in northern Australia, across the contested island chains of the western Pacific. This move underscores Washington’s commitment to countering Beijing’s growing influence and military footprint in the Indo-Pacific.

The Island Chain Strategy
At the heart of this deployment lies the U.S. island chain strategy: three north-south defensive lines stretching across the Pacific. By leveraging allied territory and naval access points, the U.S. can project power, deter aggression, and defend against potential Chinese military action. The second island chain, where the USS Miguel Keith is homeported in Saipan, plays a pivotal role in supporting operations deeper into the Pacific.

Why This Matters
Operating from a sea base offers the Marines flexibility and unpredictability. Unlike fixed land bases, the Miguel Keith allows U.S. forces to maneuver rapidly across archipelagic terrain and forward locations ashore, complicating adversary planning. This is especially important at a time when Chinese forces are building out anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to push U.S. forces farther from contested waters.

Recent Exercises
The deployment follows recent exercises across the first and second island chains:

  • Exercise Alon 25 in the Philippines (August 15–29).
  • Exercise Super Garuda Shield 25 in Indonesia (August 25–September 4).

These multinational drills reinforced cooperation with allies, improved readiness, and signaled a unified front in the region.

Implications for the Navy
The Navy’s role in enabling sea-based expeditionary operations is central. With amphibious ships like the USS New Orleans temporarily out of service due to fire damage, expeditionary sea bases provide a critical stopgap. They allow Marines and sailors to continue distributed operations, demonstrating the Navy’s adaptability in keeping forward presence credible.

Implications for Our Allies
For Australia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, U.S. deployments reinforce security guarantees. The Marines’ message, as articulated by Colonel Jason Armas, was clear: America and its allies “stand ready to maneuver, sustain and fight as one force.” This is reassurance at a time of rising Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea and beyond.

Why Americans Should Care
This is not simply a faraway deployment. The Pacific is a lifeline for U.S. trade, energy, and global communications infrastructure. Securing these waters ensures that Americans at home continue to benefit from stable supply chains and open sea lanes. A failure to hold the line in the Pacific would ripple into our economy and national security alike.

Closing Call
As the U.S. strengthens its presence in the Indo-Pacific, the question is not whether we can afford to maintain this posture, but whether we can afford not to. A stronger Navy and Marine Corps presence ensures deterrence, protects trade, and preserves peace.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

Broken Promises and Growing Risks: The Scarborough Standoff Reignites

How a 2012 Diplomatic Misfire Sparked a Decade of Chinese Defiance

The Current Flashpoint

Scarborough Shoal is back in the headlines — and with it, so are the warnings.

In September 2025, a Chinese vessel rammed a Philippine resupply boat near the shoal. In response, the U.S. Navy sailed a destroyer directly through the contested waters. The confrontation was brief, but the message was unmistakable: tensions are rising, and the risks are multiplying.

For many Americans, this reef barely registers. But this isn’t just a dust-up between distant nations. It’s a test of American resolve — and a moment that traces directly back to 2012.

2012: A Standoff Mishandled

That year, China and the Philippines faced off at Scarborough Shoal in a tense maritime standoff over fishing rights and territorial claims. The United States stepped in as a broker, aiming to de-escalate. Both nations were expected to withdraw their vessels.

Only one did.

The Philippines pulled back. China did not. And the United States — despite brokering the deal — failed to enforce the agreement or respond meaningfully.

To this day, Chinese ships remain at Scarborough Shoal, effectively taking control. This incident became a turning point in Beijing’s maritime aggression — and a chilling message to U.S. allies in Asia.

Why It Mattered Then — And Still Does

The 2012 failure sent a signal: U.S. guarantees could be questioned.

Philippine public trust eroded. Within a few years, President Duterte pivoted toward China, prioritizing economic deals over alignment with the U.S.

Meanwhile, China accelerated its militarization of the South China Sea — building artificial islands, expanding its maritime militia, and flexing its growing naval power.

What started as a fishing rights dispute became a global credibility crisis.

Now, a Decade Later…

Today’s confrontation is more than a replay. It’s a test of whether the U.S. has learned anything since 2012.

This time, the U.S. Navy showed up. But questions linger:

  • Will American resolve hold under pressure?
  • Can alliances like AUKUS and the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty deter escalation?
  • And do Americans even understand how this reef connects to larger global stakes?

We’ve been here before. We got it wrong then. The consequences are still unfolding.

Why Americans Should Care

Scarborough Shoal isn’t just a reef. It’s a litmus test — for American credibility, regional stability, and the rule of law at sea.

If the U.S. fails to hold the line here, what message does that send to Taiwan, our allies, or our adversaries?

This series breaks it down in plain language — so Americans understand what’s at stake before it’s too late.

What’s Next in the Series

In the next post, we’ll dive into the 2016 international tribunal ruling, how China ignored it, and why this defiance matters not just for the Philippines, but for the future of international order.

Missed the first post? Read it here.

Join the Mission

This post is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter, our national education initiative.

We’re connecting the dots between today’s maritime flashpoints and tomorrow’s strategic risks — and making the case for a stronger Navy, an informed public, and a unified voice.

Visit StrongerNavy.org to follow the series and learn more.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

Allies, Scale, and America’s Navy: A Conversation We Can’t Delay

U.S. and allied navies sailing in formation
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction

Giving Credit Where It’s Due
Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi recently argued in the New York Times that America alone cannot match China’s growing scale — economically, technologically, or militarily — and that our strength depends on “allied scale.” They are right to say this out loud, and they deserve credit for raising the issue. Campbell has long been a voice for rebalancing U.S. strategy toward Asia, and Doshi has studied China’s grand strategy in depth. Their track records show they’ve been sounding the alarm.

Why We’re in This Position
It’s fair to ask: if they saw this coming, why didn’t America adjust sooner? The truth is, Campbell and Doshi were not sitting in the chairs with the ultimate levers. Campbell’s call for a pivot to Asia faced headwinds from wars in the Middle East and competing budget priorities. Doshi, until recently, was in academia, warning of China’s rise but without a policymaker’s authority. They were raising the right concerns, but Washington’s attention was elsewhere. That’s not about pinning blame on individuals — it’s about recognizing how easy it is for America to be distracted.

The Larger Point
The conversation they are starting in public now is one America needs to have candidly. China’s scale in shipbuilding, technology, and manufacturing is a strategic challenge unlike any we have faced before. Campbell and Doshi are right that alliances matter — losing India, Japan, or Europe to Chinese influence would change the balance overnight. But alliances alone aren’t enough. America must also invest in its own naval strength and rebuild the industrial base that sustains it.

My Role in This Conversation
I am two years into this effort with Americans for a Stronger Navy. My job is not to dictate policy but to help Americans understand the facts. It is up to the American people to decide. What I can do is publish what’s happening, provide context, and advocate on behalf of my shipmates — so that when the time comes, they have the resources they need, where and when they need them.

Why Americans Should Care
If we don’t get this right, it’s not only the Navy that will feel the consequences. Our supply chains, our economy, and our security all ride on free and open seas. Campbell and Doshi are right to remind us that “quantity has a quality all its own.” China has the quantity. America must respond with both quality and scale — and it will take both allies abroad and buy-in at home to meet that challenge.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Let’s roll.

Posted on

Naval (Maritime) Statecraft: Brent Sadler on Rebuilding America’s Maritime Power

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Bill Cullifer, Founder

Introduction
As a former U.S. Navy destroyer sailor from the ’70s and founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve seen firsthand how sea power isn’t only about ships—it’s about people, industry, and the trade that keeps America moving. This isn’t a Beltway debate; it touches your grocery bill, your job, and the undersea cables that carry your paycheck.

In this interview, Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), discusses the ideas from his book U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat. He calls this framework naval statecraft. In Washington circles, the same concept is often referred to as maritime statecraft—a term meant to highlight the economic and commercial side of sea power. As Sadler makes clear, the two are essentially the same. What matters is the substance: reconnecting America’s Navy with shipyards, supply chains, and allies.

If we want peace, prosperity, and fewer crises, we must rebuild the muscle behind the flag—logistics, repair, and a maritime workforce. This interview is a practical roadmap. —Bill

Overview
Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), argues that America must reconnect military power with economics, industry, and trade—what he calls naval (or “maritime”) statecraft. It’s not a new strategy so much as a return to our roots: the Navy as a warfighter, a shaper of peace, and a protector of commerce. That means rebuilding ships and shipyards, restoring sealift and logistics, re-wiring alliances for industrial capacity, and aligning innovation with both commercial and military needs.

What Is Naval/Maritime Statecraft—and Why It Matters

  • More than combat: the Navy deters war, protects trade, and shapes the environment in peacetime.
  • Break the silos: integrate defense, diplomacy, and economics so China can’t “triangulate” between them.
  • Update the structure: organize like it’s a long competition again—industry, ports, sealift, and policy working together.

Lessons from History

  • Avoid a “Phony War”: weak industrial bases turn short crises into long wars.
  • Operate where you may have to fight: know the people, ports, and waters before a crisis.

Today’s Pressing Challenges

  • Industrial shortfall: workforce gaps, thin supply chains, and insufficient naval architects and yards.
  • Logistics as Achilles’ heel: too few tankers, dry cargo/ammo ships, and assured fuel storage after Red Hill.
  • Economic leverage: China’s dominance in shipbuilding, shipping fleets, and port stakes shapes global trade on its terms.
  • Undersea infrastructure: seabed cables and pipelines are targets; cyber and space resilience are now core to sea power.

A Practical Path Forward

  • Demand and Shipyards: use smart incentives (e.g., Jones Act demand, allied capital) to expand U.S. yard capacity.
  • Human Capital: rebuild the trades—welders, pipefitters, naval architects—and grow maritime education pipelines.
  • Innovation with Purpose: from advanced logistics to modular cargo, small modular reactors, and data-driven supply chains—commercial breakthroughs that also serve military sustainment.
  • Allied Muscle: tap allied shipping and yards (Japan, South Korea, Europe, Canada) to scale capacity fast and politically sustainably.

Why Americans Should Care
Everything from groceries to phones rides ships and undersea cables. If adversaries control ports, fleets, and repair yards—or cut our cables—prices spike, jobs suffer, and crises last longer. Maritime strength keeps daily life predictable.

Implications for the Navy
Prioritize logistics ships, fuel resilience, dispersed Pacific access, and contested-environment sustainment. Tie operational concepts to a revitalized industrial base so the fleet you plan is the fleet you can build, crew, repair, and keep at sea.

Implications for Our Allies
A stronger U.S. maritime sector reduces dangerous dependence on Chinese shipbuilding and sustains shared deterrence. Joint investment in yards, sealift, and pre-positioned stocks turns alliances into real capacity.

Call to Action
Citizens should press leaders—local, state, and federal—to support maritime education, shipyard expansion, and logistics recapitalization. Industry and investors should pursue maritime tech and U.S. waterfront projects. Policymakers should align defense, commerce, and diplomacy to grow capacity at home and with allies.

For readers who want to go deeper, Captain Brent D. Sadler, USN (Ret.), expands on these ideas in his book U.S. Naval Power in the 21st Century: A New Strategy for Facing the Chinese and Russian Threat. It offers a detailed blueprint for how America can reconnect its Navy, industry, and diplomacy in the new era of great power competition.

For deeper dives, we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

Posted on

Alaska’s Arctic Waters: The Overlooked Front in U.S. Homeland Defense

China and Russia are pushing closer to our northern doorstep — and Alaska is the front line.

Introduction

Over the past year, U.S. Coast Guard cutters have repeatedly intercepted foreign “research” ships operating just beyond the 200-mile line off Alaska’s Arctic coast. At the same time, the U.S. Navy has kept up under-ice submarine operations, while Russian aircraft test our air defense zone and Sino-Russian flotillas sail through the Bering Strait.

Map Legend
Dashed Red Lines – Patrol routes and foreign vessel tracks monitored by the U.S. Coast Guard near Alaska’s Arctic coast.
Solid Blue Lines – Projected Arctic shipping lanes, including the Northern Sea Route (along Russia) and emerging trans-Arctic corridors.
Shaded Blue Zone – Exercise Northern Edge 2025 training areas, where U.S. and allied forces conducted joint, multi-domain operations.
Black Ship Icons – Locations of recent intercepts of foreign “research” vessels near Utqiaġvik.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – U.S. waters extending 200 nautical miles from Alaska’s coast, where America exercises sovereign rights over resources.

The takeaway is simple: America’s Arctic is no longer quiet. It’s contested.

Why Americans Should Care
Alaska is not a remote outpost. It is our Arctic front yard, rich in resources, with thousands of miles of shoreline and a narrow strait that connects the Pacific to the Arctic. When Chinese “research” vessels map our seabeds or Russian aircraft enter the Air Defense Identification Zone, they’re probing how close they can get to our homeland. What happens off Alaska affects energy security, trade routes, and even the protection of undersea cables that carry the world’s internet traffic.

RAND’s latest study underscores this point. In The Future of Maritime Presence in the Central Arctic Ocean (July 2025), RAND concludes that as sea ice retreats, the Arctic will draw in both Arctic and non-Arctic actors for economic, political, and military gain. They warn that competition will intensify in phases: first commercial, then political, and ultimately strategic. For the U.S., that means maritime presence is not optional — it is essential to prevent rivals from dictating the rules of the Arctic.

Implications for the Navy
Day-to-day patrols fall to the Coast Guard, which provides the only regular surface presence in the Arctic. But the Navy’s role is no less critical. Its submarines operate beneath the ice, practicing for deterrence and warfighting in a domain where rivals are gaining ground. The Navy also views Alaska as part of the defense-in-depth of the United States — the first line of detection and deterrence against missile submarines, long-range bombers, and other threats moving south from the Arctic.

This year’s Northern Edge 2025 exercise made that point clear. More than 6,400 U.S. and Canadian service members, 100 aircraft, and seven warships, including USS Abraham Lincoln and her carrier strike group, trained across Alaska. Running alongside Arctic Edge, the exercises brought together INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM to practice joint, multi-domain operations — from the Aleutians to Adak. In other words: Alaska is not just about defending the homeland, it is a launchpad for projecting U.S. power into the Indo-Pacific.

The challenge remains that America’s icebreaker fleet is thin, while Russia operates dozens and China fields new polar-capable vessels. Without recapitalization and greater presence, the U.S. risks falling behind in its own backyard. RAND echoes this warning: presence and infrastructure — from icebreakers to domain awareness — are key to avoiding strategic surprise.

Implications for Our Allies
The Arctic is no longer an American issue alone. NATO allies — Canada, Denmark, Norway — all face the same northern pressure. China brands itself a “near-Arctic state” and seeks influence in waters that directly border allied territory. Coordinated exercises like Northern Edge and Arctic Edge are proof that alliances matter. Shared domain awareness and investment in icebreaking and seabed security will be vital. If America steps back, allies are left exposed — and adversaries will fill the gap.

The Bottom Line
Alaska’s Arctic waters are an overlooked but critical front in U.S. homeland defense. The Coast Guard may be on point, but the Navy’s presence under the ice and in the chokepoints is just as important. Together, they demonstrate that the U.S. is watching, ready, and committed to protecting its northern approaches.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.