Trajectory Daily Brief: 04 February 2026

Indo-Pacific | Defence | Taiwan has operational tools to counter Chinese maritime militia blockade but lacks strategic clarity

Situation

Taiwan maintains coast guard capabilities, legal enforcement mechanisms, and deterrent assets that could theoretically contest a Chinese maritime militia blockade without immediately escalating to full military conflict.

These tools include civilian law enforcement vessels, economic zone patrol capabilities, and graduated response options that fall below the threshold of armed conflict. Taiwan’s challenge lies not in operational capacity but in strategic decision-making frameworks.

A fundamental paradox in Taiwan’s strategic culture has prevented clear doctrine on how and when to deploy these capabilities against grey-zone maritime pressure.

Context

China’s maritime militia represents a deliberate grey-zone strategy designed to achieve territorial control without triggering Taiwan’s military response or US security guarantees. This approach exploits the ambiguous space between peace and war.

Taiwan’s strategic paralysis stems from competing imperatives: demonstrating sovereignty while avoiding escalation that could justify Chinese military action. This indecision effectively cedes initiative to Beijing in maritime disputes.

Historical precedents from the South China Sea demonstrate how incremental maritime pressure can achieve territorial objectives when defenders fail to establish clear response thresholds and operational doctrine.

Trajectory

Taiwan’s window for developing effective counter-blockade doctrine is narrowing as China’s maritime militia capabilities expand and become more sophisticated.

Success requires resolving the strategic paradox through clear escalation thresholds and predetermined response protocols that balance sovereignty assertion with conflict avoidance.

Without doctrinal clarity, Taiwan’s operational capabilities remain theoretical, potentially inviting Chinese testing of grey-zone boundaries while Taiwan’s decision-makers struggle with real-time strategic choices under pressure.

Read the full analysis →

China | Geopolitics | Middle powers bypass traditional alliances with bilateral tech security pacts but face structural limits

Situation

Middle powers are forming bilateral technology security partnerships outside traditional alliance frameworks. Australia-South Korea critical minerals agreements, Japan-Australia cyber and space cooperation, and Netherlands-South Korea semiconductor dialogues represent a new pattern of lateral cooperation among US allies.

These pacts focus on specific sectors rather than general security commitments, create faster-moving working-level mechanisms, and explicitly target Chinese technological dominance through “economic coercion” resistance language. Unlike NATO or hub-and-spoke systems, they’re designed for supply chain competition rather than conventional military threats.

The partnerships attempt coordinated investment in alternative processing facilities and supply chains, particularly for rare earth minerals and semiconductors where China maintains 70-90% control of critical production stages.

Context

Traditional alliances suffer structural mismatches with technology competition. NATO’s Article 5 lacks defined thresholds for cyber or supply chain attacks, while US hub-and-spoke systems in Asia couldn’t prevent Japan’s 2019 semiconductor export controls against South Korea—two allies weaponizing supply chains against each other.

The rare earth chokepoint illustrates the challenge: while countries can mine domestically, China controls processing capacity requiring decades of accumulated tacit knowledge that licensing agreements cannot easily transfer. Semiconductor dependencies are even more complex, with nested control across multiple countries.

Middle powers recognize that multilateral consensus-building cannot match the speed of Chinese technological advancement or address the granular, sector-specific vulnerabilities that define modern economic security competition.

Trajectory

These bilateral arrangements will achieve marginal diversification rather than fundamental restructuring. Building alternative processing capacity requires not just capital but operational expertise concentrated in Chinese facilities, limiting the effectiveness of partnership investments.

The pacts represent a new layer of security architecture supplementing rather than replacing traditional alliances. Success will be measured in reduced vulnerability at the edges while core dependencies on Chinese processing and Taiwanese manufacturing remain intact.

Expect proliferation of similar arrangements as middle powers conclude that technological sovereignty requires lateral cooperation their great-power allies cannot provide through existing frameworks.

Pacific | Indo-Pacific | Bougainville rejects Chinese mining investment despite desperate need for independence funding

Situation

In January 2026, Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama rejected China Molybdenum Company’s partnership offer to reopen the massive Panguna copper and gold mine. The deposit contains 5.3 million tonnes of copper and 547 tonnes of gold—revenues that could fund the state-building Papua New Guinea demands before recognizing Bougainville’s independence.

Bougainville generates only 5.3% of its budget internally and needs fiscal self-sufficiency to achieve independence following its 97.7% referendum vote in 2019. The rejection baffled observers who expected an impoverished proto-state to accept Beijing’s investment offer.

Context

Bougainville’s 2015 Mining Act grants customary landowners mineral ownership and veto power over mining licenses—a direct response to the 1988-1998 civil war triggered by Panguna’s environmental devastation under colonial-era agreements. This legal architecture distributes decision-making across hundreds of clan groups operating under matrilineal systems.

Beijing’s economic coercion toolkit relies on state-level leverage through debt and trade relationships. But Bougainville’s governance routes critical decisions through clan structures below the sovereign level where such leverage operates. Chinese companies must secure Land Access agreements from landowners whose consent cannot be purchased through government-to-government deals.

Toroama, a former revolutionary commander, explicitly cited regional stability concerns following Solomon Islands’ 2022 security pact with Beijing.

Trajectory

The rejection reveals structural limits to Chinese economic influence where post-conflict governance deliberately fragments decision-making authority. Bougainville’s vulnerability to Chinese investment functions as leverage for extracting Australian support without actually accepting Beijing’s offers.

This creates a template for Pacific nations to navigate great-power competition—using the threat of Chinese engagement to secure Western support while maintaining autonomy. However, the strategy requires unique institutional conditions that few Pacific states possess.

Beijing faces a compliance challenge in societies where colonial extraction history has produced governance structures specifically designed to prevent foreign resource capture.

Middle East | Defence | US retains Iran strike capability without Gulf allies but cannot sustain extended campaign

Situation

The Pentagon maintains the ability to conduct military strikes against Iran even if Gulf Cooperation Council members deny basing rights. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar control critical forward operating bases that significantly enhance US military capabilities in the region.

Without GCC support, American forces can still launch attacks using carrier strike groups, long-range bombers, and assets from more distant bases. However, the operational tempo becomes severely constrained.

The loss of forward basing compresses US options into episodic raids rather than sustained military campaigns, fundamentally altering the nature of potential conflict.

Context

Forward bases in the Gulf provide the Pentagon with rapid sortie generation, reduced transit times, and enhanced logistical support essential for sustained operations. Historical precedent shows Gulf allies’ cooperation was crucial during operations against Iraq and in regional counter-terrorism campaigns.

The GCC’s potential denial of basing rights reflects growing regional hesitancy to support US military action against Iran, driven by fears of retaliation and economic consequences. This shift represents a significant change from the post-9/11 era when Gulf cooperation was more assured.

Geographic constraints mean alternative basing options—from Diego Garcia to European facilities—impose severe range and sustainability limitations on US power projection capabilities.

Trajectory

This dynamic forces Pentagon planners to reconsider deterrence strategies that rely heavily on sustained campaign capabilities. Episodic strike options may prove insufficient for achieving strategic objectives against Iran’s distributed military infrastructure.

The constraint could accelerate US investment in longer-range systems and autonomous platforms that reduce dependence on forward basing. It also elevates the importance of maintaining robust naval assets in the region.

Gulf allies’ leverage over US military options may encourage more diplomatic approaches to Iran tensions while simultaneously weakening American deterrent credibility.

Read the full analysis →

Yesterday’s Assessments

• Can Taiwan counter China’s maritime militia blockade without triggering full-scale war?
• Taiwan’s gray-zone dilemma: How to fight fishing boats without starting a war

Until tomorrow.