Is China really gearing up to invade Australia?

Analysts commonly highlight several indicators when evaluating whether one nation might be preparing to launch a military invasion against another. Scholars of international relations, military strategy, and intelligence studies have developed numerous frameworks to assess the likelihood of imminent conflict. Typical warning signs include visible troop buildups near relevant borders or within striking distance, escalating military exercises that simulate real combat operations, the deployment of critical logistics and supply lines, sudden shifts in political rhetoric encouraging domestic support for aggression, changes in a state’s economic or resource allocation priorities to favor war readiness, heightened activity within command-and-control structures, the rapid pre-positioning of matériel such as tanks or missiles, and possibly the evacuation of diplomatic personnel or civilians from the target region (Betts, 1982; George & Smoke, 1974; Freedman, 1981). Intelligence analysts might also watch for covert cyber or intelligence operations that lay the groundwork for an attack, such as the disruption of adversary communications or sabotage of vital infrastructure (Rid & Buchanan, 2015). The cautionary note is that not all of these indicators appear in every scenario, and false alarms are frequent. Some states conduct large-scale exercises to demonstrate capabilities or to deter adversaries without any genuine intent to invade. Others can disguise preparatory steps, obscuring the real picture until the moment they decide to act (Whaley, 1969). This complexity leads many experts to say that predicting the exact timing of an invasion is inherently fraught, though a pattern of consistent signals is typically more alarming.

Given this context, a question arises: do we see China preparing to invade Australia? The short answer from a variety of security studies experts is that there is little to no credible evidence that China is poised to undertake any such action. Australia is geographically distant, separated from China by thousands of miles of sea. Moreover, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would face extraordinary logistical and operational challenges in mounting an amphibious assault across that distance. Yet it is still worth analyzing the key metrics step by step, with a skeptical and open-minded approach, to see if there is any pattern that would suggest serious planning for an invasion.

One measure centers on maritime activity and force posture. The PLA Navy (PLAN) has expanded considerably over the past decade and now possesses the world’s largest navy by sheer number of hulls (Office of Naval Intelligence, 2021). New aircraft carriers, including the Liaoning and Shandong, are part of China’s modernization push, and more carriers appear to be in development (O’Rourke, 2022). In addition, the PLAN has built up multiple advanced submarines and amphibious assault ships, such as the Type 075 landing helicopter dock, which could theoretically be used to move forces over water. Analysts note that such capabilities are, in principle, relevant to a broad range of maritime operations, including a blockade or amphibious landing. Nonetheless, the key area of concern for Chinese amphibious operations is typically Taiwan. Concentrating on what official PLA or Chinese Communist Party (CCP) pronouncements say, the great majority of references to “reunification” or use of force revolve around Taiwan and other contested waters like the South China Sea, not Australia (Taiwan Affairs Office, 2022; State Council Information Office, 2019). The question remains whether expanding amphibious capacity reveals a new global power projection strategy. Certainly, the modernization of the PLAN signals a desire to project power further afield and secure vital sea lanes—some have even pointed to distant Chinese naval facilities, like the base in Djibouti, as evidence of a broader expansionist mindset (Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China, 2021). But operating a facility for anti-piracy operations and logistical support in Africa is a long way from the full-scale invasion of a continent-sized country such as Australia.

A second area to watch is the presence or buildup of ground forces in forward positions that might signal infiltration or infiltration attempts. Analysts typically look for troop deployments near a border region or in alliance with a territory close to the target. China has not stationed major land forces in any location that would realistically threaten Australia (Department of Defence, Australia, 2023). Papua New Guinea, for instance, is geographically near Australia, but China does not maintain large military bases or a troop presence there. Chinese investment projects and port acquisitions in the Pacific Islands—such as wharf constructions in the Solomon Islands—have sometimes caused Australian policymakers to voice concern that China’s presence in the South Pacific might eventually have a military dimension (Batley, 2022). Yet such agreements, including potential security pacts with island states, fall far short of the sort of amphibious staging or heavy equipment buildup that would be critical for launching an invasion. Indeed, scrutiny of open-source intelligence, including satellite imagery, has not revealed large-scale Chinese military facilities in the Pacific that would directly threaten Australia (Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 2023).

Military exercises can also offer clues. Joint exercises with live-fire drills close to a potential target might constitute a warning sign. The PLA conducts many drills, but they focus heavily on either the Taiwan Strait, the area around the Spratly and Paracel Islands, or training for a possible scenario on the Korean Peninsula (Ministry of National Defense, PRC, 2022). In 2019 and again in 2021, Chinese forces carried out joint exercises with Russia—one in the Sea of Japan, another in the western Pacific—and some of these activities took ships and aircraft into waters near Alaska and even near Australia’s northern maritime approaches. However, in describing these exercises, the PLA and Russian defense ministries framed them as routine, aimed at improving interoperability and power projection (Russian Defence Ministry, 2021). Though a show of force can sometimes serve as a precursor to aggression, official Chinese statements rarely, if ever, mention hostilities toward Australia (Xinhua, 2021). The rhetorical emphasis on “peaceful development” or on “protecting territorial integrity” suggests that if Beijing has an area of potential confrontation in mind, it is typically Taiwan or the South China Sea (State Council Information Office, 2019; Taiwan Affairs Office, 2022). It would be a major departure from all known policy statements for the Chinese government to reframe Australia, one of its principal trade partners in commodities such as iron ore, as a direct territorial threat or target of invasion. Unless that fundamental rhetorical pivot appears, analysts consider the likelihood of an invasion extremely low.

A third aspect is official rhetoric and popular mobilization. Historically, when states plan a major conflict, they often engage in propaganda efforts to prepare the population for potential sacrifice. Official media might ramp up negative portrayal of the target nation, casting it as a dangerous aggressor or a foe that must be subdued (George & Smoke, 1974; Murray & Millett, 1996). In the case of China and Australia, diplomatic disputes have certainly escalated in recent years, especially over trade and allegations of foreign interference. Chinese state media has occasionally published harsh criticism of Australian policies, for example when Canberra called for an international inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 or sought to ban Huawei from 5G networks (Global Times, 2020). These rhetorical spats led to trade tensions, including Chinese tariffs on Australian barley and wine (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia, 2021). Yet none of this rises to the level of large-scale mobilization or belligerent narrative akin to what one might expect if China were preparing its citizenry for war. Indeed, Chinese officials usually still refer to Australia as an important economic partner, while cautioning Canberra against “wrong” policies (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PRC, 2021). That is a far cry from mass propaganda describing Australians as enemies to be invaded. There is no concentrated campaign in Chinese media or official speeches calling for the occupation or conquest of Australian territory.

Fourth, logistical and economic factors are crucial for a large-scale invasion. China depends heavily on imports of raw materials for its economy, including iron ore from Australia. If Beijing were actually to invade, it would damage that trade relationship catastrophically and potentially cut off a vital supply route, unless the Chinese government had meticulously planned some alternative source or means of forcibly extracting resources. Although resource-driven conflicts have happened in world history, the scale and diplomatic consequences of a Chinese attempt to seize Australian resources would be unprecedented. Analysts note that in addition to shipping and supply lines, Beijing would face the challenge of controlling a huge landmass inhabited by a population well-equipped and likely to receive immediate support from allies such as the United States (Medeiros et al., 2008). For these reasons, the cost-benefit analysis behind any hypothetical invasion appears strongly negative. No major Chinese policy document hints at a rationale for an invasion, let alone any strategic blueprint.

Some observers might raise the argument that China’s broader push for influence in the Asia-Pacific region, as reflected by initiatives like the Belt and Road and potential security pacts with island nations, could be part of a long-term effort to encircle or coerce Australia. Skeptics caution that while influence-building is real, associating it with a near-future invasion goes far beyond the evidence. Strategic competition with the United States often plays out across the Pacific, but that competition involves winning over regional governments politically, economically, and diplomatically, rather than occupying a Western democracy that maintains a formal security alliance with Washington. Chinese officials consistently highlight the importance of stable trade relations with Australia in their official statements, despite tensions, and make no mention of an intent to project force that far south for conquest (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PRC, 2022). Official defense white papers from China usually categorize threats more locally, focusing on areas around China’s periphery, such as the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and issues concerning Taiwan or cross-border terrorism (China’s National Defense in the New Era, 2019).

Thus, by applying the principal metrics analysts use—troop deployments, naval and air force positioning, official rhetoric, domestic propaganda, logistical and economic considerations, allied support networks—there is no convincing sign that Beijing is gearing up for an invasion of Australia. The PLA’s modernization is real, and so are China’s broader ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, but these reflect a desire for increased regional (and arguably global) influence, not an immediate plan to seize a distant continent. The more plausible flashpoints that observers watch are Taiwan, the South China Sea, and perhaps the Sino-Indian border or the East China Sea with Japan. If any future shift indicated that Beijing had pivoted toward specifically targeting Australia—say, with official statements demonizing Australia as a major security threat, or if large amphibious assault forces suddenly began staging near Australian waters—then the risk assessment might change. Until then, the best conclusion is that while Sino-Australian relations can remain fraught, an actual military invasion scenario is highly improbable.

References

- Betts, R.K. (1982). Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning. Brookings Institution Press.
- George, A.L., & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice. Columbia University Press.
- Freedman, L. (1981). The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Rid, T., & Buchanan, B. (2015). “Attributing Cyber Attacks,” Journal of Strategic Studies, 38(1-2).
- Whaley, B. (1969). Codeword BARBAROSSA. MIT Press.
- Office of Naval Intelligence (2021). “China’s Navy: A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics.”
- O’Rourke, R. (2022). China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service.
- Taiwan Affairs Office (2022). White Paper on Taiwan Policy, available at taiwan.cn.
- State Council Information Office (2019). China’s National Defense in the New Era.
- Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (2024). Satellite imagery and analysis at amti.csis.org.
- Department of Defence, Australia (2024). Defence Annual Reports, available at defence.gov.au.
- Batley, J. (2022). “China’s Security Agreement with Solomon Islands: A Three-Level Analysis,” The Interpreter, Lowy Institute.
- Ministry of National Defense, PRC (2022). Official statements on military exercises, mod.gov.cn.
- Russian Defence Ministry (2021). Press releases on joint exercises with China, eng.mil.ru.
- Xinhua (2021). Coverage of China-Russia joint drills at xinhuanet.com.
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PRC (2021). Statements on Australia-China relations, fmprc.gov.cn.
- Global Times (2020). Coverage on Australia’s call for COVID-19 probe.
- Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia (2021). Updates on trade disputes with China, dfat.gov.au.
- Medeiros, E.S., et al. (2008). Pacific Currents: The Responses of U.S. Allies and Security Partners in East Asia to China’s Rise. RAND Corporation.