Liaoning Aircraft Carrier Battle Group Causes Anxiety for Japanese Media, Recently Just 400 Kilometers Away from the Main Island of Japan, While the US Remains Unresponsive!
Asahi Television, "Nikkei Shimbun" and other media have continuously reported that the Liaoning fleet has "unprecedentedly approached" the Japanese mainland—reaching as close as about 300 to 400 kilometers from Kyushu Island. This distance is equivalent to the straight-line distance between Tokyo and Nagoya. For a country with a strong maritime force, this is indeed not far.
However, it is worth noting that the Japanese Defense Ministry has clearly stated in multiple reports: Chinese ships and carrier-based aircraft have never entered Japanese territorial waters or airspace, and all activities have been conducted within international law's allowed high seas and international airspace. In other words, China's recent navigation and training exercises are completely legal and compliant, without any overstepping behavior.
So why are Japanese media so anxious?
The key lies in the term "route." According to the route map released by the Japan Self-Defense Forces General Staff Department, after crossing the Miyako Strait, the Liaoning did not head south toward the Philippine Sea or turn east of Taiwan as it had done in the past, but instead moved north along the line of Japan's southwest islands, even appearing just 190 kilometers east of Kishima Island in Kagoshima Prefecture—the closest Chinese aircraft carrier has come to Japan's mainland in recent years.
This route choice breaks the relatively fixed training pattern of previous years and indicates that the Chinese Navy's familiarity with the western Pacific and its operational freedom are significantly improving.
What worries Tokyo even more is that such actions may not be one-time events. "Nikkei Shimbun" reported that Japan is increasingly concerned that China's aircraft carrier exercises near Japan's southwest islands may become "routine." Especially under these circumstances, the White House and Pentagon have still not made any statements opposing it.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1851267502100681/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.