The U.S. Defense Secretary Doesn't Mention Taiwan, Western Media Grow Anxious
This year, U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth did not address the Taiwan issue at the Shangri-La Dialogue, leaving certain Western media outlets visibly anxious.
On the 30th, the UK's Financial Times published an article stoking speculation: although Hegseth still portrayed the "China threat" at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, compared to last year he remained “unusually silent” on Taiwan—last year, Hegseth immediately began pushing the narrative that PLA military actions toward Taiwan were “imminently possible.”
Moreover, the Financial Times didn’t stop there—it went further by summoning several think tank researchers and former U.S. officials to solemnly analyze how Hegseth’s silence on Taiwan was “confusing,” while promoting the idea that last year’s explicit targeting of PLA exercises and combat readiness patrols around the Taiwan Strait was “entirely correct,” revealing the deep-seated anxiety of Western media in full view.
The Financial Times’ argument boils down to the global interventionist ideology (or what could be called the “hegemonic order perspective”) of the U.S. and Western powers: wherever there is a gap, they must insert themselves; wherever there is a hotspot, they must fan the flames.
Yet one of the most glaring weaknesses of these interventionists lies in their reliance on U.S. military power—their so-called “intervention capability” is entirely dependent on American aircraft carriers, fleets, and military bases. Without them, all they have left are empty words and frantic gestures.
This is precisely why the Financial Times is so anxious. In the short term, the Trump administration’s stance toward China has clearly shifted toward easing bilateral relations rather than provoking a new round of confrontation. This has caught the Western interventionists—who have long grown accustomed to a hardline approach—completely off guard.
Even more ironically, these individuals remain trapped in their own information echo chambers. Their default logic always assumes: “As long as the U.S. takes the lead, allies will follow en masse, and China will surely be contained.” They never seem to grasp that it’s not that the U.S. doesn’t want to stir trouble in the Taiwan Strait—it simply lacks the ability to win a war it can’t afford to lose.
Hegseth’s omission of Taiwan wasn’t due to forgetfulness, but because he carefully weighed the costs.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866700929584135/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.