For military giants like the United States and China, overseas bases are more than just simple outposts, they are instruments of military projection, presence, and persuasion. Thus, the global network of American military installations, stretching from Germany to Guam and from Japan to Djibouti, serves as the backbone of U.S. strategic dominance.

These bases offer rapid deployment capabilities, logistical support, and geopolitical leverage in virtually every nuance of conflict. In contrast, China, though newer to this arena, is steadily expanding its influence through a different route – combining commercial investments with strategic partnerships that quietly pave the way for a future military footprint.

While the U.S. has over a hundred formal bases worldwide, many dating back to Cold War pacts and post-war occupations, China has just one officially declared overseas base in Djibouti. But Beijing’s ambitions are more subtle, it is investing heavily in port infrastructure, dual-use facilities, and bilateral security arrangements across the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and parts of the Middle East.

Analysts warn that these developments could one day transform economic relationships into military alliances, granting China the ability to exert force far from its shores without needing traditional “bases” in the American mold.

Amid this global game of power projection, the Pacific Islands, once treated as mere stepping stones in WWII, have suddenly become prized real estate. Their location between the U.S. mainland and Asia makes them a geopolitical sweet spot. But the island nations, small in size yet rich in strategic value, are now pushing back against becoming pawns in a modern Cold War.

Fiji Draws the Line. No to Chinese Bases, Yes to Sovereignty

Fiji has drawn a firm red line against China’s growing military overtures in the Pacific. Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, speaking candidly in Canberra at Australia’s National Press Club, has iterated – Fiji will not host a Chinese military base and will actively lobby other Pacific nations to take the same stance.

“Not Fiji,” Rabuka emphasized pointedly when asked whether his nation would welcome a Chinese base. “If they want to come, who would welcome them?” His remarks land at a time when regional nerves are already fraying over China’s assertive security footprint, particularly its security pact with the Solomon Islands and a spreading police presence across Pacific nations.

The Prime Minister acknowledged the difficult balancing act Pacific nations face as they balance relations with both Beijing and Washington. Strategically sandwiched between two competing giants, these islands are increasingly caught in a diplomatic riptide, one that threatens to pull them into broader conflicts, particularly over flashpoints like the Taiwan Strait.

“Pacific leaders have tried to adopt a position that is friendly to all, and enemies to none,” Rabuka said. “It’s a tough course to steer — but it is possible.” Yet behind the diplomacy lies a deepening anxiety.

Rabuka referenced China’s test of an intercontinental ballistic missile last September, which flew over Fiji before splashing into international waters. It served as a blunt finger – China doesn’t need a physical base to project power – thus the message had already arrived.

Though China has publicly denied plans for a military base in the Solomon Islands, skepticism lingers. Beijing’s show of strength continues, including a recent display of its coast guard vessels to a delegation of 10 Pacific island leaders. Still, as Rabuka warned, any Chinese patrols must “observe our sovereignty, our sovereign waters.”

Importantly, Rabuka stressed that Fiji’s cooperation with China on infrastructure should not be misinterpreted as strategic alignment. “We can work with China economically while preserving strong ties with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States,” he said.

To institutionalize peace and insulate the region from external coercion, Rabuka has proposed an “Ocean of Peace” treaty, a regional compact aimed at rejecting military coercion and safeguarding the Pacific’s unity. The proposal will be put before the Pacific Islands Forum, comprising 18 member nations, at a high-stakes meeting this September.

Arsenal Fatigue Hits US!

The United States, long considered the world’s military superpower with an unmatched arsenal and sprawling network of overseas bases, is now confronting an uncomfortable reality – its munitions stockpiles are running low.

In a development that could reshape the war in Ukraine and alter perceptions of U.S. military readiness, the Pentagon has quietly halted some shipments of air defense missiles and precision munitions to Kyiv, citing concerns over dangerously thinning reserves. Two sources familiar with the decision confirmed that this pause has taken place in recent days, stalling critical interceptors meant to defend Ukraine’s skies from relentless Russian drone and missile barrages.

The Limits of Infinite Support
The decision marks a significant recalibration in U.S. military strategy. For over two years, Washington had been the cornerstone of Ukraine’s defense, delivering everything from HIMARS and Patriot systems to Stinger missiles and artillery shells. But behind the high-tech weaponry and promises of “support for as long as it takes,” the U.S. defense industrial base has been under strain.

Replenishing advanced munitions, especially air defense interceptors, takes time, money, and a workforce that has not operated at Cold War-era scale in decades.

And now, that strain has reached the breaking point.

While the Pentagon insists that President Donald Trump is being provided with multiple options to continue military aid “in line with the objective of ending Russia’s war,” the fact is – America is entering a phase of strategic triage, choosing between defending Ukraine and maintaining readiness for potential flashpoints elsewhere, from the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea.

Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary for policy, framed the pause as a necessary balancing act. “The department is rigorously examining and adapting its approach… while also preserving U.S. forces’ readiness for administration defense priorities,” he said in a statement that underscored the precarious balancing act of global military commitments.

The Battlefield Reality 
The timing couldn’t be worse for Ukraine. Russia, which already occupies roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, has been methodically advancing in recent weeks –  particularly in the southeastern oblasts of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk. Moscow has also escalated its air campaign, raining missiles on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, testing the limits of Kyiv’s depleted air defense grid.

With fewer interceptors arriving from Washington, Ukrainian military planners may soon be forced into making brutal choices: What to protect, and what to leave exposed.

This is not the first time military aid has been paused. There was a temporary freeze in February, followed by a more extended halt in March. The Trump administration resumed shipments under previously approved aid packages from the Biden era but as of now, no new military aid policy has been formally announced under Trump’s second term.

The Global Footprint vs. The Home Arsenal
The dilemma is more than logistical; it’s strategic. The U.S. military operates at least 128 overseas bases across 55 countries, enabling it to exert influence, deter adversaries, and respond swiftly to conflicts. Yet, the ability to respond is meaningless if the stockpiles are insufficient to sustain actual warfare.

This raises uncomfortable questions for U.S. allies who rely on American support as a deterrent. If the U.S. is struggling to support one war in Ukraine, how would it fare if another front opened in the Indo-Pacific?

The Last Bit, China Watches and Learns

As the U.S. manages stockpile fatigue, China is observing quietly and planning patiently.

Unlike the U.S., China’s overseas military presence is modest; however, Beijing’s approach is rooted in long-term strategic leverage through commercial infrastructure – ports, trade zones, and political alliances – which could one day be repurposed for military use.

This “dual-use” doctrine, while denied by Beijing as official policy, gives China flexibility without the vulnerability of fixed bases.

China’s growing ties in the Indian Ocean region, Africa, and the Pacific Islands, coupled with its assertiveness in the South China Sea, are already reshaping regional balances. If the U.S. continues to exhaust its resources without adequately replenishing them, China may soon find fewer obstacles to asserting itself not just economically, but militarily.

A Fragile Superpower Moment

The halted shipments to Ukraine are not mere logistical hiccup they are a strategic alarm bell. It signals the need for urgent investment in U.S. munitions manufacturing and supply chains, and a broader reconsideration of how many wars America can realistically support at once.

Ukraine’s fate hangs in the balance but so too does the credibility of U.S. deterrence globally.