The abrupt dismissal of senior Chinese generals has caused an exceptionally strong surge of conjecture. The stillness around the rumors, more than the rumors themselves, is what gives this moment its special significance.
General Li Shangfu abruptly disappeared from the public eye. He was a key member of China’s strategic military structure and had been carefully cultivated to portray strength outside in his role as defense minister. Due to his absence and the removal of certain Rocket Force personnel, there has been particularly persistent conjecture, with some even speculating that a covert coup attempt may have been made or failed.
China’s military is built for secrecy by most professional standards. Nevertheless, this cleansing is noteworthy. Senior officials going missing without explanation, particularly those in charge of nuclear assets, raises concerns that go beyond rumors. Beijing has noticeably refrained from responding to any rumors through state newspapers and party-run outlets. Nevertheless, they may have increased the story’s impact by ignoring it.
Such suspicion may have rapidly died out in earlier decades. However, there’s a noticeable difference this time. There has been a noticeable change in China’s internal environment since the pandemic, including more surveillance, bureaucracy, and top-down messaging that prioritizes compliance over initiative.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Main Event | Removal and investigation of General Zhang Youxia and Gen. Liu Zhenli |
| Body Involved | Central Military Commission (CMC) |
| Leader | Xi Jinping |
| Purge Timeline | March 2023 – January 2026 |
| Number of Officials Removed | At least 20 senior military leaders, including 5 of 7 CMC members |
| Official Charges | “Serious violations of discipline and law” (often refers to corruption) |
| Unverified Rumors | Coup plot, gunfire in Beijing, leaking nuclear secrets |
| Source | BBC, Sky News, The Bureau, Nikkei Asia, PLA Daily |
That change is risky for military officers. Particularly when commitment to oneself takes precedence over expertise and field competency. Party speeches frequently use the term “stability maintenance,” yet paradoxically, these purges may indicate weakness rather than control.
Over the past year, China’s missile arsenal’s Rocket Force has lost a number of senior commanders. That shuffling isn’t normal. Destabilization of the structure is what that is. The leadership might have inadvertently implied a deeper decay within its own defense mechanisms by dismissing important persons in large numbers.
President Xi Jinping has launched numerous anti-corruption campaigns over the last ten years, each with a pledge to “clean the military.” On paper, integrity is supposed to be strengthened by these processes. However, in reality, they have replaced more experienced officials with less experienced ones and drastically diminished institutional memory.
I saw thousands of soldiers moving in perfect unison during the 2015 military parade. The air of command was undeniable at the time. However, the chain of trust between the Communist Party and its military elite feels significantly damaged today, with several generals being sidelined or under investigation.
It’s tempting for outside observers to concentrate only on Beijing’s statements—or lack thereof. What is more telling, though, is what these actions are probably setting up the PLA for: a future in which allegiance is valued more highly than creativity. In a time of multipolar tensions, drone warfare, and cyberwarfare, that trade-off is especially dangerous.
The Chinese government is unmistakably establishing a military culture that prioritizes ideological purity over autonomous leadership through targeted promotions, new loyalty vows, and more stringent party ideology screening. Such alignment might foster unity in the near term, but it might also reduce the system’s ability to adjust in the face of emergencies.
Xi has significantly tightened his grip by strengthening inner circles. But it reduces visibility at the top, just like any feedback loop based on sifting disagreement. Additionally, early warning signals, particularly from the military, may be dampened or completely overlooked when decision-makers work in an echo chamber.
Officers who are particularly creative—those with unorthodox perspectives or global experience—may be marginalized. This might make it more difficult for China to strike quickly in the event of a real conflict. Eliminating such voices, however subtly, is a loss for strategic planning as well as internal discourse.
China’s neighbors are undoubtedly keeping an eye on it. The United States, Japan, and India have all significantly strengthened their joint exercises and defense contacts. They see both opportunity and worry in the internal chaos. An ambiguous PLA might act more circumspectly—or more erratically.
China has responded with precision and balance in previous conflicts, including those involving Taiwan, the South China Sea, and border skirmishes. However, such dependability can come under further scrutiny if the chain of command is broken. The question of whether generals obey orders is no longer the only one. It’s if they are aware of who is actually providing for them.
China has unintentionally brought the weakness of its command system to the attention of the world by concentrating inward. That is a contained risk at quiet times. But a weak command pipeline could be particularly risky during times of high strain.
Even if they are false, coup rumors are a sign of greater hostility among party leaders and throughout all ranks. Rebuilding trust at the highest echelons of armed command is infamously challenging.
There is yet opportunity for a change of direction. China may significantly boost trust both domestically and internationally if it decides to make its military more transparent—not in a theatrical sense, but structurally. It’s not necessary to divulge secrets to make that change. It is necessary to demonstrate method and continuity.
China’s biggest risk at the moment is unpredictability. Internally, not outwardly. When top brass disappears without explanation and fear takes the place of communication, no military, no matter how big or how well-funded, can function.
China continues to be a key actor in the dynamics of great powers. However, it faces a dilemma within its own defense mechanism that no purge can resolve on its own: Is it possible to restore confidence without compromising control? Or is this period of reorganization just getting started?
