Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s recent statement to the Diet—that any Chinese military action against Taiwan could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan—has sharply escalated geopolitical rhetoric, prompting a direct and aggressive response from state-affiliated media in Beijing that warns of a potential Japanese surprise attack. On November 25, 2025, a commentary published by Beijing Time, an outlet connected to Beijing Radio and Television Station (BTV), argued that the possibility of Japan initiating a sudden, preemptive strike against China should be taken seriously, citing historical precedents and analyzing Japanese strategic culture.
Analyzing Escalated Tensions in East Asia
The tensions flared following Prime Minister Takaichi’s remarks, made in early November 2025, where she addressed regional security concerns after the APEC summit in Gyeongju, South Korea. Beijing’s rebuttal, titled “Four Reasons Japan Likes to Launch Surprise Attacks,” not only dismissed Takaichi’s concerns but also sought to undermine Japan’s global standing by referencing a history of unannounced military actions, including the First Sino-Japanese War, the Battle of Port Arthur, the Mukden Incident, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Beijing Time article presented four primary arguments suggesting a propensity for Japanese preemptive aggression:
- A “Fatalistic Ethos”: The commentary attributed a national character forged by persistent natural disasters—volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis—to a fatality-driven ethos that favors bold, high-risk actions to secure rapid outcomes.
- Resource Constraints: The limited territory and natural resource scarcity in Japan allegedly undermine the capacity for prolonged, attritional conflict, pushing strategists toward carefully planned, decisive strikes intended for swift victory.
- Deep-Rooted Strategic Doctrine: The outlet claimed that a strategic culture emphasizing pre-emption and concentrated force remains central to Japanese military thinking, tracing this lineage back to the 1901 Naval Combat Regulations.
- Diminishing Strategic Value: The article contended that Japan’s post-war dependence on U.S. security is tied to maintaining the first island chain. Should Taiwan return to mainland control, accessing the open ocean and reducing Japan’s strategic importance to Washington, Tokyo’s need for decisive action might increase to restore its indispensable status.
China Dismisses Japan’s Military Capability
In a clear projection of confidence and deterrence, the Beijing Time commentary firmly asserted that Japan’s military capabilities are significantly inferior to China’s. The article boasted that China’s conventional forces would be sufficient to “defeat them several times over,” indicating that revising China’s nuclear policy for deterrence against Japan is unnecessary given the conventional military imbalance. Statements from China’s Ministry of National Defence and various theatre commands reportedly demonstrate both operational capability and political resolve.
The commentary dismissed Takaichi’s public statements as an attempt to cement the U.S.-Japan alliance, arguing that Japan’s anxiety is increasing because Washington has not fully “taken the bait.” The piece concluded by stressing that the risk of a Japanese first strike should not be underestimated.
Further indicating China’s heightened awareness and preparation, the commentary noted that China’s embassy in Japan formally invoked the “enemy state clauses” in a message to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and on social media platform X. This communication, circulated to UN member states, stated Beijing’s firm resolve to exercise its right of self-defense under the UN Charter and international law, confirming the nation is prepared at the highest level to respond to threats in the volatile East Asian security environment.