The United States is facing a strategic reality it has long debated but rarely acknowledged so bluntly: China is no longer a “near-peer” competitor—it is a full equal. That stark assessment comes from Lt. Gen. Stephen Sklenka, a senior Marine Corps leader responsible for sustaining forces in combat, who says the implications of such parity are profound and deeply unsettling.
Speaking at a major defense gathering in Washington, Sklenka dismissed what he called outdated thinking about China’s capabilities. In his view, framing Beijing as anything less than an equal adversary underestimates the scale of the challenge ahead. China’s reach, he argued, now extends across nearly every dimension of national power, from military modernization and industrial capacity to economic influence and emerging technologies.
Drawing from his experience in the Indo-Pacific, Sklenka described a strategic vision from Chinese leadership that goes far beyond regional ambitions. He pointed to Beijing’s long-term objective of reshaping the global order and positioning itself as the dominant world power. This is not merely a military competition, he suggested, but a systemic challenge that encompasses political, economic, and informational domains.
The warning comes at a time when the United States is already engaged in ongoing tensions with Iran, a conflict that Sklenka said offers sobering lessons. Despite America’s overwhelming military advantages, Iran has demonstrated how even a mid-tier power can inflict meaningful damage through asymmetric tactics, including drone strikes, missile attacks, and economic disruption. The closure of critical maritime routes has further illustrated the vulnerability of global supply chains.
Yet Sklenka emphasized that any comparison between Iran and China only highlights the magnitude of the latter’s capabilities. China’s economy ranks among the largest in the world, its industrial base is unmatched in scale, and its military modernization has accelerated at a pace that few anticipated a decade ago. In such a scenario, the logistical and operational challenges facing U.S. forces would multiply exponentially.
According to Sklenka, China’s industrial output alone represents a decisive factor. Over the past decade, its manufacturing sector has outpaced that of the United States in key areas, including shipbuilding, steel production, and advanced materials. This industrial strength translates directly into military capacity, enabling rapid expansion of naval fleets, missile arsenals, and space-based systems.
He highlighted China’s growing shipbuilding capability, which reportedly dwarfs that of the United States, as well as its expanding fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. At the same time, Beijing’s investments in artificial intelligence, drone warfare, and what Sklenka described as “intelligentized warfare” are reshaping how future conflicts may unfold. These innovations extend into non-kinetic domains, such as cyber operations and information warfare, where traditional defenses are often inadequate.
The implications for U.S. military strategy are far-reaching. Sklenka stressed that no currently serving American military personnel have operated in an environment where an adversary can simultaneously contest every domain—land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. Future conflicts, he warned, will not resemble those of the late 20th century. Instead, they will require new approaches to mobility, resilience, and sustained operations under constant threat.
One of the most urgent concerns, he said, is the vulnerability of U.S. military installations. Historically viewed as secure hubs for logistics and command, these bases are increasingly exposed to both physical and non-physical attacks. Sklenka argued that this outdated perception must change immediately, as installations are now likely to be among the first targets in any major conflict.
This concern has been echoed in reporting by The War Zone, which has long highlighted the risks facing U.S. bases in an era of drone warfare and cyber threats. Recent conflicts have demonstrated how relatively low-cost technologies can bypass traditional defenses, striking critical infrastructure with precision and minimal warning.
Sklenka pointed to examples from recent operations where drones and pre-positioned assets were used to devastating effect. These tactics, once considered unconventional, are rapidly becoming standard practice. In a future conflict with China, such methods could be deployed on a much larger and more sophisticated scale, targeting not only overseas bases but also installations within the United States itself.
The general warned that the opening phase of a war with China may not involve missiles or large-scale troop movements. Instead, it could begin with cyberattacks on power grids, disinformation campaigns aimed at military families, or coordinated drone strikes launched from within or near U.S. territory. These actions would be designed to create confusion, disrupt decision-making, and undermine readiness before conventional fighting even begins.
Such scenarios underscore the need for a fundamental shift in how the U.S. prepares for war. Sklenka called for stronger defenses against unmanned aerial systems, more resilient energy and communication networks, and hardened infrastructure capable of withstanding both kinetic and non-kinetic attacks. He emphasized that these measures are not optional but essential for maintaining operational capability in a contested environment.
At the same time, he acknowledged that achieving this level of preparedness will require close collaboration with industry. The complexity of modern warfare, particularly in areas like cybersecurity and advanced manufacturing, demands resources and expertise that extend beyond the military itself.
Perhaps most striking was Sklenka’s assertion that future conflicts may involve fighting not just from U.S. bases, but for them. This represents a significant departure from traditional assumptions about American military dominance and highlights the evolving nature of global power competition.
As tensions between major powers continue to rise, his message is clear: the United States must adapt quickly to a world where its adversaries are no longer outmatched, but evenly matched. The consequences of failing to do so, he warned, could be far greater than any conflict currently underway.
