In recent years, China’s military has undergone an unprecedented wave of purges and anti-corruption investigations. Numerous senior generals have been dismissed, investigated, or expelled from the Communist Party, including Central Military Commission (CMC) Vice Chairman He Weidong, Political Work Department Director Miao Hua, and former Defense Minister Li Shangfu—figures once considered part of Xi Jinping’s inner circle.
These developments reveal a deep tension within China’s power structure between military loyalty and political security. While officially justified as a campaign against corruption, the underlying purpose of these purges is the centralization of authority and the reinforcement of Xi’s personal control over the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Through fear and disciplinary enforcement, loyalty has been transformed into a political survival mechanism.
I. Corruption and the Interweaving of Power
Corruption in the Chinese military is not new. For decades, practices such as the buying and selling of positions, opaque procurement processes, and the misuse of military funds have been widespread. Promotion often depends less on merit and more on political alignment, connections, and financial exchange.
Recent cases have exposed extensive networks of influence in which senior officers profited from procurement and construction projects, cultivating patronage systems through bribery and mutual benefit. This entrenched corruption has long undermined discipline and professionalism within the PLA, providing justification for the latest anti-corruption campaign.
However, the deeper logic of the campaign extends beyond governance. It serves as a political screening process—eliminating not merely corrupt officials but also potentially disloyal ones. The focus of military allegiance is shifting from the state and the profession to the leader and the regime itself.
II. From Anti-Corruption to Political Purge
This latest round of military purges has drawn global attention because many of those targeted were personally promoted by Xi Jinping. The fact that his own appointees have been purged indicates that the campaign has entered a new phase of self-cleansing within the regime.
At its core lies the belief that control outweighs trust. The military is regarded as the final guarantee of regime security, and any hint of disobedience is viewed as a political risk. Through sweeping investigations and dismissals, Xi seeks to restructure the hierarchy of command so that all authority flows directly to the party center—and ultimately, to himself.
Within this atmosphere of fear, senior officers have learned to prioritize political loyalty over professional judgment. Deference replaces initiative; political obedience replaces military competence. While this ensures short-term stability, it also erodes institutional capability and professionalism over time.
III. The Contradiction Between Loyalty and Combat Capability
Frequent personnel reshuffles and investigations have inevitably weakened the PLA’s operational readiness. The removal of top commanders, disruption of command chains, and constant leadership changes have damaged morale and created administrative paralysis. For a military attempting to modernize, such instability may produce lasting structural consequences.
China’s official goal of “military modernization by 2027” emphasizes technology, joint operations, and digital warfare. Yet if senior officers are more concerned with political survival than tactical reform, progress will remain superficial. Many commanders now act cautiously, avoiding innovation or risk-taking—a pattern that breeds institutional inertia.
This dynamic, in which political loyalty outweighs military professionalism, is one of the PLA’s most persistent dilemmas. Loyalty secures the regime’s control, but it simultaneously weakens the military’s true fighting capacity and flexibility.
IV. Internal Control and External Posturing
China’s military purges are not merely a matter of domestic politics; they are closely linked to Beijing’s external strategy. Facing challenges in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, and strategic competition with the United States, Xi seeks a military that is disciplined, unified, and absolutely obedient to the Communist Party.
However, the repeated purges have undermined the stability of the command chain. Although the PLA conducts frequent drills and military displays, actual decision-making has become highly centralized. This over-personalization of military command means that any misjudgment—or emotional decision—from the top could rapidly escalate into external conflict.
Beijing’s approach therefore reflects a dual nature: control within, strength without. Internally, fear maintains order; externally, the projection of military might preserves prestige. This combination produces deterrence, but also unpredictability—a hallmark of Xi’s governance model.
V. Institutional Dilemmas and International Implications
From an international relations perspective, these purges carry far-reaching consequences for China’s military credibility and regional security dynamics.
First, constant reshuffles undermine the reliability and predictability of the PLA, making it difficult for other states to assess the stability of China’s command structure. Second, the increasing politicization of the armed forces blurs the line between military objectives and political goals, raising the risk of miscalculation in flashpoints such as Taiwan or the South China Sea.
Moreover, the campaign signals a paradox: while Xi has consolidated unprecedented control, it also exposes the regime’s underlying insecurity. The very need for continuous purges suggests a persistent fear of disloyalty within the ranks. This insecurity may, paradoxically, make China’s leadership more rigid and less transparent in strategic decision-making.
VI. Conclusion: The Fragile Balance Between Fear and Stability
China’s military anti-corruption campaign, framed as a moral crusade for discipline, is in essence a political project of regime consolidation. It governs through fear, constructs loyalty through purges, and trades institutional vitality for political control.
Yet this equilibrium is inherently fragile. When fear replaces trust, and when political loyalty eclipses professional competence, the military’s strength becomes hollow.
In the broader context of international relations, Xi Jinping’s approach suggests that China’s military decisions will become more centralized, more cautious, yet increasingly unpredictable. The coexistence of external assertiveness and internal insecurity now defines the essence of China’s political and strategic behavior.