Indo-Pacific Concept Falters as A2/AD Erodes Naval Logic
Get the Geopolitics newsletter
Daily geopolitics — wars, elections, sanctions, the diplomatic moves that move markets. Free.
- Australia, France, India, Japan, South Korea, and the UK have each rolled out Indo-Pacific strategies over the past decade — white papers, frameworks, and 'visions' that grew more expansive with each iteration.
- The United States built the Indo-Pacific framework to preserve naval primacy and offshore balancing, then imposed that maritime logic on states whose core security concerns are continental.
- India is positioned as the 'Indo' anchor of the concept but is described as a continental power whose primary threats — disputed borders with China and rivalry with Pakistan — the maritime framework does not meaningfully address.
- U.S. carrier strike groups are operating at increasing distance from Iranian missile range as Washington struggles to guarantee passage through the Strait of Hormuz, eroding the aura of uncontested naval supremacy.
- A2/AD systems — layered missile, air defense, and long-range strike networks — have structurally shifted the geometry of power, raising the cost of naval force projection near continental landmasses.
- Continental powers are constructing rail networks, pipelines, and overland trade routes to reduce dependence on maritime choke points and actively build strategic depth through infrastructure.
- Jeffrey Robertson writes that states most taken in by the concept — particularly Australia and Japan — face a 'momentous reckoning' as the framework's assumptions age out.
Why it matters: The Indo-Pacific framework underpins alliance and defense-spending decisions across a dozen nations. States that invested most heavily — Australia and Japan — face the sharpest reckoning if the concept's maritime-dominance logic is anachronistic, and they have no ready-made alternative framework to recalibrate around.
