Military Moves: A New Look at China’s Command Changes

China’s Military Shake‑Ups: A Question of Control

The recent purge of two senior generals has ignited debate over who truly holds the reins in China’s armed forces. While some view the investigations as evidence of iron‑clad leadership, others argue that the very act of removing high‑ranking officers signals a lack of firm command.

In late February, a brief defense video announced that Zhang Youxia and Liu Zhenli would face scrutiny. Official military media followed up, accusing them of undermining the top authority—someone who sits at the head of that very authority. Zhang, once the most senior uniformed officer, fell from grace in a shocking move.

If the leader could unilaterally remove such figures, it seemed obvious that he commanded them. Yet a closer look shows the leader may have been forced to act because these generals were not fully aligned. Over the past decade, a pattern of purges has emerged: key officers are sacked and replaced by others who may not stay in place for long.

This pattern is more than a simple power play. Some observers suggest that loyalists to the leader are being targeted by rivals within the military. For instance, a former top enforcer was ousted by Zhang Youxia before he himself was removed. This hints at a cycle of counter‑purges, where each side tries to eliminate the other’s influence.

Such cycles are hard to stop. When a high‑ranking officer is dismissed, those who supported him may feel threatened and push back. Reports indicate that senior officers were unhappy with the changes, even skipping ceremonial events to avoid direct contact with the leader. The presence of extensive security at these gatherings suggests a heightened sense of risk even among supposed allies.

After the latest removals, only two people remain on the central military board: the leader himself and a political commissar. This split between operational command and political oversight is unusual in China’s history, where the party and military usually move as one unit.

The narrative that the leader has complete control is therefore questionable. While the party should theoretically command the army, the ongoing turbulence suggests that the reality on the ground is more complicated. The constant reshuffling of top officers may indicate that the leader’s grip on power is weaker than it appears.