Developments since publication: The December 2025 Pentagon China Military Power Report confirmed China continues building capabilities to meet Xi Jinping’s 2027 readiness benchmark for a Taiwan contingency. China’s “Justice Mission 2025” exercises (December 29–30, 2025) were its largest Taiwan-focused drills to date, simulating island encirclement with live-fire elements. Meanwhile, extensive PLA leadership purges — including two CMC members in January 2026 — have disrupted senior ranks without slowing capability development. These developments reinforce this article’s core thesis: observable indicators of invasion preparation are present and accelerating.
The concept of indicators and warnings (I&W) is central to military strategy and intelligence analysis. This framework focuses on identifying observable actions — such as logistical preparations, infrastructure upgrades, or troop mobilizations — that may point to an impending military operation. By carefully tracking these signals, analysts aim to provide early warnings and reduce the risk of strategic surprise.
History offers powerful lessons. Retrospective analysis of conflicts often shows that the signs were present but overlooked. For example, in Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2022, clear I&W signals were visible in advance. Russia’s logistical preparations — such as stockpiling blood supplies at field hospitals and repairing critical railway infrastructure — were strong indicators of an imminent military campaign. Unfortunately, many of these signals went underappreciated until the operations were underway.
These lessons directly apply to current tensions in East Asia, particularly around Taiwan. By examining Russia’s past actions and comparing them with China’s ongoing military developments, this article explores how I&W principles can help analysts assess the likelihood and timing of future military actions.
Indicators and Warnings: A Retrospective Analysis
Case Study 1: Russia’s Preparation for Ukraine (2022)
In the months leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a range of observable indicators pointed to imminent military action. Reports emerged of blood supplies being stockpiled near forward-deployed military units — a logistical detail that strongly suggested preparations for combat casualties. This indicator, alongside the positioning of field hospitals and medical evacuation routes, hinted at a large-scale offensive.
Other notable indicators included:
Troop Buildups: Satellite imagery revealed the concentration of Russian forces along Ukraine’s borders, including armor, artillery, and logistics units.
Diplomatic Signals: Russia’s escalating political rhetoric and rejection of diplomatic overtures provided a political context for the military buildup.
Logistics Infrastructure: Repair and upgrading of railways and roads in border areas indicated preparations for heavy equipment transport.
Despite these signals, the invasion caught many off guard. This retrospective demonstrates both the value of I&W analysis and its limitations when strategic surprise exploits assumptions and biases. Ukraine’s subsequent multi-domain defense strategy — integrating conventional forces, irregular resistance, and cyber operations — itself became a case study in how nations adapt after being caught on the back foot.
Case Study 2: Russia’s Invasion of Georgia (2008)
Before Russia invaded Georgia, infrastructure developments provided clear indicators of impending aggression. Notably, Russia repaired key railways in the breakaway region of Abkhazia. These repairs facilitated the rapid deployment of troops and equipment, ensuring logistical support for the invasion.
Railway repairs are often viewed as routine maintenance, but they serve a dual-use purpose in this case. The upgrades allowed Russia to move heavy equipment, such as tanks and artillery, closer to the operational theater with speed and efficiency. Observers failed to appreciate the strategic implications of these activities, dismissing them as ordinary infrastructure work.
Additional indicators included:
Troop Exercises: Concurrent with railway repairs, Russia conducted large-scale military exercises in the North Caucasus. These drills mirrored the operational scenarios later employed in Georgia, providing a form of rehearsal.
Political Rhetoric: Russia escalated its narrative about protecting Russian citizens abroad, laying the political groundwork for intervention.
Cyber Operations: In the days preceding the invasion, Georgia experienced coordinated cyberattacks on government and media infrastructure — an early example of the kind of hybrid warfare techniques that would later define Russian operations in Ukraine.
Applying I&W to China’s Barge Construction
China’s Military Buildup and Amphibious Operations
China’s construction of large numbers of barges and amphibious vessels has drawn attention as a potential indicator of invasion preparations. These vessels, designed for carrying troops, vehicles, and equipment across the Taiwan Strait, are central to any amphibious operation. Their production mirrors historical patterns seen in other military buildups — including the specialized invasion barges reminiscent of the Mulberry harbors used in the WWII Normandy landings.
Key factors to consider include:
Scale of Production: The sheer number of barges being produced exceeds what would be needed for civilian purposes, raising questions about their intended use. China has also been conducting amphibious landing exercises using civilian roll-on/roll-off vehicle ferries, many of which have been modified for potential military deployment.
Integration with Military Exercises: China’s military exercises have increasingly included amphibious landing drills, suggesting a focus on contested maritime operations. The December 2025 “Justice Mission 2025” exercises represented China’s largest Taiwan-focused drills to date, simulating island encirclement with live-fire elements and multi-domain coordination.
Dual-Use Infrastructure: Some barges may ostensibly serve commercial purposes, complicating efforts to assess their military significance. Distinguishing genuine preparations from deliberate information manipulation is a perennial challenge for analysts.
Evaluating Indicators of Invasion Preparations
Applying the I&W framework, several factors suggest that China’s barge construction warrants serious scrutiny:
Parallel Activities: Barge construction coincides with increased military exercises, troop deployments, and propaganda shifts suggesting a coordinated strategy. The 2025 Pentagon China Military Power Report concluded that China continues to make progress toward Xi Jinping’s 2027 “Centennial Military Building Goal” — a capabilities-based requirement oriented specifically toward a Taiwan contingency.
Geopolitical Context: China frames its actions as defensive, asserting a right to “reunify” Taiwan, echoing Russia’s justifications in both Ukraine and Georgia.
While these indicators do not guarantee an invasion, they warrant scrutiny. Moreover, the international community must remain vigilant in distinguishing true preparations from strategic posturing or disinformation.
The Broader Implications of I&W in Modern Conflict
The utility of I&W lies in its ability to provide early warnings, enabling decision-makers to prepare for potential crises. However, several challenges persist:
Ambiguity: Many indicators, such as infrastructure upgrades, have dual-use applications, complicating their interpretation.
Deception: Adversaries may employ false indicators to mislead analysts.
Timing: Determining when preparations transition into imminent action remains a significant challenge.
Visual tools like maps and timelines can assist analysts in synthesizing data. By plotting indicators on a timeline, patterns become more discernible — a standard approach in military reconnaissance and intelligence preparation. Combining multiple sources of information — including satellite imagery, open-source intelligence, and diplomatic signals — enhances the accuracy of I&W assessments. Understanding espionage tradecraft and signals intelligence helps analysts distinguish genuine preparations from deliberate deception.
As military technology evolves, so too must the frameworks used to analyze it. The lessons of Russia’s invasions of Georgia and Ukraine provide a strong foundation for understanding the indicators of future conflicts. By applying these lessons to China’s military activities, analysts can better assess the risks and implications of an increasingly complex global security environment. For a broader framework on how states prepare for and counter these kinds of operations, see The Resistance Hub’s coverage of total defense strategies.
Sources
“Is Russia Preparing to Invade Ukraine?” Wall Street Journal (video).
Recommended Reading
McReynolds, Joe (ed.). China’s Evolving Military Strategy. Jamestown Foundation, 2016.
For additional reading on irregular warfare strategy and intelligence analysis, see the Essential Books on Resistance collection.
