By Prof. Dr. M. Javed
The US Strategy of Multidomain Containment and China’s Counter-Responses in the Indo-Pacific (2019–2025) Published in Geopolitics under Globalization, Vol. 6 (1), 2025
As I read Dr Saeed Ahmed’s article, I found myself pausing often to consider how deftly he connects the strategic, economic, and cognitive dimensions of the US–China rivalry. His work goes beyond conventional military analysis to show that the contest unfolding in the Indo-Pacific is now “a multidomain struggle shaping the architecture of tomorrow’s global order.”
Ahmed argues that since 2019, the United States has pursued what he calls a policy of “multidomain containment.” He defines it as “a layered system of deterrence and denial spanning military, economic, technological, and informational domains.” This framework, in my view, captures the complexity of current power politics more convincingly than older, one-dimensional notions of balance or deterrence.
Understanding the New US Strategy
One of Ahmed’s most compelling observations is that “containment today does not unfold through isolated military doctrines but through interlinked architectures of trade, technology, and narrative framing.” Reading this, I appreciated how he illustrates the shift from traditional alliances to what he terms “coalitional balancing.” The United States, he explains, is “constructing a web of deterrence and denial across economic, technological, and informational fronts,” using frameworks such as the Quad, AUKUS, and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework.
This idea rings true: Washington’s strategy is increasingly networked, connecting semiconductor export controls, digital governance rules, and defense partnerships into one integrated front.
China’s Strategic Counter-Responses
Ahmed is careful not to present China merely as a reactive actor. He argues that “China’s strategy of counter-containment rests on resilience-building,” which includes “advancing intelligentized military capabilities, deepening technological sovereignty, and reinforcing economic insulation through the Dual Circulation Strategy.”
I found particularly insightful his linkage between the Digital Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative, and what he calls China’s “re-sovereignization of economic space.” As he writes, “These initiatives represent Beijing’s pursuit of strategic autonomy and an alternative globalization structured around connectivity and narrative power.” This framing moves beyond geopolitics and touches on the evolving grammar of globalization itself.
Conceptual Strengths and Fresh Insights
From a scholarly standpoint, Ahmed’s introduction of the concept “bifurcated multipolarity” stands out. He describes it as “a world where US- and China-led blocs coexist in competition yet remain economically interdependent.” I found this term particularly effective in capturing the paradox of rivalry amid integration—something neither traditional bipolarity nor multipolarity alone explains.
Another valuable addition is his discussion of the “cognitive domain.” Ahmed rightly notes that “in the information age, influence operations, disinformation, and epistemic control shape the strategic landscape as decisively as aircraft carriers once did.” As someone who studies media and governance, I found this observation both timely and under-discussed in most mainstream security literature.
Where the Study Could Go Further
While the article is conceptually rich, I felt certain areas could be expanded for greater empirical depth. For instance, Ahmed does not engage much with the rare-earth materials question, even though China’s dominance in this sector is a critical pillar of its technological leverage. Including a discussion of US counter-initiatives with partners like Australia and Japan could have anchored the economic argument in tangible resource politics.
Likewise, I believe that bringing in smaller Indo-Pacific states—Vietnam, Indonesia in particular—would have added texture to his claim that “network power operates through choices of alignment and connectivity.” These states are not merely peripheral players; they are strategic nodes navigating both American and Chinese systems.
Relevance and Implications
The strength of Ahmed’s paper lies in showing that the Indo-Pacific is no longer a purely maritime theatre. As he notes, “Encirclement is no longer geographic; it is digital and economic, embedded in data flows, investment patterns, and information regimes.”
This redefinition has significant implications for countries like Pakistan, which find themselves balancing between competing digital and economic ecosystems. Ahmed’s warning feels prescient: “States at the intersection of US and Chinese networks will face mounting pressure to choose not merely alliances but operating systems.”
As I read that line, I could not help but think how the geopolitics of connectivity is becoming as decisive as the geopolitics of territory once was.
A Framework for a Fragmented Era
In my view, Dr Saeed Ahmed’s The US Strategy of Multidomain Containment and China’s Counter-Responses in the Indo-Pacific (2019–2025) is a significant contribution to contemporary strategic studies. It offers a coherent framework for understanding an era when competition spans not only sea lanes and military bases but also semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, and digital narratives.
Ahmed concludes powerfully: “The twenty-first-century contest is not for territory alone, but for architectures of connection—networks that will determine who writes the rules of tomorrow’s order.” I find this line emblematic of the paper’s depth and originality.
While there is room for more empirical illustration, the conceptual architecture is both solid and forward-looking. For scholars, policy-makers, and observers of Asian geopolitics, Ahmed’s work remains an essential guide to the Indo-Pacific’s unfolding strategic landscape.
This review refers to:
Ahmed, S. (2025). The US Strategy of Multidomain Containment and China’s Counter-Responses in the Indo-Pacific (2019–2025). Geopolitics under Globalization, 6 (1). Business Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.21511/gg.06(1).2025.05
NOTE: The article is CrossRef-registered, ensuring citation visibility and academic authenticity.
