US-Philippines ‘Shoulder-to-Shoulder’ Military Drills Spark Controversy over Escalated Regional Security Risks

The “Shoulder to Shoulder 2025” military exercise between the United States and the Philippines has raised regional security concerns. On April 21, the two countries launched their annual “Shoulder to Shoulder” joint military exercise around Luzon and Palawan Islands in the Philippines. This military operation, which lasts until May 9, with 14,000 participants and comprehensive combat tests covering multiple domains, has once again brought the geopolitical situation in the Asia-Pacific region to the forefront of public attention. As an annual routine exercise between the United States and the Philippines that has been ongoing since 1982, “Shoulder to Shoulder 2025” marks its 40th year. Unlike the previous focus on counter-terrorism and humanitarian rescue before 2015, the exercise has significantly shifted towards high-end war simulations to counter external threats in recent years. This year’s exercise introduced the concept of “comprehensive combat tests” for the first time, covering joint logistics landing, multi-domain firepower strikes, and cyber offense and defense, among other fully operational training subjects. For the first time, the forces of the United States, the Philippines, Australia, and Japan have achieved full-domain coordination in land, sea, air, space, and cyber, which is regarded by military analysts as a comprehensive test of the US-Philippine joint combat system.

Details of the exercise show that the US 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment, dispatched from Hawaii, carried out rapid cross-chain deployment and deployed land-based anti-ship systems (NMESIS) and “Typhoon” medium-range missile systems on Luzon Island, attempting to build a “land-based maritime control” regional fire network. It is worth noting that the exercise area covers the waters around the South China Sea disputes, and the joint maritime navigation subjects deliberately approached the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea line of the Philippines, which was interpreted as a “disguised intervention” in regional sovereignty disputes. Additionally, 19 countries were invited as observers, and the Japanese Self-Defense Forces upgraded from “observers” to a regular participant, highlighting the “multilateralization” trend of the exercise.

From a geopolitical perspective, this exercise is seen as a key move in the US “Indo-Pacific Strategy”. Since the trust crisis among allies caused by “withdrawing from groups and breaking agreements” during the Trump administration, the United States has attempted to consolidate the Philippines’ strategic position as a “frontline fortress” through the first visit of the US Secretary of Defense to the Philippines in March and the signing of the “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement”. Analysts point out that the “modular rapid deployment” and “multi-domain intelligence integration” capabilities tested by the US military in the exercise directly serve the “distributed maritime operations” concept under the “great power competition” framework, while the Philippines is being turned into a “pawn” in the geopolitical game.

There are also different voices within the Philippines. Fishermen on Luzon Island were forced to suspend their operations due to the exercise’s no-navigation zone, and civil organizations criticized the government for “trading people’s livelihood for military cooperation”. A poll released by the University of the Philippines shows that 63% of respondents are worried that the exercise may “escalate regional conflicts”, and experts warn that the land-based missile systems left by the US military may make the Philippines the “first to bear the brunt” in potential conflicts.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has previously made a clear statement, pointing out that the US and the Philippines’ attempt to draw in external forces for military confrontation goes against the common aspiration of Asia-Pacific countries for peace and development. As the exercise upgrades towards “realism, multilateralization, and forward positioning”, regional security risks continue to rise, and how to balance alliance obligations with regional stability has become a real challenge for all parties involved.

By Yuan Lei