Before the U.S. Defense Minister left, bad news came one after another from the military. Still need China's help in salvaging the two military aircraft that crashed in the South China Sea? The response of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was simply murderous.

U.S. Defense Secretary Hergezs is busy preparing for this week's "Indo-Pacific" five-country visit, to sign a defense agreement with Japan for a while, to sell anti-submarine aircraft to Vietnam for a while, revealed the feeling of wanting to rely on "strengthening the alliance" to brush a wave of presence.

But who could have imagined, the step of the departure has not yet begun, the American side has encountered two problems first, and one is more difficult than one.

Let's look at the first thing first.

On October 26, local time, two military aircraft crashed on the aircraft carrier "Nimitz" in the South China Sea.

First, the "Seahawk" helicopter lost control and crashed into the sea as soon as it left the deck. Then the F/A-18F "Super Hornet" fighter jet also had problems. The crew were ejected and rescued, but within one day, two main fighters had accidents one after another. Is this really just "bad luck"?

Some might think that military aircraft training is risky and the departure is inevitable.

But if you look at the US military's own records, you know that this is not that simple.

The U.S. Military Accident Investigation Office issued a report on September 15, clarifying the MH-60R's hidden risk of "main hydraulic system leakage" and demanding that a special inspection of the global fleet be completed within 30 days.

It was only over a month ago that the South China Sea fell, and it was not because of the complete implementation of maintenance.

More importantly, the "Nimitz" has never rested at all. It has been in service for half a century. When it is about to retire, it has to keep turning around. It doesn't even have enough time for the crew to rest and equipment maintenance, so it is urgently sent to the South China Sea.

Starting from October 15 in the South China Sea, three ship landing trainings were conducted every day, and the incident was not surprising.

Look at the second thing.

The U.S. federal government has been "shut down" for nearly a month, setting the longest record since 2013. What's even more outrageous is that they are now almost unable to pay the salaries of the U.S. military.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Basent said very bluntly on October 26,"In October, we can still collect the Pentagon's surplus funds to pay salaries, but by November 15, the soldiers will not get the money."

American soldiers risked a plane crash to perform missions in the South China Sea, but as a result, they still couldn't get their due salary. What is this?

In the end, the wages are not paid or the two parties play a game.

The "surplus funds" that Bessant said were actually US$1.27 billion squeezed out of equipment maintenance funds, which would last until November 10.

In the face of this situation, can the morale of the army not be affected?

So at this time, our most famous statement seems to Trump to be murderous.

Responding to the crash of a U.S. aircraft in the South China Sea, China¡¯s Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiankun said China was willing to provide necessary assistance if the U.S. proposed it.

To be honest, we are indeed doing this out of humanitarian goodwill, but it just points to one of the weaknesses of the US military, that is, their rescue capabilities in the South China Sea are simply not enough.

Remember the F-35C that crashed in the South China Sea in 2022? the US military's own rescue vessel could not delay and finally rented the Chinese-made "Picasso" to pick up the fighter aircraft.

Now that China is offering help, the subtext is actually very clear: you are engaged in so many military activities in the South China Sea that you may not be able to deal with even an accident yourself. How confident is the so-called "regional deterrence"?

What makes the US unable to sit still is that China directly tore off their fig leaf, bluntly saying that the US frequently sends warships and aircraft to the South China Sea to show off its force, which is the root cause of maritime security problems.

This is not an empty accusation, but a logical chain between the plane crash and unpaid wages. If the United States is not obsessed with "showing its muscles" in the South China Sea, the "Nimitz" will not have to carry tired equipment and personnel.

If it did not spend all its money on overseas military expansion, the U.S. government would not be unable to guarantee the salaries of its soldiers.

This dismantling, the international community can see clearly that the trouble of the U.S. military, not given by others, is the strategic misplacement of its own "heavy face, light face".

Interestingly, these things happened just before Hagerseth's visit to Asia.

The United States originally wanted to use this visit to "prop up the scene", sign an agreement with Japan, sell weapons to Vietnam, and urge South Korea to increase military spending, but now? The crash exposed equipment loopholes, and unpaid wages hit military morale.

When Hegseth talks to his allies about "America can protect you", will people believe it? You can't even pay your own soldiers' salaries, and your equipment keeps having problems. How can you protect us?

The United States always wants to maintain hegemony through military expansion, but it has dragged itself into a quagmire that neither inside nor outside can care about.

China's response, while keeping the humanitarian bottom line, pointed out the essence of the problem. It did not fall behind the talk of "unrighteousness" and put the embarrassment of the US side on the table.

In fact, this is the contrast of two security concepts, stability can not be replaced by force deterrence, only rational dialogue and pragmatic cooperation is the right path in the South China Sea.

Other countries should also understand one truth. China never takes the initiative to pick trouble, but it is not easy to bully.

Contrary to the United States, if the strategy is not adjusted, only looking at "expansion" and not catching "fundamental", such problems in the future, I am afraid that only more and more.