For an extended period, the official newspaper of the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army Daily (Jiefangjun Bao), has consistently emphasized a principle that may soon be untenable. When addressing the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in military command, the publication has repeatedly asserted that, although machines can handle data, propose actions, and expedite decision-making processes, ultimate authority and accountability remain with human commanders. A 2025 article encapsulates this sentiment, stating that the allocation of command authority is a responsibility only a human can bear in wartime.
On January 24, 2026, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense revealed that Zhang Youxia, the vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, and Liu Zhenli, the chief of the Joint Staff Department, were under investigation for serious disciplinary and legal violations. These two individuals were the last high-ranking officials in the Chinese military with considerable operational experience. Their ousting means that five out of the six members appointed by General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2022 have been removed; only Xi, with little military background, and Zhang Shengmin, who focuses on discipline rather than command, remain. Notably, for the first time since the Cultural Revolution, the pivotal role of the Joint Staff Department is vacant.
The People’s Liberation Army asserts the irreplaceability of experienced commanders even as it faces a diminishing pool of them. This ongoing contradiction raises questions about how Xi maintains control over a military whose operational efficacy he seems wary of. The ongoing purges indicate a lack of trust in human commanders, while the increasing reliance on AI reflects hopes that technology can fill this void. Collectively, these developments suggest that the erosion of the Central Military Commission represents not just a challenge for Xi but a situation he may be prepared to endure.
The notion that humans are indispensable in military command is frequently reiterated in the People’s Liberation Army Daily, particularly in the context of rising AI usage. An analysis of over 145,000 articles published from January 2018 to June 2026 reveals a significant increase in references to the necessity of human commanders amidst the rapid embrace of AI. Specifically, mentions asserting the commander’s final authority rose from 45 in 2018 to 153 in 2025, indicating a complex relationship where enthusiasm for AI does not diminish the insistence on human oversight.
The methodology for this analysis involved a thorough search of the articles’ texts for specific key terms related to AI, military command, and decision-making. The findings suggest that, regardless of AI advancements, the human element remains essential, with AI functioning mainly as an assistant. Furthermore, discussions of AI autonomy emphasize maintaining human oversight.
However, it is essential to recognize the nature of the People’s Liberation Army Daily, as its content requires institutional approval and does not necessarily reflect individual opinions. The persistent emphasis on human command authority appears more as a reflection of institutional commitment rather than unfiltered truth. The paper's silence on certain topics may also point to institutional boundaries rather than mere oversight.
The Central Military Commission has drastically transformed since 2017; only two members remain after a series of dismissals. This lack of representation has been compared to a scenario where nearly all members of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff are removed, making effective military operation challenging. The ongoing pattern of replacing high-ranking leaders with individuals lacking command experience signals a significant strategic vulnerability.
Xi retains the power to reverse these changes through a simple party session but has so far chosen not to do so. This raises two potential interpretations: either he views the resulting degradation of military readiness as an acceptable trade-off for political reliability, or he perceives the commission as increasingly ceremonial, with operational authority being centralized under him. In either case, the ongoing vacancies signal an alarming status quo.
Debate exists regarding the implications of these structural changes. Some analysts argue that while the disruption is temporary, it sets the stage for future tensions as less experienced commanders may not challenge Xi’s assertive military strategy effectively. Others suggest that the inherent nature of the system encourages purges, leading to a culture of inflated reporting and diminished operational capacity.
As for the relationship between purges and the adoption of AI, it appears the Chinese military is trying to fill gaps left by the removal of seasoned officers with technological solutions. Reports indicate that the military is rapidly advancing its AI capabilities across various operational domains, with leadership potentially distrustful of current command structures and looking to AI for support.
Despite this enthusiasm for AI, the People’s Liberation Army Daily fundamentally asserts that the responsibility for command must remain human. The newspaper emphasizes the importance of seasoned commanders rather than presenting AI as a suitable replacement, suggesting that the discourse around AI is more about enhancement rather than substitution.
If the military does pursue a path where AI replaces leadership roles, it may encounter significant obstacles, most notably the degradation of accurate reporting caused by the ongoing purges. The integrity of AI decision-making hinges on the quality of the data it receives, and if the chain of command is tainted by fear and misrepresentation, the utility of AI may be severely compromised.
It appears that the military recognizes issues related to data integrity, as evidenced by discussions detailing concerns over biased reporting and the quality of training data used in AI systems. However, there remains a notable disconnect in acknowledging the connection between political pressures and the corruption of necessary data streams for military AI.
The topic remains elusive within institutional discourse, and the failure to recognize the deterioration of information quality linked to political purges suggests a deeper, systemic issue. The inability to address these problems limits the military's ability to improve, as identifying the political roots of these challenges would necessitate scrutiny of the very leadership enforcing them.
In conclusion, the interplay between purges and the military’s turn towards AI reflects broader anxieties about operational trust within the Chinese military apparatus. Xi’s reliance on AI could be seen as an attempt to mitigate the risks posed by an eroded command structure that remains publicly championed. The current trajectory indicates that, unless these underlying issues are addressed, the integration of AI into military operations may not yield the strategic advantage sought by China’s leadership.
