You can sit by the fire in your Shangri-La summit
The lack of public disagreement at the security summit helps cool down tensions, but also increases the risk of misunderstanding when delegates are fed party lines and half-truths.
The Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s premier annual security summit, has long served as a test for our region’s strategic temperature.
Hosted in Singapore, the summit has historically provided a platform for frank, sometimes confrontational, exchanges on the Indo-Pacific’s most pressing security challenges.
In 2025, however, it revealed something else: a region increasingly strained, but more cautious in how it speaks.
Over two and a half days, the summit brought together 54 official delegations, including 28 ministers and three heads of state, alongside senior military leaders, defence industry figures and media.
Despite its scale, the tone this year was notably subdued.
The usual firebrand interventions were tempered. Language was hedged. The stakes, it seemed, were too high for unfiltered candour.
From maritime to continental concerns
Since its onset, Russia’s war in Ukraine has redirected attention toward continental Eurasia
Traditionally, the summit has concentrated on the risks posed to our region by disputed maritime claims, tensions over Taiwan, and the risks of major power competition spilling over into conflict.
Over the last couple of years, however, Russia’s war in Ukraine has redirected attention toward continental Eurasia.
The European presence was larger than in previous years, reflecting a growing concern that Ukraine may mark not an isolated conflict but the opening chapter in a new era of regional disorder.
Ministers noted that authoritarian regimes were watching Ukraine closely, to test the West’s resolve. If Russia gets away with seizing its neighbour’s territory, breaking international law, and defying international norms, then that ‘sent a green light’ to others.
Blue zone, green zone, grey zone, tech zone
Ukraine has also shown how the nature of warfare is changing rapidly. Cyber operations, undersea infrastructure sabotage, space-based targeting and AI-driven command systems are being used alongside tanks and troops on the ground.
French President Emmanuel Macron, the chief guest, joined other senior leaders in emphasising the importance of states investing in their own defence capabilities in the face of these multi-zone complexities.
The challenges facing the international order, from hybrid warfare to coercive diplomacy, are now so complex and diffuse that no country – no matter how geographically distant – is immune. We needed to be able to show individual resolve and resilience, and collective deterrence.
The Trump effect: rhetoric and reality
Hegseth made it clear that China remains the US’s number one peer competitor and that it sees the Indo-Pacific as its “primary theatre”
Attention inevitably turned to Washington. With President Trump back in the White House and Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defence, allies and partners were listening closely and cautiously to how the US presented its assessment of and commitment to the Indo-Pacific.
Hegseth made it clear that China remains the US’s number one peer competitor and that it sees the Indo-Pacific as its “primary theatre”. The Department of Defence’s overriding objectives are to “restore the warrior [strength-based] ethos, rebuild [US] military and reestablish deterrence”.
At the same time, Hegseth noted that the US expects allies and partners to contribute more and faster to help preserve the regional balance of power in favour of democracies and the established rules-based order.
Asked about the intersection of US defence and trade policy, and countries’ ability to pay for rising defence costs alongside mounting tariffs, Hegseth quipped that he dealt with “tanks not tariffs” and left the question largely unanswered.
Strategic silence
With many countries engaged in sensitive trade negotiations with the US (and also China), the summit remained unusually muted. Few wanted to risk diplomatic fallout – with real consequences to their economies – by appearing openly critical.
China’s decision to send a university delegation in place of its defence minister was widely seen in this light – as a careful strategy to keep relations and complex trade negotiations on track or at the very least, not derailed.
Southeast Asia continued its policy of circumspection, agreeing to the problems but arguing for dialogue and mutual understanding. Delegates from Myanmar civil society argued this approach had failed their country and called on Asean to do more.
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim (right) meets with US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in May
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim advocated for “active non-alignment” and called for a “dynamic equilibrium” of both major powers – the US and China – in the region.
Thailand reiterated its policy of “friends to all”.
Only the Philippines adopted a more assertive tone, with its military chief detailing the country’s deteriorating security environment under constant pressure from China’s navy.
Singapore’s new incoming minister of defence, Chan Chun Sing, urged states to invest in their own defence capability, but to remember to “play the issue, not the country”, and uphold credible and principled objectivity in the face of compounding regional challenges. That meant assessing issues at face value, staying true to the nation’s values, and backing assessments with swift action.
A shrinking space for strategic debate
Taken together, these trends point to a worrying dynamic for democracies: a narrowing space for open strategic discussion.
Countries are speaking less candidly, either out of economic caution or fear of diplomatic or security repercussions.
The summit, once a forum where red lines were drawn publicly, now reflects a world where those lines are blurred behind closed doors.
Although this helps to take the temperature down and mitigate the risk of escalation, it also increases the risk of misunderstanding if – as the Philippines argued – delegates are fed party lines and half-truths rather than a clear picture of on-the-ground reality.
Muted or not, the summit ended with a clear, collective resolve to push back against the actions of authoritarian states. From the small island states through to major powers, every minister on stage detailed their plan to step up their defences and diplomacy.
As one European speaker noted, “the time for politeness has passed”.
The Foundation's Asia in Focus initiative publishes expert insights and analysis on issues across Asia, as well as New Zealand’s evolving relationship with the region.
