That ignores the fact about the 'airspace'. The facts in the piece are accurate and have been confirmed by many sources
I pointed out a fact that was inaccurate: that China had not fought any wars. The statement in the article was either ignorance or a lie. But that said, there's no need to contest facts about airspace in the article.
It was a record number of military aircraft crossing a zone, previously established (by Taiwan). It was a clear challenge to Taiwanese authority; the entire point of the exercise. These challenges take place in proximity to these countries celebrating certain anniversaries and accompanied with corresponding rhetoric.
He is free to cite his resume and opine that it is just rhetoric. However, making such an obvious error on a basic fact in a published article on the area of his supposed expertise is not encouraging. Taiwan scrambled their military in response. Japan remarked that China's ambition on Taiwan closely resembled the precursors of Russian aggression before the invasion of Crimea. But we are supposed to believe this man talked with lots of people in various countries of the region and his expert opinion is that nothing really was happening. Okay. Maybe.
Maybe it was just posturing or maybe China was testing to see if they could pull off an invasion (such as they have done before in their history). If he had not gotten such a basic fact wrong, I would be more inclined to believe him. But now I just consider it a lucky guess if he happens to be right. You can't put forth that you know what you are talking about with Taiwan-China relations and be taken that seriously when you get the most basic pertinent historical fact outright wrong. He was obliged to explain why it is not like the Chinese liberation invasion of Tibet or like the precursors to the Russian invasion of Crimea.