Author: Rong ping source: official account: Rong Ping (id:rongping898) has been authorized to reprint
At the NATO summit just past, the “China Challenge” was written into NATO’s “strategic concept document” for the first time.
This strategic document is revised almost every ten years to determine the priorities and core tasks of NATO in the next ten years. That is to say, in the next ten years, containment of China will become the daily work of NATO.
But this statement is quite embarrassing.
How far is China from the Atlantic Ocean? Which country in NATO borders you? China’s warships are mainly focused on the Pacific Ocean. Is it threatening your east coast or west coast of the Atlantic Ocean?
You can’t be anti China and ignore basic common sense and logic, can you?
So it’s too serious to play at all.
So NATO said, you and China do not agree with our values and undermine the “rule-based international order”, so we have to deal with you.
Is this statement familiar? It’s completely Lao Mei’s upper body!
Therefore, the factors behind NATO’s forcible alignment with China are imminent——
The United States wants to maintain the global strategic layout, but Russia is breaking the boat in Europe, Iran is poised in the Middle East, and China is competing in Asia. Against the backdrop of the overall decline of U.S. national strength, it simply cannot afford enough resources to confront the three lines at the same time.
In particular, the Biden administration is relatively weak, and its support rate has fallen to the bottom, which makes the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States more sluggish.
Therefore, the United States urgently needs to integrate all its allies and drag as many forces as possible into the global strategic framework of the United States. The most ideal situation is that there is a mature single system such as NATO, which can be directly compatible with and cover the entire Eurasian military resources, so that the little brothers can make money and efforts at ease to ensure that the United States can easily maintain global hegemony.
At that time, such integration was almost impossible for trump, but now after the war between Russia and Ukraine, NATO has been revitalized, and the power of the United States has greatly increased. Biden just had such an opportunity!
Therefore, NATO’s attempt to expand in the Asia Pacific region is actually a process of being on the U.S. pirate ship and serving as a pawn for U.S. global hegemony.
However, the center of gravity of the NATO system is Europe after all, and China is at the end of the Eurasian continent. NATO still lacks a strong grasp to deal with China.
It’s impossible for all of them to come to China’s surrounding waters to proclaim “freedom of navigation” every day, like the British, with an unruly aircraft carrier fleet?
How many times have you come? Have you not all become a live target of the Chinese army?
So at this NATO summit, NATO made an unusual move – breaking the previous habit of playing in a closed circle and bringing in Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
In the West Pacific, these four generals are among the top four in terms of Anti China, so the logic behind this is very clear: just like expanding its membership in Russia, NATO is ready to develop a bridgehead at the door of China!
As the “old five eyes”, it is not uncommon for Australia and New Zealand to act as a bridgehead for the United States. What is interesting about this incident is actually the attitude of Japan and South Korea.
You know, at present, the Asia Pacific region is the most active region in the global economy. People in the Asia Pacific region are more ambitious. Compared with other places, people in the Asia Pacific region have a stronger desire to make money safely and steadily, and have a lower degree of echo for the confrontation between politics and values of major countries.
Moreover, the Asia Pacific was once the hardest hit area of colonial rule, and it was also sensitive to being dominated by Western powers.
At this time, Japan and South Korea “lead wolves into the house” and lead the way to military groups such as NATO. In fact, they are creating problems for the whole region. This move is bound to make the Asia Pacific region more camped, and the pressure on countries to “choose sides” will increase greatly. Moreover, with the escalation of military confrontation, Asia Pacific countries will inevitably be dragged into a high-intensity arms race.
Japan and South Korea have now turned themselves into the spokesperson of NATO. The more countries do not want to stand in line in the camp confrontation, the more cautious they will be about their cooperation with Japan and South Korea. In the end, Japan and South Korea will face more serious political isolation than today.
Moreover, serving as a bridgehead for NATO means that Japan and South Korea need to transfer more sovereignty and take the initiative to strengthen U.S. control over themselves, which is not in the interests of Japan and South Korea.
But even if so, Japan and South Korea are willing to lead the way, but also have to do calculations.
First, Japan and South Korea need to counter China’s influence.
Even if Japan and South Korea are not mentioned as the two front lines of defense under the Anti China Alliance System of the United States, from the perspective of neighboring countries alone, they have also maintained sufficient vigilance against China’s development and growth.
For example, China’s GDP just surpassed that of Japan in 2010, and it is only a little over 10 years now. Its GDP has been more than three times that of Japan, and the overwhelming advantage is becoming more and more obvious. As neighbors, China and Japan cannot move away, which makes the Japanese more anxious and afraid of China’s rise than the Americans.
Therefore, Japan actively promotes the “Asia Pacific orientation” of NATO and stirs up the international pattern unfavorable to China in the Asia Pacific region. Like the intention of the United States, it is to win over more forces, further encircle and contain China, and hedge China’s increasingly obvious comparative advantages.
On economic and security issues, South Korea is more dependent on China than Japan. Although the Anti China rhythm is not as fast as Japan, on the whole, South Korea has been actively strengthening the U.S. – Japan alliance in recent years, and has focused on strengthening ties with extraterritorial forces such as Europe, with the purpose of balancing China’s influence.
Second, ease the anxiety after the decline of the United States.
The withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and the performance of the Russian Ukrainian war have made allies have widespread doubts about the commitment and ability of eldest brother.
In particular, countries and regions such as Europe, Japan and South Korea, whose security depends entirely on the United States, must adapt to the new reality of the decline of the United States in advance.
How to adapt? The only answer is not to be completely tied to the United States and seek a certain degree of “Strategic Autonomy”.
But this strategic autonomy can’t be the autonomy in the face of the United States. Unless your eldest brother agrees to go it alone, you’ll have to spank your eldest brother if you break up in front of him.
The best way is that Japan and Europe are close to each other within the framework of the alliance of the United States, which is why Japan and Europe like to talk about the “indivisibility of Asia Europe security”.
To put it bluntly, seeing that the eldest brother is getting old and the heads of households who sit next to him are a little worried, and they have the ambition to improve their sense of existence and occupy a place in the new Shanzhai pattern, so it is natural to stick together.
Third, economic factors.
Both Europe, Japan and South Korea are facing an embarrassing problem: economic development cannot be separated from China and Russia. However, with the comprehensive confrontation between China and the United States and the war between Russia and Ukraine, the geopolitical risks of investment and trade between China and Russia are increasing.
So how to hedge this risk? Nature is to choose relatively stable objects to cooperate and enhance the right to speak.
For example, Europe, Japan and South Korea all want to benefit from the development of relations with China. As long as South Korea, Japan and Europe keep pace, unilateral pressure from the United States will naturally be less, and there is no “pro China” problem.
Similarly, Europe, Japan and South Korea have to follow the United States in Anti China actions, so as long as South Korea, Japan and Europe keep pace, China’s stress response in economic and trade cooperation is naturally smaller.
Especially for Japan and South Korea, this demand is particularly urgent.
So this NATO summit, although openly talking about security and maritime order, Yin Xiyue and Kishida Wenxiong still went with the economic menu. South Korea wanted to promote cooperation in tram batteries, autonomous driving, nuclear power and other aspects, while Japan placed the pie of “income doubling plan” and “new capitalism” proposed by Kishida on Europe.
In addition, Japan and South Korea also have some different thoughts.
From the perspective of Japan. The tendency of turning to the “right” in Japan is becoming more and more serious. The biggest ambition of the Liberal Democratic Party is to completely get rid of the shackles of the “defeated country” and let Japan fly again.
Therefore, one of the most important purposes of Japan is to deliberately muddy the waters by taking advantage of the momentum of the “Indo Pacific strategy” of the United States and the “Eastward Expansion” of NATO, so as to highlight the strategic value of Japan in the Indo Pacific and make the West rely more on Japan in exchange for recognition of Japan’s “great power status”.
This recognition is not for nothing. Since Japan is the front line of the “democratic world” against China and Russia, and has such a sacred position, can the hat of “a defeated country” be removed? Can the restrictions on armament, constitutional amendment and arms export be relaxed? If Japan wants to regain the glory of “Asian military and political power”, can it turn a blind eye?
From the perspective of South Korea. The nuclear issue of North Korea and the peninsula is a worry of South Koreans. After a long delay, it has now become an international issue.
Since it is an international issue, South Korea naturally needs to strive for the attention and support of France, Germany, Italy and other major countries outside China and the United States as much as possible, whether it is facing pressure on North Korea at the Security Council level, or cooperating with international sanctions, providing assistance to the United States and South Korea, and helping to suppress the fat people in the north.
It is precisely because of these potential interests that although “opening the door and leading the way” for NATO in the Asia Pacific region will inevitably cause dissatisfaction among countries in the region, integrating the plaster flag and the Tai Chi Flag into political beacons of opposing camps, and it is not conducive to Japan and South Korea to carry out international cooperation, Japan and South Korea are still very active in cooperating with the United States as the leading Party.
However, Japan and South Korea are not stupid. It is necessary to cooperate with NATO and take an anti China stance, but it does not mean that Japan and South Korea really want to charge for the United States, or even use the cold war style means of the United States to deal with China and Russia.
What matters is the degree
The most favorable situation for Japan and South Korea is to put themselves in the position of “NATO +” and carry out more cooperation in military exercises, network security, information sharing, strategic communication and so on, so as to take advantage of the potential of NATO to strengthen their courage.
Of course, even if Japan and South Korea really want to be insiders, whether this “Asia Pacific version of NATO” can succeed remains to be seen.
At the simplest level, the situation in Asia is far more complex than that in Europe. European countries can cooperate equally within the framework of NATO, but Asian countries are alienated and even hostile to each other. Among other things, the contradictions between Japan and South Korea, the two “acting protagonists”, are irreconcilable, which determines that it is difficult for Asia to copy the construction of NATO.
What’s more, the focus of NATO is still on the European side, and the expansion requires everyone to agree, but how many countries will be willing to challenge China and North Korea in order to accept Japan and South Korea?
This kind of challenge is not only shouting slogans, but also not just bearing the consequences of the deterioration of relations with China. It also requires NATO to shift its limited resources from “defending Europe” to Asia, which has nothing to do with them in terms of security. This means that the burden of all NATO members will be increased. When it comes to money, how many countries will be “awe inspiring”?
Therefore, it can only be said that it is possible to really launch the “Asian version of NATO”, but it is impossible to make any substantive noise in the short term.
On the contrary, the United States actively promoted NATO’s entry into Asia, which also exposed one thing, that is, the Indian Pacific strategy of the United States has not achieved the expected results for so long.
The reason is very simple: the introduction of NATO under such an unjust name proves that neither the traditional bilateral relations of the United States in the Asia Pacific region, such as the alliance between the United States, Japan, the United States, South Korea and Australia and new bilateral relations established in recent years, such as the “Quartet security dialogue” between the United States, Japan, India and Australia, and the United States, Britain and Australia aukus, are sufficient to check and balance China.
What if there is no balance?
Then we can only choose to continue to increase the size and constantly come up with new tricks to show the aggressive and enterprising attitude of the United States and that the initiative is still in the hands of the United States. Otherwise, people will lose heart.
In fact, from India’s unwillingness to follow Western sanctions, instead increasing Russia’s energy imports, to South Korea’s always on the fence with China, reserving a large space for cooperation, and then to Biden’s promotion of the “Indo Pacific economic framework”, there are few respondents, which shows that the stability of the Indo Pacific strategy is insufficient, which is a little false compared with Biden’s posture that he talks about every day.
Therefore, the push of NATO into Asia is also a symbolic action to a large extent, which is to tell the world that the United States still has global leadership, and that it can still attract a large number of people who want to do it.
This dead duck has a hard mouth. You can’t refuse it!
At the end of the article, the author has something to say
The West has always had a strange logic, which was also staged at this NATO summit.
That is, while opposing China’s “changing the status quo” in the region, NATO wants to borrow Japan and South Korea to “solve challenges” in Asia.
What is opposition to “changing the status quo”? In other words, China’s military strength should not be developed any more, should not move outward, should not move Taiwan, should not move in the current pattern, and should wait for the United States to lead people to arrange the battlefield and regain its advantage.
What is “solving challenges”? China is too bad. We will go to Asia to “do justice for heaven” and beat China up. Asia affected by China will become a gathering place of qualified human beings successfully transformed under the sword of the West and in accordance with western democracy.
China is not allowed to move, and the west is free to move. This double label logic can be naturally explained by others, cow?
But in this set of things, bullying is OK. Anyway, as long as the difference between strong and weak is obvious enough, there is no need to talk about logic.
However, China is not a weak country to be manipulated by others.
Let’s look at foreign minister Wangyi’s itinerary in the past six months, from the Gulf, ASEAN to the South Pacific and Latin America, from holding meetings of countries around Afghanistan to sending heavyweight officials to the inauguration ceremony of the president of South Korea, which shows that China’s diplomatic strategy is very flexible.
In addition, with the heavy weapons of the great powers represented by the “Fujian” entering the blowout period, the normalized war preparedness for the Taiwan Strait has taken shape, and the space for military cooperation with Russia is also fascinating. The military balance between China and the United States is changing rapidly.
This is the typical “you fight you, I fight me”. The soft side is that in the South Pacific and Latin America, the United States can win a son of the United States, and can use economic and trade relations to dismantle the Taiwan of the American alliance in Europe, South Korea and other aspects; The hard side can also compete with the United States in the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, showing a deterrent that cannot be ignored.
In a word, the United States has Zhang Liangji, China has a wall ladder, the United States can form a containment situation, China can break the anti containment situation.
Of course, with the United States instigating NATO to target China, the risk of such containment and anti containment is indeed increasing.
Whether Japan and South Korea really want to make trouble or not, it is still a very dangerous move to use themselves as a bridgehead to provoke confrontation and attract the world’s strongest military forces to East Asia.
Can it substantially hurt China? No!
However, East Asia is so large that more and more forces are engaged in an arms race here, especially in explosive spots such as Taiwan. It is not impossible to wipe the gun and go off the fire if the balance beam does not go well one day.
However, the size and comprehensive military strength of China and the United States are there, especially with nuclear weapons at the bottom of the box. It is inevitable that they will not meet directly when fighting, so where will it be a battlefield?
There is no doubt that fighting is the bridgehead!
I still hope Japan and South Korea wake up.