Original: Zhanhao source official account: Zhanhao wechat id:zhanhao668
When a country has strong power but is not the world’s first power, then there must be a phenomenon: the world leader will unite a group of servant countries to besiege you. In the face of this situation, we can neither lose strategic concentration in anxiety, nor shrink back and do nothing in the face of the situation. In dealing with some fallacies, we should not only show our strength, but also make clear the truth to the world, which is called being tough with both hands.
The NATO summit just passed, as scheduled, became a meeting of the United States’ leading and subordinate countries against China and Russia. Its so-called “strategic concept” document – “NATO 2022 strategic concept” identified Russia as the “biggest and direct threat” of NATO. China was listed in the document for the first time, and it was also considered to “challenge the security, interests and values of NATO” and “pose a systematic challenge to Europe and the Atlantic”. “The deepening cooperation between China and Russia” is described as an attempt to “undermine the rule-based international order, which runs counter to our values and interests.”
NATO’s “strategic concept” document is updated about every ten years, but this time it has not been updated since 2010. There is a reason why it has been delayed for so long. According to Zhanhao (wechat official account: Zhanhao), there are two fundamental reasons:
The definition of the relationship between the United States and Russia was not clear enough before. Let us not forget that in 2010, NATO also designated Russia as a “strategic partner” in the “strategic concept” document, and the war in Georgia did not make NATO regard Russia as a threat. However, in 2013, Russia prevented the United States from attacking Syria, which angered the United States, detonated the color revolution in Ukraine, and finally forced Russia to annex Crimea, thus the relationship between Russia and NATO began to break completely. At this stage of development, something more important must happen before the relationship between NATO and Russia can be redefined.
The other is that the United States and Europe have not reached an agreement on defining the relationship with China. The core problem is that the common interests of China and the EU far outweigh differences, and it is very difficult for the United States to persuade the EU to oppose China. In this case, the United States needs to create a strong enemy for the European Union in exchange for their anti China on the condition of protecting them.
Now, the document has been released. The fundamental reason is that these two issues have become comprehensive and clear to the consensus of the United States and Europe on NATO after the outbreak of the Russian Ukrainian war.
In fact, why the Russo Ukrainian war has been hyped since the fourth quarter of last year and broke out in February this year, in addition to Russia being forced to prepare for war to break the move of Ukraine to join NATO, it is the NATO plan promoted by the United States.
According to the plan, NATO decided to define a new “strategic concept” at this year’s Madrid summit at the time of the Brussels summit last June. Therefore, in order to compile this document in line with the interests of the United States, the Russian Ukrainian war must also break out, which is why the United States has a few months from hype to the outbreak of the war.
In fact, even at the last moment, Russia was still rescuing the situation. Putin repeatedly stressed that it was OK to return to the “new Minsk agreement”, but the fact was that it was simply impossible, and finally Russia had to launch. Therefore, the essence of this matter is that the United States must force Russia to do it, and Russia has to do it in the face of the situation.
When you return to the new strategic document of NATO, you will find that the United States promotes NATO to identify Russia as the “biggest and direct threat”, so NATO will first try to solve Russia; Secondly, the US led NATO’s positioning of China is actually the future Russia, that is to say, as long as it falls, the next must be China.
Therefore, today, China has become the next imaginary enemy of NATO’s “strategic concept” under the will of the United States, that is, “challenging NATO’s security, interests and values” and “posing a systematic challenge to Europe and the Atlantic”.
You should see clearly that China has become a challenge to the security, interests and values of NATO under the will of the United States, and has even posed a systematic challenge to Europe and the Atlantic. Why did this statement enter the NATO document? Has China really become a challenge to the security and interests of Europe? Of course, the answer is No. there is no direct strategic contradiction between China and Europe, only a large number of common interests. The reason why NATO expressed this is a political exchange between the United States and Europe.
Why would such an exchange be made? The reason is also very simple. The United States created Russia, a huge “security threat” to Europe through provocation. Europe urgently needs the protection of the United States, and the United States bought the European countries’ agreement with NATO’s statement to China in exchange for improving the protection of Europe, increasing its troops in Eastern Europe and expanding its military deployment in Eastern Europe. This is the truth of this matter. The United States took dealing with Russia as a bargaining chip in exchange for EU support for its anti China. To put it more thoroughly, China is the primary enemy of the United States and Russia is the primary enemy of the European Union. Therefore, the two sides reached such a “consensus” through the collusion transaction.
Obviously, at this stage, the United States is pushing NATO to regard Russia as its biggest enemy, and then forcing Europe to agree to list China as a “potential enemy”. However, this document does not mean that the United States and Europe have no differences, because the connotation of this document obviously contains such a logic, that is, the United States must help Europe solve the threat of Russia, and Europe will help the United States deal with China. This part of Europe’s intention is actually described in the document to a certain extent. Of course, this part of the description is also in the interests of the United States.
In this document, NATO described the “deepening cooperation between China and Russia” as an attempt to “undermine the rule-based international order, which runs counter to our values and interests. Therefore, the intention of the United States and Europe is very clear, to pressure China and undermine Sino Russian cooperation. At the same time, the document also said that it should maintain its contact strategy with China.
From this, we can see that the United States and Europe have actually determined a strategy against China, that is, to pressure China through contacts with China and force China to reduce its cooperation with Russia, so as to really force Russia to stop its military operations in Ukraine. Obviously, there are obvious differences within Europe on the treatment of China. Belgian Prime Minister Jacques de Croix warned in Brussels on June 27 that China should not be treated as another Russia. “The last thing we should do is to abandon China as we abandon Russia.” Before that, Dutch Prime Minister Ruud also made similar remarks, saying that cutting off relations with China would not “help anyone”. He advocated the “third way”, and Europe need not be forced to choose between the United States and China.
At this moment, you should understand that all the ambitions of NATO towards China are essentially the ambitions of the United States towards China. The United States wants to use Russia as a threat to force the European Union to act according to the will of the United States, and then pull NATO to deal with China with all its strength.
Based on such contradictions and differences within NATO, we should understand how prescient we were in our previous position on the Russian Ukrainian war.
If we completely stand on the side of Russia, it will not only violate China’s great power diplomatic strategy, cause the suspicion of surrounding countries, but also objectively aggravate the confrontation between us and the European Union, which is exactly the whole set of the United States, which is urgently hoped by the United States, and we will never be set.
If we oppose Russia according to the intentions of the United States and Europe, we will dismantle the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between China and Russia, which the United States has been unable to dismantle for many years, as the United States wishes. China and Russia rely on each other strategically, which is the pillar of major country relations for the strategic security of the two countries and the pillar of maintaining peace in the world, so China must not be fooled.
What is the best relationship between China and Russia? That is to constantly deepen bilateral cooperation, and constantly promote cooperation based on equality, mutual benefit and win-win results, which is not targeted at any third party. Of course, if a third party targets China and Russia at the same time, I’m sorry, China and Russia will also unite against that third party.
China must target the United States. As for Europe, we should strive to expand cooperation and common interests, rather than promote confrontation as the United States wishes.
NATO’s ambition is the ambition of the United States. We must see this clearly and understand how to do it to our strategic advantage! As long as China maintains its strategic determination, and as long as we do not follow the U.S. routine, those plans of the White House will be impossible to achieve in the end!