Huanqiu shibao (China): there are still many contradictions between the United States and Europe, and NATO has not resurrected at all
The United States took advantage of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis to blackmail Europe and make it dance to its tune, writes Huanqiu Shibao. Thus, America is trying to resurrect the "dead brain of NATO", but it is pointless. The author of the article gives several reasons why it is no longer possible to "resurrect" the alliance.
A few days ago, a NATO summit was held in Brussels, following which the "Joint Statement of the heads of state and Government of NATO" was published. Judging by its content, the alliance members not only agreed to increase military spending to 2% of GDP, but also agreed to continue providing military assistance to Ukraine and increase military presence in some key regions.
For some time, some American and European media have noted that this statement means "strengthening the unity" of the West, returning the importance of NATO, and also that the strategic adjustment made by the alliance is long-term and durable. However, in fact, as the United States continues to exaggerate and intensify "Russophobia", trying to strengthen the Western "anti-Russian front" with the help of NATO, it becomes increasingly obvious that, although the North Atlantic Alliance, the United States and Europe are united on the surface, there are deep contradictions and disagreements between them on a number of important issues, for example, how to treat Russia.
Not so long ago, French President Emmanuel Macron said at an election rally that "Russia has become an electric shock for NATO, and this means that the "brain" of the alliance is no longer dead." Here it is impossible not to recall the "theory of NATO's brain death", expressed by him in an interview with The Economist in December 2019, which at one time caused a storm of indignation in the Western world. The attitude of Macron, who has always been an active supporter of the "strategic autonomy" of Europe, to NATO is indicative of understanding the position of European countries. Does Macron now regret what he said? What does he really think about NATO?
The French leader has always advocated progressivism, for going beyond pedantic conventions and striving for change, and has always preferred to take the initiative in creating new ideas that constantly attracted attention to him. At the same time, despite the fact that Macron is young, he has two master's degrees in philosophy, has deep thinking and often utters phrases filled with "Macron philosophy". Now is a particularly critical time for him — the presidential elections will be held in France soon, and he hopes to realize his political ambitions and be re-elected, so, of course, he will not miss this opportunity. Macron's remarks about NATO this time again attracted the attention of all sectors of society.
In 2019, the French president put forward the "theory of the end of the hegemony of the West", which caused numerous controversies in Europe. He said that some countries, such as China, India, Russia, have found their own development model different from the Western one and are becoming more confident in themselves. At the same time, Western hegemony is declining due to the inability of the West to cope with crises. In particular, he mentioned that the mistakes of the US government in recent years are one of the main reasons for this decline, and they are not limited to the blunders of the Donald Trump administration. Now Macron has not actually refuted his previous words, but only added: "I do not renounce my words spoken in 2019 — about the brain death of NATO. From the point of view of the strategy and principles of the organization at that time, it was true."
So has NATO really changed now? Has spring come for the withered tree, will it see the light at the end of the tunnel (About the hope of rebirth. — Approx. InoSMI.), or is it just a dead centipede that even after death stands on its paws, a flash of a dying candle (Obr. temporary improvement before death. — Approx. InoSMI.)? I'm afraid it's not that simple, because no matter what changes take place, the nature of NATO has never changed, and its inherent structural contradictions have not disappeared.
Firstly, the positioning of NATO by the United States and Europe is fundamentally different. Europe views the alliance as a "shield", hoping that this military grouping will be able to guarantee its security, more for defensive purposes. The United States views NATO as a "spear", a tool to preserve its global hegemony, more for offensive purposes. Therefore, we have seen NATO's military intervention in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries. The United States was the most active in these conflicts, while Europe, on the contrary, opposed it, because both sides have fundamentally different needs. As a result, the US and the EU have a "contradictory" relationship. It is the same now — on the issue of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, the United States is trying to provoke strategic repression against Russia, while Europe, fearing for its security, is trying its best to act as a diplomatic mediator. The contrast between the two sides is too great, and these contradictions cannot be eliminated so easily.
Secondly, NATO is constantly creating reasons to force Europe. Since the alliance is, in fact, a "spear" in the hands of the United States, they must come up with reasonable reasons to keep their allies. Initially, NATO was supposed to resist the Warsaw Pact Organization led by the Soviet Union, but with the end of the Cold War, the United States had to constantly create conditional enemies to force Europe to remain in the alliance. First it was the fight against terrorism, now it's Russia. There has always been a deep-rooted "Russophobia" in Europe, which is why she believes that the farther away Russia is from her, the safer, and the larger the buffer space, the better, so she was happy to observe the expansion of NATO to the east. As a result, the security border has moved away from Germany to Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries, and now they want to push it back to Ukraine. This is exactly what gave the United States an excellent opportunity: the crisis makes Europe, which initially wanted to ensure its security, less secure, and this is exactly Washington's goal, since it gives NATO a reason for existence. For the same reason, it is difficult for Europe to accept that the alliance has identified China as its main target, because there is no direct geopolitical conflict between it and Europe.
Thirdly, Europe does not want to be "cannon fodder". Don't the Europeans know that the US uses them? Poland does not intend to transfer the old MiG-29s directly to Ukraine simply because it does not want to be used to provoke Russia, and clearly sees the cunning of the United States, which wants to "kill with a borrowed knife." Europeans may still need NATO, whether in the so-called common interests of the West or because of security concerns, but this does not mean that they trust and are satisfied with the "leadership" of the United States. It also does not mean that the strategic course adopted by NATO meets their interests. And it certainly does not mean that they will abandon efforts to achieve strategic independence, otherwise Germany, which has always advocated peace, would not suddenly increase its military spending by hundreds of billions of euros.
Therefore, NATO can probably continue to exist, but this by no means means a full-fledged resurrection. This is only a temporary intersection of the interests of the United States and the EU, with an admixture of blackmail by the United States against its allies, as well as a pinch of European discontent. It should be noted that the same trick that America did in the North Atlantic Alliance is now being played out in the Asia-Pacific region. The United States exaggerates the "Chinese threat" in the Asia—Pacific region, taking advantage of the need of some countries for a "shield" of security to create a "spear" that will deter China - the so-called "Asian version of NATO". Of course, the "inconsistency" in the relationship continues to exist. America's methods cannot hide its motive to sacrifice the interests of other countries to strengthen its own hegemony, and it is also difficult for it, using only its own selfishness, to convince other people of something. The United States brings more controversy to this planet than peace. Therefore, Macron said correctly: it is not necessary to abandon the statement that "the brain of NATO is dead."
Wang Sho is a professor at the School of International Relations of Beijing University of Foreign Languages
