The content of this article is written with authoritative information combined with personal opinions, and the source of the literature and screenshots have been marked at the end of the article, please be aware.
Recently, the NATO summit officially opened in Washington, United States. In this meeting of Western countries, China, as the largest country in Asia, turned out to be the protagonist of this meeting. What's going on here?
NATO's "three roads", how will the confrontation with Russia proceed?
Today, the most important thing for NATO is its confrontation with Russia. And this is also a critical moment in the Russia-Ukraine war, and every step of NATO will have a key impact on this war.
NATO currently has three paths, one is to withdraw troops, one is to continue to support behind the scenes, and the other is to personally support Russia. Each of these three paths has its own advantages and disadvantages, as well as different risks to NATO's future development.
The first path is the withdrawal of troops, and the first thing that can be speculated is that it is almost impossible for NATO to choose this path. Because the Russian-Ukrainian war actually started with the support and fire of United States and NATO. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO continued to expand and absorb from the outside world, hoping to get more countries to join NATO, so that the influence of this big organization could be further expanded, so that it could take the lead in geopolitics and resource seizure. At present, the most representative world powers are undoubtedly China, the United States and Russia, China is located in Asia, and there is no conflict at the territorial junction with NATO, and at the same time, China's attitude has always been tolerant, and it has more of a peaceful attitude towards European countries, so Europe will not easily attack China unless it is under the "instructions" of United States to put pressure on China.
And United States, not to mention, as an "ally" of NATO, NATO is even suspected of being the first to look at the horse. The most important thing is that United States influence in Europe is too great, and even the EU has pro-American representatives stationed there. And the remaining world power is Russia.
The contradictions between Russia and NATO are multifaceted, also located in Europe, where several NATO countries and Russia territory are adjacent and naturally quarrel over resources. Historically, one of the purposes of NATO was to resist the expansion of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, the two sides went back and forth, and there were frequent frictions, whether it was the deterrence of nuclear weapons or the confrontation of the arms race, and even the spies sent by both sides to operate in the opposite camp, which can be called a war without gunpowder.
Immediately after that, there is NATO's second way, which continues to support Ukraine behind the scenes. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine chose to embrace NATO and United States and oppose Russia. This means that it will become a bridgehead for NATO and United States to "resist Russia". Ukraine is an indispensable link in suppressing Russia, so they will never give up their aid to Ukraine. And behind the scenes, it is likely to continue to implement the strategy, which will not cause friction with Russia head-on, but also consume Russia's comprehensive national strength, to say that the risk of this road is whether Russia will fight to the end and completely "annihilate" Ukraine. After all, the fighting nation of Russia is not something to be said casually.
The third way is to go out in person. NATO and United States have long had ideas about this, and even played a "side-kick" on this road. Not only did they send military experts to Ukraine to the front line for personal guidance, but they also conducted military exercises near Russia, which seemed to say, "If Russia really makes a ruthless move, we will personally end up." But Russia is not used to them, saying that if NATO dares to take matters into its own hands, its own nuclear weapons are waiting for them. NATO is forced by this pressure, and really does not dare to send troops easily, Russia can be described as a model of contemporary words, after all, the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war shows that it is really not easy to mess with.
NATO has found a fourth way? China becomes the "protagonist" of the NATO summit
However, what is unexpectedly is that NATO seems to have recently found a fourth way, and this path is closely related to the mainland. At the NATO summit on July 9-11, a total of 32 NATO countries once again huddled together. And the protagonists of this meeting do not seem to be Russia and Ukraine, but China.
After the NATO summit, these countries made a joint statement, which roughly meant the following:
China's "aid" to Russia is an indulgence of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and China's actions pose a "systemic challenge" to Europe's security.
Although the mainland has been accustomed to United States groundless accusations against the mainland before, this is the first time for NATO. At the same time, their statements mentioned China a total of 14 times, making China the "protagonist" of the discussion at the meeting.
Not long ago, NATO's soon-to-be-abdicated secretary general also made groundless accusations against China before leaving, and at that time everyone thought that this secretary general was working hard for his political future after his abdication, so he was forced to blame the mainland because of the situation.
The mainland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded domineeringly, and NATO may backfire
Naturally, the mainland will not sit idly by and ignore this remark, and the mainland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately reprimanded him afterwards, with the following general meaning:
NATO's joint statement frequently provokes, lies, incites and smears China, and its position is full of Cold War background and belligerent rhetoric, and China will inevitably lodge solemn representations with it.
NATO's meaning is obvious, China has maintained diplomatic relations with Russia since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. This is actually very bad for them. By pressuring China, NATO wants to reduce cooperation between China and Russia as much as possible. However, NATO was wrong this time.
The diplomacy of China and Russia is not determined by NATO and United States, and the mainland's diplomatic strategy has always been independent. Before the United States smeared the mainland, the mainland was too lazy to take care of it. And the military exercises between the mainland and Belarus are a warning, and if NATO gains another inch, Hugh blames China for not being polite.
In this way, NATO itself needs to reflect on it, bringing the war from Europe to Asia is obviously not what they should do, and at the same time pulling the continent into the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, trying to use the way to discredit the continent, and restricting Russia from the side is obviously not a wise move. Does the same rhetoric as United States mean that they have too close contacts with United States, so that their foreign policy is also imperceptibly forming an "American-style" diplomatic thinking?
Resources:
"This NATO summit is a bit "mournful"" Xinhua News Agency
"How does China view the opening of the NATO summit in Washington?" The Ministry of Foreign Affairs responds to the Global Times
#头条首发大赛#