NATO, whose full name is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was created to defend against the military threat of the former Soviet Union. Since the end of the Cold War, the Russian threat has been relatively reduced, but it is still the number one adversary that NATO must defend against, and NATO’s presence means that Europe needs the United States to participate in its defense. Today, the United States also needs NATO to participate in the defense of the Indo-Pacific region, and the Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly and deliberately leaned on Russia, even posing as an ally with Russia, resulting in its logical inclusion as one of the adversaries in NATO’s defense.
The Chinese Communist Party leaders, eager to get rid of their isolated international image, do not want to make a mistake and inadvertently stand in opposition to NATO. A series of provocative acts by the Chinese Communist Party eventually led to a major strategic shift in NATO.
Key NATO Charter Article 5 Reaffirmed
Prior to his participation in the NATO summit, U.S. President Joe Biden made clear his commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which states that each Party agrees that an armed attack against a Party or Parties shall be considered an attack against all Parties, and that each Party shall take such action as may be necessary, including the use of force, individually and in conjunction with other Parties, to assist the country or countries attacked. NATO, which currently has 30 allies, the world’s largest military alliance, has just officially included the Chinese Communist Party as one of its assumed enemies.
The joint statement at the NATO summit on June 14 opened with a reaffirmation of Article 5 of the NATO Charter: “An attack on one ally shall be considered an attack on all of us.”
As theoretically understood, the area of exercise under Article V should be confined to the North Atlantic region, not the globe. But after the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, Article V of the NATO Charter was activated for the first time, and NATO subsequently became involved in the War on Terror, with military operations having extended as far east as Afghanistan, completely breaking out of the European or Atlantic region. NATO actually relies mainly on the United States to protect Europe, but the war on terror is Europe assisting the United States, and of course Europe is equally exposed to the risk of terrorist attacks.
Twenty years after 9/11, NATO is once again following the U.S. and actually extending its defense perimeter to the Indo-Pacific region.
China’s Communist Party is officially listed as a potential adversary by NATO
The third paragraph of the NATO summit statement describes that “we face multifaceted threats, systemic competition from authoritarian powers, and growing security challenges to our nations and citizens from all strategic directions.” The statement identifies three main threats, the greatest of which is still “the threat to Euro-Atlantic security posed by Russian aggression”; secondly, “terrorism remains a constant threat to us all”; and thirdly “China’s (CCP) growing influence and international policies may pose challenges that we need to address together as a coalition” and “we are increasingly confronted with cyber, hybrid and other asymmetric threats, including disinformation campaigns, and the malicious use of increasingly sophisticated emerging and disruptive technologies. malicious use. Rapid developments in the space sector are impacting our security.”
After Russia and terrorism, Communist China is listed as NATO’s number three potential defense adversary. In fact, France and Britain have already taken the lead in NATO. French attack nuclear submarines and amphibious assault ships have arrived in the South and East China Seas to conduct joint exercises with the United States, Japan, Australia, and India; British aircraft carriers are on their way to cruise the Indo-Pacific.
Even though Russia is NATO’s biggest adversary, it does not prevent diplomatic contacts, one of which is the upcoming U.S.-Russia summit, to enhance strategic deterrence and transparency in order to deter miscalculation and blind moves by adversaries and reduce the risk of military conflict. NATO has also repeatedly reaffirmed that it is only for collective defense and does not threaten Russia, but it will undoubtedly continue to maintain the advantage of strategic deterrence and to firmly promote peace through strength. NATO’s assistance to the United States in defending against Chinese Communist military provocations is the same strategy.
The Chinese Communist Party is eager to break through the first island chain, and is already struggling to deal with the U.S.-Japanese military alliance, and facing 30 NATO allies is like hitting a rock with an egg. This should be the real intention of NATO’s latest statement.
What kind of military pressure the Chinese Communist Party may face
The British carrier fleet was responsible for clearing the surrounding islands of Japanese air power, including the island of Taiwan, before the largest U.S. landing on Okinawa was launched in the late Pacific War. Britain’s current carriers are already equipped with a full complement of F-35Bs, which would undoubtedly have a clear advantage if they were to face the CCP’s fourth-generation fighters. The U.S. should not need the British naval aviation to carry out ground attacks, but only to consume the Chinese Communist Air Force fighters. The British carriers can interoperate with the U.S. military, and even if they lose fighters, the U.S. Marines’ F-35Bs can take off and land on the British carriers, which only provide a maritime platform.
The pilots of the French Soaring Winds should be happy to gain experience against Russian-made fighters copied by the Chinese Communist Party if the French carriers also come on the cruise. The Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly expected France to be strategically autonomous in multilateralism, and the French Navy should be happy to make a name for itself through military action. French President Macron’s repeated video calls with Xi Jinping have not deterred from sending warships into the South China Sea. The French navy has been most involved in joint operations with the U.S. military, with at least 140 sorties by French ships in the joint fight against the Taliban group in Afghanistan, followed by 1,350 sorties by French ships in joint operations in Libya, and separate airstrikes by French carriers against the terrorist group Islamic State stronghold.
Germany’s Baden-Württemberg-class frigates, with a displacement of 7,200 tons, are actually close to destroyers and can fire precision-guided munitions with a range of more than 100 kilometers to provide ground-fire strikes. Germany’s Type 212 submarine, capable of operating in waters only 17 meters deep, should be more than adequate against the Chinese Communist Navy. Italy’s twin carriers, though only 30,000 tons in displacement, have just received F-35Bs from the U.S. and are second in combat power only to the British and French carriers. Spain’s amphibious assault ships are also scheduled to receive F-35Bs, which can be transformed into light carriers.
If the Chinese Communist military does provoke a war with the U.S. military, it may end up facing the NATO coalition. The Russian Pacific Fleet was still unable to defeat the Japanese Navy, and if it did, it would repeat the history of 116 years ago when the Russian Pacific Fleet was blockaded by the Japanese Navy in Lushun in 1905 and the long-range Baltic Fleet was wiped out by the Japanese Navy. The Russian Navy was only a spectator in the Second World War, and the huge fleet formed during the Cold War is now outdated again. The only Russian aircraft carrier is of the same class as the Chinese Communist carriers, and has no experience in combat.
NATO’s latest statement is actually a warning that if the Chinese Communist Party does not give up provocations, it will probably have to face the NATO coalition alone; NATO should also be warning the Chinese Communist Party to stop trying to lean on Russia and military exercises with Russia.
NATO also explicitly urged the Chinese Communist Party to increase military “transparency” and to stop using “civil-military integration” to provoke an arms race, including “greater investment in new modern capabilities and in new disruptive technologies such as autonomous systems, facial recognition and artificial intelligence. The statement also said that “NATO will continue to use “civil-military integration” to provoke an arms race, including “increased investment in new modern capabilities and new disruptive technologies, such as autonomous systems, facial recognition and artificial intelligence”, as well as to stop attacks “against space. The NATO statement also said that “the allies recognize that in some cases the impact of significant malicious cumulative cyber activity may be considered equivalent to an armed attack. NATO also called on the Chinese Communist Party to refrain from spreading “disinformation” and to “adhere to its international commitments and act responsibly in the international system, consistent with its role as a major power” and to “maintain a constructive dialogue “.
Presumably, Chinese communist leaders are reluctant to heed this advice, and may even claim that they do not need NATO to act as a military “teacher. If NATO’s “courtesy first” does not work, the next step will inevitably be to take further action and “work pragmatically with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea ……”. The escalation of the military confrontation in the Indo-Pacific region, along with the implementation of the Indo-Pacific strategy by European countries, will undoubtedly bring more changes.