Source: Global Times
NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg once again used China as an "excuse" for NATO's further expansion on the 7th. "China failed to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine and join Russia in opposing the right of countries to choose their own path," he said, claiming it posed a "serious challenge" to the entire North Atlantic alliance. In fact, it is the United States and NATO that continue to stir up confrontation and create security anxieties, while at the same time promoting and acquiescing in the breakthrough of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, which makes the global security mechanism and mutual trust between countries face great challenges.
At a time when the war between Russia and Ukraine was in a state of stalemate, NATO carefully planned and held an "enlarged meeting of foreign ministers." Whether it is the topic of discussion or the object of additional invitation, it can be reflected in the NATO under the command of the United States behind the scenes, which successfully plunged Europe into conflict and turmoil due to "security dilemmas", and then wanted to further spread security anxiety to the Asia-Pacific region. The core topic of discussion at the nato foreign ministers' expanded meeting was "how to deal with the new security reality facing NATO", and this "new security reality" includes the so-called "challenges posed by China to the rules-based international order". In terms of invitees, in addition to Ukraine, Sweden, Finland and other countries, the foreign ministers of NATO's "Asia-Pacific partners" Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand also participated in the meeting, and they were also highlighted by NATO. Speaking with reporters after the meeting, Stoltenberg said the presence of Asia-Pacific partners was important "because of the global implications of this crisis, especially because of China's acquiescence to Moscow's invasion of Ukraine." This is really a moment of not forgetting to smear and attack China. Therefore, the so-called NATO "Expanded Foreign Ministers' Meeting" is very obvious in its orientation towards the Asia-Pacific region.
Creating and playing up security anxiety is only a means for the United States and NATO, and their real purpose is to make some Asia-Pacific countries accept or seek a "more reliable security umbrella" from the United States under the impetus of security anxiety, and deploy more threatening weapons to these countries, including nuclear weapons. For example, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe claimed shortly after the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict that in view of the impact of the situation in Russia and Ukraine, Japan should explore issues related to "nuclear sharing" with the United States. To put it bluntly, it is to ask Japan to loosen the restrictions on the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons. As for the South Korean side, some media said on the 6th that the Rok-US policy consultation delegation sent by South Korean President-elect Yoon Seok-yue tried to redeploy US strategic assets, such as strategic bombers and nuclear submarines, to the Korean Peninsula during a visit to Washington. It can be seen that the nuclear non-proliferation regime is facing unprecedented challenges in the Asia-Pacific region.
Similar signs are emerging in Europe. Poland's deputy prime minister and chairman of the ruling party Kaczynski recently suggested in a rare public manner that Poland should be open to the deployment of nuclear weapons in its territory. This is a major shift in the position of the Eastern European countries on the deployment of nuclear weapons after the end of the cold war and a new symptom that the international community should not ignore. Although Poland is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it undertakes not to manufacture or possess nuclear weapons. However, nato created a "nuclear sharing" military strategy in the 1950s, which realized the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in some non-nuclear-armed countries. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons deployed in the Allies by the United States and the wartime loading of Allied warplanes is basically equivalent to "denuclearizing" the non-nuclear powers.
Since Poland joined NATO, rumors of the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland have appeared many times. Especially after the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, The Russian-phobic sentiment in Eastern European countries has gradually risen, and they have demanded that the United States or NATO increase the stationing of troops in Eastern Europe, and Poland is one of the most active countries. In 2018, the US military officially deployed anti-missile bases in Poland. From a technical point of view, the United States has no difficulty in deploying nuclear weapons in Poland. But from a diplomatic and military point of view, the deployment of nuclear weapons in Poland will greatly increase Russia's sense of insecurity, especially Poland's proximity to Russia's enclave, Kaliningrad. If the U.S. military openly deploys nuclear weapons in Poland, it is likely to trigger a tit-for-tat nuclear arms race between Russia and Russia. Kremlin spokesman Peskov responded on the 6th that if the United States deploys nuclear weapons to Poland, it will pose a "huge threat" to Russia, and Russia will ensure that its nuclear forces are enough to prevent the United States from deploying nuclear weapons in this Eastern European country. Peskov also stressed that such moves by Poland and the United States will never bring stability or security to Europe, but only the opposite.
Objectively speaking, every country has its own security concerns. Why, after NATO's five eastward expansions, did Russia strenuously oppose Ukraine's accession to NATO? Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it clear that Moscow is worried that NATO's deployment of strategic missiles on Russia's doorstep will pose a major security threat to Russia. In January, the Russian side made security proposals and hoped to be treated fairly by the United States and NATO. Tracing back to the high tide of the Cold War in 1975, under the leadership of European countries, the West and the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki Agreement, established the European Security Organization, and established the principles of "indivisible security", "common security" and "comprehensive security". But 47 years later, the West has failed to live up to its commitments on the indivisibility of security and has completely ignored Russia's interests. At the heart of the principle of the indivisibility of security is that the security of one State should not be ensured at the expense of the security of another. Now, for the sake of the legitimacy of its hegemony, the United States is clearly making Russia an imaginary enemy of Europe, and is gradually concocting Europe's security dilemma of neighborly neighbors.
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not only a security crisis between Russia and NATO, but also a crisis of international governance. After the end of the Cold War, the West, led by the United States, did not learn the lessons of the world war and did not seriously consider how to maintain the international order of peace and development. The West imagines NATO as a "police station" for international security and order, and the United States as the "world policeman." The West recognizes the diversity of world civilizations, but is unwilling to let go of "Western-centrism." From the formation of the "Augustus" security alliance between the United States, Britain and Australia, undermining the nuclear non-proliferation mechanism to provide nuclear submarines for Australia, to stimulating security anxiety, so that Japan, South Korea, Poland and other allies seek to deploy nuclear weapons, the United States and the West deliberately avoided the point that to solve the security anxieties of small and medium-sized countries, we cannot rely on nuclear weapons, but need to build a universal international security mechanism. Even if the United States deploys nuclear weapons in a certain country, it does not increase the country's sense of security, but may bring greater nuclear war risk to the country. Therefore, NATO cannot replace the global security mechanism, and the maintenance of world peace must take into account the security demands of all parties, not one party or one group. (The author is a researcher at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)