The British say NATO has split into three formations, which is the view of an article in the British newspaper The Sunday Times. The article said that the positions of NATO members on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict are very inconsistent, and there are three completely different opinions, which can be described as "hawkish", "dove" and "ostrich".
The "hawkish" position is to help Ukraine restore a complete return to Crimea and the Donbass region, and it should give "Russia a powerful blow, so that Russia will not be able to pose a threat to its neighbors in the future." The representative countries of this "hawk" are the United States and Britain, especially Britain's attitude is even more radical than that of the United States. The representatives of the "doves" are mainly France, Germany, Italy, and other Western European powers. This can be seen from the last time Macron Scholz visited Kiev and promoted Russian-Ukrainian negotiations. The "dovish" proposition is to work on a peaceful settlement between Moscow and Kiev. End the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as soon as possible so that the European continent can return to normal. The names "hawks" and "doves" are no stranger to everyone, while "ostrich pie" is relatively new. The British definition of this "ostrich faction" is that these countries are only concerned with problems within NATO and are not interested in affairs outside NATO.
The new name "Ostrich Faction" appeared in the context of the recent expansion of NATO from Europe and from the North Atlantic to a wider region. Like the NATO Summit in Madrid, NATO redefined its mission to transform NATO from a regional military organization in Europe into a global police force and all the way to the Asia-Pacific region.
The Americans are the main drivers of NATO's expansion, and the purpose of the Americans is to make NATO an instrument of its global strategy. Although this idea of the Americans is supported by a few countries such as the United Kingdom, it is not taken seriously by many countries within NATO. They believe that NATO's main energy should be on Europe, on safeguarding the security and interests of European countries, which is why the British say that these countries are ostriches.
There are actually some small differences in this "ostrich pie". For example, small Eastern European countries such as Lithuania do not now support NATO expansion into the Asia-Pacific region. Because they believe that this will cause a dispersion of NATO forces, so they do not have enough energy to protect their security and interests. Others are Western European countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, which are also not in favor of NATO's expansion into the Asia-Pacific region. They are well aware that the goal of the Americans is to make NATO a tool to contain China, and these Western European countries do not think that China threatens them at all, and they are not willing to be used by the Americans as a tool of the US global strategy.
Although the NATO Summit in Madrid adopted some documents, there is a clear disagreement within NATO on whether it is really necessary to expand to the Asia-Pacific region in the future. This British man is determined to work with the Americans to use NATO to enhance its global influence, so they have made these "osteorian factions" in their opinion public, and criticized them by name, in order to promote NATO's expansion into the Asia-Pacific region. But the question is, can you rely on the media to write a few articles to solve the interests and positions of these countries? I'm afraid their abacus can't go together. #