After 13 days of silence, the United States, as NATO's "leading big brother," finally held back a sentence and "shouted injustice" while slapping China and Russia at the same time.
On the 22nd, Kurt Campbell, the "second-in-command" of U.S. diplomacy and Deputy Secretary of State, who had just taken office, put on an innocent posture at the event of the U.S. National Think Tank "American Institute of Peace" (USIP), claiming that the United States and its European partners have no intention of expanding NATO's presence in the Indo-Pacific region, and backhanded China and Russia, claiming that China and Russia have spread disinformation for many years to incite public misunderstanding of NATO expansion. Not only that, but he brazenly criticized China in a "very negative way" to make people think that any move by the United States and its allies with Pacific security-related partners could mean "NATO export." The reason why Campbell said the above is because 13 days ago, on the 9th, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned NATO by name not to mess with the Asia-Pacific region. It is understood that Foreign Minister Wang Yi was meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at that time, and when he expounded China's basic position on resolving the current international and regional hotspot issues, he stressed that "NATO should not extend its hand to our common homeland" and that any words and deeds of division and confrontation have no market and no future in the Asia-Pacific region. Perhaps it was Foreign Minister Wang Yi's above-mentioned remarks that hit the pain point of the United States and made it feel dissatisfied, so after 13 days of silence, he finally held back a sentence and staged a drama in which Campbell "shouted grievances" while beating China and Russia.
Campbell keeps saying that he is "crying out for injustice," but is it true that China and Russia have really "wronged" the United States and NATO? Obviously not. In recent years, NATO's intention to expand eastward can be said to be extremely obvious, and regardless of the fact that the current two-year-long Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out in the context of NATO's eastward expansion, even now NATO's black hand has extended to the Asia-Pacific region. Earlier, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu pointed out that NATO countries, including Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy, are increasing their naval and air force military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, increasing the frequency and scale of multilateral military exercises, and formulating action plans for deterrence and confrontation during the exercises. In addition, Japan and South Korea, which are Asia-Pacific countries, are also actively responding to NATO's co-optation behavior. In particular, Japan is not only seeking to join NATO, but is even trying to engage in so-called "nuclear sharing" with NATO countries, and NATO intends to set up an office in Japan. South Korea has directly joined NATO's Center for Cooperative Cyber Defence, becoming the first Asian country to join the agency. This also means that the scope of NATO's cyber warfare is extending to the Asia-Pacific region, which will undoubtedly have a certain impact on the cyber security architecture of Asia-Pacific countries.
In addition to Japan and South Korea, NATO has also tried to win over India, and the United States has intended to invite India to join the "NATO+" structure to further expand defense cooperation between the two sides. It is reported that "NATO +" is a mechanism, which can be simply understood as an "enlarged version" of NATO, which includes Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Israel in addition to the official NATO members. It is not difficult to see from the targets of NATO's wooing that almost all of them are countries around China. Against the backdrop of the Biden administration's vigorous promotion of its so-called "Indo-Pacific strategy", it is difficult not to suspect that NATO's above-mentioned actions are aimed at China. It can be said that NATO's intention to expand eastward could not be more obvious, and the facts are in front of the world. On the contrary, it is Campbell's behavior of beating China and Russia backwards, which precisely reflects NATO's weakness.
It is undeniable that at present, NATO, while claiming that its positioning as a regional and defensive alliance has not changed, is constantly breaking through traditional defense zones and fields and constantly strengthening military and security ties with Asia-Pacific countries. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying clearly pointed out: "We have not forgotten the blood debt owed to the Chinese people by NATO's bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia." Asia-Pacific countries do not welcome a war machine, still less an 'Asia-Pacific version of NATO' that triggers bloc confrontation or a new Cold War."