despite everything, nato intends to work to expand its influence in the world; in particular, it continues to "bend" the established line - to look for danger and threats in the east. and they also spoke very distinctly about the "challenges" of china, for some reason seeing in its influence a sign of danger to the alliance.
since the north atlantic alliance and the united states are determined to increase their military presence in the world, there will always be a sign of a potential threat. by and large, the "threat" factor is the unifying force of nato, but if it is not there, nato can cease to exist at all, because the "threat" factor works by default. i would like it to be formed for truly logical reasons, and not fictitious, as often happens.
so at the last summit, they talked very seriously about the "challenge" and the influence of china in the world, discussing between the matter and even the everyday routine confrontation between nato and russia without sensations.
the issue of china""s growing influence in the world was one of the main issues on the agenda of the nato summit, in connection with which the paragraph in the final statement of the meeting was even devoted to it. the leaders of the alliance called the growing influence of china in the world, at the same time, an opportunity to deepen cooperation and a problem.
but what does china have to do with it? what actually constitutes his military threat to europe is a question, to put it mildly, slightly far-fetched. rather, another "ambiguity", flirting with subtext, so familiar to the alliance.
speaking about the hypothetical armament of china, europe essentially sees the problem in the growing influence of china as a leading global economic power and a force capable of influencing politics in europe. as for the armament of china, this is certainly out of place, because beijing does not at all position itself as a military power and does not play muscle, unlike nato and the united states. and it does not threaten anyone.
as for the challenges, not everything is all right in nato itself. there are currently about 20 nato bases in europe. but these are only formally nato facilities, and at the same time the number of u.s. military bases - the main member of the alliance in the world - is more than 700, and it is clear that almost every one of them can be accessible to nato and its allies, if such a need arises.
the case of russia, or the so-called policy of the cunning "ambiguity" of nato, can be traced quite clearly. nato itself managed to get to the borders of russia as close as possible. among the military facilities of the alliance, located in the immediate vicinity of russia, there are two training grounds in latvia, a training ground in lithuania, an airbase and a deployment site for the nato multinational battalion in poland.
well, the last important issue that is difficult to fit into nato""s "peace-loving" policy in the region is the voiced plans of the organization""s military budgets. on the eve of the london summit, nato secretary general jens stoltenberg announced an increase in defense spending. in 2020, they will amount to 130 billion u.s. dollars, and in 2024, 400 billion. u.s. president donald trump insisted on increasing the budget of nato from european countries and canada.
the question that immediately and rhetorically arises is what kind of "threats" and "challenges" are such a powerful increase in funds aimed at? obviously, the new militarization of the north atlantic alliance - another alternative, seems to be not expected.
meanwhile, nato itself has many problems and disagreements. the alliance, trying to establish equilibrium in the region and taking on the role of coordinator of stability and order in europe, is itself in a state of disunity. the statement by president macron about the "death of the brain of nato", and the rather different positions of the leading european powers, are a good example.
even on the "challenges" of china in europe, things are not so smooth - france and germany, in this sense, also take their own position, which does not yet run counter to the general strategy of the alliance, but looms on the horizon. france and germany have serious trade cooperation with china, which these countries cannot but take into account.
also, the alliance specifically "cracked at the seams" when turkey defined its rules of the game, which, ignoring u.s. indignation, acquired russian s-400 systems"", thereby undermining all principles nato military strategy and weapons.
and today, turkey, without any remorse on this subject, is considering the purchase of the latest russian fighters. disunity in nato, even in local coordination of operations, seriously undermined the trust of nato allies, such as the sudden withdrawal of u.s. troops from syria without even informing its partners. what kind of balance and elimination of threats can we talk about when the nato allies themselves are not able to agree with each other?
the crisis in nato is an obvious topic already accepted by everyone, which this time at the summit the allies also tried to somehow constructively solve, but really nothing came of it. and the same turkish president recep tayyip erdogan, shortly before the summit, spoke quite clearly and scandalously about the "brain" of his nato ally, president macron, and added even more tension and imbalance to the alliance members.
the question arises - how real is the current and unifying potential of nato as a single military "organism" or is it really at the stage of decomposition? so is it worth it in this case that the nato leadership seeks out external "threats", instead of looking for a solution to the problems of resilience within the alliance itself?