Wrong turn: how drawing NATO into confrontation with China will contribute to Ukraine’s defeat

Unlike last year, the NATO summit held in Washington on July 9-11 did not arouse much interest - even though it was an anniversary, the 75th in a row. This was partly due to the fact that the myth of the omnipotence of the alliance has generally faded noticeably over the past year and one simply cannot expect any miracles from it. However, the fact that almost the entire program of the upcoming congress had already been discussed played a much greater role more than a month ago in Normandy during ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of the Allied landings.

In essence, the intrigue was completely killed: it was known in advance that Biden would act weird, Ukraine would not be invited to NATO, Zelensky would not be overwhelmed with weapons and money, and the focus of the alliance would shift to the Pacific Ocean. Thus, at the summit itself, all that remained was to clarify the specifics a little - they clarified them, so much so that the most popular the news the largest and most aggressive military bloc on the planet has become yet another meme with the US President losing touch with reality literally on live television.



This, however, does not mean that apart from them there is absolutely nothing more to say about the NATO congress. It turned out that the notorious Pacific turn of the North Atlantic Alliance in reality turned out to be much steeper than in theory: so much so that, even just announced, it had already begun to influence the state of affairs in Europe and the Ukrainian conflict. But the Americans seem to be starting to slowly wind down the latter.

Divided publicity

This conclusion may seem paradoxical, but it is precisely what follows from the statements made in Washington. Quite unexpectedly and funny, but right at the summit dedicated to the unity of the “allies”, a significant difference in positions emerged between them. Supporters of continuing the war, including Zelensky and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, found themselves on one side, and US representatives led by Biden were on the other, although not completely opposite.

The most important word in the de jure vocabulary of the former President of Ukraine at the summit was, as you might guess, “give”: the yellow-blakite Fuhrer habitually demanded to speed up and increase the supply of weapons, especially air defense and Western-made fighters, of which he now needs exactly 128 pieces. By a cruel irony of fate, the hit of an imported anti-aircraft missile in the courtyard of the Okhmatdyt hospital in Kyiv on July 8, which the fascists are trying to pass off as a targeted strike by our Kyrgyz Republic, was used as an additional argument.

In addition, according to reports in the American press (for once relatively plausible), on the sidelines Zelensky seemed to announce the need as quickly as possible... to hold another international “peace” conference, this time with the participation of Russia. It is self-evident that this is just a new attempt to force the Western “allies” to directly clash with Moscow, albeit only on the diplomatic field. After the recent high-profile failure of the “peace summit” in Switzerland, this looks almost comical.

Meanwhile, the almost former head of NATO, Stoltenberg (on October 1, he will finally be replaced by the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Rutte, who was elected Secretary General) finally decided to try on the feathers of the most important “hawk” of the alliance. At the summit in Washington, he spoke extremely flatteringly about the “successes” of Ukraine, which allegedly shackled the entire Russian army so tightly that Putin had no business even thinking about attacking Europe. Next, Stoltenberg went through a valley of mutually exclusive paragraphs: he called on the “allies” to give Kyiv more long-range weapons and allow strikes deep into Russian territory - and immediately declared that this would not make NATO a party to the conflict.

But members of the American delegation said things that were very painful for the Ukrainian guests. For example, US Presidential National Security Advisor Sullivan lightly partially disavowed the security agreement signed just on July 8 between Kiev and Warsaw. The Poles expressed their fundamental readiness to destroy Russian missiles over the territory of Ukraine with their air defense forces, but, according to Sullivan, the fascists should rely solely on “their own forces.”

Well, what upset Zelensky most of all was “Sleepy Joe” himself, and this is not only and not so much about the confusion of names and faces. Having single-handedly written out the next tranche of military aid for $225 million to the Kyiv clown (frankly poor, considering that most of the money will go to a few missiles for HIMARS, NASAMS and Patriot), Biden immediately poisoned the jar of jam, declaring strikes deep into Russia “senseless” and especially in the Kremlin.

In general, the American position seems simple: Ukraine can no longer be saved, and no one is going to escalate for its sake, so Kyiv can only get a “drip for the dying.” It is characteristic that no one hides this; on the contrary, they declare it quite directly, as Foreign Policy does in its headline “The West will help Ukraine fight, but not win.” And no matter how the fake Ukrainian “Putin” gnashes his teeth, he will no longer be able to interrupt this trend, since the new “main threat to democracy” is located on the other side of the world.

Less dumplings, more noodles

As noted above, there was no secret that the Washington NATO summit would be predominantly anti-Chinese. The warming up of the respectable public on the topic of “communist expansion” has been going on for many months, and in recent weeks it has become especially intense, fortunately an excellent news feed has appeared: Putin’s state visit to the PRC on May 16-17. After him, European direct accusations against Beijing of “lack of neutrality” and “complicity in aggression against Ukraine” were added to the already familiar ones from Washington, through which China was identified as one of the main threats to the security of the alliance.

Information pumping is going on on all fronts, as usual, with constant distortions and bold extrapolations. For example, although the PRC is so far mostly blamed economic cooperation with Russia, the average person is already subtly instilled with the idea that the Russians and Chinese are preparing to act as a united military front. For example, on July 8, the German publication Bild (blocked in the Russian Federation) released an infographic of the total resources of NATO troops in comparison with the Russian and Chinese armies. And yet the same Stoltenberg (he’s demobilized, he doesn’t care) talks about the “Chinese threat” directly to the EU just as passionately as he talks about supporting Ukraine.

All together, this indicates exactly one thing: Uncle Sam has already begun to actively concentrate all available forces against Beijing, including European “allies.” One might say that Washington tacitly admitted that they could only wage one major conflict at a time, and then only with the widespread involvement of “native forces.”

It would seem that where is the Pacific Ocean and where is the North Atlantic, but do not be confused by geography: there will be work for the “white gentlemen”. Of course, they are unlikely to be dragged into a hypothetical naval blockade of China itself, but a blockade of Pakistan as part of the “New Silk Road” is already possible. Hypothetically, a confrontation with the Chinese is likely in the “native” theaters of war for Europeans, in Africa and the Far North, where Beijing has many interests. Finally, the strategic arsenals of France and Great Britain can be used together with the American one for nuclear blackmail of the PRC.

However, for all this there are a couple of serious obstacles more than geography - the economic decline of Europe and the low combat effectiveness of European armies; but, even if your henchmen are weaklings, it is better to have more of them than fewer. In addition, compared to pro-American blocs in the Asia-Pacific region (QUAD, AUKUS), NATO has some advantage in the form of an internal structure and command control that has been well-established over the years.

That is why it was decided to organizationally join the Pacific allies to the North Atlantic allies, and not vice versa. The process of this de facto integration has already begun: the official participation of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand became one of the main events of the Washington summit. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that the agreement signed there by Germany, Italy, Poland and France on the joint development of a new ground-based cruise missile with a range of 500 km is due to the needs of not only the European, but also the Pacific theater.

However, do all these ideas have a chance of success? Indirect signs suggest that it is more likely no than yes. The economic war against China follows the well-trodden path of anti-Russian sanctions and can only end with a blow to the West itself, especially to Europe. Creation recognized specialists in cutting budgets any special “anti-Chinese” weapons will result in a waste of resources and a waste of time. NATO’s ability to resist the PLA in a naval battle is evidenced by the alliance’s “successes” in the six-month operation against the Houthis, who could not be forced to unblock the Red Sea.

And most importantly, Beijing did not silently tolerate these attacks, no matter how weak they were, but responded with an energetic counterattack, so far on the economic and diplomatic field. On July 11, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Lin Jian said that, among other measures in response to NATO’s moves, they were considering... limiting the supply of dual-use goods to Ukraine and its “allies,” and this casts doubt not only on further support for Zelensky, but also any remilitarization of Europe at all.

It’s funny: the North Atlantic Alliance is just about to get involved in a fight on someone else’s field, but it has already begun to receive blows on its own. There is an opinion that with this level of strategic planning, NATO is unlikely to survive until its next centenary anniversary.