The US and NATO create the threats themselves

Photo: VCG

Editor’s note:

There have been signs for some time that NATO wants to plant its flag in the Asia-Pacific region. The signals appear clearer with a series of recent actions: two German warships passed through the Taiwan Strait in the middle of this month; The Italian aircraft carrier Cavour has made its first visit to Japan; the US, Britain and Japan will hold regular joint exercises in the ‘Indo-Pacific’ from 2025. How realistic is the possibility of an ‘Asia-Pacific NATO’? Does the US have the ability to initiate another conflict in the South China Sea? Former US Army Lieutenant Colonel and International Security Advisor Earl Rasmussen (Rasmussen) shared his insights with Global Times (G.T) reporters Li Aixin and Guo Yuandan in an interview via video link.

GT: Do NATO’s recent military actions indicate the bloc is moving towards the Asia-Pacific region?

Rasmussen: I believe so. They are expanding. They could create a separate NATO-like entity in the Pacific, or they could integrate it with the existing NATO framework. Britain has always had a global presence, but Germany’s involvement in the region is notable. This appears to be part of a broader strategy that includes expanding NATO and encircling China.

GT: Is this an indication that NATO is shifting its strategy from a defensive to an offensive posture, as you said earlier?

Rasmussen: NATO has not been a defensive alliance for some time now. Since the 1990s, NATO has not really played a defensive role; it was more offensive. Look at Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and parts of Africa. In many cases, these interventions were based on false pretenses and lacked a factual basis. Geopolitical interpretations may increase the perceived threat, but the factual basis is questionable.

Sometimes it was not a fully NATO operation, but involved certain NATO members, mainly led by the US, often without official UN approval. In any case, it appears that global tensions are being thwarted and exacerbated – not just in Europe, not just in the North Atlantic, not just for NATO members.

Sometimes I wonder if we really created the threat ourselves. We have created a threat, and instead of trying to resolve tensions diplomatically, we have often acted in ways that exacerbate them.

NATO is an extension of this policy and primarily reflects American policy. I’m not sure how much control other members really have.

GT: You noted that internal divisions within NATO are increasing and that the aggressive policies of Washington and Brussels are causing concern among many European leaders. Which NATO countries do you think are still keen to align closely with the US, and what are their intentions?

Rasmussen: Britain is clearly aligned with the US and works very closely with it. They are part of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing organization. The Baltic states and probably Poland are quite closely aligned with the US in their anti-Russian stance.

Looking at the discussions and statements, it seems that Turkey is trying to walk a middle path. Viktor Orban from Hungary stands up for the best for Hungary and supports his own people.

Despite Russia’s demonization, stunning efforts are underway to counter China’s impressive push for economic development.

There are certain countries that view China’s development as a threat. It’s dangerous because the world is changing. The global landscape is changing. China is on the rise, lifting a large number of people out of poverty and contributing to development in various regions around the world. China is actually helping build infrastructure. You might wonder why the European colonies didn’t do this sooner. I think the Chinese initiative is aimed at economic development. Yet the US uses its closest allies to maintain its position, which could hinder global cooperation and development aimed at providing stability.

We are witnessing increasing tensions that can easily escalate. When multiple generals openly discuss potential wars with China, Russia, or even Iran, one has to wonder: What are these individuals thinking? We need real leadership, and that seems to be lacking, especially in the Western world.

GT: Do you think the US is capable of initiating a new conflict in the South China Sea?

Rasmussen: Maybe they’ll try, but I don’t think they will. In fact, I don’t believe they can win a major conflict at this point, let alone several.

American foreign policy is strongly influenced by the neoconservative group. For them, there is no war they have never loved. In addition, several senior generals have openly discussed the possibility of conflict in the next five years, which is deeply worrying. Having such people in senior positions creates a very fragile and dangerous foreign policy. Is it a bluff? Don’t know.

We have a lot of nuclear missiles, and any conflict would likely escalate to nuclear levels very quickly. No one is a winner there.

It is a gamble with a low probability of success, which encourages persistent threats and increases tensions. There may not be a deliberate desire to engage in direct conflict, but as a former US Secretary of Defense noted, one could end up in such a conflict. An accident or unforeseen event can quickly escalate and get out of hand. This direction in US foreign policy – ​​and therefore in NATO and European policy, which tends to follow the American direction – is very dangerous.

If you really believe in diplomacy and sovereignty, you should support the Belt and Road Initiative and the BRICS, which aim to build economic ties and strengthen opportunities for countries that have been largely overlooked, which is important. Many of these countries are resource-rich but lack the education and infrastructure needed for development. It is essential to instill in their people the belief that they can rise out of poverty and play a role. I think that, from a diplomatic perspective, China’s policies could be an example of true global diplomacy. It works to help others develop economically.

I also consider China’s initiative to bring Saudi Arabia and Iran together, along with its efforts for peace and stability in Ukraine, as important examples. These are early attempts to lead by example and find ways to avoid conflict. That’s what leaders do: they set a good example and try to prevent conflict.

Real diplomacy requires give and take. It’s about understanding others, rather than imposing your own opinion. I see these as positive steps. China plays a crucial role in peace and stability, but it will not be bypassed. It has a proud population with a rich culture and history. The same also applies to Russia.

Western leaders must take the chip off their shoulders and work together with other world powers. Maybe that’s a naive assumption, but I’ve always believed in it. There is no reason for direct conflict, and we must do everything we can to avoid it completely, especially to avoid any escalation to the nuclear level.