After Biden became the President of the United States, his China policy was more aggressive than that of former President Trump. He also attempted to copy the "Cold War" strategy used to deal with the Soviet Union and actively attracted European countries to form an "alliance against China." , and even tested the ideas of Asia-Pacific allies in an attempt to push the NATO front to China's doorstep. Recently, on the occasion of the dual summits between G7 and NATO, the United States has long formulated a strategic plan to "isolate China" and is determined to lead NATO to the Asia-Pacific. In this regard, France and Germany have made different voices and even Even the most "expressive" member of the Western camp, Lithuania, which has been at odds with China and Russia, thinks it is too much, because "NATO countries do not have any direct borders with China."
According to the " Global Times " news, China and Russia are still discussed as the main topic at the NATO summit, and all countries are generally consistent in their direction towards Russia. However, when it comes to China-related wording, differences have arisen within NATO members. The main reason is that European countries, led by France and Germany, have turned against each other one after another and are unwilling to list China as a "systemic challenge." Even relations with China are very tense. Lithuania feels that NATO's "excessive focus on China" is a bit excessive, because "NATO has no direct border with China."
It is worth mentioning that compared with France and Germany, which have relatively good relations with China today, Lithuania is not a "partner" of China. Previously, Lithuania regarded provoking the Taiwan issue as a "letter of surrender" against the United States and allowed Taiwan to set up an official "office" in the country. This was a strong provocation to the one-China principle. China not only recalled its ambassador to Lithuania, but also It also downgraded the relationship between the two countries to the " agency level." However, Lithuania still did not regret it and continued to take frequent actions. The final result was that the trade volume between the two countries dropped to 0.3% of the previous level, almost to zero.
So, in the context of the rapid cooling of neutral relations, Lithuania should be happy to see the United States containment of China. Why does it want to go against its "master" the United States?
On the one hand, although Lithuania is both a member of NATO and a member of the EU, , compared to the United States, it actually relies most on the EU. Nowadays, core EU countries such as Germany, France, Belgium and other EU core countries have expressed their unwillingness to side with the United States. China has a big country in front, and Lithuania's stance is actually dispensable. The Chinese market has been lost, and the United States has no intention of helping Lithuania. Lithuania must stay close to the European market and be consistent in political strategy with Germany and France to avoid causing their displeasure.
On the other hand, Lithuania was quite dissatisfied with China because it stepped on the red line, causing Lithuania to lose the Chinese market, but the relationship between the two countries was not severed. As long as the EU does not break up with China, Lithuania can still buy Chinese goods, but it requires "coordination" from the EU market. If the EU follows the United States in targeting China, not only will the EU's economy suffer a huge blow, but it will also be more difficult to cope with Europe's difficulties. It will also be bad news for the other side.
For France, After Macron was re-elected, he has been emphasizing that France should take the EU rotating presidency as an opportunity to accelerate the EU's "independence" and accelerate the establishment of the EU's own military power. In fact, this is a "de-Americanization" the process of. Nowadays, the United States has ignited the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has already made EU countries miserable. It also wants to drag everyone to the Asia-Pacific to target the EU's largest business partner for many years. Of course France does not agree.
This is even more important for Germany, because China has been Germany's largest trading partner for six years, and Sino-German trade accounts for 1/3 of China-Europe trade. Previously, when the United States asked its European allies to send warships to the South China Sea for "free navigation," Germany The "Bavaria" directly bypassed the South China Sea when it went there. Although it passed through the South China Sea when it returned, it was also a commercial route. It obviously did not want to provoke China. The United States wanted to lead NATO to the Asia-Pacific, and Germany certainly had little interest.
For its own selfish interests, the United States, after its European allies helped it target Russia, wanted to put them on the opposite side of China, stir up trouble in the Asia-Pacific, and take the opportunity to interrupt China's rise and maintain its hegemony. Although the calculation is good, the allies have also seen clearly that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a war burning at the door of Europe. They ignore the fear of burning themselves. However, China and Europe are thousands of miles apart, and there is no geopolitical conflict. , why should Europe provoke China? Just to be a "horse boy" for the United States?
On this point, not only France and Germany, the Netherlands, , Belgium, Italy, etc. also disagree with the approach of the United States. Facts have proved that European countries have begun to embark on a different path from US hegemony. Nowadays, NATO countries are turning against each other one after another, which is a harbinger of the decline of American confrontational thinking.
