Regarding NATO, an expansionary international military organization, in fact, its actions have not only aroused strong dissatisfaction in the international community, but also aroused dissatisfaction within the United States.

US President Biden visited Europe, and the NATO summit defined China as a "systemic challenge" for the first time. Regarding NATO , an expansionary international military organization, in fact, its actions not only aroused strong dissatisfaction in the international community, but also aroused dissatisfaction within the United States. Now there are voices in the United States that are withdrawing from NATO.

The first thing: US congressmen call for withdrawal from NATO. NATO is just a tool for a small number of people to make money!

htmlOn July 2, according to domestic media citing Russia Today TV website, U.S. Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Green said that the United States should withdraw from NATO instead of providing Ukraine with billions of dollars in taxpayers' money, and At the risk of fighting an nuclear war with .

reported that Marjorie Green said in a series of tweets, "The American people do not want a war with Russia, but NATO and our own stupid leaders are dragging us into a war. We should withdraw from NATO."

She She also described military aid to Ukraine as a "proxy war" against Russia that Americans did not want and she voted against it in Congress.

It must be said that Marjorie Green is one of the few sober people in the United States. NATO is not only an extremely money-burning military organization, but also a military organization that puts the United States into conflicts and drags the United States into a trap.

If we looked at NATO from a different angle, the situation in the United States might be far better than it is today. If there were no NATO, first of all, the U.S. military spending would be significantly reduced, and the U.S. would not spend huge amounts of money on military expenditures by provoking external wars.

If the United States puts these unnecessary expenditures into investing in scientific research, increasing education expenditures, improving people's welfare, promoting social equity, and eliminating racial conflicts, then the United States will definitely be a country with proper internal governance and continued prosperity.

But now the United States has made enemies abroad through NATO and launched two unnecessary wars Iraq and Afghanistan . The US military not only paid huge casualties, but the United States also suffered huge losses and accumulated huge debts.

Who are the beneficiaries in these external wars? Apart from the US military-industrial complex , what benefits have the American people gained from these beneficiaries?

The American people are actually bleeding and sacrificing their lives and emptying their pockets for this. Now that NATO is targeting Russia again, the United States not only has to continuously provide equipment to Ukraine, but also risks a nuclear war with Russia.

Regardless of the final outcome of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, one thing is certain, that is, the American people must pay the price, while American arms dealers will make a lot of money from it.

If the United States considers issues in the interests of the American people, perhaps the wisest decision for the United States is to disband NATO and handle its own internal affairs.

If the United States does not do this, perhaps a United States will emerge in which most people are poor and a few have accumulated huge wealth, and this may be a tinderbox for the outbreak of internal conflicts in the United States.

The second thing: Germany made a strong statement and hit Lithuania !

html On July 2, according to RIA Novosti quoted German " Der Spiegel " weekly news, "Der Spiegel" magazine quoted sources earlier as saying that Lithuania's actions against Kaliningrad made the German government angry. The German government insists on lifting the ban on direct transit shipments.

The publication said that EU may soon publish a judicial interpretation of the fourth set of sanctions, clarifying that transporting goods to Kaliningrad is not subject to sanctions.

"Der Spiegel" pointed out that the adoption of this decision by the European Commission "provides an opportunity for Lithuania to retreat and save face." A Lithuanian official with knowledge of the negotiations said: “The Germans have been putting pressure on the European Commission since June 18 to avoid sanctions on Kaliningrad."

Obviously, Germany is very dissatisfied with Lithuania's approach. Germany, which has always been moderate, can no longer stand Lithuania's sinister intentions of provoking conflicts.

Germany has expressed its position, which can be said to be a slap in the face to Lithuania. This means , Lithuania, as a member of the European Union, is actually doing things for the Americans.

If Lithuania’s intentions behind it were not too sinister, Germany would not ignore the unity of the EU and speak openly to Lithuania.

Why would Germany be angry? The reason is also very simple. Lithuania blocks Russia's transportation lines to Kaliningrad, which means that Russia is very likely to break out into a full-scale conflict with NATO.

If Russia takes action against Lithuania, as a member of NATO, Germany, France, Italy, and the UK will all. It has the obligation to send troops to defend Lithuania's territorial integrity. If the matter reaches this point, no matter how it ends, Europe will be a complete loser.

After the Russian-Ukrainian conflict broke out, should Germany still take the risk of a Russian-European conflict? Obviously, the wisest thing for Germany is to use its influence to eliminate the conflict.

By doing this, Germany is trying to distance Lithuania from the EU. If Lithuania insists on acting recklessly under the instruction of the United States, the EU can do so. This is an excuse for Lithuania to completely draw a line with Lithuania.

In a word, if Europe is tied to Lithuania, Germany will not agree.

I am afraid that Lithuania will still suffer. The third thing: US media warned the United States that G7 is losing influence!

html On July 2, according to the US "Capitol Hill" (The Hill) report, US media said that the G7 may give up its leading position to BRIC countries, because its members do not want developing countries to integrate into their circle, nor do they take into account the interests of these countries on the global stage.

The article stated, "Although the Group of Seven invited so-called Southern Hemisphere representatives as special guests. Guests attended recent summits, but not a single country could serve as a basis for a new world order, an alternative to the Western order. "

The article emphasizes that most Western countries are seeking to contain rather than accelerate global development. In addition, Western leaders are trying to get countries in the southern hemisphere to side with them, including on the situation in Ukraine, which is very common in developing countries.

US media pointed out that compared with the G7 group, Russia and China have expressed interest in expanding the size of the BRICS group, and Argentina and Iran have applied to become members. Candidate countries.

The US media warned that if the United States does not open the door to the G7, the G7 club of 1 billion people will soon be opposed by 6 billion people and half of the world's economies.

Obviously, the US media made this decision. The warning is that the G7 small circle with the United States as the core will lose its influence on international affairs.

However, it is not easy for the United States to open the door. Since the establishment of the G7, the G7 has been a club of rich countries. Now the United States has opened the door to developing countries. , it’s easier said than done.

In fact, in the United States’ conception, the G7 organization is just a platform for the United States to issue orders on global economic affairs, and the majority of developing countries have to act under the economic order led by the United States. It has been decided that the G7 cannot open its door to developing countries. When developing countries are getting closer to the BRICS organization, the United States does have a sense of crisis. For example, the G7 is indeed outdated. This circle is a circle of economic privileges and has long been ossified. As the proportion of G7 members in global GDP continues to decline, it is only a matter of time before the G7 loses its influence over time. The Chinese have long understood what a quality organization the G7 is.The G7 is not enough to solve global economic problems. Instead, it is creating global economic problems. The G7's ultimate destiny may be to withdraw from the stage of history.

(End of this article)

Statement: The pictures come from the Internet. If there is any infringement, please contact us for deletion!