Recently, Nozdlev, Director of the Third Asian Division of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said that judging from the current situation, the route of NATO to enter the Asia-Pacific has been clear. Asia-Pacific countries represented by Australia, Japan and South Korea will serve as "springboards" to provide military support for NATO, mainly from the United States and Europe.
can prove this omen that Japan is already re-arming and claims that NATO's Asia-Pacificization is "irreversible".
Frankly, since June this year, the issue of NATO's globalization has been hyped by Western media, but due to the different geopolitical situations in Asia and Europe, most people still don't believe that NATO can continue to expand to the Asia-Pacific.
mainly has two reasons:
First of all, from the perspective of geopolitical characteristics, the core reason why NATO was established in Europe and continued to expand is that after the establishment of the Soviet Union, it pursued a strategy of external expansion, and Europe was all capitalist countries, and was very afraid of the Soviet Union's export of proletarian revolution. In addition, Europe's respective strength was not enough to compete with the Soviet Union, so we needed to unite to form a military alliance to confront the Soviet Union together.
The most critical factor is that the Soviet Union pursued expansionism and exported revolution to the outside world. Its nature is somewhat similar to the current "color revolution" of the United States' export to the outside world. Therefore, capitalists from European countries are afraid that one day they will be revolutionized and become socialist country .
In other words, the Soviet Union had a tangible threat to Europe at that time, so NATO was founded. However, now NATO is full of the world's "expansion and invasion", which is completely contrary to its original intention of its establishment - defending .
And this geopolitical feature does not exist in today's Asia. China has never engaged in the export-oriented approach, and there is no fundamental contradiction with Asian countries. Even between China and Japan, it is Japan that wants to expand abroad and covet China's territory, not China wants to annex Japan. Under the background of
, even if NATO expands eastward to Asia, it is logical that they cannot form a strong connection link like those of European and American countries. If a military alliance does not have a strong consensus, even if it is established, it will be just a false statement.
Secondly, from an economic perspective, the main reason why NATO was established back then was that the socialist camp led by the Soviet Union and the capitalist camp led by the United States were economically separated from each other. The two sides impose mutual sanctions and embargoes on each other economically, and there is basically no trade exchanges.
This is like a conflict between two strangers because of a little interest, it is easy to fight. But the current economic situation in Asia is completely different. Whether it is South Korea, Japan, Australia, or Southeast Asian countries and India that the United States has tried hard to win over, they all have close economic ties with China.
If you learn from Europe to build military alliances and engage in camp confrontation, then you must first sacrifice these economic interests. This is obviously unacceptable for Asia-Pacific countries.
To sum up, whether from the perspective of geopolitical or economic background, it is unrealistic for NATO to enter the Asia-Pacific. So how should a senior Russian official understand? What's going on in Japan's so-called NATO Asia-Pacificization?
In fact, the reason is very simple. Whether a thing can be accomplished in the end is a completely different concept from whether the person who promotes it wants to do it. Now, relevant countries, including the United States and Japan, have a strong idea of promoting NATO to enter the Asia-Pacific and contain China. They planned a clear path to this and pushed this to success.
But major events like NATO's entry into the Asia-Pacific region that are related to the international situation, whether they can succeed depends not only on the will of the United States and Japan, but also on the will of China, Russia, and Southeast Asian countries.
This is a long-term mutual game process. It is impossible to say that if the United States and Japan have formulated plans for this, they will definitely succeed.As for Japan's so-called "NATO Asia-Pacificization is irreversible", it is not so much a pledge that Japan has vigorously promoted NATO's globalization, but rather a routine that Japan uses the United States' strategy to curb China, breaks through the restrictions on United Nations and re-arms itself.
To put it bluntly, as a defeated country in WWII , Japan has always been restricted by the United Nations in politics and military terms. It has long wanted to promote the so-called "national normalization" and "military normalization", but it has suffered from no "legal" reason. Because of World War II that year, Japan hurt not only China, but also South Korea, the United States and Asian countries.
If it directly re-arms regardless of the opposition of neighboring countries, it is equivalent to confronting the United Nations and becoming enemies of the whole world. But now, under the banner of helping the United States achieve "NATO globalization" and developing its military power on a large scale, we can throw the pressure on the United States.
From this we can see that for Asian countries, the so-called NATO advance to the Asia-Pacific is just a false move. The real threat lies in the fact that Japan, a country with militarism, has begun to use this to arm itself again. What is really worthy of attention in this matter is Japan, not NATO, which is far away in Europe.
