• Newstart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can you elaborate on the terrible message? I don’t think China prefers US to be in their backyard than NATO. NATO is purely defensive, so unless China had intentions to attack a NATO country it wouldn’t matter. But US has multiple defence agreements with some countries in the region and some of them is on China’s crosshairs. Which makes a confrontation with US higher then with NATO.

    • 1bluepixel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The terrible message is precisely that NATO is only defensive in theory, but is willing to expand into the Pacific to defend a territory that is nowhere near its original purview.

      The problem with the “purely defensive” argument is that historically, NATO Article 5 has been invoked to declare a war on a country that only indirectly threatened a NATO ally’s regional stability. That’s how NATO ended up bombing Serbia, which was doing despicable things to Albanians, but was not threatening NATO sovereignty to a degree that justifies Article 5.

      Add these two together and China’s opposition to a NATO presence in the Pacific makes a whole lot of sense.