During the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) latest summit in Madrid, the alliance cobbled together its first “strategic concept” document since 2010.

Predictably, it names Russia as the most crucial threat to allies’ security – but, for the first time, it mentions China as a point of concern. While it stopped short of the provocative rhetoric of some member states, NATO’s mention of China is still significant.


In its “Strategic Environment” assessment, NATO dedicated an entire paragraph, point 13, to China. It said that China’s stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values.

The PRC employs a broad range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global footprint and project power, while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up.

The PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security.


The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains.

It uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence. It strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains.

The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests.


Point 14 seems to walk back this confrontational stance by saying that NATO remains open to constructive engagement with the PRC, including to build reciprocal transparency, with a view to safeguarding the Alliance’s security interests.

But it also says that its members will work to address systemic challenges posed by China, which is also alluded to in its “Cooperative Security” section, stating that the Indo-Pacific is important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect the 20-year old EuroAtlantic warzone.

First of all, this entire assessment gives credence to the extremely faulty logic that somehow China is subverting Western industry. The fact is that globalization, a process initiated by Western countries, resulted in increased global market competition.


China did not distort the rules of this competition; it is merely winning them fair and square, which is not surprising given that it has the largest population in the world, and a highly educated one at that.

Efforts to contain China’s influence are essentially efforts to halt China’s development, which has been accompanied by human history’s largest anti-poverty campaign. Fighting against this is abjectly immoral.

This is highly provocative in itself because it means that NATO’s relationship with China may develop into just as unpredictable and chaotic as the current US-China relationship.


That alone makes the world economy more tumultuous, given that the USA and China are the two largest economies in the world, but throwing in most of the European Union would be an even more pronounced disaster.

NATO’s strategic concept clearly leaves the door open for the alliance to meddle in China’s neighborhood. It should be noted that NATO also mentions its own neighborhood, e.g., it recognizes the concept of Great Power politics in regard to its own interests but does not recognize China’s.

This is an extraordinary fallacy that has been a signature of US/NATO policy for quite some time, setting the conditions, for example, for the current conflict in Ukraine.


Finally, there needs to be a recognition that, although the document heavily references Russia and was accompanied by an increased troop presence on NATO’s eastern flank in Europe, this still has to do with US strategic thinking regarding China.

One assessment that I believe is highly influential in the US security state is by A. Wes Mitchell, former assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

In an August 2021 piece for The National Interest, he said that a two-front war with Russia and China would be unwinnable, so the USA must find a way to stagger its confrontations with both.


The propaganda piece argued that the US regime should deal a death blow to Russia’s influence in Europe and force it to be an Eastern power, except for the invaded former Warsaw Pact countries.

Simply put, the goal should be to alleviate America’s simultaneity problem by giving Russia incentives to be less of a European power – and more of an Asian one. Note that this piece was not just printed in a magazine but was based on a report Mitchell wrote in 2020 for the Pentagon.


The NATO strategic concept’s focus on Russia and the alliance’s recent actions seem to be an exact implementation of Mitchell’s strategy.

That is, to drive Russia out of Europe through the conflict in Ukraine and build-up of NATO’s eastern front – thus staggering a potential two-front conflict with Russia and China.

While the strategic concept focuses on Russia now, clearly China is in the cross-hairs as the next main focus.

RT. com / ABC Flash Point News 2022.

3.5 2 votes
Article Rating
Previous articleRussian Military withdraws from part of Ukraine as gesture of Good Will
Next articleDutch farmers blocking Highways protesting over Greenhouse Gas emissions
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
03-07-22 09:06

When you are as Mentally Challenged as the US and its Minion’s everything is a Challenge, don’t sweat them China as with everything else created by the US, it always fails.

Reply to  19101961
03-07-22 09:18

comment image

03-07-22 09:08

Fascist USA Empire’s puppet-NATO’s “new strategic concept” NOW in 2022, is just the SAME OLD USA WARMONGERING GARBAGE in new flimsy packaging. USA’s puppet-NATO has been ACTIVELY AT WAR (unconventional “cold” warfare or conventional “hot” warfare, the latter, so far DEVIOUSLY thru duped proxies) against both Russia and China-PRC, since NATO’s inception. BOTH Russia and China-PRC, are named WARFARE enemies EXPLICITLY spelled out in its US Army’s Military Training Doctrine “Multi-Domain Operations 2028 (Last Update: 2018)” Logic Table (pdf) https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/1f448.svg PROOF that nothing is new here! So, there’s NO unpredictable “sneaky surprise attacks” unexpected from USA!

03-07-22 09:09

The problem with allowing America to bully and pick on all the little countries is when they’re done with the little countries they pick on the big countries the big countries if they can’t reach an agreement to screw over the world have nuclear weapons.