International Observation: Vilnius Summit Exposes Deep Divergence in NATO | NATO | Summit
The recently concluded NATO Vilnius summit not only continued to stir up tensions over Ukraine, but also attempted to disrupt peace in the Asia Pacific region and baseless smearing and accusations against China. Despite striving to demonstrate consensus, the NATO summit did not reach a consensus on key issues and instead exposed deep internal divisions within NATO.
Firstly, it exposed the differences between NATO's focus on Europe and its shift towards the Asia Pacific region. The United States and a few other NATO countries, along with Japan, one of the "Asia Pacific Four" countries invited to the conference, have been pushing NATO to shift towards the Asia Pacific region to serve the United States' Cold War thinking towards China. The host country of the summit, Lithuania, hastily released its so-called "Indo Pacific strategy" before the summit, attempting to "steer the course" on the issue. But most European countries do not want to replicate the drama of opposing factions to the Asia Pacific region on the other end of the world, which raises objections to NATO's Asia Pacific ization. French President Macron stated after the summit that NATO is a North Atlantic organization and Japan is not in the North Atlantic.
Secondly, it exposed the disagreement over whether Ukraine should become a member of NATO. Some NATO member states, driven by their own interests, are vigorously promoting Ukraine's "accession" to the alliance, which may face opposition from member states such as the United States. Especially, the United States is concerned that allowing Ukraine to join at this time would require fulfilling NATO's collective defense regulations and engaging in military conflict with Russia, which could lead to a third world war or even a nuclear war. Failure to comply would have a negative impact on its own and NATO's reputation, which are all scenarios that the Biden administration is trying to avoid. The US strategic community also generally believes that although NATO has "substantially" participated in the Ukraine crisis and allowing Ukraine to join is just "giving it a name", it will pose a strategic challenge to the United States, so Ukraine cannot be allowed to join. This proposal was accepted by the Biden administration. As a compromise and appeasement measure, NATO has provided Ukraine with a roadmap without a definite timetable, while increasing military support, continuing the previous practice of "sparking fire".
Thirdly, it exposed the differences between NATO member states on the east and west wings. NATO used the Ukraine crisis to attract Finland and Sweden as new members and achieved further expansion, forming a closer encirclement and more direct confrontation with Russia in the eastern wing direction. As a result, the strategic buffer zone between Russia and Europe has almost disappeared, permanently changing the geopolitical landscape of Europe. As a result, the conflict between NATO and Russia will become sharper, more difficult to resolve, and more long-term. In this situation, some countries, in order to obtain permanent "protection" from the United States, are willing to "stand up" or even "charge" for the United States on many issues, and sometimes even play a "tail wagging dog" role within Europe. For traditional European powers such as France and Germany, although they do rely on the United States and NATO for security, they also hope to maintain a certain degree of strategic autonomy, rather than completely following the strategic rhythm of the United States. This has led to certain differences between them and the aforementioned countries on how to deal with China and other issues.
As a product of the Cold War, NATO should have withdrawn from the historical stage with the end of the Cold War, but in reality, it has repeatedly relied on war and conflict to achieve "survival" and expansion. At this summit, NATO attempted to use the Ukraine crisis to reactivate or even strengthen. As its member countries may seem to have formed a "consensus" at this summit, but in fact, there are many differences that indicate that unless NATO can completely break away from Cold War thinking, especially avoid becoming a tool for direct confrontation among major powers, the increasingly complex reality will further expand and intensify its internal differences, which will have a counterproductive effect on itself. For the United States, using conflict or even war to control NATO countries will sooner or later face credibility bankruptcy.