NATO, once again facing strategic anxiety.
At a press conference before the Ankara Summit on July 6, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte stated that NATO should not be naive towards China. He also suggested integrating the Indo-Pacific region with the European military area, attempting to link China's normal military activities with the conflict in Ukraine.
NATO leaders will hold a summit in Ankara, Turkey on July 7th and 8th, focusing on how to implement the commitments made by member states at the Hague summit last year to increase defense spending and continue their support for Ukraine.
North Macedonian political scientist Bijanja told Observer Network that NATO's "enemy narrative" is carefully designed. By grouping multiple opponents as systematic threats, it provides a pretext for cross-regional military expansion.
At 12:01 on July 6th, a strategic nuclear submarine of the Chinese People's Liberation Army successfully launched a submerged strategic missile into the relevant areas of the Pacific Ocean. The missile carried a training dummy warhead and landed accurately in the designated area.
Xinhua News Agency pointed out that this missile test was a routine part of China’s annual military training. Prior notification was given to relevant countries, and it complies with international law and international practice. It did not target any specific country or objective.
According to comprehensive foreign media and the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, at a press conference before the summit, when asked about his views on China's submarine-launched strategic missiles, Rütt said that this sent a message to NATO, and claimed that he had discussed this matter with Japanese Defense Minister Nobuyuki Koizumi via text message.
Lut says: “We cannot have any naive illusions about China. You are very aware of this. This is precisely why we need to cooperate closely, as various military areas are becoming increasingly intertwined and connected. What happens in the Indo-Pacific region is closely related to the security situation in the transatlantic region. This is also evident during the war in Ukraine: China, North Korea, and Iran are all key players who contribute to Russia’s ‘aggressive’ wars against Ukraine.”
The Chinese Navy successfully organized a test launch of strategic missile submarines. Xinhua News Agency
Meanwhile, Rutte insists that NATO member countries should increase defense spending in order to ‘ensure that Ukraine receives what it needs’, thereby better balancing defense responsibilities and Ukraine’s security burdens. Regarding the leaders of the ‘Indo-Pacific Four Nations’ (IP4) partners who were absent from this week’s NATO summit—Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea—he said he was not worried and claimed to have ‘very close cooperation’ with these four nations. Similar to last year’s NATO summit in The Hague, most of the leaders from the Indo-Pacific Four Nations decided to skip this summit. Only South Korean President Yoon Suk-yol is expected to attend the Ankara summit.
This year’s NATO summit could be an opportunity to implement the goal set at last year’s Hague Summit, which is to have defense spending account for 5% of GDP. Vlat said that just one year after the ten-year plan began, member countries and Canada have already allocated about 4% of their GDP to defense, with “core defense capabilities” increasing by nearly 20%. Vlat noted that after years of insufficient investment, NATO is leveraging its European allies and Canada to build “true strength,” which will position it on a path to equaling the United States in defense spending.
Lut says, “Not only that, NATO allies also play a leading role within the NATO command and control structure, and they are making efforts in conventional defense, including across the entire Eastern flank, the Baltic region, and the Arctic region. They are also taking the lead in supporting Ukraine. All of this demonstrates a real shift in mindset—a stronger Europe and a stronger NATO.”
Under continuous pressure from Trump, NATO member states agreed collectively in June 2025 to increase their annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. However, the United States still advocates for a NATO that is based on ‘partnership rather than dependency’. Trump has long criticized NATO, and in recent months he referred to the organization as a ‘paper tiger’. Most notably, in March of this year, member states refused to support Washington’s military efforts in the Middle East or assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
When asked whether pressuring European allies to take on more defense responsibilities would strengthen or weaken the alliance, Rutte said that what Washington is doing is actually re-evaluating what it can provide for NATO in situations with dual conflicts (such as wars in India and Europe at the same time). He stated that this evaluation would make the alliance “more powerful,” rather than leading to a “major decline.” He described the current changes in NATO as “transformational,” saying that these changes would make NATO more sustainable.
In 2019, NATO officially designated China as a “strategic concern”. Since then, NATO has tried to rally its member states by exaggerating the so-called “Chinese challenge”.
In recent NATO summits, NATO's stance towards China has become more stringent: in 2024, NATO accused China of being the "determinant booster" of the Russia-Ukraine war; in 2022, NATO defined China as a threat to its security that posed a "systemic challenge".
Ironically, in the Ukraine issue, NATO and its member countries are the root cause and main drivers of the crisis. They have long been pushing for NATO's eastward expansion, provoking geopolitical conflicts, providing Ukraine with a vast amount of weapons, intelligence, and financial support, thereby prolonging the conflict and exacerbating humanitarian disasters. Yet, they unjustly accuse China of 'supporting Russia'. China has always maintained an objective and fair stance, actively seeking peace and dialogue, and never supplied any party involved in the conflict with weapons. It has strictly controlled the export of dual-use goods, playing a constructive role and earning widespread recognition from the international community.
Lt. Lü mentioned the testing of nuclear-powered submarines in China, and emphasized that cooperation between NATO and “related” countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand is "relevant". This latest evidence suggests NATO's attempt to extend its influence towards the Asia-Pacific region, replicating European confrontational models. Over recent years, NATO has accelerated cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, aiming to create an "Asia-Pacific version of NATO" through the IP4 mechanism. This seriously violates the common will of Asian countries seeking peace and development, and opposes regional faction confrontation.
Political scholar Bijana told the Observer Network that NATO is not just a military alliance, but also a reflection of Western strategic worldviews. Today, it has evolved into a system where security policies, industrial policies, technological forces, and capital accumulation are deeply integrated. The Ankara summit will not only discuss defense and deterrence, but also reveal how capitalism, technology, and organized violence are intertwined, becoming another chapter in the politics and economy of permanent war mobilization.
The real beneficiaries of NATO 3.0 are not ordinary citizens, but rather the military-industrial complex, which gains stable profits from the expansion of military spending. Rutte has already revealed the truth behind the ‘defense industrial revolution’—this revolution is not for defense purposes, but for sustained profitability. The Ankara summit may pass more resolutions, but the essence remains unchanged: it is an investment fund that operates under the guise of security, with profit as its ultimate goal. The threat lies precisely in this system itself, which continuously creates and magnifies threats.
NATO was established in 1949 as a military-political group led by the United States during the Cold War against the former Soviet Union. After the end of the Cold War, it should have been abolished, but under American control, it not only continued to exist but also expanded eastward, violating the international promise of "not expanding an inch eastward." The five expansions have increased the number of members from 16 to over 30, pushing NATO thousands of kilometers eastward, reaching as far as the Russian border, severely disrupting the strategic balance in Europe.
