Photo: VCG

Editor' Note: 

For some time, there have been signs that NATO wants to plant its flag in the Asia-Pacific region. The signals seem clearer with a series of recent moves: Two German warships passed through the Taiwan Straits in the middle of this month; Italy's aircraft carrier Cavour has made its first visit to Japan; the US, the UK and Japan will hold regular joint exercises in "Indo-Pacific" from 2025. How real is the possibility of an "Asia-Pacific NATO"? Does the US have the capability to initiate another conflict in the South China Sea? Former Lieutenant Colonel of the US Army and international security consultant Earl Rasmussen (Rasmussen) shared his insights with Global Times (GT) reporters Li Aixin and Guo Yuandan in an interview via video link.

GT: Do recent NATO military actions indicate the bloc's shift toward the Asia-Pacific region?

Rasmussen: I believe they do. They are expanding. They might establish a separate NATO-like entity in the Pacific, or they could integrate it with the existing NATO framework. The UK has always had a global presence, but Germany's involvement in the region is notable. This seems to be part of a broader strategy which includes expanding NATO and encircling China. 

GT: Is this an indication that NATO is shifting its strategy from a defensive stance to an offensive one, as you mentioned before?

Rasmussen: NATO hasn't been a defensive alliance for quite some time. Since the 1990s, NATO hasn't really had a defensive role; it's been more offensive. Look at Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and parts of Africa. In many cases, these interventions were based on false pretenses and lacked a factual basis. Geopolitical interpretations might expand the perceived threat, but the factual basis is questionable.

Sometimes it wasn't fully a NATO operation, but certain NATO members, primarily led by the US, were involved, often without official UN approval. If anything, it seems to be antagonizing and increasing global tensions - not just in Europe, not just in the North Atlantic, not just for NATO members. 

Sometimes I wonder if we really created the threat ourselves. We've created a threat, and instead of trying to resolve tensions diplomatically, we've often acted in ways that increase them. 

NATO is an extension of this policy, primarily reflecting US policy. I'm not sure how much control other members really have.

GT: You noted that internal divisions within NATO are increasing and that the aggressive policies pursued by Washington and Brussels are causing concern among many European leaders. According to your understanding, which NATO countries are still willingly aligning closely with the US, and what are their intentions?

Rasmussen: The UK is clearly aligned with the US and works very closely with it. They are part of the Five Eyes organization for sharing intelligence. The Baltic states and probably Poland are fairly closely aligned with the US due to their anti-Russia stance. 

If you look at discussions and statements, it seems Turkey is trying to play a middle ground. Viktor Orban of Hungary stands up for what is best for Hungary, supporting his own people. 

Despite the demonization of Russia, arm-twisting efforts are underway to counter China's impressive push toward economic development. 

There are certain countries that look at China's development as a threat. It's dangerous because the world is shifting. The global landscape is changing. China is rising, with a huge number of people being lifted out of poverty and contributing to development in various regions around the world. China is actually helping build infrastructure. One might wonder why European colonies did not do so earlier. I think China's initiative is focused on economic development. Yet the US is using its closest allies to maintain its position, which may hinder global cooperation and development aimed at providing stability. 

We are witnessing increased tensions that could easily escalate. When multiple generals openly discuss potential wars with China, Russia, or even Iran, one must ask: What are these individuals thinking? We need true leadership, which seems to be lacking, especially in the Western world.

GT: Do you think the US has the capability to initiate another conflict in the South China Sea?

Rasmussen: They may try, but I don't think they do. In fact, I don't believe they could win a major conflict right now, let alone multiple ones.

US foreign policy is heavily influenced by the neoconservative group. To them, there is no war they've never liked. Moreover, several senior generals have openly discussed the possibility of conflict within the next five years, which is very concerning. Having such people in senior positions creates a very fragile and dangerous foreign policy. Is it a bluff? I don't know. 

We have a lot of nuclear missiles, and any conflict would probably escalate to a nuclear level very rapidly. Nobody is a winner there. 

It's a gambit with a low probability of success, which encourages ongoing threats and increases tensions. There might not be an intentional desire to enter a direct conflict, but as a former US secretary of defense mentioned, one could blunder into one. An accident or unforeseen event could escalate rapidly and get out of control. This direction in US foreign policy - and consequently in NATO and European policy, which tends to follow US direction - is very dangerous.

If you truly believe in diplomacy and sovereignty, you should support the Belt and Road Initiative and BRICS, which aim to build economic ties and strengthen opportunities for countries that have been largely overlooked, which is important. Many of these countries are resource-rich but lack the training and infrastructure needed for development. It's essential to instill a belief in their people that they can rise out of poverty and have a role. I think the policies of China, from a diplomatic perspective, might set an example of true global diplomacy. It is working to help others develop economically. 

I also view China's initiative to bring Saudi Arabia and Iran together, along with its efforts for peace and stability in Ukraine, as significant examples. These are early efforts to set examples and find ways to avoid conflict. That's what leaders do - they set examples and seek to prevent conflicts.

True diplomacy requires give and take. It involves understanding others rather than imposing one's own views. I see these as positive moves. China plays a critical role in peace and stability, but it will not be pushed around. It has a proud people with a rich culture and history. Similarly, this is also the case with Russia.

Western leaders need to take the chip off their shoulders and work together with other global powers. Maybe that's a naive assumption, but I've always believed in it. There's no reason for direct conflict, and we should take every action to avoid it completely, especially to prevent any escalation to a nuclear level.