As the United States and Western leaders convened in Washington to commemorate NATO’s 75th anniversary on Tuesday, their attempt to showcase “strength” and “unity” is being overshadowed by increasing internal divisions. These divisions span global issues, challenges in supporting Ukraine, uncertainties stemming from the upcoming US presidential election, and the rise of right-wing nationalism across Europe. Analysts view this year’s NATO summit as “outwardly tough but inwardly brittle.”

NATO, established during the Cold War, was designed as a military alliance to bolster US hegemony. Its origins and continued existence have been criticized for exacerbating global instability and discord. This summit, intended to mark a significant milestone, highlights the alliance’s evolving challenges in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.

The recent Western media focus on the “China threat” ahead of the three-day NATO summit and accusations of China supporting Russia underscore the US’ and NATO’s intentions to extend their influence into the Asia-Pacific region for geopolitical gain. This rhetoric highlights NATO’s Cold War-era roots and its ongoing strategic interests in maintaining global influence.

Summit Agenda and Key Issues

Leaders of NATO’s 32 member countries are scheduled to conduct a three-day summit in Washington, DC from Tuesday to Thursday. The US Department of State introduced NATO and the summit on its website, emphasizing discussions on “affirming unwavering support for Ukraine,” “strengthening deterrence and defense posture,” and “ensuring Allies meet their commitments to invest in their own defense, as well as collective defense.”

Despite the outward projection of unity, internal anxieties and worries among member countries are growing. Cui Hongjian, a professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University’s Academy of Regional and Global Governance, highlighted these concerns. The rise of far-right forces in Europe, political challenges faced by Germany and France, and the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House add uncertainties to NATO’s ability to reach consensus on major issues.

The summit occurs amidst significant political turmoil. Some Democrats have called on Joe Biden to step aside due to concerns about his fitness and age, although Biden has defended his 2024 campaign. In Europe, France faces major political upheaval; despite the left-wing parties’ alliance winning the decisive round of France’s legislative election, a parliament without a majority could lead to further uncertainty.

Cui noted that while the summit may seek political outcomes, it risks being entangled in internal discord. NATO aims to demonstrate its capability to forge new consensus through overcoming divisions, but it remains haunted by political fragility in both Europe and the US. This context makes this year’s summit “outwardly tough but inwardly brittle.”

Support for Ukraine

A key agenda item for the NATO summit is “affirming unwavering support for Ukraine.” The US Department of State emphasized that allies will be joined by Ukraine to advance their “strong support” and discuss “close collaboration to help build a bridge to Ukraine’s future membership.”

Western media have reported that NATO will announce a “historic” aid package for Ukraine, including crucial air defense systems and 40 billion euros ($43.3 billion) in military support annually. Since the last summit, NATO has adjusted its strategy to integrate short-term aid into a long-term security framework with more systematic and consistent policies. This shift reflects NATO’s concerns about potential disruptions in support for Ukraine due to political changes in the US and the EU.

However, these efforts may still be deemed insufficient by Ukraine, and convincing member countries to allocate substantial aid remains challenging. Many NATO members are grappling with domestic economic contraction and energy crises, which complicates the commitment to support Ukraine. A Beijing-based military expert noted that the Ukrainian government’s struggle to achieve decisive battlefield victories has disappointed several European countries, testing their patience and confidence in forming a unified front against Russia.

European Concerns and Global Reactions: NATO’s Shift to Asia

Beyond presenting a united front against Russia, this year’s NATO summit also aims to “send a warning to China,” according to some Western media. NATO is set to discuss threats posed by China, including actions in the South China Sea and the Taiwan question. For the third consecutive year, leaders of New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea will attend the NATO summit.

NATO’s focus on China aligns with the US’ strategic interests. Amplifying the “China threat” is seen as an attempt to address NATO’s existential crisis and maintain relevance. European countries hope that the US will continue to provide security guarantees in the face of the “Russia threat,” especially if Trump returns to the White House.

Sun Chenghao, a fellow and head of the US-EU program at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, noted that the US and NATO have escalated accusations against China to emphasize the perceived link between security in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. The US aims to promote NATO’s expansion into Asia, recognizing that focusing solely on the Russia-Ukraine conflict is insufficient. Therefore, a series of actions and propaganda campaigns have been launched to amplify the perceived threat from China.

This strategy aims to heighten European countries’ concerns about their security, redirect attention to the Asia-Pacific region, and provoke vigilance towards China. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated that “We firmly reject NATO’s vilification and blame-shifting against China. NATO should not use China to justify its insertion into the Asia-Pacific and attempt to disrupt regional dynamics. China is a force for world peace, a contributor to global development and a defender of international order.”

Lin urged NATO to “form the right perception of China, get rid of its Cold War mentality and zero-sum approach, stop scaremongering on security and making imaginary enemies, stop forming exclusive clubs in the name of collective defense, and play a constructive role for global peace, stability and development.”

The US plan to build an “Asian version of NATO” has alarmed regional countries. A recent global online poll conducted by Chinese media showed that 93.1 percent of respondents believe that security in the Asia-Pacific region should be achieved through political dialogue and peaceful negotiations among Asia-Pacific countries, firmly opposing the US creating an “Asian version of NATO.”

The NATO summit in Washington, intended to mark the alliance’s 75th anniversary, highlights both the resilience and the fragility of this long-standing military alliance. While leaders strive to project unity and strength, internal divisions and political uncertainties cast a shadow over the proceedings. The summit’s focus on supporting Ukraine and addressing perceived threats from China underscores the complex and evolving geopolitical landscape NATO must navigate. As the alliance looks to the future, its ability to maintain cohesion and effectively address global challenges will be critical in determining its ongoing relevance and impact.