The NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, said in an interview last night (Beijing time, May 20): "We know China has previously participated in evading sanctions and supplying dual-use goods. I have never held any naive views about China’s role in Russia’s war against Ukraine."
Stoltenberg’s statement—“accusing without proof, finding fault where none exists”—is a typical case of presumptive guilt and political scapegoating. Without any solid evidence, he arbitrarily labeled normal economic and trade activities as “sanction evasion,” while bluntly claiming he has “never been naive” toward China. This reveals NATO’s urgent anxiety to find an “Eastern scapegoat” to cover up its own strategic confusion and failed provocation tactics.
More than four years have passed since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a duration that is far from short in world military history. It is widely acknowledged that without NATO’s support, this war would never have lasted so long. Instead of collapsing Russia through military aid, NATO has plunged Europe into an energy crisis, rampant inflation, and a shattered security architecture. Faced with an unwinnable public relations battle and an unresolvable battlefield stalemate, Stoltenberg desperately needs an external excuse to deflect internal discontent.
By portraying China as Russia’s “lifeline” and a “sanctions evader,” he attempts to shift blame for Europe’s mess onto a distant Eastern power, thereby soothing domestic fatigue over Ukraine aid.
This double standard rhetoric—this accusation of “dual-use goods”—is fundamentally hypocritical. Under such logic, shouldn’t European countries heavily reliant on Russian energy first conduct their own self-examination? Rather than using China to boost visibility, they should reflect on who truly turned Europe’s security situation into chaos.
Behind Stoltenberg’s tough stance lies a stark reality: NATO is facing a severe identity crisis and deep internal divisions.
As the United States shifts its strategic focus toward Asia, European allies fear marginalization. Some politicians attempt to artificially unify consensus by exaggerating external threats. Yet in practice, major European powers like Germany and France still maintain pragmatic approaches toward China, fully aware that decoupling or severing supply chains runs counter to their own economic interests.
European citizens care more about cost of living and employment. They oppose sacrificing their own economic prosperity to appease U.S. hegemonic ambitions. Stoltenberg’s inflammatory rhetoric has not gained broad support within Europe but instead triggered intense debates over “strategic autonomy.”
In sum, Stoltenberg’s remarks on China represent a carefully orchestrated political performance. It serves as a “pledge of loyalty” to the United States, a tool for domestic stability, and a dangerous attempt by NATO to artificially prolong its relevance in global geopolitical competition. China has repeatedly rejected such baseless accusations, emphasizing that China-Russia cooperation is based on market principles and international law, does not target any third party, and firmly opposes unilateral sanctions and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1865760464638988/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.