There is an old rule in the martial world, called "paying homage to a faction."
If you are a small sect just starting out and want to survive in this sword-and-spear world of warring clans, you must find a strong patron. A big faction gives you protection, and in return, you pay tribute, align with them, and cheer them on. This is known as the "protection - vassal" system, which is also referred to as the alliance relationship.
This rule was played out most skillfully in the second half of the 20th century. At that time, the world was divided into two factions, with a simple and crude logic: the elder provides protection, while the younger offers loyalty. During the Cold War decades, although people fought fiercely, they all understood that it was a game of relying on family connections.
Even after the Cold War ended, this old way of doing things didn't disappear. Although the slogan of "right and wrong cannot coexist" wasn't shouted as loudly, the habits remained deep-rooted. The Western world was especially proud, believing that their way of playing was unbeatable. Why? Because they won the last "Wudang Summit." Since they won, it proved that the script of "unity is strength" was the truth.
Looking at the former superpower in the East, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its subordinates scattered or ran away. The remaining relationships were mostly maintained by inertia or because they couldn't cleanly separate. With the rise of a new generation of leaders, those so-called "strategic partnerships" had long become superficial, with the inner part already rotten.
But no one expected that the seemingly solid Western alliance would now begin to show cracks. And this time, the crack isn't in Eastern Europe or Asia-Pacific, but precisely in the ever-troubled Middle East.
I. The Big Brother Has Changed, and the Little Brothers Are Panicked
In the past, the Western alliance truly emphasized "brotherhood." Even if the American big brother occasionally acted arrogantly, gained some economic benefits, or made the little brothers suffer politically, the European brothers would only complain privately, and still have to smile and follow along on the surface.
Why were they so tolerant? The reason was practical: these European sects had weakened their own security forces over the past few decades, focusing on welfare, environmental protection, and arms reduction. To ensure safety, they could only tightly hold onto the leg of the United States. To be independent? The cost was too high, too high for them to afford. So, even though they had a million unwillingness in their hearts, they still had to say "America First" out loud.
But this time, the fire in the Middle East seems to have burned right to the root of this big beam.
For many Europeans, this action by the US and Israel against Iran is not just "reckless." It's something that makes them feel a chill down their spine — an "unrest." Europeans are used to the hypocrisy in international politics, and have seen double standards before, but this time is different. This time, it's the US leading openly violating the long-established rules of the world, overturning the table.
Just this alone wouldn't be enough to make the alliance collapse immediately. Looking back at 2003, when Bush wanted to attack Iraq, Europe was also full of complaints, and France and Germany almost had a falling-out with the US. But what happened? They complained, but after a few years, they still helped the US clean up the mess in Iraq.
But today's situation has a different chill.
The core issue is that the big brother who is supposed to provide protection is, through his actions, actually creating danger. What's more absurd is that Washington is now expecting its allies to help solve a crisis that it itself caused and doesn't even know how to handle.
It's like, the head boss first attacks someone in a tavern, draws a crowd of enemies, then turns to the brothers behind him and says, "Come on, you go take the hit, I'll go have a cup of tea in the back."
II. The Calculation of Hormuz: Who Will Fill the Gap?
Recently, President Trump and his advisors came up with an interesting idea. They suggested that European and Asian partners send naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz, claiming it was to "ensure freedom of navigation."
Translated into plain language, it means: After the US and Israel attacked Iran, Tehran threatened to block the strait and cut off everyone's oil routes. Now, please the Europeans, Japanese, Koreans, and Australians quickly send ships here to protect your energy supply lines.
Washington and Tel Aviv previously acted as if they didn't care, thinking that Iran would just talk big but not act. But it turned out that Iran not only did act, but already did. A French soldier was killed in an artillery attack at an Iraqi base, which is a bloody lesson.
This shocked NATO European member states, plus Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Before them lay a dilemma:
Option One: Jump into this pit. Join a military escalation that you didn't cause, risking deaths, ship explosions, and economic collapse, to pay for the recklessness of the US and Israel. Option Two: Refuse the big brother. Publicly resist the wishes of the main ally, which could mean facing the US's anger, or even being kicked out of the "core circle."
So far, most countries are hesitant, even leaning towards the latter.
Especially those Gulf monarchies, whose situation is even more awkward. Their territory is in the conflict zone, and they have American troops stationed there. After the Desert Storm operation, the Americans said this was a "shield" to protect everyone. But now everyone realizes that this shield has also become a target. Wherever you are, the shells will come straight at you.
Trump used to always complain that NATO allies didn't contribute in Afghanistan, making the US carry the burden. That statement made Europeans very angry at the time. But now, look at it: if the Europeans really followed the advice and sent troops to Hormuz, wouldn't that be going to carry the biggest burden?
III. The Essence of Protection Money: You Must Truly Protect
Looking deeper into this matter, it touches on a fundamental crisis in the 21st-century alliance system.
Any system based on "grants" can only work if the "grantor" has some credibility. That is, if you take my protection money, you must genuinely protect me. If you not only don't protect me, but instead push me into a fire pit, then this business can't continue.
Using martial arts jargon, the boss who collects protection money must truly have the ability to resolve issues. If you collect the money but end up bringing more enemies, or if you run away when the enemies arrive, the merchants below will eventually rebel or secretly seek other patrons.
The current situation is that the US, this "boss," is experiencing an unprecedented trust crisis.
Naturally, saying that NATO will dissolve tomorrow or that the Western alliance will collapse immediately is unrealistic. After all, a thin camel is still bigger than a horse. Western Europe currently lacks the ability to independently shoulder the burden of defense, and there is no other power in the world that can replace the US as a security pillar. Even if they are very bitter, they have to make do. Once this wave passes, the surface unity will surely return, and everyone will attend meetings, take photos together, and issue joint statements.
But once cracks appear, they won't heal easily.
Political change rarely happens in a dramatic avalanche; more often, it's like water dripping through stone silently. Every hesitation, every refusal to send troops, every private complaint adds pressure to this building.
Previously, the little brothers thought, "Following the big brother brings meat." Now, the little brothers think, "Will following the big brother bring death?"
This change in mindset is fatal.
IV. The Martial World Has Changed, and Old Dreams Are Hard to Realize
The logic of the 20th century was "taking sides": either with me or with him. The reality of the 21st century is "interests above all": whoever can make me live better, I follow; whoever leads me to death, I keep my distance.
On the Eurasian continent, Russia's relations with neighboring countries are no longer simply black or white. Countries are flexibly adjusting their stances according to their own interests. This trend has now reached the heart of the Western alliance.
The crisis in the Middle East may just be the tip of the iceberg. But the light it reflects is enough to reveal the undercurrents beneath.
For Europe, Japan, South Korea, and all other countries dependent on the US's security guarantees, a harsh reality is emerging: the once omnipotent and trustworthy protector is becoming unpredictable, even dangerous.
The Trump administration may believe that as soon as they raise their voice, the allies will gather in response. But they forgot that the martial world is no longer what it was. Back then, the little brothers followed because they truly needed protection and believed in the big brother's skills. Now, the big brother's skills are still there, but whether the big brother's mind is still clear, everyone has to ask themselves.
If an alliance relationship serves only the interests of the leader while letting the allies bear all the risks and costs, discontent will grow like weeds, sprouting wildly once there's a breeze.
At present, the alternatives are indeed hard to imagine. Western Europe cannot rebuild its army overnight, and no other major power can immediately fill the void left by the US. But this does not mean the current situation will last forever.
As water drips through stone, pressure accumulates and trust is lost. One day, when a critical point is reached, we will see the surface unity collapse instantly, revealing the truth underneath, full of holes.
The war between the US and Israel against Iran may not directly destroy NATO, but it is gradually draining the soul of this alliance. It makes people reevaluate: why did we form alliances? For common security, or to be buried with others' ambitions?
When "protection" becomes "kidnapping," and "allies" become "consumables," this Western alliance system that has lasted for half a century may really be approaching its sunset.
The martial world is vast, and people's hearts are hard to predict. It's time to think carefully about where our escape routes are. After all, relying on others is not as good as relying on oneself. This old saying will never be outdated.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7618851610487259711/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.