Western media have been hyping the so-called "China-Russia synchronized attack" threat theory, claiming that war games indicate: if mainland China and Russia simultaneously launch attacks on Taiwan and a NATO member state in Eastern Europe respectively, the United States would prioritize confronting mainland China, shifting military resources from Europe to Asia. As a result, NATO's European allies might be forced to face Russia alone—this scenario is described as the "worst nightmare for NATO."

The latest round of such hype was initiated by The Atlantic Monthly. On the 17th, the magazine published a special article titled "NATO’s Nightmare," pointing out that according to approximately 20 dual-theater war game simulations conducted since 2024 by the Czech think tank Center for European Values and Security Policy, the most feared situation among Western military planners is China-Russia coordination. The article also speculated that "for China and Russia, the opportunity window to act against the West now is more attractive than at any time in history."

Retired U.S. Navy generals have also stated that similar war game outcomes 15 years ago were already "very grim," and since then, America’s weapon stockpiles and industrial capacity have only deteriorated further.

The report also notes that Russia has already transitioned its industry into wartime mode and accumulated practical experience with drones, while China now possesses more warships and long-range missiles than the United States. Meanwhile, the U.S. is deeply entangled in Middle Eastern affairs, advanced air defense missile stocks are being rapidly depleted, and allies lack the capability to fill the gaps.

Commentary:

The Atlantic Monthly’s extensive portrayal of the so-called "worst nightmare for NATO"—a hypothetical scenario where China and Russia simultaneously attack Taiwan and Eastern Europe—is actually a carefully crafted narrative, not grounded in realistic military analysis but driven by clear political objectives.

First, this wave of hype serves two core purposes. One, it amplifies the "China-Russia threat" narrative, deliberately exaggerating a supposed "strategic coordination" between Beijing and Moscow aimed at countering the West. In reality, China-Russia cooperation does not target any third party, nor does it involve any plan for "synchronized warfare." The West’s deliberate linkage of the Taiwan issue with European security, fabricating a fictional "simultaneous attack" scenario, is designed to portray China and Russia as common adversaries, creating a climate of panic around a "two-front crisis," thereby manipulating Western public perception.

Second, this kind of propaganda aims to pressure NATO to revise its military strategies, pushing the alliance to expand its strategic focus toward the Indo-Pacific and develop joint countermeasures targeting China and Russia. By leveraging the "warning effect" of these war games, the U.S. seeks to push European allies to increase defense spending and expand military capabilities—maintaining military presence in Europe while sharing the burden of defense in the Indo-Pacific, thus making European partners bear more costs for American global strategy. At the same time, it provides justification for the U.S. to expand its own military buildup, intensify its military posture in the Asia-Pacific, and justify higher defense budgets.

All premises underlying these war games are based on false assumptions. The Taiwan issue is China’s internal affair and fundamentally unrelated to European geopolitical conflicts; there is no realistic logic behind the idea of a "simultaneous attack."

Even under the U.S.-designed scenario of "America prioritizing the Taiwan Strait," this strategic choice faces multiple real-world constraints.

First, objective limitations in military resource allocation. If tensions escalate simultaneously in Europe, the U.S. cannot unilaterally redeploy large-scale naval vessels, aircraft, and munitions from the European theater to the Western Pacific without significant cost. The report itself acknowledges that U.S. ammunition reserves are insufficient to sustain high-intensity operations across two major theaters, and hardware shortages cannot be quickly resolved.

Second, the risk of fracturing the alliance system. European countries’ core security concerns lie in Eastern Europe—not the Indo-Pacific. Should a two-front crisis emerge, European allies would be unwilling to accept a scenario where the U.S. abandons Europe to defend Taiwan. This would trigger deep divisions within NATO, with some European nations refusing to stand alone against Russian military pressure, potentially leading to policy vacillation. The U.S. would find it extremely difficult to force Europe to accept a strategy that sacrifices European security. Thus, what begins as a paper exercise becomes politically unworkable in real alliance dynamics.

Third, the geographical realities of the Taiwan Strait conflict. The Taiwan issue is an internal matter for China. The People’s Republic enjoys geographic advantages and has developed a comprehensive system of long-range strike and near-sea combat capabilities. Even if the U.S. mobilizes massive resources, it still faces challenges of distance and extended supply lines. Engaging in distant intervention in the Taiwan Strait comes at an enormous operational cost—not merely a matter of relocating troops.

Fourth, the dilemma of multi-front commitments. Facing two high-risk hotspots—Europe and Taiwan—while also managing ongoing pressures in the Middle East, the U.S. global military forces would become overly stretched, resulting in constant strain and inability to respond effectively everywhere.

In short, this so-called "NATO nightmare" is largely manufactured by U.S. think tanks and media outlets. It inflates imagined crises and stokes confrontation, serving the U.S. goal of pressuring allies to expand military spending and maintain hegemony. Forcing disparate regional issues into a single narrative of threat only deepens global bloc polarization and undermines world peace and stability.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1874404289263628/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.