NATO getting tough on China for backing Russia's war effort

submitted by

www.dw.com/en/nato-getting-tough-on-china-for-b…

At their summit in the US capital, NATO leaders are not only set to approve a new military aid package for Ukraine, but also to talk tough on China.

In an interview with US media ahead of the summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described China as "the main enabler of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine."

[...]

China's behavior during the war in Ukraine is being viewed by NATO countries as proof that Europe cannot afford to ignore the challenge Beijing poses.

51

Log in to comment

2 Comments

In addition, some observers say that NATO's involvement in the Indo-Pacific would not be welcomed by everyone. "This is a very volatile region. But there are no hot wars at the moment," Shada Islam, an independent EU advisor in Brussels, told DW. "Most of the countries that I speak to, whether it's Indonesia or Malaysia or even India, don't want this foreign power to come to the region and perhaps make things worse," Islam said. So, getting tougher on China and establishing closer bonds with partners in the Indo-Pacific will remain a difficult balancing act for NATO. "It's a balancing act because there is a risk of escalation," Liselotte Odgaard at Hudson Institute told DW. If NATO countries push too hard, she said, China could decide to cooperate even more with Russia, North Korea and Iran. That certainly would not be in the interest of NATO.

I am sure everything will turn out fine and dandy

Why does Deutsche Welle use the American date notation?

Comments from other communities

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summary

In an interview with US media ahead of the summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described China as "the main enabler of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine."

According to the US assessment, China is the top supplier of machine tools, microelectronics, and nitrocellulose — critical to making munitions and rocket propellers — and other dual-use items that Moscow uses to ramp up its defense industrial base.

In June, South Korean National Security Advisor Chang Ho-jin told reporters Seoul will review the possibility of supplying weapons to Ukraine, after the leaders of North Korea and Russia signed a pact pledging mutual defense in the event of war.

NATO has collaborated with partners in the Indo-Pacific since the early 2000s, but Russia's war against Ukraine and security challenges posed by China have led to a deeper engagement.

Ahead of the meeting, NATO chief Stoltenberg said the alliance and its Indo-Pacific partners "will build on our practical cooperation with flagship projects on Ukraine, cyber, and new technologies."

Last year, France blocked a NATO plan to open a liaison office in Japan, insisting the alliance is geographically confined to the North Atlantic.


Saved 78% of original text.

Good luck getting western rent seekers and money changers on board...

Fuck your security peasants!

by
[deleted]

Good

Perhaps step #1 would be kicking Hungary out of the alliance.

Hungary should stay. Orban should go.

You're not wrong, but I don't see how that could work, given how Orban's party typically gets >50% of the votes.

Then again, TISZA is on the rise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Hungarian_parliamentary_election#/media/File:2026_Hungarian_election_polls.svg -- would be amazing if they could beat Fidesz.

This is the best summary I could come up with:


In an interview with US media ahead of the summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described China as "the main enabler of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine."

According to the US assessment, China is the top supplier of machine tools, microelectronics, and nitrocellulose — critical to making munitions and rocket propellers — and other dual-use items that Moscow uses to ramp up its defense industrial base.

In June, South Korean National Security Advisor Chang Ho-jin told reporters Seoul will review the possibility of supplying weapons to Ukraine, after the leaders of North Korea and Russia signed a pact pledging mutual defense in the event of war.

NATO has collaborated with partners in the Indo-Pacific since the early 2000s, but Russia's war against Ukraine and security challenges posed by China have led to a deeper engagement.

Ahead of the meeting, NATO chief Stoltenberg said the alliance and its Indo-Pacific partners "will build on our practical cooperation with flagship projects on Ukraine, cyber, and new technologies."

Last year, France blocked a NATO plan to open a liaison office in Japan, insisting the alliance is geographically confined to the North Atlantic.


The original article contains 860 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Getting tough = issue a sternly worded statement of disapproval

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described China as "the main enabler of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine."

What a perfectly normal way to describe a war.

It’s like when Confederates talk of the War of Northern Aggression.

"War of aggression" just means a war that's not in self-defence. "Aggression" specifically is also a term used in laws like the Rome Statute. This language is actually very well established in contexts that are not people trying to play cover for the Confederacy

Also a crime in the Criminal Code of Russian Federation, §353, 'Planning, preparation, starting and prolonging the war of agression': https://ukodeksrf.ru/ch-2/rzd-12/gl-34/st-353-uk-rf

Yeah, I know what it means.

So what's your issue with it? Just that some pro-Confederacy dickheads use the same words?

No one talks that way normally. It’s the kind of talking that people use when they want to reinforce a narrative.

When I hear things like that from our officials, I don’t feel like I’m being informed. I feel like I’m being trained to think a certain way.

You think it's weird that someone speaking in their second language in a position of great international power is using language that you wouldn't use day to day?

There's no trick here. It's not a term he made up, it's one rooted in relevant international law. Stoltenberg said exactly what he meant: Russia's war is unjust. If you think that that's an odd position for the secretary general of NATO to express then I really don't know what to tell you

Lol, get over yourself, champ.

Except in this case it's accurate? It's calling out Russia's lack of appropriate casus belli.