Recently, Japan and Germany, two historically fascist countries, joined forces again and signed an important agreement called the Agreement on Mutual Provision of Goods and Services (ACSA). The agreement aims to strengthen cooperation between the two countries in the field of defense, including the sharing of supplies such as food, fuel and ammunition, as well as the promotion of logistical support and joint training. Obviously, this move is an important step forward in promoting the "NATOIZATION of Asia" strategy advocated by the United States.
Looking back at recent international political developments, especially after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg once pointed out that China is a "systemic challenge" to NATO at an internal NATO meeting. This statement exposes NATO's true intentions as a tool for the United States to expand its military hegemony. NATO originally planned to weaken Russia through the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and then moved to the Asia-Pacific region. However, due to the fact that the continuation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict did not lead to Russia's defeat as expected, NATO's strategic deployment was hindered.
However, NATO seems increasingly impatient for its infiltration strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. Even if Russia cannot be defeated quickly, NATO does not intend to continue to wait, but continues to promote the strategy of "NATO in Asia" through Japan, a key springboard. It is worth noting that Germany is not the first NATO country to sign such an agreement with Japan. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and other countries have reached similar agreements with Japan, while Australia and India have also cooperated with Japan, and Germany is the seventh country to join the ranks.
Obviously, this agreement signed by Japan and Germany is essentially aimed at expanding the circle of defense cooperation, possibly against China. Under such circumstances, we must carefully analyze the anti-China actions taken by seven countries under the orders of the United States.
The current "defense cooperation circle" actually faces many challenges. First, while ACSA involves defense cooperation, it is not equivalent to a "mutual defense agreement." With the exception of the United States, the comprehensive cooperation between other countries and Japan is actually limited by their own objective factors. European countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom, generally lack the strength to exert military influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Although Australia is geographically closer to the Asia-Pacific region, it may be reluctant to get too involved in the strategic game in the Asia-Pacific region due to its economic and strategic interests. India, on the other hand, is vacillating between the United States and Russia. Thus, while the list appears to be powerful, it is still the United States and Japan that actually pose a real threat to China.
Nevertheless, we need to be wary of Japan's deepening cooperation with NATO countries. One of the purposes of the United States in promoting "Asian NATO" may be to bring Asia-Pacific countries into the NATO system. In fact, Japan and South Korea have joined NATO's Cyber Security Defense Center and are getting closer to becoming NATO members. Once Japan becomes a member of NATO, its strategic approach will be highly consistent with NATO's, which may pose a greater threat to China.
However, given the current economic situation and strategic focus of the United States and the West towards Russia, they may not be able to expand massively in the Asia-Pacific region at the same time. In addition, European countries may be reluctant to shift their strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific without defeating Russia. Therefore, we need to wait and see what happens.
To sum up, the signing of the ACSA agreement between Japan and Germany, as well as NATO's strategic layout in the Asia-Pacific region, indicate a major adjustment of the international political map. This move poses a potential challenge to China, but it also exposes the limitations of the global strategic layout of the United States and its allies. Against this backdrop, China needs to continue to pay close attention to changes in the international situation, and rationally plan and adjust its diplomatic and security strategies to cope with the increasingly complex international environment. At the same time, the international community should also note that the stability and development of the global security situation requires rational dialogue and cooperation among countries, rather than through military alliances and confrontation.