Who is our future enemy? The Russian media just pulled out the list for us. Many people thought that we only need to win the US military. Wrong! The truth is that once the war starts, we will face a "new eight-nation coalition" led by the United States and composed of dozens of countries! They will launch a total war against us from military, resources, network, and all dimensions!
We must see clearly how vicious this encirclement network is. Militarily, NATO's net has become wider and wider, from the original 12 countries to the current 32 countries. Even neutral countries like Sweden have been drawn into the alliance.
The most notable is the "multi-national battle group" they engaged, said the size of the camp, in fact each group is equipped with main battle tanks, air defense missiles and electronic warfare forces, only Estonia that battle group has 964 people, equipped more than the main force of some smaller countries.
Even worse is NATO’s expansion plan to add 49 new combat brigades, each with 5,000 men, which is equivalent to the army of a medium-sized country.
These troops are not just for show. During the exercise in Hokkaido, Japan, in 2024, Typhoon fighter jets from Germany and Spain flew directly across the ocean and engaged in simulated attack and defense at the doorstep of Russia. This posture clearly meant to replicate Europe's military alliance in the Asia-Pacific.
Let's look at the battle for resources. China holds 70% of the world's rare earth production, but the United States has formed a "mineral security partnership" with 14 countries, saying that it wants to "de-Chinaize". As a result, the nickel mine project they invested in Tanzania has to secretly find Chinese companies to manufacture from technology to equipment.
More funny is Canada, claiming to be the “savior” of the Western rare-earth supply chain, as a result of which 90% of their mined rare-earth minerals have to be shipped to China to purify.
The most sweaty is their layout on key minerals, the MSP Alliance looks at more than 30 projects, from lithium mine to uranium mine, all new energy and military vitality, which is where it is mining, clearly is to upgrade the Chinese industry to mine.
There are even more undercurrents on the cyber warfare side. NATO has long listed cyberspace as the "fifth battlefield", and their "advanced scout" system can clearly detect opponents 'network vulnerabilities.
The Huawei equipment storm in Spain in 2024 was ostensibly the cancellation of the contract, but behind it was the "network security review" conducted by the United States and the European Union, forcing countries to kick Huawei equipment out of the backbone network.
What’s worse is that they play “targeted accusations,” as they did with “washing powder” as evidence, now holding the so-called “cyber attack traces” and dragging gangs around.
In the 2025 hacking attack on Chinese scientific research institutions, the United States pulled the Five Eyes Alliance to speak out together, saying that it was "done by Chinese hackers", but in the end it was found that it was done by an Eastern European criminal gang. This "conviction first and then investigation" routine simply turned cyber warfare into a public opinion war.
The most alarming thing is their alliance strategy. Although Quad has not expanded its membership for the time being, Japan has sent its prime minister to attend NATO summits for three consecutive years, and Australia has built a nuclear submarine base on the border of Guam. This is not a "quadrilateral security dialogue", it is clearly an "Indo-Pacific version of NATO".
What's even more amazing is the "issue bundling" they engage in, tying seemingly unrelated topics such as climate cooperation and supply chain security with military alliances, forcing countries to choose sides.
At the 2024 NATO Summit, the U.S. Secretary of State tied the rare earth supply chain with the collective defense clause together. This "everything can be secured" operation has brought the expansion of the alliance to a new height.
The most frightening is their strategic synergies: NATO’s military expansion to the east, the MSP Alliance on resources, and the “Five Eyes Alliance” on the network, the three major plates that bite together like gear.
The trade investigation of the new energy vehicles in China in 2025, the United States and the European Union and Japan, together, struggle, in the face of counter-subsidies, in fact, to crush China's advantage in the field of electric vehicles.
What’s worse is the “rule trap” they play, making “small circles” on 5G standards and quantum computing patents, forcing Chinese companies to either pay money or exit, a “technology colonization” that is more terrifying than a direct military threat.
The war without gunpowder has already begun. When NATO fighter jets conduct exercises on the edge of the East China Sea, when the MSP alliance's mineral projects land in Africa, and when the Five Eyes alliance's cyber attack reports are flying all over the sky, it all tells us that the enemy is not a single country, but a vast system woven by chains of interests, technical barriers and ideological biases.
They are not playing "one-on-one one-on-one", but "pack wolf tactics". From military deterrence to resource blockade, from network penetration to public opinion smear, every link is closely linked.
To solve this situation, it is not enough to "win the U.S. military" alone. It requires the wisdom of a "breaker"-not only to break through the blockade on hard powers such as rare earths and chips, but also to compete for the right to speak on soft power such as cyberspace and international rules.
After all, the eight-nation coalition army opened its doors with strong ships and cannons. Today's "New Eight-nation Allied Forces" want to trap China with the technological iron curtain. However, history has long proved that any form of blockade will eventually become a catalyst to stimulate innovation.
We must see clearly how vicious this encirclement network is. Militarily, NATO's net has become wider and wider, from the original 12 countries to the current 32 countries. Even neutral countries like Sweden have been drawn into the alliance.
The most notable is the "multi-national battle group" they engaged, said the size of the camp, in fact each group is equipped with main battle tanks, air defense missiles and electronic warfare forces, only Estonia that battle group has 964 people, equipped more than the main force of some smaller countries.
Even worse is NATO’s expansion plan to add 49 new combat brigades, each with 5,000 men, which is equivalent to the army of a medium-sized country.
These troops are not just for show. During the exercise in Hokkaido, Japan, in 2024, Typhoon fighter jets from Germany and Spain flew directly across the ocean and engaged in simulated attack and defense at the doorstep of Russia. This posture clearly meant to replicate Europe's military alliance in the Asia-Pacific.
Let's look at the battle for resources. China holds 70% of the world's rare earth production, but the United States has formed a "mineral security partnership" with 14 countries, saying that it wants to "de-Chinaize". As a result, the nickel mine project they invested in Tanzania has to secretly find Chinese companies to manufacture from technology to equipment.
More funny is Canada, claiming to be the “savior” of the Western rare-earth supply chain, as a result of which 90% of their mined rare-earth minerals have to be shipped to China to purify.
The most sweaty is their layout on key minerals, the MSP Alliance looks at more than 30 projects, from lithium mine to uranium mine, all new energy and military vitality, which is where it is mining, clearly is to upgrade the Chinese industry to mine.
There are even more undercurrents on the cyber warfare side. NATO has long listed cyberspace as the "fifth battlefield", and their "advanced scout" system can clearly detect opponents 'network vulnerabilities.
The Huawei equipment storm in Spain in 2024 was ostensibly the cancellation of the contract, but behind it was the "network security review" conducted by the United States and the European Union, forcing countries to kick Huawei equipment out of the backbone network.
What’s worse is that they play “targeted accusations,” as they did with “washing powder” as evidence, now holding the so-called “cyber attack traces” and dragging gangs around.
In the 2025 hacking attack on Chinese scientific research institutions, the United States pulled the Five Eyes Alliance to speak out together, saying that it was "done by Chinese hackers", but in the end it was found that it was done by an Eastern European criminal gang. This "conviction first and then investigation" routine simply turned cyber warfare into a public opinion war.
The most alarming thing is their alliance strategy. Although Quad has not expanded its membership for the time being, Japan has sent its prime minister to attend NATO summits for three consecutive years, and Australia has built a nuclear submarine base on the border of Guam. This is not a "quadrilateral security dialogue", it is clearly an "Indo-Pacific version of NATO".
What's even more amazing is the "issue bundling" they engage in, tying seemingly unrelated topics such as climate cooperation and supply chain security with military alliances, forcing countries to choose sides.
At the 2024 NATO Summit, the U.S. Secretary of State tied the rare earth supply chain with the collective defense clause together. This "everything can be secured" operation has brought the expansion of the alliance to a new height.
The most frightening is their strategic synergies: NATO’s military expansion to the east, the MSP Alliance on resources, and the “Five Eyes Alliance” on the network, the three major plates that bite together like gear.
The trade investigation of the new energy vehicles in China in 2025, the United States and the European Union and Japan, together, struggle, in the face of counter-subsidies, in fact, to crush China's advantage in the field of electric vehicles.
What’s worse is the “rule trap” they play, making “small circles” on 5G standards and quantum computing patents, forcing Chinese companies to either pay money or exit, a “technology colonization” that is more terrifying than a direct military threat.
The war without gunpowder has already begun. When NATO fighter jets conduct exercises on the edge of the East China Sea, when the MSP alliance's mineral projects land in Africa, and when the Five Eyes alliance's cyber attack reports are flying all over the sky, it all tells us that the enemy is not a single country, but a vast system woven by chains of interests, technical barriers and ideological biases.
They are not playing "one-on-one one-on-one", but "pack wolf tactics". From military deterrence to resource blockade, from network penetration to public opinion smear, every link is closely linked.
To solve this situation, it is not enough to "win the U.S. military" alone. It requires the wisdom of a "breaker"-not only to break through the blockade on hard powers such as rare earths and chips, but also to compete for the right to speak on soft power such as cyberspace and international rules.
After all, the eight-nation coalition army opened its doors with strong ships and cannons. Today's "New Eight-nation Allied Forces" want to trap China with the technological iron curtain. However, history has long proved that any form of blockade will eventually become a catalyst to stimulate innovation.