NATO Secretary-General LutherIt is like throwing a giant stone into a quiet lake, sparking a wave of shock in the international community – if there is a conflict in the Taiwan Sea, Russia or in Europe, NATO faces the difficulty of operating on both sides.
Recently, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte released a "blockbuster" in an interview with the New York Times. He publicly stated that if China takes military action in the Taiwan Strait region, Russia may "take advantage of the opportunity to cause trouble" in Europe. This statement immediately aroused widespread attention and heated discussions around the world.
Rutte painted a picture that if the situation in the Taiwan Strait changes, Russia is very likely to contain NATO forces in the direction of Europe, thereby "distracting NATO's attention" and making NATO fall into a passive situation of fighting on the east and west fronts. He even speculated that if the Chinese mainland decides to unify by force, it may coordinate with Russia in advance and ask the latter to contain NATO in the European battlefield.
This is not the first time that Luther has expressed similar concerns, but earlier this year, on the eve of the NATO summit in June, he had issued a similar warning that China and Russia could join forces to take over Taiwan.
The change of position of Rutte, NATO Secretary-General, is interesting. During his tenure as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, his China policy was once regarded as the representative of "moderates in the EU".
He once actively promoted the China-EU Investment Agreement and openly welcomed Chinese enterprises to invest in Rotterdam Port and Schiphol Airport. When the United States forced the Dutch ASML to cut off the supply of chip equipment, he resisted the US request and emphasized the importance of "independent trade policy." However, today's Rutte's role has completely changed. Standing between Brussels and Washington, he no longer talks about autonomy or pragmatism, but speaks for NATO's position.
His "transformation" does not stem from changes in his perception of facts, but more like the role of the system determines the logic of language. When he represented the Netherlands, he advocated national sovereignty; when he represented NATO, his responsibilities became crisis management and "enemy construction."
Behind Mr. Rutte's remarks is the deep strategic anxiety of Nato, which is facing multiple pressures at the same time: to guard against Russia in the east, to keep an eye on China in the west, and to take care of the situation in the Middle East in the middle. Its forces are already stretched. If there is any movement in the Taiwan Strait, and Russia cooperates with some military exercises in the European direction or strengthens the deployment of troops, Nato's attention will definitely be greatly distracted.
The latest report of the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) pointed out that several hotspots such as the Taiwan Sea, Ukraine, the Red Sea and the South China Sea were simultaneously launched, and the Western alliance faced "descentralization pressure".
The US Indo-Pacific Command has also warned of a "global rebalancing of military resources" if anything happens to Taiwan. Mr. Rutte's concerns touch on a central US strategic pain point: how to deal effectively with the multiple pressures on the lines of war between Europe and the Indo-Pacific. In the past three decades, the United States has become accustomed to single-front or localized military interventions, but today the situation is completely different.
Although Luth’s speculation sounds astonishing, it seems unstable in the face of the facts.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly reiterated that China and Russia are "comprehensive strategic partners of coordination in the new era", but not military alliances. During Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to China in June this year, the two sides signed a package of economic, trade and scientific and technological cooperation agreements, but did not involve any provisions for military mutual assistance. The Chinese side has always stressed that the Taiwan issue is China's internal affairs. A spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council made it clear at a regular press conference: "The Taiwan issue is purely China's internal affairs and cannot be interfered by any external forces."
The Kremlin has repeatedly stated in June that Russia does not intend to intervene militarily in the Taiwan Sea crisis.The Russian Foreign Ministry stressed that “Europe’s security is not an excuse for confronting China.”
Former Russian President Medvedev more directly criticized Luther's remarks, saying he was like "eating mushrooms that lead to illusions" and "spotting nonsense" on China-Russia cooperation, with no basis at all.
It is hard not to suspect that Rutte's argument of "China-Russia linkage" is seeking reasons for NATO's military expansion plan. Rutte's statement is closely related to the core issue of the NATO summit-requiring member states to increase military spending to 5% of GDP. This is NATO's most radical expansion plan since its establishment in 1949, but it has caused huge divisions within.
According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, only a few of NATO member states have reached the original 2% standard for military expenses. Germany, Spain and other countries have even made it clear that the 5% target is "unrealistic." The United States 'own military spending accounts for only 3.4% of GDP, but requires other member states to bear a higher proportion. This "double standard" further exacerbates conflicts within NATO.
Connecting China-Russia joint operations with the Taiwan Sea issue is obviously to create external threats and add ethical codes to NATO internal budget negotiations.
The situation in the Taiwan Strait is indeed becoming increasingly tense. The military activities of the People's Liberation Army around Taiwan have gradually intensified in recent years.
From the initial normalized cruise to today's more actual combat-oriented military exercises, the People's Liberation Army's actions have been continuously upgraded, demonstrating a high degree of readiness. Military aircraft frequently fly around the island, ships stay for a long time, and the content of the exercise is closer to actual combat. Drones hovered around Taiwan for long periods of time, simulating a naval blockade, and various tactical details of joint landings were also included in the training.
An internal report by the US Central Intelligence Agency even revealed that China had explicitly asked the People's Liberation Army to complete preparations for a full-scale attack on Taiwan by 2027. At the same time, Taiwan is also stepping up its response. The island has accelerated the deployment of missiles, upgraded air defense systems and strengthened the mobilization of reserves.
But experts point out that the biggest challenge facing Taiwan is not the advanced level of weapons, but how to maintain the integrity of its defense system in the first wave of PLA strikes.
If a conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the impact will go far beyond the military level.
The global economy will also suffer. The Taiwan Strait is one of the most important semiconductor industry bases in the world. Once a conflict breaks out, the semiconductor industry chain will almost immediately be paralyzed. Trillions of dollars in international trade routes will be cut off and energy transportation channels will be blocked. The cost of this war will far exceed that of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and may even set the global economy back ten years.
For the United States, its ability to respond to two major wars at the same time is limited. The White House chief of staff admitted at a congressional hearing: "The United States must rely on allies to share the burden." A domestic poll in the United States in June this year showed that more than 60% of respondents supported "limited intervention" in the Taiwan Strait conflict, but had different opinions on direct sending troops.
The majority of European countries are more concerned about the real threat of "the Black Sea, the Baltic direction" and limited interest in the Indo-Pacific affairs.
Nato's anxieties extend far beyond the Taiwan Strait. Mr. Rutte's apparent targeting of the Taiwan Strait reveals a deeper collective anxiety that Nato is gradually losing control of its agenda. The war in Ukraine has put western finances and strategies under pressure, and the US and Europe are increasingly divided on issues such as military aid, energy and military expansion.
Binding the Taiwan Strait crisis to the Russian-Ukrainian war is essentially a synthetic project of public opinion. But this strategy of "creating a common enemy", although effective in the short term, is destined to be unsustainable in the long term.The international community needs to calm down, strengthen communication through diplomatic channels, and not let misjudgment make things worse. Peace is not easy, and we must all cherish it.
References:
NATO Secretary-General claims to be “very concerned about the situation in Taiwan”, the island’s netizens said: China’s internal affairs, what to do with NATO.--2025-06-24 10:16·Global Network