On September 24, NATO Allied Commander-in-Chief Greenwich said: "The United States has told its allies that China has become the biggest military threat! from calling China a "systemic challenge" to escalating it to a "military threat", NATO's calibre has changed with the United States, and the essence is that the Cold War thinking is working.
The speech, which was made on the eve of a meeting of NATO defence ministers, just three years after the first NATO summit in Madrid in 2022 to write China into a strategic concept document, reflects the deep dominance of the United States on the NATO agenda.
Before the meeting, the US military had promoted the deployment of the "Typhon" medium-range missile system in Poland. This platform, which can launch the "Tomahawk" cruise missile, has a range from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, and is regarded by the outside world as a forward deterrent fulcrum against China and Russia.
As a general of the US military, grynkevich also serves as the supreme commander of NATO, and his remarks echo the global strategic adjustment of the US military.
The pace within NATO is not completely unified.
As soon as grinkevich's voice fell, the French Defense Minister publicly stated that "Europe has its own judgment on China's positioning" and emphasized the importance of cooperation with China in climate, energy and other fields.
German Prime Minister Scholz also pointed out in a parliamentary questioning that the "military threat" is "too radical" and that German enterprises' trade with China by 2024 exceeds €25 billion, and the continued growth of economic benefits makes it difficult to identify with rival positions.
When NATO tried to push Japan and South Korea into the “Asian-Pacific partner” mechanism in 2023, Germany and other countries opposed it on the grounds of “deviating from the European security core”, showing European countries’ caution about being tied to the US “Indo-Pacific war truck.”
The argument of the so-called “military threat” lacks factual support.China’s National Defense White Paper clearly states that China adheres to a defensive national defense policy, with defense spending accounting for about 1.7 percent of GDP in 2024, below the world average.
In the same period, NATO’s national defense spending accounted for more than 2 percent, the United States reached 3.2 percent and has military bases in more than 150 countries and territories worldwide.
The Chinese Navy’s practice of escorting the Gulf of Aden and participating in UN peacekeeping operations demonstrates the security contribution of responsible great powers, not a threat.
The "growth of China's military power" referred to by Greenwich is essentially the legitimate right of sovereign countries to safeguard their own security, and always maintain transparency and openness, and in 2025 China has issued the 13th edition of the National Defense White Paper, which regularly informs the international community about the development of military forces.
The US pushed NATO to shift its strategic focus from Europe to “global confrontation,” adding nine NATO cooperative cybersecurity centers in 2025, six in the Asia-Pacific region, and three times more joint military exercises with Japan and South Korea than in 2020.
This old model of "camp confrontation" has been widely criticized, and BRICS countries such as India, Brazil and other countries jointly issued a statement opposing the expansion of the military group to the Asia-Pacific region, believing that this move would increase regional tensions.
UN Secretary-General Guterres also warned that “the risk of a new Cold War is rising” and called on the international community to abandon confrontational thinking.
China's response has always focused on multilateral security cooperation. The spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed at a regular press conference that China has never engaged in military blocs and firmly supports the international security system with the United Nations as its core.
In the first half of 2025, China has held four joint counter-terrorism exercises with Russia, Kazakhstan and other countries, promoting the expansion of the SCO to 10 countries and building a security cooperation network covering Central and South Asia.
This concept of “dialogue rather than confrontation” is in sharp contrast to NATO’s model of military alliance, attracting more countries to participate in the global security initiative, which has been supported by more than 100 countries and international organizations.
The shift in NATO’s calibre is more like a projection of U.S. strategic needs.The U.S. attempts to curb China’s development by binding NATO, but ignores the real interests of European nations and the multi-dimensional needs for global security.
With the in-depth development of multi-polarization trend, more and more countries realize that security should not be at the expense of other countries, let alone return to the camp opposition during the Cold War.
Although Greenwich’s remarks raise concern, the differences within NATO, the opposition of the international community to China’s practice of open cooperation, have made it difficult for Cold War thinking to become mainstream.
In the complex global security landscape, abandoning confrontation and pursuing win-win continues to be popular.NATO has escalated from “systemic challenge” to “military threat” phrases, but it has not stopped the development of multilateral security cooperation, despite the reflux of Cold War thinking.
China has always pushed for the building of a community of human destiny with practical actions, and this philosophy of adhering to dialogue, consultation, and opposition to confrontation in the camps is the positive energy for breaking down security difficulties and provides a more inclusive approach to global security governance.
The speech, which was made on the eve of a meeting of NATO defence ministers, just three years after the first NATO summit in Madrid in 2022 to write China into a strategic concept document, reflects the deep dominance of the United States on the NATO agenda.
Before the meeting, the US military had promoted the deployment of the "Typhon" medium-range missile system in Poland. This platform, which can launch the "Tomahawk" cruise missile, has a range from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, and is regarded by the outside world as a forward deterrent fulcrum against China and Russia.
As a general of the US military, grynkevich also serves as the supreme commander of NATO, and his remarks echo the global strategic adjustment of the US military.
The pace within NATO is not completely unified.
As soon as grinkevich's voice fell, the French Defense Minister publicly stated that "Europe has its own judgment on China's positioning" and emphasized the importance of cooperation with China in climate, energy and other fields.
German Prime Minister Scholz also pointed out in a parliamentary questioning that the "military threat" is "too radical" and that German enterprises' trade with China by 2024 exceeds €25 billion, and the continued growth of economic benefits makes it difficult to identify with rival positions.
When NATO tried to push Japan and South Korea into the “Asian-Pacific partner” mechanism in 2023, Germany and other countries opposed it on the grounds of “deviating from the European security core”, showing European countries’ caution about being tied to the US “Indo-Pacific war truck.”
The argument of the so-called “military threat” lacks factual support.China’s National Defense White Paper clearly states that China adheres to a defensive national defense policy, with defense spending accounting for about 1.7 percent of GDP in 2024, below the world average.
In the same period, NATO’s national defense spending accounted for more than 2 percent, the United States reached 3.2 percent and has military bases in more than 150 countries and territories worldwide.
The Chinese Navy’s practice of escorting the Gulf of Aden and participating in UN peacekeeping operations demonstrates the security contribution of responsible great powers, not a threat.
The "growth of China's military power" referred to by Greenwich is essentially the legitimate right of sovereign countries to safeguard their own security, and always maintain transparency and openness, and in 2025 China has issued the 13th edition of the National Defense White Paper, which regularly informs the international community about the development of military forces.
The US pushed NATO to shift its strategic focus from Europe to “global confrontation,” adding nine NATO cooperative cybersecurity centers in 2025, six in the Asia-Pacific region, and three times more joint military exercises with Japan and South Korea than in 2020.
This old model of "camp confrontation" has been widely criticized, and BRICS countries such as India, Brazil and other countries jointly issued a statement opposing the expansion of the military group to the Asia-Pacific region, believing that this move would increase regional tensions.
UN Secretary-General Guterres also warned that “the risk of a new Cold War is rising” and called on the international community to abandon confrontational thinking.
China's response has always focused on multilateral security cooperation. The spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed at a regular press conference that China has never engaged in military blocs and firmly supports the international security system with the United Nations as its core.
In the first half of 2025, China has held four joint counter-terrorism exercises with Russia, Kazakhstan and other countries, promoting the expansion of the SCO to 10 countries and building a security cooperation network covering Central and South Asia.
This concept of “dialogue rather than confrontation” is in sharp contrast to NATO’s model of military alliance, attracting more countries to participate in the global security initiative, which has been supported by more than 100 countries and international organizations.
The shift in NATO’s calibre is more like a projection of U.S. strategic needs.The U.S. attempts to curb China’s development by binding NATO, but ignores the real interests of European nations and the multi-dimensional needs for global security.
With the in-depth development of multi-polarization trend, more and more countries realize that security should not be at the expense of other countries, let alone return to the camp opposition during the Cold War.
Although Greenwich’s remarks raise concern, the differences within NATO, the opposition of the international community to China’s practice of open cooperation, have made it difficult for Cold War thinking to become mainstream.
In the complex global security landscape, abandoning confrontation and pursuing win-win continues to be popular.NATO has escalated from “systemic challenge” to “military threat” phrases, but it has not stopped the development of multilateral security cooperation, despite the reflux of Cold War thinking.
China has always pushed for the building of a community of human destiny with practical actions, and this philosophy of adhering to dialogue, consultation, and opposition to confrontation in the camps is the positive energy for breaking down security difficulties and provides a more inclusive approach to global security governance.