The Relationship Between China and NATO :: The Nabataeans

The relationship between China and NATO, and China's control of the main European ports and the Baltic countries to influence the influence of NATO member states, and the American alternative project to the Chinese Silk Road led by NATO

Dr. Nadia Helmy's analysis

Expert in Chinese and Asian political affairs - Assistant Professor of Political Science, Beni Suef University

- The main elements of the analysis:

- First: NATO's "new containment" strategy to contain China in its spheres of influence for NATO member states

- Second: NATO's strategy to face security challenges 2030, with emphasis on the first priority to confront China

- Third: Changes in NATO's plans and strategies towards China in the Indo-Pacific region, after the signing of the new Okus defense agreement led by Washington.

- Fourth: The impact of the Okus agreement on the new strategy for the expansion of NATO members, the US plan for Australia and Japan to join the alliance to contain China in the Indo-Pacific region, and the US challenge to the constitution and charter of the founding of NATO.

- Fifth: China's new security, defense and military strategy in front of global challenges to confront American influence and NATO policies

- Sixth: China's success in penetrating the "European defense market" and concluding military deals with NATO members, to surround and contain the alliance's backyard.

- Seventh: The Chinese threat to NATO's spheres of influence, with the Chinese signing of the (Comprehensive Investment Agreement with the European Union) in December 2020

- Eighth: Challenging Chinese influence to invest in (the management and operation of the main European ports) for NATO member states, including China's control of (the port of Long Beach) in the state of California in the United States of America itself.

Port of Long Beach

- Ninth: The rapprochement between China and the Baltic countries to influence the influence of NATO, and China's signing of the (17 + 1) initiative with the aim of (expanding economic cooperation between Beijing and member states in Central and Eastern Europe)

- Tenth: The American role in building ports and infrastructure and digital networks in Europe to serve the goals of "NATO" in confronting China, and putting forward (an American project alternative to the Chinese Silk Road) at the G7 economic summit.

- Preface

China was able to reach deep into the main ports in Europe, especially the Italian ports, to expand its business within its Belt and Road initiative, and the Chinese presence, and after that the Russian one, became stronger, especially with (both Russia and China launching a series of military maneuvers and joint exercises, in the areas of Central Asian ports and the polar regions In the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea, which are the same areas of maritime influence overlooking the member states of NATO), in addition to the growing fears of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials about the increasing influence and control of China over the areas of their seaports, and the Chinese penetration deep into the main European ports.

As a result of this Chinese expansion in accordance with the new American strategy, and its attempt to export those fears to NATO in order to develop tactical plans and distant strategic goals for the alliance and its thirty members, and from here it has become imperative for the leaderships of (NATO) to confront the "Chinese advance strategy", according to what NATO called it with the encouragement and leadership of Washington This is what the United States of America tried to lead through the US Governmental International Development Finance Corporation through its contribution to financing the development and construction of American ports in Greece and Italy, mainly in the face of Chinese projects corresponding to the development of these ports, in addition to the United States of America leading NATO to put forward an “American project.” An alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road", during the last G7 economic summit in 2021. In my personal belief, as an expert on Chinese political affairs, this is one of the fiercest confrontations between Washington and Beijing globally.

Accordingly, we can understand the mechanisms and dimensions of competition and conflict between China and NATO, and the Chinese reaction strategy to control NATO members economically and logistically, by controlling the largest major European ports overlooking the seas and oceans by managing and operating or developing those ports and making them a source for managing and operating giant Chinese containers and cargo ships, then (The American reaction and NATO member states to surround and contain China, and launch a number of new strategies for NATO with the aim of limiting China in their important regions), as follows:

- First: NATO's "new containment" strategy to contain China in its spheres of influence for NATO member states

Based on the Chinese threat to the spheres of influence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), according to its estimates, for more than a year, NATO officials have publicly called for control of Chinese influence and encroachment in the main regions of the Baltic states, Europe, and eastern, central, and western Europe. as follows:

1) The Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, acknowledged the need to confront the escalating Chinese threat, stressing: "China responds in an aggressive way to others when it is criticized," recognizing at the same time the difference and some "difficult discussions" between the countries of the alliance during the existence of " Donald Trump in the White House.

2) The new “containment theory of China” also includes “financial disputes about sharing the burdens of confronting China among the 30 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was declared by Stoltenberg in his capacity as Secretary of the Alliance, saying:

"Trump has so often complained that other NATO members are not paying their fair share of the financial burdens related to mutual defense, that he has spoken of withdrawing his country from the alliance."

3) Regarding "NATO's new strategy towards China during the era of the Gobidin administration", this is what Stoltenberg explained, declaring that:

"We now have a new American president who is more committed than his predecessor "Trump" to the duties of NATO and supports the security of Europe and is ready to increase investment as well in NATO.

4) Signs of a new shift towards security challenges coming from China have also begun, and NATO's recognition that they are at the core of its defenses and areas of influence). Stoltenberg, warning NATO members, said:

"Allied countries have to face the fact that China is getting closer and closer in Africa, the Arctic, cyberspace, and even in Europe."

5) Thus, we understand the increasing American influence within NATO, and Washington's success in creating a general climate against China among the thirty NATO countries, through the statement of the "London Summit of the NATO Meeting of 2019", and the issuance of the closing statement for the first time declaring:

"China represents a potential strategic threat, and "China's growing influence in international politics" presents opportunities and challenges, which we need to face together as an alliance.

6) And we have the most important analysis here, which is that "NATO's rhetoric has become identical to the same American rhetoric regarding China without providing any evidence for any accusations related to it", and the strategic analysis remains here, regarding:

What is the nature of the challenge that China poses to NATO and its countries, despite the apparent geographical divergence between the two sides and the different spheres of influence?

7) Despite the lack of clarity in "the mechanism of direct threat to China with regard to the security of Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Washington confirms that the security of Europe and NATO members is in danger, because China represents a whole range of challenges for NATO, which prompted NATO military leaders - after their understanding of the American point of view—certainly:

"Although China does not pose a direct military threat to NATO, Beijing's growing influence and confident diplomacy in Europe has led to significant ramifications for security and the economy across the Atlantic."

8) We find here (NATO members linking the economic expansion of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative to Europe and the impact on the security of NATO countries), and this came through a declared statement in which they expressed:

"China's investments in vital infrastructure projects in Europe, starting with communications networks and ending with port facilities, may weaken NATO's ability to respond to international crises diplomatically or militarily if necessary."

9) According to the incomprehensible discussions among the members of NATO, which, in my view, are indirect echoes of the same widespread American accusations against China, NATO confirmed "the danger of the Chinese company Huawei to NATO's security", by confirming:

"If some NATO allies include Huawei equipment in their 5G networks, questions can be raised about the safety of these networks, given the close relationship between the company and the Chinese Communist Party"...according to their exact expression

10) And here we find the military and strategic link between NATO and the increase in Chinese influence, according to statements issued by them, by declaring:

"The sensitive military supply chains of the NATO alliance may become dependent to a large extent on China, as happened recently in the F-35 fighters."

11) In a new attempt to change NATO's strategy, by (linking the military roles of NATO and the need for it to play other political roles), the public statements of the Secretary-General of NATO (NATO) "Jensstoltenberg" came about the necessity:

"NATO should take on a greater political role in world affairs, even to help the countries of the Indo-Pacific to compete with the rise of China."

12) In an official acknowledgment by NATO members of the Chinese military threat to their security, this came in the statement of the NATO summit in London (December 3-4, 2019). :

"We must consider China's rising military power as a potential new enemy."

13) Referring to this explicit text on the priority of the Chinese threat in the "new security agenda for NATO and its members", this was represented in an anticipated initiative by NATO, which represented a major shift in relation to the alliance's basic goals, in addition to its strategic and defensive goals. NATO's statement confirmed this by emphasizing:

"We realize that the growing influence of China and its international policy represent opportunities and challenges at the same time, and here we must, as an alliance, deal with them jointly."

14) And in a new statement from NATO regarding "the Chinese threat and the new global imbalance, security and military", here came the warning of NATO Secretary General "Stoltenberg" in June 2020, in an interview with the German newspaper "Welt am Sonntag", emphasizing:

Welt am Sonntag

"The global balance of power may change violently, especially since China is at the gates of Europe, so NATO must warn of the strong and rapid rise of China in the recent period."

15) The new agenda of NATO is considered to contain China, which is represented through the "mechanism of collective union and Western security mobilization to confront China", which is the same as stressed by the Secretary-General of NATO, as follows:

"We need the Western alliance of NATO to be united in the face of this Chinese power and new challenges."

16) What stopped the Egyptian researcher were the conflicting and contradictory statements of the Secretary General of NATO, "Tess Stoltenberg" regarding China, and his assertion that "there is no direct Chinese threat to the security of NATO, and the contradiction of those statements with other previous statements", through the statement of the Secretary of the Alliance again, By saying:

"China does not pose any direct threat to any country belonging to NATO so far, but serious developments are being observed in the South China Sea region, and Beijing has increased its attempts to restrict the freedom of movement of ships in international waters."

Through this analysis to understand the new orientation of NATO towards China, the Egyptian researcher concluded that the tension in relations between China and the United States, the most prominent member of NATO, may cast a shadow of confrontation and escalation on relations between NATO members, especially the Europeans and Beijing.

We find here, many (conflicting and contradictory statements by NATO through official data that the researcher could track), it suffices to refer here to confirm "NATO" in a new statement, that: "although the confrontation between China and the alliance" is neither desirable nor inevitable. However, the alliance statement again warns that "the alliance's failure to prepare for China and manage the challenge it represents may make confrontation more likely with the passage of time."

Very simply, we can understand "the extent of those American pressures on its European partners in NATO," and its attempt to force them to "adopt a new security agenda to confront China, and share the same American aspirations."

- Second: NATO's strategy to confront security challenges 2030, by emphasizing the first priority of confronting China

The United States of America leads in anticipating the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization "NATO" in Brussels to meet the security challenges of the year 2030, with China as its first priority and then Russia as its ally, and therefore the White House issued a statement, in which it explicitly affirmed:

"The NATO countries with the United States of America will jointly launch a set of "ambitious" initiatives to ensure the preservation of the security of the alliance until 2030 and beyond, with full focus on the threats coming from Russia and China, as they are the two most prominent challenges facing the alliance countries during the coming years."

The most important thing is the consensus of the 30 members of NATO, led by the United States of America, during the "Brussels" summit for the meeting of NATO leaders in mid-June 2021, and their agreement in the statement of the NATO summit in June 2021, on:

"The need to review NATO's "strategic concept", which will lead its "approach in an evolving strategic environment", to include: the hostile policies and actions of Russia and China together, as well as the security challenges that China poses to our security and prosperity.

Perhaps what is new in the “NATO” summit meeting in June 2021 is that explicit text issued in a frank public statement from the White House on China, and it is understood from it that “NATO and its members have become a security tool in the hands of Washington in order to move an anticipated proactive initiative of NATO against China and Russia.” , which may represent a major shift in the alliance's march and its strategic and defensive goals towards China, and we understand this by analyzing the approach of "NATO and its thirty members" in the recent period, as follows:

1) NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced at the NATO summit meeting in June 2021, and his call on the leaders of the alliance countries, during their summit in Brussels, to the necessity of "developing a stronger common policy to confront the growing hegemony of China."

2) Stoltenberg publicly declared, as Secretary General of NATO, without proving the validity of his words with evidence, in echoing the same American security agenda towards China, by saying:

"China has the second largest defense budget in the world, the largest navy and invests enormously in modern military equipment, and this" affects our security.

3) The most dangerous analysis remains for me, regarding what was announced by the Secretary of NATO, "Stoltenberg", and his talk for the first time about "liberal democratic values ​​and ideology, as an echo of the same tone of the American discourse towards China", by his statement:

"China does not share our values, and we see this in the way it suppresses democratic protests in Hong Kong, its persecution of minorities such as the "Uighurs" in western China, as well as its use of modern technology to monitor its population in an "unprecedented manner."

4) It is also noted that the leadership and leadership of "Stoltenberg", as the most prominent senior official in NATO during the June 2021 summit, in an unprecedented manner, to the approach of tightening confrontation with China, by saying:

"All this makes it important for NATO countries to develop their policy, and also to strengthen our policy when it comes to China."

5) NATO's new approach to confrontation and confrontation against China can be inferred, through the stern affirmation of NATO Secretary General "Stoltenberg" of the seriousness of the advanced confrontation with China, and the need for all NATO members to bear the financial burdens related to the joint defense of "the security of members NATO Thirty", through the statement that:

"The leaders of the alliance agreed on the 2030 strategy to face the challenges of today and the future, and he said that the alliance is determined to defend itself in space, and it was agreed to increase the financing of all joint budgets of the alliance, not just the military ones."

6) NATO leaders emphasized the increasing intensity of Chinese military influence, and its approach to the "Euro-Atlantic region", with "the implementation of several joint military exercises by the Chinese and Russian navies in the Mediterranean and Baltic seas", as a sign of the flourishing military cooperation between Beijing and Moscow.

7) Away from the Euro-Atlantic region, Beijing is working, according to multiple statements of NATO leaders, to develop modern military capabilities, including (long-range missiles, aircraft carriers, and offensive nuclear submarines), with potential security repercussions for NATO, given the long-term global reach. to these capabilities.

8) The successor of "NATO" feared in its recent series of meetings about (China's investment also in space weapons), which may threaten any of (NATO's satellites), and in addition to that, NATO countries are constantly exposed to electronic attacks launched by Chinese hackers.

9) We note here (NATO's intentional disregard for the British nuclear submarine deal to Australia under US auspices through the Ocus defense agreement), by criminalizing (the leaders of NATO countries) the Chinese nuclear arsenals and submarines, without any reference to the same deal of nuclear submarines under Washington's leadership and sponsorship of the purchase Australia has it, through a recent statement announced by NATO leaders, that they:

"They in NATO express their concern about China's declared ambitions and the development of its nuclear arsenal, which poses challenges to the foundations of the international system."

10) Here we find a series of statements issued by NATO's senior leadership, without an explicit clarification regarding "the extent of China's direct danger to their security", and this came through the signing of the alliance leaders in (the final statement of the NATO countries summit in Brussels in June 2021), that:

"China's stated aspirations and persistent behavior pose challenges to the foundations of the rules-based international order, and in areas of importance to NATO's security."

11) And in an explicit confirmation by NATO Secretary General "Stoltenberg" about (the importance of joint security coordination between NATO and the European Union to confront China), this was through:

"NATO is committed to strengthening partnership with the European Union and enhancing training with Ukraine and Georgia. NATO will also enhance its technological progress. Alliance leaders agreed to launch a new defense project, and that the Alliance is determined to defend itself in space."

Here we can conclude, according to the previous analysis, that the tension in relations between China and the United States of America, as the most prominent member of "NATO", may cast a shadow of confrontation and escalation on relations between NATO and Beijing, in (a direct bearing of the thirty NATO members for any possible results of confrontation and clash between China and the United States of America).

The most important analysis here is Washington pushing NATO members themselves to bear (the burdens of defending American ambitions to confront Chinese influence in its own Asian spheres of influence), through new statements from NATO, that Chinese claims of sovereignty in the South and East China Seas and Taiwan may lead to conflict. undesirable between Washington and Beijing, and NATO's new assertion that:

"If any conflict occurs between China and the United States of America in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, NATO allies on the other side of the Atlantic will not be safe."

In my personal opinion, this point and this statement is, from my analytical point of view, one of the most dangerous statements ever made by NATO and its thirty members, bearing the consequences of the confrontation with China on behalf of Washington, even though “that Asian region did not fall into the South China Sea in the main areas.” Direct security and military influence of NATO for all its other 30 members.

We note that there are profound changes in the plans and strategies of NATO members towards China, and the repetition of the same violent American language of rhetoric towards Beijing, after the conclusion of the "new Okus defense agreement led by Washington to confront China", and despite the European allies themselves being affected by the cancellation of the French submarine deal with Australia, and what The resulting repercussions for influencing the European regional security itself, the statements of NATO members came explicitly, that:

"Any Chinese-American war will not be contained regionally, as happened in the previous American wars in Korea and Vietnam, but will extend to Europe, where the NATO allies will find themselves facing the hypothesis of activating the Alliance's "Article Five" related to collective defense.

- Hence, I can analyze the most prominent new defense plans and strategies for NATO after the signing of the "Ocus Defense Agreement" led by the United States of America, as follows:

1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) stated in September 2021 that it is now "facing challenges in preserving the world order from" authoritarian powers "such as Russia and China," after the announcement of (the new Okus defense agreement, as a framework for the new US-British-Australian security agreement ), which resulted in the global crisis known as the “crisis of Australia’s cancellation of the submarine deal with France.”

2) We find here the "clear contradiction in the statements of NATO's military leaders before and after the signing of the Okus agreement led by Washington." Despite NATO's previous assertion that confrontation between China and the alliance "is neither desirable nor inevitable," a new NATO document was issued after the signing of the agreement. Defensive Okus", in which it expressly states:

"We must amend the Alliance's strategic concepts, defense planning and training, and priorities for developing capabilities in order to confront the growing Chinese risks."

3) And (the contradiction is clear in the NATO statements) through new texts on the need to identify and evaluate the Chinese threat to the security of the alliance, despite (previous statements confirming the existence of dangers on the part of China), as it proposed a new document for NATO, with the necessity:

"NATO members should share information among allies on assessing the risks of Chinese activities that may have direct security implications for NATO, such as: Chinese-Russian military exercises in the Baltic Sea region"

4) The most dangerous and very important matter comes from my analytical point of view, regarding (the NATO leaders’ proposal to establish an office for them in the “Indo-Pacific” region, which reflects the same American ambitions and agenda to surround and contain China in its areas of influence), and the confirmation of the NATO document came, necessity:

(Establishing a military office in the Indo-Pacific region, to facilitate the exchange of information and coordinate NATO training and activities in the region."

5) The new NATO documents, after the signing of the “Ocuse Defense Agreement under American auspices,” called for the necessity of NATO’s military presence in the heart and periphery of the “Indo-Pacific” region, and this basically contradicts, in my analytical point of view, with “the basic law that established NATO to defend only the security of its members in the region.” their influence in the Atlantic,” and this contradicted the new NATO statement, on:

"NATO member states must establish a "coalition of the willing" to conduct military missions and exercises in the South China Sea to ensure freedom of navigation in the region, and reassure NATO's regional partners, with the need for the alliance to develop the necessary capabilities to monitor the Chinese threat and respond to it, if necessary.

6) The statements of NATO leaders prior to a meeting of the chiefs of staff of NATO member states in September 2021, in the Greek capital, “Athens,” are similar to “the same statements of the US White House regarding China,” and it can be understood through the NATO statement issued, about :

"NATO is facing challenges in preserving the world order from "authoritarian powers" such as Russia and China, and that NATO is in dire need of unity between the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean to stand together in the face of common security challenges.

7) And to confirm the "American military partnership with NATO to confront China", which confirms the theory of the alliance's subordination to Washington and the loss of its independence, through the statement of the "Military Committee of NATO countries", which includes the chiefs of staff of the NATO countries, on:

"We face many" dangers coming from Russia and China, which affect the future of the alliance within the framework of its plan for the year 2030", so the NATO Military Committee had to discuss the issue of "strengthening the partnership between European countries and North America."

8) The importance of the recent meetings of NATO's military committee comes in terms of "the sensitivity of timing after the signing of the Ocos agreement and NATO's loss of its neutrality regarding dealing with new security threats," in which Washington and Australia are supposed to be involved after the "nuclear submarine deal in favor of Canberra."

9) And he highlighted a new security issue on the global scene, which is (discussions within the European Union after the signing of the Okus agreement directly under American auspices), embarrassing France and showing the extent of European security weakness, in order to (form a common European defense front away from NATO). This is through separate European data, all of which confirm:

"There are growing attempts that show the European Union seeking to form a separate military force to operate independently after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the upcoming European declaration of a separate partnership with NATO before the end of 2021."

10) These European statements also coincided with (the military committee of the NATO countries, at its meeting in Athens, led by Washington, discussed the alliance's defense plans, and the alliance's new military operations around the world), which confirms "Washington's growing attempts to weaken NATO in its favor after the signing of the Okus agreement, which is what aroused the ire and anger of the Europeans,” while confirming the content of the speech of the “Chairman of the Military Committee in NATO,” saying:

"The Pentagon confirmed that the United States considers agreements between Washington and Moscow on arms control, and negotiations with Russia on strategic stability important for the whole world."

11) We can also pause to analyze NATO's new strategy in an attempt to (penetrate deep into the security issues of the Asian continent), such as: (the North Korean missile program), whose scope could affect a large part of European territory before the United States, so it has developed The Asian continent is already on the main agenda of the alliance.

Through my personal analysis of the recent developments of NATO, especially "the impact of the Okus agreement on the strategies and plans of NATO", the most dangerous point remains for me, and it is related to those security and military interactions at the Asian level, and the extent of their impact on the global balance in itself, and that brings me to the analytical and intellectual level related to strategy ( The clear US planning to make NATO deploy medium-range nuclear missiles around China).

In my personal opinion, this previous point is the real problem, which many analysts and researchers around the world may not have heeded in the midst of their attachment to the attack on the American policy of withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in the face of Russia, without bothering to search for the real reasons and motives for that, and its relationship (With the balance of Asian and global powers, and the extent of NATO's relationship with it from the ground up). They are all problems that need to be deeply researched and global solutions worthy of them be developed (in order to prevent imbalance and global security stability, affecting all regions around the world, including the Middle East).

- Fourth: The impact of the Okus agreement on the new strategy for the expansion of NATO members, the American plan for Australia and Japan to join the alliance to contain China in the Indo-Pacific region, and the American challenge to the constitution and charter of the founding of NATO.

US planning has actually emerged during recent years during the "Trump" era, by seeking to (and annexing both "Australia and Japan" to the list of new members of NATO, especially after the signing of the new Okus defense agreement led by Washington and before that the "Quadruple Agreement" with Japan), and despite the conflict This is basically with the charter and constitution of the alliance since the beginning of its inception, and made it limited to members (centered around the Atlantic Ocean mainly), and this was not the only American precedent for violating the constitution of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization "NATO" by including new members, rather it was preceded by several other precedents and evidence, and this can be analyzed as follows The following:

1) The extent of these American pressures on Europe and NATO and the extent of (subordination of NATO's security agenda to the US administration itself), which began with recent developments of the global agenda, specifically with (the new NATO security document in August 2019) has emerged on the scene. , in which NATO announced that (NATO has expanded the scope of its security operations, to include the Asia-Pacific region). This is despite (this contradicts the NATO Charter), by limiting it only to the NATO countries. To contain China in many other regions and territories that are geographically far from NATO’s interactions), especially with the entry of Russia as a major actor in the interactions of NATO members, as well as China. Expanding the number of NATO members and including Australia with them and then Japan later after the signing of the Okus agreement). August 6, 2019, and the NATO Secretary-General joining them based on an American invitation, and everyone discussed in the Australian capital "Canberra" the opportunities for Australia to join the alliance, and discussed (the extent of the possibility of Australia joining NATO).

4) In my personal analysis, the success of Washington in its plan with its Asian allies such as Japan, South Korea and others, as well as the Australian side, and I mean here specifically, in the event (the success of the American planning in order for Australia and Japan to join the list of NATO members to expand the security and military scope of the alliance against China ), this is enough to create a “disruption in the Asian and global regional security,” especially after inviting Washington’s Asian partners, namely: “Japan, Australia and South Korea,” to join NATO, and they are not allies of NATO in the first place, but to achieve Washington’s aspirations, and for the security file in that region in the face of China.

5) The Egyptian researcher analyzed that previous dangerous point about Australia's accession to NATO, of the danger that (the possibility of Australia joining leads to a profound change in the composition and meaning of the NATO alliance, which is limited to the countries of the two shores of the Atlantic), and perhaps if the attempt to include Australia in NATO succeeds, it will follow. (An attempt to pave the way for Japan's membership later on as an ally of Washington as well), and perhaps for other distant countries, mainly based on narrow American individual interests, which empties the alliance of its content and the charter of its first goals.

6) We find that (the modern American attempts to include other new countries in NATO were not the first in the history of NATO, but were preceded by three other actual attempts to include dozens of countries in the alliance), and from here the process of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization "NATO" has become capable of bringing ( More crises for the alliance from within, i.e. from within its network of members), especially in light of the tense relations with the Russian side with NATO countries in eastern Europe, with (NATO having to defend them, because they are from its network of members).

7) We find that (the first phase of NATO expansion) began through the process of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on March 12, 1999, by annexing (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland), with great symbolism for the State of Poland, given that its capital is "Warsaw". It was in the former (the headquarters of the Warsaw Pact of the Eastern Bloc of the Soviet Union), as a major military alliance for the Eastern Bloc led by Moscow in the face of the United States of America and the policies and interests of the West and Europe.

8) While (the second phase of NATO expansion) included the beginning of the second phase of expansion of NATO member states, on March 29, 2004, which led to the annexation of countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia), which resulted in (The return of the atmosphere of suspicion and suspicion again towards the West in Russia), with the escalation of voices that claimed that the American hostility to Russia is caused by the fact that it is the heir to the Soviet Union, the sworn enemy of the Americans for many decades. The year 1991 led to several states and small countries on the borders of Russia.

9) These strategic, security, and military mistakes increased in the face of NATO, especially with the start of (the third phase of NATO expansion), which started in the period from April 2009 until the fifth of June 2017, as (the third expansion of NATO) occurred after the end of the Cold War, and that By annexing (Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro), which was punctuated by events in Ukraine, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, which Russia considers as a return to it and not an annexation of it, in addition to the worsening of relations between the Russian and Ukrainian countries, leading to its near collapse, due to (the exacerbation of the crisis by the intervention of “NATO”). In defense of the state of Ukraine in its new capacity as a member of NATO), which provoked and angered Russia, especially after the imposition of US and European sanctions on it as a result of its inclusion of Ukraine, a NATO member.

10) Here, many argue that the reason for the exacerbation of crises in (the Eurasian region, or the post-Soviet Union countries), was contributed to by American policies, which stimulated Russia and hard-line nationalist voices to take the lead again in confronting American influence within Russia’s spheres of influence itself, in order to prevent its dismantling again. And this is in bringing back the memory of the “Cold War again” scene.

11) What the Egyptian researcher confirms this previous analysis is (the increase in the wave of American hostility towards Russia, with the emergence of revolutions against Moscow with American support), and it is noted that all the revolutions and uprisings of countries close to the Russian borders came at an almost simultaneous time, which confirms (the theory of American support for revolutions Directed against Russia from its border areas), which is what Russia called it, that what is happening is (a wave of colored revolutions in the face of Tsarist Russia with American support and assistance), and it is the revolutions that affected several former Soviet countries on the borders of Russia.

12) Perhaps this explains the reasons for (the opposition of the most prominent American and international figures to the American intervention within the borders and areas of influence of Russia, and even their refusal to include countries from Eastern Europe into NATO), and their far-reaching vision of the impact of this on the security of the United States of America, and the increasing military burdens on NATO In addition to (the increasing severity of the Russian threat to US national security in response to attempts to provoke the US on its regional and geographical border areas).

13) And we find that the most prominent of those American personalities who took the lead in the scene of Washington’s refusal to include Ukraine and eastern European countries into NATO, and thus intervene on its security behalf and challenge Russian influence, is the so-called architect of the Cold War, “George Kennan”, who described the first phase of NATO expansion NATO in 2004, as (the worst decision made by the United States of America and the main NATO members in their history).

14) The former diplomat and American intelligence man, "William Burns", who is (the current director of the CIA and a former American diplomat), who criticized this expansion, agrees in the opinion. Rather, "William Burns" warned Ukraine's accession to NATO against US national security. ), in his book “The Back Channel”, published in 2019

Back Channel

15) In light of the tense atmosphere between (Moscow, Kiev, Tbilisi) on the one hand, and their Western allies on the other hand, and after holding a summit (red lines) between the two presidents, "Biden and Putin" at the beginning of 2021, the state of "regional strategic instability for Eurasia and its reflection has increased." on global security.

Through the previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, we understand (the United States of America is leading the regional and international scene by trying to expand the scope of NATO members, and despite its success in that, this has negatively affected NATO and its members). This also coincided at the present time with an increase in the ceiling of American ambitions and expectations to confront China, with its attempt to annex both (Australia and Japan), especially after signing the "Ocus Defense Agreement", which ultimately led to the weakening of the alliance, and the failure of its operations with (the conflict of the alliance's agendas with the goals of its member states in confronting each other some).

- Fifth: China's new security, defense and military strategy in front of global challenges to confront American influence and NATO policies

The report of the NATO Military Committee came at the meeting of NATO foreign ministers during the meeting that was held from 1-2 December 2020, entitled: “The NATO Reform Report until 2030”, in which about (138 recommendations were put forward to be implemented within ten years), including Considering Russia as NATO's biggest opponent during the next ten years, and fearing the rise of China as a major challenge to NATO members. Therefore, the NATO reform report recommended the need to "establish a NATO advisory body to coordinate Western policies towards China."

This report issued by NATO to set public recommendations to curb the rise and influence of China, has aroused China's ire, and made it respond practically by taking "escalatory security and military measures, considering that Washington is the reason behind NATO's decision to confront it", and the Egyptian researcher will try here to summarize the most prominent Chinese security defenses And the new defense and military, whether before or after the NATO reform report until the year 2030, as follows:

1) China considered it (this is the first time that China has been officially included in a report issued by NATO), while defining the Chinese threat and the growing Chinese influence in Europe and the world, as a "strategic concept" that must be focused on, in the NATO reform report during 10 years from the date of its issuance in December 2020 until 2030.

2) The important point for the Chinese here is the question about the main purpose of the “NATO 2030” reform report, and is the focus on building the future of NATO only related to the threat of China? The Chinese response came, that: “The last official “strategic concept” of NATO has been written. At the end of 2020, more than 10 years ago, that is, approximately in 2010, and at that time China was not completely mentioned or referred to.” Accordingly, the official Chinese press asked about the real reasons and motives underlying that?!

3) The Chinese accusation that the United States of America is behind the NATO 2030 reform report, and the evidence for that is: "the former US President Barack Obama's administration's proposal for a strategy of" rebalancing the Asia-Pacific region without focusing on the Chinese threat or confronting China's policies ". It is the opposite of the incident now and Washington's attempt to "shift the geopolitical focus to China", with the US official claim to view China as an "enemy", while the fact that according to the Chinese is "the inability of the United States of America to compete with China in the economic, technological and military fields".

4) The Chinese did not fail to focus on the "fundamental uselessness of NATO", as indicated by Chinese reports, that:

"The NATO 2030 Report" was issued at a time when the importance of NATO's presence has become increasingly questionable, with French President Emmanuel Macron confirming in a public statement in 2019 that NATO is suffering from "brain death" due to the lack of strategic coordination among its members. In addition to the American hegemony over most of his decisions.

5) The well-known Chinese professor, Zhang Jian, who is the assistant dean of the China Institute for Modern International Relations and director of the European Institute in Beijing, confirmed:

"The nature of NATO determines that it does not comply with the requirements of peaceful development in the world today, in contrast to the concepts advocated by China globally, such as the concept of win-win cooperation, which enjoys popular support in the Asia-Pacific region, while NATO failed to achieve any consensus for its policies." "

6) China responded to these (American attempts to create a copy of NATO near its areas of influence), and the Chinese criticism came publicly to any attempt by NATO to create a copy of NATO in the heart of Asia and the Pacific, because that is not possible in the future. Chinese official reports stated that:

"If NATO is forcibly expanded to include the Asia-Pacific region, it will no longer be NATO in the traditional sense of the Alliance, and will become more complex, loose, virtual, and politicized."

7) And refuted the Chinese media reports, as well as all the official Chinese responses, that:

"NATO deliberately treating China as an enemy or even as a potential competitor and imaginary enemy, which will inevitably lead to an increase in regional tensions."

8) The Chinese response to Washington's criticism and sifting came, that "China has chosen the path of peace and development initiatives for the benefit of the people and the world, not confrontation," and Chinese newspapers issued by Beijing published, confirming:

"Peace and development are still the dominant trend in the world, but peace and stability also depend on strength. Here, China must maintain strategic determination, adhere to the path of peaceful development, and avoid walking towards a direction led by others. At the same time, we must be ready in China to protect Our legitimate rights and basic interests

9) The first official move came by (the official Chinese mission to the European Union in Brussels), to respond to NATO's report by classifying it as an enemy, so China's reaction to its classification as a strategic challenge to NATO was not delayed, as China rushed to level accusations against NATO countries, and that:

"North Atlantic countries adopt the mentality of"Cold War and bloc policy"

10) China publicly defined its security, defense and military priorities without fear during the coming period, emphasizing:

"that China is committed to a military policy of a defensive nature and the pursuit of defense and military modernization as a reasonable, open and transparent justification, so China calls on all NATO countries to stop exaggerating the theory of the Chinese threat. Not understanding the matter, and accusing NATO of applying "double standards" in terms of asking NATO member states to increase their military spending.However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement explicitly indicated that:

"If China is being criticized for its military spending, which does not exceed 1.3% of its GDP, then China does not represent a systematic challenge to anyone, and it is determined to protect its sovereignty, security and development interests."

12) In a report on June 16, 2021, the newspaper "Beijing News", affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, published an opinion article in which it said:

"The Chinese propaganda apparatus accompanied Gubaidin's trip to Europe with a message that is now known, related to the alleged decline of the West and the rise of the East. In an opinion article in the Chinese newspaper, a prominent Chinese sociologist described the Group of Seven as "the beginning of the fall of Western power."

13) In general, China continued its readiness in the areas of its interests and influence in the face of the United States of America and its intention to provoke China there. It conducted (several Chinese bombers landing operations for the first time on one of the islands of the disputed South China Sea in May 2018), in response to the tensions. And the American naval presence, under the pretext of protecting the interests of its allies in the countries bordering this vital and strategic maritime region.

14) And the Chinese government newspapers stated that (the Chinese Air Force has sent, for the first time, long-range bombers, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, at an air base airport in the South China Sea), in order to respond to China's expanding American claims to care for the interests of its Asian allies, such as Japan and South Korea. And others around the disputed area.

15) What is new in the matter is (Chinese newspapers refer directly to the Chinese force, in an indirect reference to the United States of America about the Chinese readiness towards its moves), and this is what the official Chinese newspaper, China Daily, reported in a report about:

"The Chinese Air Force has conducted take-off and landing exercises with an H-36K bomber in the South China Sea."

16) However, despite the American attempt to mobilize against China, criticism is directed at NATO itself, and it has been likened to the phrase that (the NATO alliance is in a state similar to clinical death), as described by French President Emmanuel Macron, due to the United States’ retreat from Its leadership role, its devotion to its conflict with China, and its attempt to mobilize countries with it.

17) Where the United States of America caused a state of division within "NATO", considering Russia as a prominent opponent of NATO, and considering the threat of the Chinese threat getting stronger at all levels, and describing China as (the new opponent of the NATO military alliance).

18) Therefore, French President "Macron" called for the need for (NATO to move away from the vow of the Cold War with Russia and China), with his clear call to NATO, to:

"Efforts should focus more on combating terrorism, which has become a security challenge worrisome to the entire world, especially with former President Trump's shift in the relationship with Russia, by withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Weapons Agreement, accusing Moscow of violating the terms of what was agreed upon."

19) In a new American attempt to mobilize the capabilities of "NATO" against China, and to call for the need to deal with Beijing, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas made statements in April 2019, declaring:

"China will become the main point on both sides of the Atlantic during the twenty-first century, and the threat of China will constitute a challenge in all aspects, and therefore it is important that matters be well understood in order to realize what the situation requires from NATO."

20) In the most recent statements of the Secretary General of NATO, "Jensstoltenberg", he said:

"Beijing is pulling the global balance of power into a new formula, and that this given presents some opportunities for decision-makers in the West, but it is not without challenges, and that NATO does not intend to go to the South China Sea, but it must realize that China is becoming "closer and closer." By virtue of the huge investments it is making at the level of infrastructure for its "Belt and Road" initiative.

21) The Secretary General of NATO, "Instoltenberg" was not satisfied with his previous statements against China, but rather warned of the growth of its power in large parts of the world, and in my personal belief, the "Secretary of the Alliance" "Stoltenberg" has confused the growth of China's economic power with military aspects, meaning : that China has not intervened militarily in other countries.” Hence, the matter is merely a repetition and repetition of the same American accusations against Beijing, with Stoltenberg confirming:

"The large Chinese presence in Africa, the North Pole of the Earth, and cyber competition, and that China has become the owner of the second largest defense budget in the world. This would appeal to Trump, who presents himself as a Western official who understood Beijing's power and took the initiative to limit it."

22) And the United States of America is issuing continuous warnings to confront Chinese influence and suspicion of Beijing's growing capabilities in European countries, and the administration of President "Joe Biden" made an explicit call to European countries in order to "show resistance to China's investments in the digital sector, especially in the fifth generation network." Telecom", where Washington accuses Chinese companies such as "Huawei" of spying for Beijing, which China denies. This confirms my previous idea, that Washington plays a "double role" within NATO, mixing the economic aspects with the military and political with regard to China.

23) As for the Chinese response, China has announced several times that it is well aware of what is being planned within NATO, led by Washington, and the Chinese government newspaper "Global Times", which is published in English in China, published a report confirming:

"China believes that European countries have two options, either to blindly follow the United States of America, or to continue cooperating with Beijing despite the American warning, and if Europe chooses to obey the orders of the Americans, it will become a puppet for it, just as the countries of the old continent You will not be able to bear the losses and consequences if you decide to close the door to the Chinese fifth generation technology.

24) At the end of 2015, China issued (a new anti-terrorism law that legitimizes, for the first time, sending Chinese forces on combat missions abroad without a mandate from the United Nations).

"That by the year 2049, China will turn into a world-leading country, in terms of complex national forces and broad international influence, and China will work to build a stable international system, through which the Chinese recovery can be renewed at all levels and areas of importance."

25) And with the increase (the intensity of military and naval tensions between Taiwan and China), due to the American support for Taiwan in the face of China, which reached its climax after (the United States imposed several sanctions on the Chinese army under the pretext of interference in Taiwanese affairs), as well as with the expansion of the scope of Chinese military operations in The Taiwan Strait, in rejection of US demands for secession and intervention, in addition to the trade war between Washington and Beijing, and Taiwan and China’s increasing military status in the South China Sea with Washington’s assistance to the Taiwanese side in the face of China.

26) In order to counter US influence in the Taiwan Strait, it (Beijing intensified military and diplomatic pressure, carried out air and sea exercises around the island, and persuaded some regions that support Taiwan to stop doing so). The Greater People's Republic of China and "should not enjoy any kind of independence". This prompted Chinese President Xi Jinping to stress in most of his political speeches since the advent of US President Biden, stressing:

"That the two parties - in reference to China and Taiwan - are part of the Chinese family, and that the demands for Taiwan's independence were a current against history that has no future."

Through the previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, it is noted that China has shown a new, more assertive foreign policy towards the United States of America and its security allies, mainly in the "NATO" alliance, which coincided with the call of the Chinese President, Comrade "Xi Jinping" to adopt a policy of "seeking achievement in affairs Foreign Ministry, especially in light of the American provocation and interference in Chinese affairs and its areas of influence, especially after (Washington sent two warships across the Taiwan Strait) at the beginning of October 2021, which is the second operation of its kind in one year, which prompted China to warn Washington of its hostile policies in the Taiwan Strait and prepare she has. It is the wave of Chinese hostile policy towards the United States of America, after the US-Taiwanese rapprochement increased since Tsai Ing-wen assumed the presidency of Taiwan in 2016, and belongs to the (Progressive Democratic Party), which tends to be independent.

Hence, we find that in the midst of a series of complexities and global confrontations with China by the United States of America and its allies, Beijing has pursued a new military and defense strategy, based on (defending its interests, and following the development approach to help others through its Belt and Road initiative).

- Sixth: China's success in penetrating the "European defense market" and concluding military deals with NATO members, to surround and contain the alliance's backyard

Although China (does not constitute a direct military threat to NATO), unlike Russia or the threats of international terrorism, Beijing's growing economic influence and its confident diplomacy in Europe, according to the vision of NATO member states, has led to (significant repercussions on security and the transatlantic economy). Therefore, the statements of NATO meetings since the end of the "Trump" era and since the advent of the US President "Biden" administration have called for:

"It is difficult, if not impossible, for NATO to avoid China, which presents a total challenge to the transatlantic community and a challenge whose potential and capabilities mirror, if not surpass, that of the former Soviet Union."

And we find that the most dangerous thing for NATO is its realization that China has achieved great success in the European defense market. We can learn about the Chinese presence in the depth of the European defense market, by getting acquainted with the following Chinese measures:

1) Serbian President "Alexander Vucic" recently announced that his country had purchased (six Chinese-made drones), which are of the well-known Chinese model.

CH-92A (UCAVs)

This would make (the Serbian army the first European army to use Chinese combat drones).

2) Also came the visit of Chinese President "Xi Jinping" to France on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, where he met his critics in Europe, headed by: "Macron, Merkel, Juncker", in order to prepare (for the European-Chinese summit) in the Belgian capital. "Brussels" on April 9, 2019, which observers considered as (a new security breach of NATO and a provocation to Washington).

3) Because the Chinese side is well aware of the importance of France, Chinese President Xi Jinping began his visit to it by contracting (a Chinese deal from France to buy 290 Airbus planes valued at about $30 billion). :

A- The first matter: China's provocation as a result of its rival, India, signing a deal with the "French Naval Company" in 2017 to purchase 126 French Rafale aircraft at a value of $19 billion.

B- The second matter: China also aimed to influence the (submarine deal between France and Australia) - which resulted from the "Ocus defense alliance between Washington, Australia and Britain", canceling the Franco-Australian deal and angering France and Europe - amounting to about $50 billion, to (protect the island of Caledonia) , which is inhabited by more than 1.3 million French, located near Australia and overlooking the outskirts of the (South China Sea).

4) However, despite the thirty billion deal concluded between China and France, to buy French Naval planes. French President Emmanuel Macron did not miss the opportunity to express his concern about the expansion of Chinese ambition, to which the response must be European. France to China, but it carries with it, as if (an important French recognition of the importance of the Belt and Road initiative for Europe and Paris, especially after “the conclusion of the French military aircraft deal with China”), and the Chinese response indirectly to the Indian provocation of it, by concluding a similar deal with the French side.

5) President "Macron" also criticized the two files "Human Rights in China and China's Presence in Africa", noting that the first is a global standard and not an internal Chinese matter, and that the second file on Africa and China requires coordination between the two countries, especially with the important French presence in Africa, which Its countries live in continuous Chinese immortality, such as: (the state of Djibouti), which hosts (a French military base), and the state of Djibouti also witnesses the establishment of China’s first military base abroad on its ports, which requires French-Chinese security and military coordination, according to what was announced by French President Emmanuel Macron. Likewise, President "Macron" said that China's investment flows are mainly pouring into (Ethiopia and Kenya), which are witnessing the foundation of the French presence in Africa. On the other hand, President "Xi Jinping" did not abandon his diplomatic smile in front of "Macron's" missiles and criticism, to confirm the president. Xi, that: "China wants a united and strong Europe and benefits from China's explosive growth." In my analysis of Chinese President Xi Jinping's statement to his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, about the importance of Europe benefiting from China's growth, this means (Chinese insistence on cooperating with Europe and making deals with them, despite the United States' criticism of the matter).

6) We find here that the details of this great scene of the meeting between the two presidents, "Emmanuel Macron and Xi Jinping", have opened the door to broad and deep questions and analyzes, regarding:

A- The extent of the possibilities of further division in the European Union because of China?

B- The extent of the possibility of a European-Chinese trade war if matters become more complicated and mutual access to markets and balanced benefit between the two sides are not achieved?

C- Then the fundamental question, about: the extent of the impact of Chinese-European relations on their relations with the United States of America?

D- Also, the main question about: The American position towards its ally Europe, whose imports will witness more US tariffs in the future due to the trade war between Washington and Beijing?

7) Here we find "conflicting security positions between Europe and the United States of America because of China, in defense of their interests." At a time when the United States of America wants Europe to take a clear position in defending democracy, the rule of law and human rights regarding China in all international organizations, And the European criticism of China continued, but China deliberately (concluded military deals with Europe and France), despite the American criticism.

7) We find that the most dangerous thing here is (Europe's failure to bow to the American desire to help it "stop Chinese military modernization" by imposing a ban on technology transfers to it), and European failure to respond to the United States of America regarding their conduct of a security check with China before they conclude purchase deals. Or any form of European government investment, with the aim of (preventing China from controlling Europe's telecommunications and other critical infrastructure). These are all matters that the Europeans do not always pay attention to in their relationship with China, which arouses Washington's ire towards them.

8) The same case applies to Russia as an ally of China, at a time when the United States of America also wants "that Europe not depend on Russian gas through the Nordstream 2 pipeline, nor on Chinese communications equipment through contracts with Huawei." However, the European Union does not always succumb to these American pressures, and it has a stronger trade and investment relationship with the Chinese side.

9) There are European security fears about (the increasing Sino-Russian rapprochement in the field of military cooperation between the two countries), even if it is limited, and there are fears about the increase in the intensity of joint military and naval exercises between China and Russia, with (ships from the Navy of the Chinese People's Liberation Army with ships of the Russian Navy in the eastern Mediterranean in joint naval exercises), and it was the only joint maneuver between the two countries in the Mediterranean in 2015.

10) NATO's concerns increased with fears of (Russian-Chinese cooperation in the Arctic region, where the two countries invest in natural gas projects as well as in transportation corridors), as part of a project known as (the Polar Silk Road or the Northern Maritime Route), so it has NATO military leaders declared:

"The alliance must monitor the Russian-Chinese military cooperation, but the alliance must realize that its first priority is Russia."

11) We find that the most prominent military development from NATO towards China is (the NATO Military Committee signing a document against China in May 2019), which is the committee that consists of the Allied defense leaders, and this document against China is a (new military strategy). to confront China), and its importance is due to the fact that it is the first document of its kind written by NATO since the late sixties.

12) As a result of the American pressure on NATO leaders, the Military Committee presented (two secondary documents that map out how to implement the alliance's strategy against China). Their content is as follows:

A- The first document of NATO against China: It is the document (Defending Democracy), and it defines how the alliance will use its military power to address the main threats facing the interests of the allies in Europe. It calls for the use of NATO's military power to deter and defend its main sources of threat - Russia, China and international terrorism - across Europe and beyond in all areas.

B- The second document of NATO against China: It is (the concept of capstone for combating war in NATO), and it clarifies a twenty-year vision for the capabilities and war characteristics of the alliance. The work program focuses on short-term threats, while the National Anti-Corruption Committee considers the long-term the long). These concepts should help NATO better align its current tools, operations and activities to ensure (the Alliance secures and stabilizes the Euro-Atlantic region).

From here we conclude that, despite the increasing American pressure on Europe and NATO's military allies, (the degree of Chinese-European cooperation has increased and grown in all major fields and sectors), and the degree of Chinese investments within Europe has increased. According to my final analysis of the matter, it seems that everyone in Europe and the world is (growing in the shadow of China and not the other way around), which is what worries Washington deeply, especially with the division of positions within "NATO and its European members themselves" because of their rapprochement with China.

Perhaps according to my understanding of the nature of the American competition with China, and the attempt of each party to gain others to defend it, I believe that (China has come to realize that the European dream of military or economic independence from the United States, especially after the signing of the new Okus defense agreement, and Washington’s abandonment of France and its European allies) in defense about its interests. Therefore, with the growing talk about the necessity of (forming a unified European army and separating from NATO, with the absence of the ability to bear its costs in light of the current economic crisis). Therefore, my long-term strategic analysis became (the possibility of China itself contributing to the disintegration of NATO through a network of financing the dream of forming a unified European army, and thus helping the Europeans to separate from NATO in preparation for its disintegration and collapse), and perhaps that was the long-term Chinese strategy in managing its relations with European countries and NATO , to counter US pressure against China.

- Seventh: The Chinese threat to NATO's spheres of influence, with the Chinese signing of (the Comprehensive Investment Agreement with the European Union) in December 2020

The European Union defended its independent approach to trade and investment with China, by clarifying its approach that, unlike the United States, (the European Union does not seek economic separation from China), hence the multiplicity of American-European positions and confrontation methods regarding the mechanism of dealing with China. Which resulted in several problems between Europe and the United States of America, as follows:

1) After reaching (a comprehensive investment agreement between the European Union and China), which is likely to enter into force in 2022, after its ratification by the governments of the European Union and the European Parliament, and it is expected that the European-Chinese agreement will grant much greater freedom for (companies of countries) Europe and the Baltic) to expand their business with the mercenaries.

2) The European Union refused to agree with the United States of America to form a common front against Beijing. The European Union defined its economic relationship with China, according to three names, as follows:

A- China is a partner of the European Union (regarding climate change).

B- China is a competitor to the European Union: (regarding trade, investments, economics, intellectual property rights), and other such issues.

C- China is a systematic competitor to the European Union (regarding values ​​and governance).

3) The European Union still follows this policy towards China, and they refuse to stand by the United States against China. The European Union is keen to (benefit from Chinese trade and investments, fueled by China's sustainable economic growth).

4) And after the European Union reached a comprehensive political and economic agreement with China in December 2020, regarding (the signing of a new comprehensive investment agreement between China and the European Union countries), known as:

CAI

Under that agreement, this would (improve European companies' access to the Chinese market, as for Chinese companies, they already enjoy free access to a large extent to the European market).

5) The American criticism of the European Union came because it does not have better negotiating power with the Chinese side, and its inability to reach a multilateral agreement. Most notably, Chinese President Xi Jinping personally intervened to make a large number of "final concessions needed to secure a bilateral agreement between China and the European Union", which led to a rift in the relationship between the European Union and the United States.

6) In fact, the European Union is aware of the difficulty of achieving the American desire as a partner country with it in the “NATO” alliance to disengage with opponents. According to the Europeans, the economies are always very intertwined, and therefore, (it will not be possible for the Europeans to completely cut ties with the Chinese side, and fulfill Washington’s desire ).

7) We also find the failure of American pressure on its European partners themselves, and its attempt to persuade them to (diversify supply chains away from China, in order to avoid dependence on China for vital supplies).

Through this analysis, we conclude that the European Union is less interested in China than Washington. Evidence that (Germany has actually decided to allow the Chinese company Huawei to provide equipment for its new communications networks, with full French approval, given that France is the receiving end of the Chinese peace cable for digital communications from China to Europe), with the French and German welcoming the investments of the Huawei factory on their lands.

- Eighth: Challenging Chinese influence to invest in the management and operation of the main European ports of the NATO member states, including China's control of (the port of Long Beach) in the state of California in the United States of America itself.

Port of Long Beach

The Chinese role and influence has expanded in all "NATO member states", especially with the acceleration of the scope and number of these giant Chinese projects in NATO countries, as the Chinese government and its companies have implemented hundreds of projects in the Eurasia region within the framework of the "Belt and Road" initiative launched by President "Xi Jinping". in 2013, as follows:

1) The forms of widespread Chinese encroachment ranged from buying or renting an increasing number of (sea ports overlooking the Mediterranean), some of which are important ports and harbors used by NATO. For example, China controls the famous Greek port of Prius. It also finances highway and railway projects between (the Balkan countries and Hungary).

2) China relatively dominates (the global maritime arena and the management and operation of global ports). The 50 largest ports in the world, especially in Europe, have Chinese investments. With regard to container ports, (five giant Chinese companies in the field of transport control 18% of all container shipping activities managed by the 20 largest companies in the world), according to data issued by (Drury Company), a Chinese consulting company in the field of shipping.

3) In 2016, Beijing established a giant national company through (the merger of China's "China Ocean Shipping" and "China Shipping Company" to form "the giant Chinese COSCO shipping and container company"), and the "Chinese COSCO Container Company", which is a huge business group It includes (seven branches of international subsidiaries) that include (a shipping line with the same name, i.e. “COSCO” known internationally, a company to operate ports), in addition to many different commercial activities in the field of shipping.

4) Competing (three giant Chinese companies for shipping and containers globally), all of which work in the field of port operation, and they are companies:

(China Merchants Portholdings, COSCO Group, China Shipping Terminal Development)

China Marchants Port Holdings &Cosco Group &China Shipping Terminal Development

All of these giant Chinese shipping and container companies belong to the Chinese state, and even (the three huge Chinese shipping and container companies have become fiercely competing with the three world-dominant big companies) over this industry of giant cargo ships and containers, and they are companies:

AB Moller-Maerskal of Holland, PSA International of Singapore and Hutchison Ports Holdings of Hong Kong

5) And the most amazing thing is China's control of (the port of Long Beach in the state of California), which is (the second largest container port in the United States of America).

Port of Long Beach

The acquisition of "Long Beach Port" by the "Chinese COSCO Company", through a subsidiary in Hong Kong, was finally approved. Thanks to this deal, the COSCO Group became (the third largest shipping company in the world), and it has control over (the port of Kaohsiung in southwestern Taiwan, and the port of Long Beach in California).

Kaohsiung Port & Port of Long Beach

6) It also started (COSCO Shipping Ports Company), which is the main Chinese state-owned shipping company.

Cosco Shipping Ports Company

In the operation of the container port in "Piraeus Port" in Greece in 2008. Since then, Chinese companies have expanded in the three largest ports in Europe, as they obtained a 35% stake in (the Euromax port in Rotterdam), and also obtained a 20% stake in (the port of Antwerp in Belgium), and China also began the actual planning for ( Building a terminal for containers and Chinese cargo ships in the port of Hamburg in Germany), according to what is circulating.

7) In Italy, companies affiliated with the Chinese state were allowed to manage or maintain shares in Italian ports to expand exports between China and Italy, according to the agreement announced between them, and the (Italian port of Trieste) in particular is subject to intense interest from Beijing, as the giant Chinese company runs (China Communications Construction). Some experimental projects in the port in northern Italy.

8) Another giant Chinese shipping company, Chinamerchants, also announced

China Marchants

It is a Chinese state-owned company, headquartered in Hong Kong, for negotiations with the Italian government to establish (a joint venture for the ship and container terminal between China and Italy in the Italian port of Trieste).

9) But the remarkable thing here is the rejection by a number of Italian officials of that Chinese deal, as (the governor of the Veneto region "Luca Zaia", which is the region adjacent to Trieste that runs Venice), rejected that Italian-Chinese deal, considering it according to his description in the media. Italian media:

"The proposed Chinese deal to manage and operate the port of Trieste bears a new form of colonialism."

10) The importance of (the Italian port of Trieste in relation to China) is due to the strategic aspect in relation to Beijing because it (will link the Mediterranean Sea with landlocked countries), such as: (Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Serbia), all of which are markets of hope. China can be reached through the Belt and Road Initiative, and thus (the Italian port of Trieste) is the most important station for China in Europe on the Chinese Silk Road, and China plans to make it always open to Chinese investments.

11) The Italian government also agreed to (a deal between the Port Authority in the Italian port of Genoa and the giant Chinese shipping company, "China Communications Construction Company").

China Communications Construction Company

12) The head of the Italian Ports System Authority in the western Italian Sea of ​​Liguria, Paolo Emilio Signorini, confirmed the following:

"The Italian Ports Authority is working to establish a company in partnership with the Chinese "China Communications Construction Company" to manage and operate the main Italian ports.

13) Perhaps because of the American fear of Chinese expansion in Italian ports, this prompted US Secretary of State "Michael Pompeo" to visit both (Italy and the Vatican) at the end of September 2020, precisely weeks after the visit of Chinese Foreign Minister "Wang Yi" to Italy. and four other European countries.

14) And Beijing set its main goal to invest in (four Italian ports) to be part of its investments within the framework of the Chinese "Belt and Road Initiative", especially after (Italy's declaration as the first European country to join the Chinese initiative of the Belt and Road). Belt and Road Initiative. Especially (two ports in the northern Adriatic Sea of ​​Italy, namely the ports of "Trieste and Ravenna"), after the agreement of the Italian and Chinese governments within a Chinese plan to compete with the main European ports.

15) Chinese companies have succeeded in owning actual shares of (sea ports in Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany, thus making China an important player in the field of European ports). It is estimated that (state-backed Chinese investors own at least 10% of all port shares in Europe).

16) The great success of the "Chinese COSCO Company" in (the deal to acquire a terminal in the port of Trieste in northern Italy, and China's acquisition of the port of Zeebrugge, which is the second largest port in Belgium), which represents the first real success of a Chinese trading company in northwestern Europe.

17) And China also succeeded in (concluding deals with three of the largest European ports), and they are, in order, ports:

"The Euromax port in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in which China owns 35% of its shares, the port of Antwerp in Belgium, and China owns 20% of its shares, and the port of Hamburg in Germany, in which China built a new terminal for cargo ships and containers."

Euromax port in Rotterdam in the Netherlands& Antwerp port in Belgium of & Hamburg port in Germany

18) And the most dangerous thing here is that the United States of America imposed sanctions on (five companies affiliated with the Chinese giant shipping and container construction), which is the giant Chinese company (China Communications Construction), in August 2020, due to American accusations of the company’s involvement in (the militarization of the sea South China), according to the US indictment against the giant Chinese shipping and container company.

Through the researcher's previous analysis of this Chinese presence in the depths of European ports, and the American fear of it by proposing alternative projects and methods to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, then the European challenge to Washington, so it became clear to us that there are (other European fears of Chinese attempts aimed at expanding its influence in the ports European Union), as member states of the European Union, led by (France and Germany), expressed their reservations about the Italian deal regarding the operation and management of their ports by Chinese companies, with NATO apprehension about "the increasing Chinese influence on the strategic and important Italian ports directly on the Mediterranean."

- Ninth: The rapprochement between China and the Baltic countries to influence the influence of NATO, and China's signing of the (17 + 1) initiative with the aim of (expanding economic cooperation between Beijing and the member states in Central and Eastern Europe)

The cooperation between China and Russia has intensified and its sources have diversified, especially those Russian facilities for China to reach places close to the areas of Russian influence, especially in (the Eurasian region overlooking the countries of Eastern Europe and the three Baltic countries and their ports). This is what prompted NATO Secretary General "Stoltenberg" to issue An official statement, in which he confirmed:

"Our NATO forces are present alternately in the Baltic Sea, Poland and Romania, and we have new methods of intervention. In the event of a crisis, reinforcements from new units can be delivered quickly to the place. Three NATO member states (Poland, Latvia and Lithuania)

Through the statement of "Stoltenberg", in his military capacity, as Secretary of NATO, we understand the sensitivity of the Eastern European region, especially (the Baltic Sea ports of the three countries) bordering it, which are: "Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania", and perhaps that makes us understand clearly That (the hard-line approach of the state of Lithuania from the Baltic states towards China), which coincided with the issuance of "NATO", confirmed its ability to protect its allies from the Baltic states and eastern Europe and their ports against any kind of threats from Minsk, Moscow or China. Hence, we understand the developments of China's relations with that region through Russia's assistance to it, as follows:

1) China tried, with the help of Russia, to engage in (joint naval maneuvers in the Baltic Sea region), so Russia succeeded in opening the doors for China to strengthen its presence in the north of the European continent, to China’s attempt (to transfer its battle with the United States of America from the South China Sea to the Baltic Sea, to add new burdens on the US administration), and to send strong messages to Washington in order to (stop provoking China and trying to besiege its influence in Asia and the Pacific). in Southeast Asia by strengthening its naval power).

2) Moscow and China began preparing (for the first phase) of the joint naval exercises in the Baltic Sea region for the first time since July 2017, which bore the name "Maritime Cooperation-2017". Then (the second phase) of those exercises began in mid-September 2017 in the region. (Sea of ​​Japan and Okhotsk). And with the succession of US and military warnings to NATO, the defense ministries of Russia and China have confirmed that these exercises are a normal tradition aimed at "strengthening the comprehensive strategic partnership in Russian-Chinese relations" and do not pose a threat to any party.

3) These joint training plans between China and Russia have raised many reactions and concerns among many countries of the NATO military alliance, especially since China is participating in them for the first time in the Baltic Sea. The Polish Minister of Defense (Antonimacherewicz) accused both Russia and China that (their strategic alliance constitutes a threat to the free world). In the same context, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linaslinkavicius spoke about the seriousness of these exercises, which constitute a "challenge to NATO in the Baltic Sea," stressing that "these maneuvers are now standing at the gates of Europe."

4) These joint maneuvers between China and Russia in the Baltic Sea may carry with it a political message to both the "American administration and NATO", stating that: "Russia and China support and protect each other." However, China's willingness to display its naval forces in the Baltic Sea, It may refer to two things:

- The first matter: refers to (the long-term geopolitical plans of China, of which Europe is at the core). It seems here that the Chinese plans aim to be present in the Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea, in response to the American presence in its Asian spheres of influence.

- The second matter: It also indicates that (Beijing intends to achieve these plans with Russia), and Russia also aims to ensure China's assistance to it in the Far East, specifically in the "Sea of ​​Japan", due to the Japanese-Russian dispute over the "Kuril Islands", therefore He understands the pretext of the presence of the American war fleets there, under the pretext of protecting the interests of its Asian allies, which could lead to the permanent ignition of the Asian region.

5) However, despite the intensity of the joint Chinese-Russian military and naval presence in the ports and countries of the Baltic Sea, it is expected that the rapprochement between the Baltic countries and China will increase, especially after (the signing of more than twenty bilateral investment treaties between the member states of the European Union with China). The Chinese will inevitably reduce the volume of security concerns and doubts and raise political pressure on the Baltic states for fear of dealing with the Beijing government.

6) In general, there is (a growing economic-pragmatic popular tendency in the Baltic countries and the European Union), which sees the necessity of cooperation with China in all economic fields permitted by international relations, thus allowing space for economic cooperation between the Baltic countries and China in the future.

7) The Baltic countries participated with diplomatic representation (at a level lower than that of presidents at the level of ministers only), in the (17 + 1 summit), chaired by Chinese President (Xi Jinping), on (cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European countries), where it was established The (17 + 1) initiative in 2012, in the Hungarian capital, Budapest, with the aim of (expanding economic cooperation between Beijing and member states in Central and Eastern Europe).

8) The general framework of the (17 + 1) initiative between China and Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic countries, focuses on infrastructure projects, such as: (bridges, highways, railways, port modernization) in member states. The "17 + 1 initiative" includes about (twelve member states of the European Union, including "the Balkan countries, the Baltic countries, and eastern European countries), as follows:

9) China cooperates with a large number of countries in the Balkans, the Baltics, Central and Eastern Europe, as part of the "17 + 1 Initiative". China views the "17 + 1 Initiative" - ​​to a large extent - as an extension of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The initiative countries cooperating with China can be divided as follows:

A- Among the most prominent (Balkan countries) with which China cooperates within the framework of the "17 + 1 initiative", are:

(Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania)

B- Among the most prominent (Eastern European countries) in the "17 + 1 initiative", which cooperates with China, are:

(Czech, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia)

C- While the (Baltic countries) in the "17 + 1 initiative", which are cooperating with China, are countries:

(Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)

10) Here (diplomatic representation lower than the level of presidents of the Baltic countries in the 17 + 1 summit initiative) indicates a remarkable shift in the political position of the Baltic countries towards more engagement with China, and we find that (popular public opinion trends in the Baltic countries in 2021 showed a welcome from the citizens of Baltics in economic cooperation with China), where the majority of the citizens of the Baltic countries do not consider that Beijing poses a threat to the influence of Brussels, and this may explain to us the occurrence of some kind of division in perception and visions between the political elites and popular public opinion towards China in the three Baltic countries referred to.

11) As for (the position of governments in the Baltic countries to deal with China), we find that (Lithuania is the most stringent against the Chinese side), and the most prominent position of Lithuania against China is (the Lithuanian request from the World Health Organization to invite Taiwan to attend a meeting to discuss the global response of the epidemic, but it was banned in Kintayuan as part of it).

12) On the other hand, both (Latvia and Estonia) are looking for ways to deal with China (either at the bilateral level, or side by side with the European Union), and are trying at the same time to ensure their national security, especially with what was announced by the "Latvian Intelligence Service". on the State of Latvia in May 2020, in its annual report on national security, stressing:

"China represents an electronic threat, and we must move away as much as possible from the effects of the Chinese-American-European conflicts without burning the bridges of dealing between the State of Latvia with any of them."

13) Newspapers in the Baltic countries have sometimes been interested in covering visits to China or vice versa, or publishing positive articles about China, which can be summarized in (an important phrase that has serious and far-reaching connotations), namely:

"There are communists in China, but it is not communism"

14) The trends of popular public opinion of the Baltic countries towards China are highlighted in (the possibility of economic cooperation with Beijing, with the need for geopolitical linkage between the Baltic countries and China), while stressing at the same time the necessity of continuing the external Baltic political and diplomatic dependence more on (the European Union countries and Russia, As part of the system of security, borders and geopolitics of the Baltic States, as well as the Baltic cooperation with the United States of America as the leader of NATO and its members), especially in the political, diplomatic, security and defense aspects.

The Egyptian researcher, through this point related to (the Chinese presence in the countries of the Baltic Sea ports with the help of its ally Russia and the protest of Washington and the NATO security alliance), came to the adoption of the Russian policy of the Chinese agenda in the region of Eastern Europe and the three Baltic states "Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania", but rather And its encouragement to it as a result of the increased US interference in Russian and Chinese affairs. We find that the goal of Russia and China, through the maneuvers of "Maritime Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region 2017", for the first time, is as if they want (to show that they are ready to defend their national interests in front of NATO and the United States), whether that is in Western Europe or in the Asian Far East (Sea of ​​Japan, Okhotsk and the Kuril Islands).

My personal analysis lies in the fact that the new Chinese presence in the "ports of the Baltic Sea countries and in the Eurasian region" with Russian assistance is also aimed at (China deliberately increasing the burdens and pressures on American influence in the Eurasian region, eastern Europe, the Baltic countries, and in the Crimea and the Eurasian belt), with the aim of (occupying the states The United States of America and its exclusion from the regions of the “Indian and Pacific Ocean, the South and East China Seas, and Southeast Asia”), which are all the main areas that fall into the core of the Chinese sphere of influence mainly.

- Tenth: The American role in building ports and infrastructure and digital networks in Europe to serve the goals of "NATO" in confronting China, and putting forward (an American project alternative to the Chinese Silk Road) at the G7 economic summit.

The United States of America is trying to play (an economic role competing with the Chinese role in building ports, technological networks and digital infrastructure in Europe, especially in the countries of "Greece and Italy" due to the intensity of Chinese investments in them), in order to lead the efforts of NATO and practically encourage it to confront the growing Chinese influence in European ports The main ones, on top of which are: the Italian and Greek ports.

And the thing worth analyzing here is that the American International Development Finance Company leads these American investment and financing initiatives in Europe and around the world, in order to compete with China's financing, and the most dangerous thing here remains (the idea of ​​​​an alternative American project to the Chinese Silk Road, which was put forward by the administration of the American president) Joe Biden" as an American project that acts as an alternative strategic competitor to the Chinese Silk Road), through what President "Biden" announced at the Group of Seven major economic summit. From here, we try to analyze the mechanisms and dimensions of the alternative American role to compete with China and its financing in Europe mainly, and to lead NATO in confronting China, through:

1) The US administration, through US President "Jobaidin" himself, during his attendance at (the meetings of the Group of Seven major industrial summit in the city of Cornwall, Britain), proposed an alternative project to the Chinese Silk Road. He called it "rebuilding a better world." Through US investment in Greek ports facing Chinese investments).

2) On the other hand, the infrastructure race between China and the United States is also growing in Italy, in light of the growing efforts of Washington to break the dependence of European Union countries on Chinese capital. And the Greek model represented in (the American offer to build shipyards in the Greek port of Elefsis) is not alone in this context, in contrast to other American scenarios, such as the attempt to invest the United States in (the Italian ports of Trieste and Taranto) and also facing the Italian ports in which China is investing heavily.

3) The United States of America is trying to invest in building and developing (the shipyards of the Greek port of Elefsis, facing the Greek port of Piraeus with Chinese investments), with American efforts to (modernize the Greek port of Elefsis, to be the model corresponding to the Greek port of Piraeus, which is controlled by the Chinese COSCO group of navigation, which It made it the most important port in the Mediterranean, in which 5 million containers handle and may reach 7 million containers for shipping).

4) (The ports of Elefsis and Alexandroupoulos in Greece) represent the summit of the American moves related to the Greek infrastructure in the face of Chinese investments, at a time when the affiliation of the two largest ports in Greece, namely: (the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki) was transferred from the Greek government to the Chinese side, which is currently embarking on a process Assigning management of six other ports to Chinese state companies. Knowing that the (Greek port of Thessaloniki) has transferred its ownership to (Pelterra Investment Company) to its owner, the Greek-Russian businessman "Ivan Savvidis", who is close to the Russian President "Putin", as its location next to (Gastap and TANAP pipelines) was a decisive element in this. Deal.

5) In order to confront the growing Chinese influence in the ports of Greece, the United States of America made a large offer to the Greek government, through (the American “Lockheid Martin” company with the Italian “Fincantieri” company), to agree on (an American deal to build docks for the manufacture of ships, especially military ones, and to produce and manufacture The war frigates are in the shipyards in the Greek ports of "Elephsis and Skaramangas" with American experience). The importance of this American deal is due to providing an optimal option for the Greek side to facilitate (training and modernization of the capabilities of Greek shipyards).

6) We find here, that (the American deal mainly includes two phases, namely: the construction of the American Company for shipyards in the ports of Greece, and then this is linked to another American deal for the manufacture of frigates, i.e. warships also in the Greek ports), and this is the deal that (Lockheed) requested Martin, an American company that specializes in building shipyards and manufacturing war frigates, from the Greek government, to make an urgent decision regarding them).

7) The note worth mentioning here is that the continuous American attempts to conclude and sign that deal with the Greek side, related to the construction of war frigates in the shipyards of Greek ports, and the American ambassador in Athens (Jeffrepiat) led these continuous American attempts since 2015 intensively with The Greek government to complete and sign that deal, in addition to several private meetings that took place between the American ambassador "Piatt" with the Greek Minister of Development and Investment "Adonis Giorgiadis", represented in the American attempt to persuade Greece to accept the American deal to build war frigates in Greek shipyards to increase the Greek naval and military power, diversify and secure its sources .

8) American estimates indicate that both (the Greek ports of Elefsisos Karamangas) are the ideal and potential sites for the production of the future Greek frigate, mainly given their direct confrontation with other Greek ports controlled by the Chinese side, which is the dangerous point in this regard.

9) The analysis worthy of discussion here is the connection of the US war frigates deal in the ports of Greece, with the desire of the United States of America to (draw the features of the model corresponding to the Chinese Silk Road through it in the heart of the Greek ports themselves, in order to address the growing economic influence of China in the ports of Greece), and that is from During Washington's implementation of huge strategic investments in Greek ports, which also coincided with (US President Joe Biden's decision to allocate two billion dollars in order to besiege Chinese fifth-generation technology in Greece, Italy and all European countries), especially from NATO member states.

10) The United States of America aims through this approach towards Greece, in (Washington's attempt to make all Greek and European ports and infrastructure and digital networks in the service of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization "NATO" while trying to limit Chinese influence inside Europe). In order to achieve this goal, (the contribution of the American government international development finance company to implement American projects in Greece, Europe and others) stands out as the financing arm that the American government relies on in competing with China's funds.

11) And the new thing in the matter is that alternative initiative that was approved by (the Council of Foreign Relations of the European Union) at its meeting on July 12, 2021, where its steps are highlighted in (the European Union put forward an alternative initiative to the American initiative alternative to the Chinese Silk Road, a few weeks after the announcement US President "JoBiden" on it from the G-7 summit in Britain), Washington's call came at that summit to support the alternative American initiative in the face of China, entitled: "The Initiative to Rebuild a Better World," and the US explicit mention that it is "an alternative American initiative to the Chinese Belt and Road." .

12) It is possible (to analyze the European position by proposing another alternative initiative to the American initiative alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road), as if it is a European reaction to prove itself towards Washington - despite the Europeans' support at the time for the American initiative - as if it was a European message, that (it has another European initiative alternative to the plan or For the proposed American initiative, which is also worthy of discussion, and because Washington is not alone in the political decisions of NATO, and makes the European Union countries dependent only on the American decision), which is what the European Commission countries suffered from and are now strongly rejecting, as a result of confrontational positions and previous experiences with the United States of America.

13) The alternative European initiative to its American counterpart can also be analyzed as: (an attempt by the European Union itself to prove itself and its worth in front of the American penetration in the ports of Greece and Europe, by issuing decisions aimed at positioning the European Union as a clear geopolitical player in front of Washington), so this European project The new one is added to a previous list of various initiatives launched by the European Commission headquarters in the Belgian capital, Brussels, in order to (restore Europe's position on the world stage and emphasize the distinction of the European voice and its non-following of the American decision or not allowing it to be marginalized by America).

14) Although (the success of the European initiative is not guaranteed, it includes an important element, which is not present in the American initiative itself), which is (European planning to set a specific time limit for the completion of existing projects, as well as naming and launching pilot projects). This part is specifically Determination could be a major decisive tool, and a reason for the continuity and success of the European initiative, and it may be considered.

15) We find that the previous European initiative in the face of its American counterpart encounters several problems, most notably: the problem of financing, as (the European Union countries themselves find it difficult to obtain appropriate financing for infrastructure projects on European soil itself), and after the exacerbation of global economic crises, especially after The spread of the Corona pandemic, and it has become (difficult to include more European plans in the financial budget during the coming years).

16) While the European Union is aware of this problem related to the lack of funding, it (the European Union is not yet able to find alternative financing plans). As finding European financial resources and additional funding from the private sector is a very complicated matter in Europe, in addition to that (the European private sector is an inappropriate financing cover to cover the costs of the European initiative alternative to its American counterpart for the alternative initiative to the Chinese Belt and Road).

17) Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain the European Union's ability and seriousness of its initiative regarding: "launching an alternative European Silk Road to China." However, it is possible to analyze all (the recent moves of the European Union) that they are moving in the direction of gaining more European independence and self-sufficiency in the face of the imposition of the decision. American politicians against them, and in return for the projects that Beijing is launching in Europe on the other hand).

18) Here we note that the alternative initiative to the Chinese Silk Road, which was endorsed by (the Council of Foreign Relations of the European Union) was focused only on the same American path, meaning: (The European initiative may have come out of a policy of reaction to the American initiative, and therefore it is not an authentic European initiative stems from the heart of Europe, so it is difficult to judge it as a purely European initiative), with the European Union confirming that this initiative would enhance the security of the European and Eurasian region and the "NATO" countries, whether in relation to (energy supplies or the protection of communications networks from China).

19) The new thing also remains with regard to the European initiative, and the reasons for linking it to “globalism”, and it is possible to understand and analyze the phrase (that Europe’s initiative for the Belt and Road alternative to China is connected globally), this is a part of it (European geopolitical and strategic meaning), with the approval of the European Council at the end of the special meeting When he launched this European initiative, the importance of (linking the countries of the European Union with each other more than linking their relations with outside the circle or the European institution), provided that this is done through two means:

A- The first method: Carrying out larger European investments in traditional infrastructure than foreign investments and projects.

B- The second method: the Europeans put greater interest in the regulatory frameworks that govern their relations in the first place, so that they include (the existence of transparent rules of the game that are common to all European players). This is what the Egyptian researcher understood, that it may mean:

(The need to unite the European decision front, not to act unilaterally, and to impose binding regulatory laws on everyone, especially with regard to the political and economic choices of one of its countries, or those related to opening its space for investment with other countries outside the European system)

20) The important thing here remains, and it has an analytical significance, is that (the announcement of the launch of the “Linking Europe Globally” initiative did not mention China completely), but rather explicitly declared (the desire of the European Union to cooperate with Japan, India, Asian countries, and the United States of America, without mentioning China or reference to it in the proposed European initiative). In my personal analysis, perhaps (the European Union is trying to diversify its options, with regard to capital flows for investments and trade paths, so as not to depend almost permanently on relations with China).

21) We find that (the Chinese reaction to the launch of the European Union initiative was neutral, that is, without any public or explicit objection). among all).

22) Perhaps the European Commission in "Brussels" intended from this European initiative, and linking it globally without reference to China, is (the European gradually moving away from China's geopolitical orbit), and in order to achieve this goal, it is assumed that (member states move coherently). instead of moving in an individual way that lacks objective organization).

And here remains the final analysis of the researcher, that "unifying European positions towards China has become a very difficult matter", and this can be inferred by the French and German slowness, and their lack of haste to take any hostile stances towards China in order to protect their economic interests with it. The same is the case for Italy and Greece, the Chinese market is a top priority for them, because China has a special importance for the flow of investments and economic interests in them.

However, in my simple analysis of the content of the European discourse, it tries to control all exchanges, trade interactions and joint investments between the outside world and Europe, and this may take (a new geopolitical path or direction), in which (European self-sufficiency and its member states in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization "NATO" is the appropriate option For everyone).