Why 8 NATO Members Now View China More Favorably Than America?

Hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you as always. Uh, today's topic, I will be providing you my own analysis about what is going on with NATO. So is it time for NATO to dissolve? And that's very crucial question that many are asking, uh, currently. So this is what I'm going to be addressing for you in this analysis, in this livestream here. But before I do this, let me say hi as always to our wonderful and inquisitive community, as one of you puts it. Uh, Femida, good to see you here. Oh, awaiting your usual, uh, very informative video, Dr. O. You're most welcome, you're most welcome. Hangin' G, good to see you, sir, as always. Please, guys, FYI, make sure you read Hangin' G's comments, uh, and feedback and, uh, yeah, comments either here on the chat box or on the videos. Very, very informative and interesting insights. Thank you very much, Hanging G, for sharing your intellectual knowledge with us as well here. Leanne, good to see you, uh, truth seeker as always. Uh, Willie Holman, say it like it is. Phil from Ottawa, Canada, good to see you. Fighters Uh, AK47, good to see you as always here. AF Carleon, salam to you as well. Lock 1970, good to see you. Dave H, good to see you here. And, uh, Persian Persian, good to see you here joining us here. So, all right guys, let's get into this. First of all, I want to share some housekeeping items here. Uh, uh, I am going to be reaching out to Jayant Bahandari This week we're going to be addressing about some major decision the Indian government just took, which is going to marginalize the minorities regarding the voting. So I'm gonna— I already sent an email to Jayant. I am waiting to hear from him. Also next week, be on a lookout for, uh, Arno Tengen and Warwick Pao. They will be here. Dr. Warwick Pao, that is. I'm gonna reach out to them and set the date. In addition to that, we're gonna have also Carl Zha next week. I'm gonna also send him an email right after we finish here, and this way we all, uh, have some very good informative discussions as we do on a monthly basis. So, all right, let's just— oh, Francis Tango, good to see you here. Uh, Sadiq, good to see you. And Mark, good to see you here. So, all right, I'm not having any, uh, headlines today, so I'm gonna get directly into the my own analysis because there's, uh, different angles to cover regarding this particular topic. So, so what I want to do in this live stream, as I mentioned earlier, it really is to provide you some sort of an insight in addition to my analysis, but also to examine for you, uh, I wrote extensively on NATO in my last few books, uh, and, and articles, and, and I've always, uh, been thinking in terms of the, uh, evolving nature and the role and the relevance, uh, relevancy, if there is any left for NATO. And what I wanted to do in this live stream is to provide this within the contemporary geopolitical landscape, to put it in perspective for you. So, and of course, excuse me, this topic comes on the heels of the recent polling data that is showing now a decline of US approval within NATO countries in favor of a rising China favorability. Remember, it was only last year when the overall report, the strategic report of NATO, which I had a chance to read and I shared it with you in a video, and named China as the main adversary and the main concern, security concern. What the heck was that all about? Look where China is and look where NATO is. And this is again why I wanted to highlight to you now this, this real information that is now coming out. You have members of NATO that is saying, you know what, we see a far better outcome with China than we see with, with the US. This is why the rising Chinese favorability is going among those 8 countries But it's gonna expand, mark my word on this. So I will also explore within this particular analysis here for you, the whether NATO remains essential in a multipolar order, 'cause we are in a multipolar world right now. So, and of course that consistent debate about NATO's necessity following the Soviet Union collapse. Well, yeah. The whole reason for why NATO existed was because of the Soviet Union. Now Soviet Union ceased to exist. So what is the objective of NATO? So there's none. So, and this is why I wanted to do this analysis for you, to provide you some sort of a balanced arguments for those who argue in favor of NATO's continued importance as a regional security alliance. And those who saying, you know what? We questioning this Cold War mindset that is still present in today. And that's paved the way for our conversation regarding this recent poll, uh, that was just, uh, provided. I'm going to share the link with you where I get this information from. So, so the recent report, which was by Newsweek, but it was based on a, on a Gallup poll So it was a Gallup poll that was conducted, which revealed a significant decline in the image of the United States within NATO countries during 2025. And that in itself, uh, when the poll was conducted, they also had a question about, uh, where does China stand on this, meaning how the other countries perceive China. And within this particular a poll that showed the decline of the US image in 2025 compared to unprecedented improvements in the level of public satisfaction with China. That's to me was a— and I really, when I read it the first time and I kind of like, is this just one of those? I confirmed it from 3 different sources and it's accurate. So based on the available evidence that is reporting that the US leadership across NATO countries fell by about 14% to 21% in 2025. So, so the median approval for the Chinese leadership rose by 8%. To about 22%. And that's marking China's single-year gain on the record within NATO. I remember last year NATO was saying China is the enemy. Because remember, one thing NATO will have to keep the narrative going on, it has to do with either real or with either— I'm sorry, not either— with either real or perceived enemy. So you move from Russia into China to justify whatever. This is why the argument was about the mini NATO in Asia. And as a matter of fact, the decision was, uh, still on. They just didn't move forward on it to open an office for NATO in Japan. That's why Japan was behaving the way it was behaving. So, and this the idea of, uh, uh, understanding where this is going. So it is, however, worth clarifying as to this unprecedented improvement. What does it mean within the bigger context? You know, of course, China's gain of 8 points was indeed its largest single-year increase. So because now it's at 22%, but at the same time, 22% still remain relatively low. Overall. Well, of course it's expected. This is China. This is not Germany or France or whatever. You know, we shouldn't be sort of surprised. I'm not surprised at this. So because throughout the years, and I remember during my days back in Washington, whatever, it has always been the narrative that we're going to have to make sure to keep China always unpopular in the eyes of the population throughout NATO. So, and for past two decades or so. So because the, the, the, the US was very concerned about the changing minds. But now it's different story because the US is declining. So you're seeing this shift now is more accurate as far as the decline of the US. But the emergence of the good image of China within NATO. So the convergence in itself, this sort of now vis-à-vis China is reaching or achieving some sort of widespread popularity. That is what I found very interesting. The, the— you have the poll that took back in March, from March 27th There was another one in October 30th, 2025. There were two polls, by the way. So of the 31 nations, NATO members. So this is why it showed that the US, you know, even though some will say, well, the US and China now have similar median approval rating across NATO. Yeah, here is the hard truth that of course Western media is not going to want to admit, is that China has significantly higher rating in among 8 countries, uh, within NATO. And I'm going to tell you who those countries are in a second. This is what they are refraining from saying. Why? Because they don't want the masses to really, uh, sort of expose this reality. How is now China is perceived favorably within NATO when only last year the strategic assessment for NATO, you know, defined China as the main enemy because China is a threat to NATO's security, which is, you and I know it's nothing but a lie. So, so the hard truth is this, the decline of the US approval is so pronounced, so profound, even in countries like Germany, Portugal, and others. So, and of course, it is also has failed significantly among other 18 countries within NATO overall. So it is true. Just to put this to rest, of course, are we not share any information with you that I am not certain of its accuracy. That's what I do in this channel here. So, so it is true that the data being regarding this topic showed China outperforming the United States by at least 10% in 8 NATO countries. So that is accurate assessment. So, and as a matter of fact, China now has significantly higher rating than the US by about 10%. And what this means within the bigger picture, does this suggest that US popularity and global leadership is done for? It is. What, what the, the, the, the, the data suggests, because usually when you conduct polls, it's very, very important to understand the dynamics of it. What it suggests is this notable, notable decline of the United States' public favorability within NATO countries specifically. So, of course, media, both in Washington, Brussels, maybe in Paris, maybe in Berlin, London, maybe even in Ottawa, will have to sort of word it very softly. So they can soften the blow as far as the image of the US. So when you think about 14-point drop in median US leadership across NATO members in 2025, it's no small matter. It's significant. And that is where the concern now in Washington about the closing, the closing gap that China is achieving And as a matter of fact, China surpassing the United States in 8 NATO countries. And those 8 NATO countries are Slovenia, Luxembourg, Türkiye, Bulgaria, Spain, Montenegro, Iceland, and Greece. This, in my opinion, suggests and indicates the public sentiment towards American leadership that has shifted now in favor of China. So of course, there are those who's going to say there is no way, Dr. O, that this will be. Well, I'm sharing the facts here. And by the way, let me put the link for you so you can read it yourself, so you know where this information is coming from. I put it in the chat box for you. An American. And, uh, then this is where the difference is. I just need you to understand this aspect of, of this particular, uh, uh, topic here. So, and when considering, for example, this decline in, in public opinion. Yeah, of course they are going to say, well, this one has nothing to do, uh, or it doesn't directly sort of, uh, translate to government policy or actual geopolitical influence. Yeah, there might be some logical arguments into that, so I'm not arguing otherwise. But at the same time, when you look at the Even within NATO's official positions, the lack of commitments on certain parts. When you look at about vis-à-vis China policy, say, some sort of haven't shifted much. Another word, for the decline of the US still remain, for the favorability of the China still remain. So, and this is where you have to see why be it in Washington or Brussels or London, whatever, they're gonna have to think about public opinion because they will wanna influence the public opinion by various factors, domestic politics, media coverage, specific US policies, international event like taking over Greenland, which I will talk about in a second, you know. So rather than reflecting the fundamental changes in the geopolitical power that exists today. And that can be summed up in one word: multipolar order. So, and this is why this data that I'm sharing with you here is specific to NATO countries. So, because it represents some subset of a global opinion. So Remember, Canada just got a deal with China economically. You all know what it means moving forward. You have the Europeans now thinking in the same way. So, and this is where you're seeing these trends moving forward. So, yeah, of course, US still has some sort of advantage here and there, but the shift is significant, in my opinion. So, and that is why the one thing the US is going to be now worrying about is the public perception they're going to have within allied, allied nations in Europe. This is why the EU and NATO always work together. That's for a reason, to maintain the narrative. So, because sustained declines in how the population, be it in the US or in Europe, if they keep saying, you know, we're done with the US or the US favorability is done, whatever, all this, if it keeps persist, this will eventually affect the political support for the alliance commitments. It's going to impact the defense spending. It's going to impact cooperation and it's going to push some other countries, mainly in Europe, to pivot to China. And this leads us to the fundamental question: does NATO outlived its usefulness? It's legitimate question. So what I'm gonna do in this aspect here, it provide you two arguments for and against. This way, because this way, that's how we do it in this channel here. We provide both arguments and we discuss it to see which one makes more sense. And of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and I would be happy if you could share this with the community, you know, and I appreciate you all engaging in a civil discussion in our chat box here. So, so the arguments for dissolution, the dissolution of, or a major change with NATO exist. You think about, for example, shifting US commitments. There are the concerns now in Europe about the potential US withdrawal. Yeah, it might, it might. It's just words, ain't gonna happen. I'm telling you here, because there are far powerful sources behind the scenes in Washington that manage this transatlantic relations. It's not the president. The president is just a figurehead. So even some arguing Europe needs to be self-sufficient. How many times we've heard this before? So And because others believe that the US needs NATO for what? For global power projection. That's all it is. So when you consider this aspect and you consider the European self-reliance, you know, those who are arguing for the end of NATO are also arguing that it is time for Europe to take full responsibility for its own defense and paying for it and developing independent capabilities. But let's be honest, you and I know, especially for my viewers in Europe, you know that governments in Europe are incompetent. They will not be able to make a decision like this. Gone the era of General Charles de Gaulle back in the '60s when he really followed through with his word that he threatened to withdraw France from NATO, and he— the Americans thought that he was bluffing, and he wasn't. He pulled France out of NATO. Let's be honest, do you see Macron doing this? I mean, come on. So then we talk about the geopolitical realities. So some who argue, or critics argue, that NATO in structure and actions, or even inactions, Like, for example, regarding Gaza, what did NATO do if he wants to maintain peace? If it is the image of projecting some sort of, uh, uh, uh, power, power to be fair, power to ensure stability, power to ensure peace, where is it? As an example, and we're not even talking yet about Greenland because Denmark is a NATO member, and I will get into that. But at the same time, these geopolitical realities, you know, reflects the outdated priorities, or even I will go as far as saying hypocrisy of NATO. And that demands a new approach, in my opinion. So if we continue with the argument for those in support of the continuation of NATO, The first thing they're gonna argue this from will be from the enduring security role. I remember when I was in Afghanistan, you know, there were some NATO sort of units under NATO umbrella were in Afghanistan and we were like, what the heck is NATO doing here anyway? They just had to tag them into with the Americans just to fit in. This is why the commander officer of NATO is always a 4-star US general because we won't fall under the command of any other nation whatsoever. After all, we're the one who decides what's going on in NATO. So, you know, at the expense of the American taxpayers, because it's our tax dollars that is going there. And I am having a hard time with that anyway. Why would I pay for the defense of Germany or France or England, whatever? They can defend themselves. So I'd rather use our— my tax dollars be used here in the US. So to those who argue for this enduring the security role, their argument is that, well, Dr. O, NATO provides some crucial collective defense, preventing major conflicts. Where was it in Gaza? Where was it in, for example, what was the issue that took place a few years ago in Bosnia? Kosovo, that was NATO that created all this. So if we're talking about preventing major conflicts, where is it? So, and their arguments continue that, oh, because NATO remains vital countering threats, especially from China and Russia. And that is what I'm saying. It will be that perceived threat, real or imagined. Enemy to keep the narrative going. The other argument for this, for keeping NATO, is these individuals argue that, well, because European depends on the US defense. Well, that's their problem, not ours. So many European nations rely heavily on the United States military support. They rely on them also for technology to a degree, especially with the F-35 stuff. But this coming to an end because you see what the Chinese have been developing. So to them, making a sudden split, it's too risky. Yeah, there is an argument into that. But if then, if they don't take steps, meaning Europe in this case, then it will never happen. I, I am yet to wait to see it in my lifetime. Maybe so. Those also arguing that NATO has established success, meaning it has a track record of success. Really? You all remember what happened in Kosovo, right? You guys familiar with the issue? So, and this despite the internal debate that is otherwise, there are those who are saying no, no, no, no, no. NATO has always been successful, longstanding alliance. So, so, but if we are to go with the argument that the case, the case of NATO remains essential, to, to what degree? If there are those who are saying, well, it's because it is serving some core functions for its members, like what? Like now you just dragged Finland and Sweden into becoming NATO members, which by the way now creates more problems for them than they were before joining NATO. So, and this so-called alliance, uh, uh, uh, that is provides collective defense guarantees under Article 5, which is true. How this is gonna be happening now regarding Greenland or even for the, the idea of Russia because they are, they NATO in this case justifying for it to remain as an essential security apparatus because of Russia's military operations in Ukraine. Well, hold on a second. Aren't you the one, NATO, that creates the problem to begin with? Then you add now the expansion of the, the inclusion of Finland and Sweden to this, and their argument is that all this is in response to renewed threats to European security. It's, it's a word they've been throwing out to mislead the masses regarding this. So of course, for smaller nations, being a member of NATO, even though it will be just like a deadweight, basically, uh, provides some sort of security assurances. You know, I have nothing against Montenegro, and I wrote articles about it. If you go Uh, check out my record on, on, on articles that I wrote back in 2017, I remember, on the Huff Post, uh, and in which I argue what is the objective of bringing in Montenegro into NATO, which by the way, the defense budget of Montenegro is the same budget that the police department in Massachusetts, in Boston. So Yeah, I'm not, I'm not arguing otherwise that for smaller member. Yeah, there are some security assurances. And this is where you're seeing the issue of, for example, to bring this, they make their case by using Ukraine conflict. Because Ukraine conflict, in their opinion, sort of particularly revived the perceptions of NATO's relevance for members. But we all know the Russians are obliterating any NATO weapons, any whatever, whatever we send in. So where is this, uh, effectiveness of NATO? So, and the way they use it is they use the term Russian aggression. No, it's not. We're the one who created the problem to begin with. Because I am leaning more towards asking the fundamental question about the relevancy of NATO, if there is any. So, because what the reality is, is that NATO reflects, in my opinion, the Cold War thinking mindset. Why? Because contemporary security challenges requires a different approach. They don't fit the traditional collective defense model. That's why when NATO was in Afghanistan, NATO unit, whatever, we were just shaking our heads. What the heck are they doing here anyway? They don't fit into that because the whole reason for why NATO was created, that threat ceased to exist, the end of Soviet Union. So because there are those who are arguing that NATO's effectiveness has been uneven, and I agree with that. Why? Because it's us, the Americans, who bear the disproportionate military and financial burden. The taxpayers here that is paying for it. That's like what you're seeing now with this massive fraud in America, like in Minnesota with the Somali community. You have it right here in Texas with the Indian nationals. You know, you have it in Detroit. You know, we have our own issues to deal with here. And this is why you have now the public. This is why NATO will push into sort of manipulating the public opinion. Because they don't want people to know. And when you have the approval of China rising even among NATO nations, Brussels and Washington are alert. They are, they are frantic right now. So, so the decline public approval, you know, the one that I talked about earlier, it's reflected now. Because it's a, it's logical argument to present, and it's reflecting also whether this NATO serves any purpose anymore. Yeah, yeah, some analysts, if you are to look at Western think tanks, some analysts will argue that NATO isn't obsolete, it just faces some sort of genuine questions about its future role, the burden sharing, and how to address, for example, threats that don't fit its original purpose and mission. Those are legitimate questions. So, but I will— that's why I use the term, did NATO outlived its usefulness, meaning it's done. So, and this leads me to talk about Greenland because it is part of this conversation. So, because this will be a test for NATO. And I use, rest assured that they're gonna fail. Why they're gonna fail? For a simple reason, because we dictate the terms. And after all, who wants to take Greenland? Is the Americans, not NATO at large. So I'm gonna share a picture with you here about Danish naval, uh, uh, patrolling here. By the way, this is a, a picture that was, uh, taken back, I remember, uh, back in March 2025 last year. It's not recent. And that's the, the Danish Navy patrol boat, uh, which was, uh, uh, patrolling off the capital Nuuk in U.K., in, uh, in, in Greenland. So So why is this important? So it's because you have to think also about what Greenland— I'm going to be addressing this on, uh, I'm gonna sort of allocate a big, a big, uh, part of the book regarding China where I will address Greenland, because China has something to do with Greenland, by the way. So when you think about the mindset of the Americans when they think about geography in the 21st century. Yeah, this is why Donald Trump's been floating that idea of being interested in controlling Greenland. So, well, at the time when he said it the first time, many considered it like some sort of, oh, that's Donald Trump. It's a mere whim. He just political joke. But at the same time, if you take a step back, because that's not Trump talking, that's Trump talking in words, but in the action is not Trump, is the power be behind the scenes. Because when you take a careful reading of the geopolitical context of that particular statement, what does it reveal to you? It reveals that Greenland was never a passing idea. It represented a strategic knot in the new global order, because global order equals global conflicts. That is now silently, in my opinion, taking shape in that part of the world, moving up forward towards the Arctic. So, so when you think about the geography of Greenland, when you think about where Greenland is— I, I wish I— yeah, I wish I had a— sorry, I don't have a picture. Usually I share pictures with you about this. When you think about Greenland, where it is geographically, it occupies some really, really unique connecting, uh, uh, uh, possession within geography. And it's connecting— what it's connecting— North America and Europe. And that in itself effectively controlling the vital both air and sea routes in the far North Atlantic. So this location in itself makes it a strategic focal point for not just the US, any any power seeking to dominate the Arctic. And you all know Russians have already sort of planted the Titanic— titanium, I'm sorry— flag, the Russian flag in the ocean floor in the Arctic. So China is already investing in the Arctic in joint ventures with the Russians. And this is why you see now why the US is doing what it's doing. Because you have to consider also that the region is transforming. The region, Arctic red large, is transforming from a frozen geographic or periphery into some sort of an open arena. And this is where Donald Trump's— when I say Donald Trump, I'm referring to the power behind the scenes Donald Trump is just a mouthpiece regarding the interest in Greenland because he centers on this strategic Arctic location. Yeah, there are 3 key points regarding this one here. One has to do with the, the military advantage of this one. Second one has to do with the natural resources, and the third one has to do with waterways. That's the only reason why. So you think about, for example, the natural resources, especially the rare earth minerals, which is crucial for the two main industries, the tech and defense. You think about the Arctic, the new Arctic shipping routes as ice melts. Why do you think China invested in all this way back? And I wrote about it in my Russia book. All seen as a way— because why do you— what the US is doing all this? Because we wanted to counter China and Russia growing alliance and influence in the region. So anytime you hear Greenland, just think of these 3 key points: Arctic security, resource acquisition, and the strategic trade routes. That's all you need to know. So, so, but this leads us to the key question: if the US uses force against Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, where does Article 5 come in? Are all NATO's gonna join to fight the US? Logical question to ask. And the reason why we want to forward with the statements, because we know we control NATO. We will dictate the terms. I know France, France has already sent, France has already sent the— I got to silence my computer here. Sorry, can you hear me all right? Let me make sure. I don't know, can you guys hear me? Just give me a thumbs up, please. Yes. Oh, thank you, thank you, YTD, thank you. I just wasn't sure because my computer was, was, was, uh, anyway, as I said, you think about, you know, What, what, what's gonna happen to Article 5? You know, and this is again where you see to tie it back to our original topic about the favorability for China going up among NATO members is because you're seeing the behavior of the US. So, and this is why the US wants to do what it wants to do. So, and this leads me to the next interesting question. And that question is, what role, if any, NATO is going to play in the new multipolar order. Because it's a logical question. As one who studied international security, I have to think in terms that anytime there is changes— changes— there are changes to the geopolitical landscape, the security dimensions will change with it. That's why I found that very important question to ask. Because NATO's role in a multipolar world order, it will differ significantly from its Cold War or post-Cold War positioning. Because you're only going to be looking at it now, you're going to be looking at NATO as just a regional power block, no more, no less, for a simple reason. Why? Because in a multipolar system where power is distributed among multiple powers, actors, and there are only 3 to talk about here: US, Russia, China. Maybe you add the EU, but hey, that's up to— it depends. So, and this is where I am more leaning, especially when I look at the geopolitical landscape from an international security perspective. I'm looking that NATO increasingly functions as a regional a coordinated regional alliance, no more, no less. So because it can be the dominant global security architecture. Why? Because in a multipolar order, you have other major blocs that are emerging. So, and this, in my opinion, shifts NATO from this so-called universal security guarantor to a more regional-focused coalition. That's the only way I see it. So, and the other aspects to this has to do with NATO being constrained in a multipolar, in a multipolar world. Because truly, just think about it, a multipolar order will limit or is already limiting NATO's ability to operate globally. Some sort of with the freedom we used to do. Because if you compare NATO's role, you're in a unipolar era versus its role that is gonna be in a multipolar world, in a multipolar order, it's gonna be, its role, NATO's role will be very, very constrained and limited. And there is a simple reason for that. And that simple reason has to do with two countries, Russia and China. Because Russia and China more effectively together will challenge NATO and any other force. And I am not even adding North Korea and I am not even adding Iran to the mix. Just think about it. So because rising powers, and they are not rising, you're looking at established powers. It's just if you add North Korea and Iran to China and Russia, you know, those will challenge NATO in any, at any day. But it also this, just between Russia and China, just these two alliance, this one will prevent NATO from expansion or intervention, at least in that part of the world. So, and this is where even from within NATO, when it comes down to this multipolarity is that NATO unity will face some sort of pressure from the members themselves. Why? Because the members will have now a different competing interests in a multipolar order. We're talking about economics and diplomacy with China. We're talking about regionally with Russia. So So that leaves NATO with one option, and that option is the potential adaptation. It has to adapt to the new reality of the multipolar order. So, so of course I agree with those analysts, especially the defense analysts who argue that NATO now will be forced to reorient its core mission. Couldn't agree more. So And that reorientation, where is it going to be limited? Europe and North Atlantic security. That's about it. So, because even if NATO is going to move forward in that direction, that's going to be very focused as far as deterrence against whom? The two main powers, China and Russia. That's all it's going to be. They won't have any other a role to play. So, and if this is not enough, you have to add the economic dimension to the equation. You cannot ignore that for a simple reason. Why? Because in a multipolar world or order, so you have economic interdependence that will matters much more than you can even imagine. So Because what you have now, you have NATO members that are now increasingly competing economically to win the Chinese market. So that's why you're seeing this pivot from Europe after what Canada did with China. So, and that in itself, this act by the Europeans thinking, or NATO members, let's call them just NATO members, This in the act by itself will complicate the security alignments that exist. And that in itself pave the way for security tensions within the alliance. Because why are you gonna have this? You're gonna have security tensions vis-à-vis economic pragmatism. Europeans are finding out where their economy is right now because they were following blindly the US regarding Ukraine. After all, we were the one who created the Ukraine problem to begin with. Canada, even though it's a NATO member, but Canada decided, you know what, I am not going to be sitting idle. I am going to go travel to Beijing, meet with the, the Chinese government officials, talk to President Xi Jinping, and sort of cut a deal with the Chinese. Because that's the only alternative, you know. Carnegie didn't go to, to what is it, Australia, didn't go to Japan, didn't go to South Korea, went to China because it matters. Simple as that. So, so, so that paved the way for the last part of this one is whether NATO now is going to thrive, is going to contract, or is going to have to transform because of the necessity of a multipolar order. It's not out of a choice, it's out of necessity, because you have now member states that are looking for their economic welfare. That is why the favorability of China went up among NATO members, because the NATO's ability now to evolve beyond its traditional military deterrence, it's going to be limited. It's going to be very, very limited. And given the policies Donald Trump is embarking on, you know, I'm still not going to believe the Europeans will take stand on their feet till I see it with my own eyes. So, and this is where a lot of people are asking this question. Maybe time— it's not maybe, time has come for NATO to dissolve. There is no need for it. And that leads me to the next question. And the next question is, does NATO need to be dissolved now that the Soviet Union, the reason NATO was created, is no longer there? Logical question to ask because it's what's at the heart of the argument. So sometimes when you think about certain fundamental questions, is because you have to understand the, all the whole security landscape, the whole geopolitical landscape, the whole global economy. Keep that in mind while you are asking this particular question. So because if you are to look at history and you look at contemporary time, There is this conversion. So the historical arguments for the dissolution, so it's, it's been, it's been now debated because since its creation in 1949, that's when NATO was created. Why was it created? For one and one sole purpose, explicitly to contain Soviet expansion and provide collective security against the USSR. And when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so the original threat which was the creation of NATO was based on technically disappeared, right? And with this outcome, many are arguing, well, now NATO is obsolete and should be wound down. In other words, dissolved. So, because the Soviet Union ceased to exist. So, but rather than dissolving, NATO is trying to redefine itself now with the new purposes. This is why you're seeing the Europeans pushing to keep supporting Ukraine, even though Ukraine is done for. Ukraine is done for, just to let you know, because the media is not going to disclose all this. So all they doing now, they meaning US and some of the Europeans, is just to keep the narrative alive. The Russian aggression is none of that. So, so, because what it's going to become now, it's just the ability for NATO to manage regional stability in if it could. Because when you have NATO moved into dealing or addressing terrorism, for example, transnational threats, you know, you know, well, that was never the purpose, uh, uh, uh, the purpose for, uh, for NATO to begin with, why it was created. That's like the FBI, you turning the FBI into dealing with, uh, foreign intelligence stuff. You know, FBI is not trained for that. That's the CIA role. FBI is a law enforcement entity. You can't all of a sudden just mismatch and expect a result. And this is exactly where this issue is. That's why you're hearing the arguments about threats of Russia to Europe to justify. So, but at the same time, it was us that created the problem. And I will conclude this with a sort of, uh, not a script, I draw a blank on the word, from my book, an excerpt from my book about this particular point. So the Russian factor is going to be mentioned because The debate has shifted significantly. If you go back to 2008, and I remember what happened in 2008 with Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I wrote extensively about those. So it was because at that time, who was the head of Georgia? Was none other than Mikheil Saakashvili. Saakashvili was educated right here in the US. We the one who put him in and we say, hey, We want you to go and fight the Russians. And he said, sure, I'll do it. We will support you. The first time the first shot was fired from the Russians, he reached out to NATO. He reached out to Washington. Hey guys, are you coming to help me out? You know what was the answer? And literally, what was the answer? The answer was, are you out of your mind? You want us to fight a nuclear Russia? And that's when the Russians moved in, took over Abkhazia and South Ossetia in a matter of 2 weeks. And he had to run with his tail between his legs because it turns out that NATO was useless against the Russians. This is why you're going to be hearing the Russian threats about Europe. So, so this is why Russia went ahead with what it did in Crimea in 2014. This is why Russia did what it did in 2022 regarding Ukraine. So that demonstrates, in my opinion, the military capability Russia could still, could still challenge, and it will challenge NATO. But now you have to add China to the mix. And can you imagine if you add North Korea to the mix? So, so, and this is where you are seeing certain dynamics, especially from the Baltic States, you know, Poland also. Poland is embarking on some policies that ain't gonna bode well in the long term. They better rethink their strategy. So, and this where you have the critics arguing that NATO's expansion in itself And it's not critics, that's the reality, because it was the NATO's expansion itself that provoked the Russian hostility or response. So, because here is my belief, and that's me thinking, and please, if you don't agree with me, please just let me know in the box. We exchange ideas. You know, I believe if NATO would have been dissolved prior to these tensions in 2014, we're talking about a reduced tension between Russia and other neighboring countries. That's the way I see it. So it's because, in my opinion, the NATO perpetuates this cold mindset mentality. And it's still till today. So that's why we are saying what we're saying about China right now. You see it in the security reports, you know, coming either the Pentagon or NATO from Brussels. You read— if you read the assessments, you'll see how many times China is mentioned. And I'm not arguing here, you know, there are those who will agree, those who will disagree. For me, as one who've been observing the changes of the geopolitical landscape for over 25 years, I am here to tell you NATO has no mission, has no viability, has no role in contemporary time. The current geopolitical landscape, it's different than what it was back then. So this is where I'm, I'm seeing it going. And but again, there are those who will agree and those disagree. Let me share my excerpt and I conclude with this. And here is what I wrote back, uh, when I wrote the Russia book. I, because I, I addressed NATO, I devoted an entire half chapter just about NATO to put it in perspective. So here is what I wrote back then. The famous Cold War diplomat George F. Kennan wrote in the New York Times in the 1990s about the danger of NATO expansion eastward, that it would be a fateful error that will inflame a nationalistic, anti-Western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion. And restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations. And Russia reacted indeed. I am not surprised at the rapprochement between China and Russia. It serves their interest to, A, keep the US away from the Pacific realm, and B, further undermine U.S. global leadership. I am growing concerned, however, that if and when this rapprochement turn into a strategic alliance with military dimensions, it will impact the global balance of power and therefore the international order as we know it. That's what I argued back then, and here we are now. The U.S., Washington is working very hard to break the alliance between Russia and China, which I believe they won't succeed. They won't. So that's also one of the key points I'm gonna be writing about in my China book as I work through that. So it'll be a few months from now. Anyways, I hope you all enjoyed this. I'll take this opportunity to say thank you to a dear friend of mine, Ray. Who was so generous with his donation in support of the channel. I'm not going to disclose the numbers here, but all I can say to you is that a substantive, uh, uh, uh, donations in support of the channel, and that was for the channel. So what I decided to do is I am going to take that donation and move it into the support for my upcoming Asia trip. Because that is also of great importance to me, and I intend to head out, uh, to Asia in few months. So I will greatly appreciate if you could support, uh, the channel, uh, if you could support my upcoming Asia trip. So far, I updated the funding thermometer. This is where we are. We are about 5% so far. Yes, we still have few more months to go, But again, I just want to let you know, so I take this opportunity to say thank you to those who have contributed. There are about, uh, I believe 12 individuals who have contributed so far to my upcoming Asia trip. But I'll take this opportunity to say once again thank you to Ray for his generous, generous donation in support of the channel. Here is the link if you want to support the channel. You all know the type of analysis you are listening here, the information you are getting in my channel here, and I would greatly appreciate your support. Once again, just to remind you, I will be setting up the interviews with Jayant Bahndari, Carl Zah, Anna Tengen, and Warwick Pau. All this is going to be within, within a week from now. So I'll reach out and we'll go from there. Tomorrow, I think we're going to be doing— Elizabeth and I, we're going to be on the other channel. Because she won't be available on Thursday. Then I will resume my, uh, my live streams for you on this channel on Thursday and Friday. As always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.