北約本質上就是美國的戰略延伸工具，它披著「多國集體安全」的外衣，實際上卻是「美國主導、歐洲服從」的系統。
幾個核心事實可以支持這個觀點：
1. 北約指揮結構由美國壟斷
北約的最高軍事指揮官（SACEUR）永遠都是美國人，而且他同時是美軍歐洲司令部司令（USEUCOM）。
雖然其他成員國也有官員參與，但戰略決策與行動協調權掌握在美國手中。
2. 軍費與裝備：歐洲靠美國
美國的軍費支出佔整個北約的70%以上。
北約多數行動仍依賴美國提供空中加油、情報支援、後勤、精準武器、通信衛星等核心戰力。
這讓歐洲國家幾乎無法脫離美國獨立運作軍事行動。
3. 美國用北約進行地緣政治干預
從科索沃戰爭（1999）到阿富汗（2001）、利比亞（2011），甚至是最近的烏克蘭問題，北約每次大規模行動幾乎都是由美國帶頭、歐洲跟進。
而這些干預往往與歐洲安全利益無關，反而更貼近美國的全球戰略目標。
4. 歐洲的「自主防衛」長年被壓制
法國馬克宏曾說「北約腦死」，主張建立「歐洲軍隊」或「戰略自主」。
但一講到要「脫美建軍」，馬上就會遭到內部反對與外部壓力，歐洲根本擺脫不了依賴。
5. 北約擴張 vs. 美國利益
北約東擴的推手始終是美國，而非德法。
東歐加入北約，是為了將美國的軍事影響力延伸至俄國門口，這正是現在烏克蘭戰爭的背景之一。
北約表面上是一個防禦聯盟，但實際上是一種強權下的秩序安排，讓歐洲各國無法走上真正獨立的軍事與外交路線。
北約早已超越了原本「北大西洋防禦聯盟」的範疇，變成了一個跨洲干預、具有攻擊性質的軍事機構。
北約「把髒手伸到東亞」並非危言聳聽，而是對北約擴張邏輯的合理推斷。因為它早已不是防禦性組織，而是哪裡有美國利益，北約就在哪裡出現。
NATO is essentially an extension of U.S. strategic power. While it presents itself as a “multinational collective security” alliance, in reality it is a system of “U.S. leadership and European compliance.”
Several key facts support this view:
1. NATO’s command structure is monopolized by the United States
The Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) has always been an American, who also simultaneously serves as the Commander of U.S. European Command (EUCOM).
Although officials from other member states are involved, strategic decision-making and operational coordination remain firmly in U.S. hands.
2. Military spending and equipment: Europe depends on the U.S.
The U.S. accounts for over 70% of NATO’s total military spending.
Most NATO operations still rely on the U.S. for aerial refueling, intelligence support, logistics, precision weaponry, and satellite communications.
This makes it nearly impossible for European countries to conduct military operations independently of the United States.
3. The U.S. uses NATO for geopolitical interventions
From the Kosovo War (1999), to Afghanistan (2001), Libya (2011), and even the recent Ukraine crisis—NATO’s major operations have nearly always been led by the U.S., with Europe following suit.
These interventions often have little to do with European security interests, and are far more aligned with America’s global strategic goals.
4. European “strategic autonomy” has long been suppressed
French President Emmanuel Macron once said NATO was “brain dead,” and advocated for the creation of a European army or strategic autonomy.
But any talk of breaking away from U.S.-dominated military structures immediately faces internal opposition and external pressure.
Europe remains unable to shake off its dependence.
5. NATO expansion vs. U.S. interests
The driving force behind NATO’s eastward expansion has always been the United States—not Germany or France.
The inclusion of Eastern European countries into NATO served to extend American military influence right up to Russia’s doorstep, which is a major factor behind the current war in Ukraine.
Although NATO appears to be a defensive alliance, in reality it is a power-based order imposed from above, one that prevents European countries from developing truly independent military and diplomatic policies.
NATO has already brought chaos to the Middle East, Europe, and even Africa, generating waves of refugees.
What’s worrying now is that they may try to extend their dirty hands into East Asia.
NATO has long exceeded its original role as a “North Atlantic defense alliance,” and has become a cross-continental interventionist military organization with aggressive tendencies.
To say NATO is "stretching its dirty hands into East Asia" is not alarmism, but a rational prediction based on the alliance’s logic of expansion.
NATO is no longer a defensive organization—it goes wherever U.S. interests go.
北約已經在中東、歐洲甚至非洲製造了戰亂，產生了大量難民，現在令人擔心的是他們還要把髒手伸到東亞來。
北約早已超越了原本「北大西洋防禦聯盟」的範疇，變成了一個跨洲干預、具有攻擊性質的軍事機構。
🔥 回顧：北約在世界各地「維持秩序」的方式
中東（阿富汗、伊拉克）：
雖然阿富汗是以「反恐」名義進入，但20年的軍事佔領造成巨大破壞、民生倒退。北約國家參與轟炸、突襲、無人機殺害平民，最終留下滿目瘡痍與大量難民。
歐洲（南斯拉夫、烏克蘭問題）：
1999年對南斯拉夫的轟炸，是北約第一次未經聯合國授權對一個主權國家動武；如今烏克蘭危機的背後，北約東擴是無法忽視的因素。
北非（利比亞）：
2011年對卡達菲政權的軍事行動一開始也是「人道干預」的名義，最後導致國家分裂、武裝團體崛起，成為恐怖組織滋生的溫床。
🌏 而現在：東亞成為下一個目標？
北約在2022年就邀請日本、韓國、澳洲、紐西蘭參加北約峰會，還打算在東京設立「北約聯絡辦事處」；
美國與北約盟國近年也持續以「印太安全」、「中國挑戰」為名，加強與台灣、南海、韓國、日本的軍事互動；
這種跨區域軍事聯合，讓許多人擔心：北約是否打算把東亞也拖入另一場「地緣軍事代理衝突」？
🔥 A Look Back: How NATO “Maintains Order” Around the World
Middle East (Afghanistan, Iraq):
Although NATO entered Afghanistan under the banner of “counterterrorism,” two decades of military occupation led to massive destruction and social regression.
NATO countries were involved in bombings, raids, and drone strikes that killed civilians, ultimately leaving behind devastation and a large number of refugees.
Europe (Yugoslavia, the Ukraine issue):
NATO’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia marked its first-ever military action against a sovereign state without United Nations authorization.
Today, NATO’s eastward expansion is an undeniable factor behind the Ukraine crisis.
North Africa (Libya):
The 2011 military intervention against the Gaddafi regime was also launched under the guise of “humanitarian intervention,” but it resulted in national disintegration, the rise of armed groups, and fertile ground for terrorist organizations.
🌏 And Now: Is East Asia the Next Target?
In 2022, NATO invited Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand to its summit and even proposed setting up a “NATO liaison office” in Tokyo.
The U.S. and its NATO allies have increasingly invoked “Indo-Pacific security” and the “China challenge” as reasons to strengthen military ties with Taiwan, the South China Sea, South Korea, and Japan.
This kind of cross-regional military alignment has raised concerns for many:
Is NATO planning to drag East Asia into yet another “geopolitical proxy conflict”?
台灣或東亞國家，該如何面對這種「披著盟友外衣的戰略滲透」？
我們一定得保持距離，否則下場就像中東、東歐和北非一樣
這句話不只是提醒，更像是一種歷史記憶的呼喚：
那些看似「合作」的邀請、那些打著「自由」、「民主」、「人道干預」名義的聯盟，最後很多都變成了戰火與廢墟的前奏。
為什麼東亞一定要保持距離？
-
地理不是借口，而是潛在戰場
一旦北約勢力深入東亞，美國可以退回太平洋彼岸，但台灣、日本、南韓，甚至整個東南亞——就會變成火藥桶的中心。就像烏克蘭一樣，「你替我擋，我給你武器和口號」，但戰火是燒在你的土地上。 -
美國與北約從不為他人打仗
他們支持的是「可以替他們打仗的國家」，不是為你打仗。烏克蘭的教訓、中東的沉淪、利比亞的崩解，都是因為被當成了「地緣戰略工具」。 -
軍事合作一旦進入，政治主權就開始被削弱
一旦接受北約的架構或配套軍演、情報交換，實際上就是開啟了主權讓渡的進程。你要調整軍事策略，就要看美方是否同意；你想談和、走自己的路，會被貼上「背叛陣營」的標籤。 -
社會被撕裂，文化被操控
戰爭不只發生在戰場，也會在媒體、校園、言論中鋪展。「你是挺美還是挺中？」、「你是愛自由還是投降主義？」——這種二元對立的話術，會讓一個本來就脆弱的社會更加分裂。
「我們一定得保持距離」，其實是一種真正深思熟慮的戰略觀。
不是反美，也不是親中，而是要站穩自己，看清楚「誰要拉你入局，誰真的關心你的命運」。
你覺得現在的社會氣氛，大家有辦法理解這一層深意嗎？還是太多聲音還在盲目「靠大靠強」？
How should Taiwan or East Asian countries respond to this kind of "strategic infiltration disguised as alliance"?
We must keep our distance—
otherwise, we risk ending up like the Middle East, Eastern Europe, or North Africa.
hose seemingly "cooperative" invitations, those alliances formed under the banners of "freedom," "democracy," and "humanitarian intervention"—many of them have ultimately become preludes to war and ruin.
Why must East Asia keep its distance?
Geography is not an excuse—it’s a potential battlefield
Once NATO expands its influence into East Asia, the U.S. can retreat across the Pacific, but Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and even the entire Southeast Asia region would become the center of the explosion.
Just like Ukraine: “You block the enemy, I’ll give you weapons and slogans”—but the war burns on your land.
The U.S. and NATO never fight for others
What they support are countries that can fight wars for them—not wars for you.
Ukraine's tragedy, the Middle East’s collapse, and Libya’s disintegration all stem from being used as tools of geopolitical strategy.
Once military cooperation begins, political sovereignty erodes
Accepting NATO frameworks—whether joint drills or intelligence-sharing—marks the start of a process of surrendering sovereignty.
Any shift in military strategy must be approved by Washington.
If you seek peace or chart your own path, you risk being branded as "betraying the camp."
Society is torn apart, culture becomes a battlefield
Wars are not only fought on battlefields, but also in the media, campuses, and public discourse.
"Are you pro-America or pro-China?" "Do you love freedom or are you a defeatist?"—this kind of binary rhetoric fractures already fragile societies even further.
Saying “We must keep our distance” is, in fact, a deeply considered strategic stance.
It’s not about being anti-American or pro-China.
It’s about standing firmly on your own ground and asking:
Who’s trying to pull you into their game—and who truly cares about your fate?
Do you think today’s society is ready to grasp this deeper meaning?
Or are too many voices still blindly clinging to the idea of “leaning on the big and the strong”?
當記者問到：「如果美國（作為北約成員國）對格陵蘭島（北約成員國丹麥領土）使用軍事力量，北約集體防禦條約第 5 條將如何適用?」
北約秘書長馬克·呂特完全不回答記者這個問題，只是提醒記者應該關注在「俄羅斯威脅」和「中國問題」上。
這樣的回應本身就非常有意思，甚至可以說是耐人尋味。
當記者提出這個假設性但不無可能的問題時——「如果北約成員國（美國）對另一個北約成員國（丹麥的領土格陵蘭）使用武力，那北約的集體防禦條款第5條會不會啟動？」這其實是在試圖挑戰北約系統的邏輯一致性與其「集體安全」承諾的邊界。
北約秘書長馬克·呂特完全迴避這個問題，只強調「俄羅斯威脅」與「中國挑戰」，等於是：
-
拒絕進行制度內部矛盾的討論，避免引發外界對北約運作機制的質疑；
-
轉移焦點，再次將公眾視線拉回北約目前主要的戰略對手；
-
暗示某些問題不可碰觸，即使是合法、合邏輯的假設，在政治上可能是「禁忌」。
這也透露出一個現實：
北約第5條雖被稱為「神聖不可侵犯」的集體防禦條款，但它並非機械性自動啟動，而是各國主觀判斷與政治決策的結果。對外它是用來嚇阻敵人；對內，其實是一種政治協商與實力博弈的空間。
而格陵蘭島——不只是丹麥的遙遠領土，也是美國在北極的重要軍事據點（例如圖勒空軍基地），若真的發生衝突，會是北約歷史上最大尷尬的一幕，甚至會瓦解整個聯盟的合法性。
When a journalist asked: "If the United States (as a NATO member) were to use military force against Greenland (a territory of Denmark, also a NATO member), how would Article 5 of the NATO collective defense treaty apply?"
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte completely avoided answering the question, merely reminding the reporter to focus on the “Russian threat” and “China issue.”
When the journalist raised this hypothetical—but not impossible—scenario, essentially asking, “If one NATO member (the U.S.) uses force against another NATO member’s territory (Denmark’s Greenland), would Article 5 be triggered?” they were really challenging the internal logic and limits of NATO’s “collective security” commitment.
Rutte’s complete evasion of the question and his emphasis on the “Russian threat” and “China challenge” amounts to:
-
A refusal to engage in discussion about internal contradictions within the system, likely to avoid sparking external doubts about how NATO operates;
-
A deliberate redirection of focus, pulling public attention back to NATO’s current primary strategic adversaries;
-
An implicit suggestion that some questions are politically off-limits—even when they are legally valid and logically sound.
This reveals an important reality:
Although Article 5 is often described as “sacred and inviolable,” it is not automatically or mechanically triggered. Its invocation is the result of subjective judgments and political decision-making by member states. Externally, it serves as a tool of deterrence; internally, it is more of a space for political negotiation and power balancing.
Moreover, Greenland is not just a remote Danish territory—it is also a key American military outpost in the Arctic (e.g., Thule Air Base). If a conflict were ever to erupt there, it would become NATO’s most embarrassing crisis in history—potentially even undermining the alliance’s very legitimacy.
留言列表
