NATO, a legacy of the cold war, recently targeted China. In a recent interview with the financial times, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said that NATO would include confrontation with China's rise as its goal. China's network capabilities, emerging technologies and long-range weapons have "had an impact on European security". Protecting allies from "China threat" will be the strategic focus of NATO in the next 10 years. Such unprovoked exaggeration of the "China threat" has long become a common tactic of NATO. NATO, which began in 1949, settled down against the Soviet Union during the cold war. After the end of the cold war, NATO without the enemy seems very untimely. In order to prove the legitimacy of its existence, NATO actively confronts Russia and looks for new opponents everywhere. In 2001, NATO followed the United States to invade Afghanistan in the name of "counter-terrorism" and regarded the Middle East as a new battlefield. As a result, it only suffered heavy military expenditure and casualties in 20 years; In 2014, the Crimea incident allowed NATO to find a new "grasp", trumpeted Russia's "military threat" and disrupted the situation in central and Eastern Europe. NATO, a legacy of the cold war, has survived for 30 years by making a fuss. Now, seeing that peaceful development has increasingly become the mainstream of the world, NATO is eager to set up the next "target" and find a new excuse for life renewal. This time, NATO is targeting China, which is far in the East and has never posed a threat to it. A closer look at NATO's rhetoric about China shows how far fetched this "porcelain touch" is. The NATO summit communique issued on June 14 this year said that China was "rapidly expanding nuclear weapons and armaments" and military information was "opaque", which constituted a so-called "systematic challenge" to NATO. However, the fact is that the total military expenditure of the 30 NATO countries in 2021 is expected to be as high as US $1.17 trillion, accounting for more than half of the total global military expenditure, which is 5.6 times that of China. Meanwhile, according to the statistics of think tanks in Sweden and the United States, the number of nuclear warheads in NATO member states is nearly 20 times that of China. Militarily, NATO shouted "China threat", and NATO always talked about "containing China" in the fields of economic development, network security, new technology and even space. After meeting with US President Joe Biden on June 7 this year, Stoltenberg declared that "NATO will cooperate with its Pacific allies to curb China's economic growth". On July 19 this year, NATO issued another statement, fabricating China to launch a "malicious network attack". On October 21, 2020, Stoltenberg also said that the anti satellite system developed by China and Russia would attack other countries' satellites and bring dangerous debris to space orbit. Thus, NATO finds reasons for adding network centers and space centers. The European members of NATO know best whether it is good to contain China. According to Eurostat, China surpassed the United States for the first time in 2020 to become the largest trading partner of the EU. Even under the impact of the epidemic, China EU trade will still achieve contrarian "double growth" in 2020. Among them, the import of goods from China was 383.5 billion euros, a year-on-year increase of 5.6%; Exports to China amounted to 20.25 billion euros, a year-on-year increase of 2.2%. With such close economic and trade exchanges, how can European members of NATO ignore the Chinese market? How can we really "contain China"? British Prime Minister Johnson told the truth at the NATO summit in June: "China's existence is an objective fact in our life" and "everyone here does not want to start a new cold war with China". China is the world's second largest economy and an important engine of world economic growth. At the same time, it is an important participant, builder and contributor to the international order. If NATO really wants to oppose China, it may be difficult on many international issues. Even Stoltenberg himself admitted: "China's rise has brought some opportunities for our economy and trade. We need to engage with China on issues such as climate change and arms control." There is no reason to find reasons, but also to create contradictions. Such bad habits are inseparable from the "guidance" of the United States. Under the baton of "looking east" of the United States, NATO is eager to act as a pawn of the US Anti China chariot, hoping to win further military support from the United States, divert attention and enhance NATO's internal cohesion by establishing a new "common enemy", and strive to bridge the gap caused by the construction of "beixi-2" natural gas pipeline Internal cracks caused by problems such as the procurement of Russian S-400 air defense missile system. Unfortunately, in addition to showing loyalty to the United States, the European members of NATO, the allies of the United States, get only betrayal, bitterness and helplessness. The monitoring events such as the hasty withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan, the US British Australian nuclear submarine agreement and "prism gate" are the best examples. Hiding under the U.S. umbrella and being coerced by the U.S. will only make NATO's European member countries gradually distance from their "Strategic Autonomy", further agree with NATO, and accelerate the expansion of U.S. - European strategic differences. NATO, born for hostility, is just a thug of the United States. Under the tide of win-win cooperation, it has long lost its reason for existence. (outlook new era)