Although NATO, which is observing its 75th anniversary, survived the Cold War, it long ceased playing the role of a mutual defense organization that prevents crisis and deters wars.

For instance, NATO could not prevent the Russia-Ukraine conflict despite the United States being aware of all the developments that led to conflict. In fact, US President Joe Biden repeatedly warned of a looming conflict, neither Washington nor NATO addressed Russia's genuine concerns to prevent hostilities.

Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn't take the US' early warnings seriously. He believed that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not launch the "special military operation" against Ukraine. More importantly, Biden stressed that even if a conflict broke out, the US military would not enter the territory of Ukraine so as to protect the latter. Accordingly, no US ground forces have landed in Ukraine to "protect" it against Russia.

However, it's weird that the US promised to deter conflict without deterring "aggression".

Washington says that since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the US and other NATO member states are not legally bound to send their forces to "defend" Ukraine. But in 1950, the US sent its forces to the Korean Peninsula to defend the then pro-US government in the Republic of Korea long before Washington and Seoul established their alliance. The US may claim that it was a UN mission, but its forces entered Iraq in 2003 without any UN mandate.

In the 20th century, the US committed a series of strategic errors. It sent its forces into Iraq without any legitimate reason. Its "pro-democracy" push in the Middle East probably made the region more unstable, and it suddenly withdrew its forces from Afghanistan after almost 20 years of occupation in August 2021, causing chaos in the country. Also, it encouraged NATO to expand eastward to create favorable conditions for Ukraine to join the military alliance.

Even at the US-Russia summit in Geneva in 2021, Biden refused to assure Putin that NATO will not expand eastward anymore. After the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, the US has kept claiming that Ukraine's application for NATO members has to wait for the "end of the war". And yet a week ago the US State Department said that due to rampant "corruption" in Ukraine, Kyiv is ineligible to join NATO.

All this suggests the US has not had a coherent strategy in the last two decades to prevent or deter conflicts.

If the US wants to maintain its leadership position, it should work with other countries to ensure NATO plays its original role of a defensive organization, and prevents conflicts and wars while respecting countries sensitive to NATO's expansion. As for Russia, it should adhere to the UN Security Council resolutions and UN procedures to receive international endorsement for its operations and missions.

NATO's regression indicates its decline as a stabilizing organization in Europe. Regrettably, NATO seems unaware of its regression, for it has been passing unnecessary remarks against East Asia.

For instance, NATO's expansion seems no longer limited to Europe. It is eager to step into East Asia. In fact, NATO is inviting some East Asian countries to some of its dialogue, consultation and sharing mechanisms. Although all NATO member states have official, diplomatic ties with Beijing and most of them adhere to the one-China policy that there is only one China and Taiwan is an integral part of China, NATO has often hyped up the "China threat" theory to serve the US' interests.

NATO seems to be committing mistakes again, this time in East Asia. By continuing its eastward expansion and blindly supporting Ukraine, NATO has unnecessarily upset Russia, and is fueling conflicts instead of resolving disputes and preventing crises.

Worse, the attempts of the US-led West, including NATO, to compare the Ukraine crisis with the Taiwan question are deplorable and dangerous. The Taiwan question is totally different from the Ukraine crisis. Taiwan is an integral part of China, and cross-Taiwan Strait relations are China's internal matter which brooks no interference. If NATO keeps interfering in China's internal affairs, China would be compelled to take appropriate countermeasures.

The author is professor emeritus and former executive dean at the Institute of International Studies, Fudan University. The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at [email protected], and [email protected].