Relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) constitute one of the most dynamic and tense fault lines in the post-Cold War global security architecture. An examination of Chinese state sources and official foreign policy doctrines reveals that Beijing’s perception of NATO is shaped by its opposition to unipolar hegemony and its pursuit of a multipolar world order. The Beijing administration argues that NATO has lost its original founding mission and has become a geopolitical tool that seeks to legitimize its existence by creating artificial “threats” and “enemies” following the end of the Cold War. In China’s official discourse, NATO is defined not as a defense-oriented regional alliance, but rather as a military mechanism through which the United States (US) consolidates its allies and institutionalizes its containment policies to preserve its global hegemony.In this context, Chinese state media claims that the alliance’s current structural crisis stems from its disconnect from the realities of a rapidly evolving multipolar world.[i]
In Chinese academic and government analyses, the characterization of NATO as embodying a “Cold War mentality” is a theoretical model frequently invoked to explain the alliance’s crisis of structural sustainability. It is argued that after the collapse of the Soviet Union left NATO without an enemy, the alliance has continually turned to out-of-area operations in an effort to preserve its collective identity and military-industrial budget, thereby creating new security crises. According to Beijing based strategic research institutes, the alliance’s appetite for expansion has not been limited to Eastern Europe; rather, it has targeted China’s peaceful rise as a means to legitimize its military interventionism in a globalizing world. Chinese scholars argue that NATO’s policy of bloc formation, rather than contributing to global stability, has deepened zero-sum security dilemmas in international relations and militarized security architectures.[ii]
The deepest breaking point in the institutional and collective memory of the historical mistrust between the PRC and NATO is, without a doubt, the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by NATO aircraft during the Kosovo Operation in 1999. Chinese government sources do not accept this tragic incident as a simple navigational error or accident; they characterize it as a direct attack on the diplomatic mission of a sovereign state and a clear violation of international law. In Beijing’s view, this incident has become concrete evidence confirming the aggressive, imperialist nature underlying NATO’s rhetoric of “humanitarian intervention” or “defending democracy.” By recalling this incident whenever diplomatic relations become strained, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs undermines the alliance’s claims of moral superiority and its rhetoric of adherence to international norms at the diplomatic level.[iii]
In particular, NATO’s characterization of China as a “systemic challenge”a process that began with the 2022 Madrid Summit Strategic Concept and continued at subsequent summits constitutes another critical issue that has been vehemently rejected by Beijing. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokespeople and state media outlets assert that this characterization is an artificial construct designed solely to serve US geopolitical interests and was created to pressure European countries into an economic and technological decoupling from China. According to Chinese state sources, Beijing poses no military threat to the sovereignty or security of any country; on the contrary, it plays a role as one of the largest financiers of global development and peace. In this regard, efforts to portray China as a threat are a propaganda strategy used by NATO to bridge its own internal structural fissures and to cement transatlantic ties through the creation of an artificial perception of an enemy.[iv]
In the context of the war in Ukraine, NATO’s accusation that China is a “decision-making facilitator” supporting Russia’s military-industrial infrastructure has triggered one of the harshest diplomatic clashes in bilateral relations in recent years. Chinese state sources argue that these accusations are political maneuvers that are completely divorced from objective reality, malicious, and intended to shift blame onto others. Beijing emphasizes that it has maintained a neutral and constructive stance since the onset of the crisis, has actively encouraged peace talks, and has not provided military aid to either side. Furthermore, it is noted that bilateral trade relations with Russia are entirely legal, in compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and constitute routine economic activities that do not target third parties; NATO’s attempts to obstruct this legitimate trade are characterized as an interference with the freedom of international trade.[v]
Beijing’s intellectual critique of NATO goes beyond the military-strategic level and extends to a comparison of global governance models. Chinese state sources argue that, in contrast to NATO’s exclusionary, bloc-based military alliance model, they offer alternative models such as the “Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)” and the “Global Security Initiative (GSI)” that are inclusive, development-oriented, and based on the principle of mutual benefit. According to China, genuine and lasting security is possible only through the widespread promotion of economic prosperity and respect for the sovereign rights of states. It is an argument supported at the academic level that, unlike regions destabilized by NATO’s military interventions, the partnerships China has established with countries in the Global South contribute far more tangibly to global peace and development.[vi]
Recently, as has become particularly evident during the 2026 summit process, NATO’s institutional outreach toward the Asia-Pacific region and its deepening of partnerships with the “IP4/AP4 (Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand)” countries are viewed by Beijing as one of its most serious red lines. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemns this situation as an effort by NATO to build an “Asia-Pacific version” of itself and as a dangerous expansionist policy that will undermine the region’s historical peace and economic dynamism. According to Beijing, the Asia-Pacific region is not a “geopolitical chessboard” or a “battleground for military blocs.” Therefore, a transatlantic security organization’s attempt to establish a military sphere of influence in this region beyond its own borders is escalating regional polarization. As was clearly evident at the recent NATO summit held in Türkiye, China continues to resolutely call on the alliance to return to its own geographical boundaries and cease creating chaos in Asia. However, following the latest summit, China has been removed from the list of primary threat factors at the rhetorical level.[vii]
NATO’s systematic portrayal of China’s legitimate defense investments and military exercises conducted within the framework of its own sovereign rights as “threats” is viewed in Chinese state media as an indication of the Western alliance’s deep-seated double standards. For example, China’s routine missile tests or defense-focused military cooperation with neighboring countries or partners such as Belarus are characterized at the level of the NATO Secretary General’s Office as aggressive and provocative moves. Editorials published in state-run media outlets such as the Global Times emphasize that while the massive military expenditures and cross-border operations carried out by NATO allies on a global scale are ignored, portraying China’s modernization of its defense capabilities as a threat is entirely “absurd” and “unrealistic”.[viii]
Beyond the military sphere, China views NATO’s move in recent years to include areas such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, 5G infrastructure, and critical supply chains under its security umbrella as “technological nationalism and protectionism.” Chinese government sources view the exclusion of leading Chinese technology firms operating on a global scale such as Huawei and digital investments from the European market under the pretext of cyber espionage or national security threats as a violation of the rules of rational competition. Academic analyses argue that these policies, carried out by NATO under the guise of technological security standards, are in fact part of a collective strategy to protect the West’s monopoly in the digital world and slow down China’s technological development. Although China may be removed from NATO’s agenda in ontological terms at the 2026 Ankara Summit, it will remain NATO’s number one rival in areas such as artificial intelligence, 5G infrastructure, and critical supply chains.[ix]
In Chinese state media and diplomatic statements, NATO’s history of interventionism is one of the most powerful rhetorical weapons used to counter the organization’s claims of bringing peace and security. In addition to the bombing of Belgrade, the devastation caused by military interventions carried out by NATO or its member states in countries such as Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq is frequently cited as examples in Chinese sources. Beijing asserts that, rather than promoting democratization or stability in these regions, these interventions have led to protracted civil wars, humanitarian tragedies, and regional chaos. According to China’s foreign policy doctrine, the fact that instability and conflict are fueled wherever NATO’s military footprint extends is the most concrete evidence that the alliance is not a global stabilizer, as it claims, but rather a source of global insecurity and human rights violations.
In the end, from the perspective presented by Chinese state sources, the future of NATO-China relations depends directly on whether Western allies can break free from the Cold War paradigm. Beijing argues that as long as NATO does not abandon its expansionist and exclusionary approach to security and continues to label China as an artificial “systemic challenge,” there is a high likelihood that structural tensions in bilateral relations will not subside. To preserve global stability, China demands that NATO retreat to its own geographical borders, accept the reality of a multipolar world, and cease viewing international relations as a zero-sum arena of conflict. According to China’s official position, a peaceful and prosperous world order can be built not through the expansion of military blocs, but through a multilateral cooperation framework that respects sovereign rights, supports inclusive development, and preserves the foundation for dialogue.
[i] “NATO’s structural collapse – the outcome of deviation from reality”, Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202604/1358156.shtml,(Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
[ii] “China-NATO Relations: History and Reality”, Briq Journal, https://briqjournal.com/sites/default/files/yazi-ici-dosyalar/2023-06/C4S3_Yi%20Shaoxuan%20%26%20Yang%20Chen_ENG.pdf, (Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
[iii] “Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of China”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs People’s Republic of China, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zy/gb/202405/t20240531_11367090.html, (Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
[iv] “NATO should abandon Cold War mentality, stop hyping up ‘China threat,’ says Chinese FM spokesperson”, Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202607/1365545.shtml, (Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
[v] “China rejects NATO chief’s accusations of aiding Russia, urges bloc to reflect on its role in global peace: FM spokesperson”, Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202606/1363872.shtml,(Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
[vi] “China’s Rise as a Global Security Actor: Implications for NATO”, China Secuirty Project, https://merics.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/Research%20Report-China%27s%20Rise.pdf,(Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
[vii] “Beijing urges NATO to discard ‘Cold War mentality, stop hyping up China threat narratives’”, Anadolu Agency, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/beijing-urges-nato-to-discard-cold-war-mentality-stop-hyping-up-china-threat-narratives/3992795, (Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
[viii] “It is ‘naive’ of NATO to make an issue out of China’s missile test: Global Times editorial”, Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202607/1365401.shtml, (Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
[ix] “NATO and China: Addressing new challenge”, Brussels Schools of Governance, https://www.brussels-school.be/sites/default/files/CSDS%20Policy%20brief_2204.pdf,(Date of Access: 14.07.2026).
