By Liu Jun

Japan and the US are conducting the large-scale joint military exercise "Keen Sword 27" at multiple locations across Japan from October 19 to 29, involving nearly 60,000 troops. The exercise brings together ground, naval, and air forces, with Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the Philippines also participating.

Many of the countries participating in this exercise are NATO members. This has become a prominent feature of the joint military exercises Japan has frequently held in recent years. These Japan-backed exercises are serving as a "gateway" for NATO's penetration into the Asia-Pacific.

To understand the dangers of NATO's penetration into the Asia-Pacific, one must first recognize the predicament it has created in Europe. After the Cold War, NATO repeatedly expanded eastward, pressing ever closer to Russia, pushing back Russia's "red lines" with each move, and ultimately crossing its strategic bottom line over Ukraine. Wherever NATO goes, security dilemmas intensify and military confrontation replaces political dialogue — a tragic scenario borne out by war in Europe. As NATO now extends its reach into the Asia-Pacific, Japan is undoubtedly the most active force pushing for this scenario to be repeated.

Of particular concern is that NATO's penetration into the Asia-Pacific has moved beyond political declarations to substantive military deployments. For the first time, Japan has dispatched Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) personnel to the headquarters of NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) for a one-year assignment beginning in June this year. Japan has explicitly stated that their duties are limited to coordinating equipment and training and drawing on lessons learned, with no involvement in combat. This is the first time Japan has embedded JSDF personnel within NATO's structures, marking a substantive step from policy declarations toward institutionalized military cooperation between Japan and NATO.

Meanwhile, the "forward deterrence" that the US has been advancing through the NATO framework has taken concrete form. In June this year, the Typhon land-based mid-range missile system was temporarily deployed to Kanoya Air Base in Japan's Kagoshima Prefecture. Following the exercise, it was placed in storage at a US military base in Japan in mid-October. Although this does not constitute a permanent deployment, some in Japan argue that keeping the system ready for deployment is itself a deterrent.

In addition, deployments of F-35B fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper drones and other aircraft along the so-called "first island chain" are accelerating. MQ-9 drones have been stationed at Kanoya Air Base on a long-term basis, conducting ongoing intelligence and reconnaissance missions over the East China Sea, with a further rotation completed in 2025. F-35Bfighter jets also maintain a regular presence at bases in Japan and nearby areas. These deployments clearly target strategic targets in China, Russia, and other countries, essentially replicating NATO's European model of "missile confrontation" in the Asia-Pacific.

NATO's entry into the Asia-Pacific has no legitimacy. As an external military bloc, NATO is geographically separated from the region by vast oceans, while the exclusive and confrontational logic underpinning its "collective defense" is fundamentally incompatible with the Asia-Pacific's security culture.

The Asia-Pacific still faces risks of geopolitical conflict, and the geopolitical complexities rooted in its history have yet to be fully resolved. Washington has made the so-called "Indo-Pacific" one of its major global strategic priorities, sharply reducing its resource commitments to Europe to limit the drain on its strategic resources there and free up resources for competition in the Asia-Pacific. With multiple existing flashpoints, including the Korean Peninsula issue, the situation across the Taiwan Strait, and disputes in the South China Sea, countries in the region must respond with caution and prudence to resolve conflicts one by one, prevent escalation, and safeguard regional peace and stability.

Certain countries in the region must also think carefully about their choices: will they continue to serve as pawns in NATO's expansion into the Asia-Pacific, tying their security and foreign policies to an external military bloc and ultimately becoming casualties of major-power confrontation, or will they pursue an independent foreign policy of peace and preserve the region's hard-won development gains?

(The author is vice dean of the School of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University and vice president of the China National Association for International Studies)

Editor's Note: Originally published by huanqiu.com, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.