Editor's note: CGTN's First Voice provides instant commentary on breaking stories. The daily column clarifies emerging issues and better defines the news agenda, offering a Chinese perspective on the latest global events. 

The White House has dismissed claims it has proved an unreliable ally and military partner, calling them "propaganda."

In the face of doubts from around the world and within the U.S. about its willingness to fight for NATO, Israel, South Korea or separatist forces on the Chinese island of Taiwan, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, "We stand by partners around the world who are subject to this kind of propaganda that Russia and China are projecting. And we're going to continue to deliver on those words with actions."

But America's words and actions are exactly what are causing doubt among its closest allies.

During the Trump administration, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on several occasions that Germany can no longer rely on the United States.

This week, the leader of Merkel's party, Armin Laschet, who is running to succeed her as chancellor later this year, called Afghanistan "the biggest debacle that NATO has suffered since its founding." Laschet added that it represents "an epochal change."

The messy retreat from Afghanistan follows failed U.S. military efforts in Syria and Iraq that left both nations shattered, and eerily echoed America's sudden evacuation from Vietnam.

Many Americans are outraged that the U.S. is leaving tens of thousands of Afghans who assisted and befriended U.S. occupiers behind to face the Taliban, who considers them traitors. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan defended the sudden withdrawal, but implied that the U.S. was not willing to risk its own soldiers' lives to help evacuate its former Afghan employees.

Sullivan told a reporter on Tuesday that the civil war in Afghanistan was fundamentally different from the civil war in China that led to the current situation in Taiwan. But when pressed to explain how it is different, Sullivan refused to answer the question and moved on to a news reporter.
Sullivan added, "Our commitment to Taiwan ... remains as strong as it's ever been."

But how strong is that commitment? And what exactly is it?

In a somewhat disjointed interview on ABC News on Thursday night, President Joe Biden seemed to suggest the U.S. had made a "sacred commitment" to respond if anyone were to invade or take action against Taiwan. However, the White House immediately walked back Biden's words, saying that U.S. "policy with regard to Taiwan has not changed."

Despite Biden's confusing statement, the U.S., in fact, has pointedly not committed to defending Taiwan if it goes to war, adopting a deliberate position of "strategic ambiguity." U.S. official Kurt Campbell reiterated that this remains the Biden administration's position earlier this year, noting that giving a clear position has "some significant downsides."

The main downside is that U.S. voters do not want their sons and daughters to die for the sake of a potential civil war in China.

We know this because Biden said so himself. In 2001, when Biden was a senator, he clearly warned Taiwan, "We are not willing to go to war over your unilateral declaration of independence."

The U.S. had no key interests in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam, which is why it retreated from all of these places, leaving them in chaos.

The U.S. also has no key interests in Hong Kong, Xinjiang or Taiwan. Its interest in these areas is simply to discredit China on the international stage, and divert China's resources in an effort to prevent its rise.

If it came down to combat, the U.S. would quickly lose its resolve in the South China Sea or Taiwan Straits. After all, these regions are truly China's core interests, and China would never back down on defending its territorial integrity.

For the U.S., on the other hand, these regions are simply pieces in a geopolitical game that, in the end, mean very little to voters, most of whom could not point them out on a map. The U.S. would probably never fire a shot, but if it did get involved in an armed conflict, its resolve would eventually fade, like it has in so many other countries.

The U.S. claims that any doubt about its resolve to defend its allies overseas is simply propaganda. However, history does not lie, and the contradictory nature of the statements coming out of the White House shows who is actually spinning the facts.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)