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

Again, NATO – a Western bloc originally established in the Cold War era for collective actions against the Soviet Union – has discredited China. Blaming countries it regards as foes has been an old trick of the U.S.-led Western club to consolidate solidarity and divert attention from internal problems, and the bloc's Cold War nostalgia means China, as a communist country, always bears the brunt.

In a strongly worded communique released during its two-day summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, NATO accused China of challenging its values and security with "coercive policies." "The PRC's malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security," the communique reads.

Pouring dirty water on China, NATO has however provided no single evidence. "China-related content in the communique disregards basic facts, wantonly distorts China's position and policies, and deliberately discredits China," the Chinese Mission to the European Union said in a statement, adding China will firmly safeguard its core interests and resolutely opposes NATO's eastward expansion into the Asia-Pacific region.

NATO's harsh rhetoric on China is not surprising. With its relentless expansion to its east, cracks have been showing in the U.S.-led Western bloc's unity in recent years. NATO's solution is to blame China. After all, discrediting a communist country and shaping it as a "threat" has repeatedly proved to be effective to unite Western countries. This year's summit, in particular, has been clouded by disputes and disagreement.

To begin with, NATO members, out of selfish calculations, are not unanimous on Ukraine's membership. Admittedly, member states agreed in Vilnius that "Ukraine's future is in NATO," but they stopped short of handling Kyiv a timeframe for accession – meaning Ukraine's eventual admission could become a bargaining chip. While some eastern European nations are bullish on Ukraine's early entry, the U.S. opts for a more deliberate approach and has repeatedly claimed the alliance is not yet ready for Ukraine's admission.

Advocates of an early timeframe to welcome Kyiv – mostly countries geographically close to Russia – argue that it is only through NATO's ironclad guarantees enshrined in Article 5 – an armed attack on one of more of members shall be considered an attack on all – can Ukraine experience "true security" in conflicts with Russia. After all, a truly secure Ukraine would also mean better security conditions for these countries.

But for the U.S., Article 5 means more risks. The U.S. does not want to be involved in direct military clashes with Russia, and will not send Americans to a real war to defend Ukraine. Therefore, the Biden administration, while trumpeting its support for allies, has been reluctant to welcome Ukraine into the NATO family in the middle of the war. Ben Friedman, Policy Director at the think tank Defense Priorities, spoke straightforwardly on Washington's calculations, "Guaranteeing Ukraine's security would erode U.S. security by increasing the risk, obviously, of war with Russia." "The United States should not guarantee Ukrainian security. Period," CNN quoted Friedman as saying.

Selfish calculations among NATO members mean Kyiv's plea for admission is doomed to be a dilemma that will not be easily solved during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Apart from Ukraine, NATO has seen growing divergence on its enlargement. Washington, using NATO as a tool to contain rivals and advance its geopolitical agendas, has been actively pushing the bloc's eastward movement to Russia's border and into the Asia-Pacific region.

However, an increasing number of countries do not view NATO's eastward expansion as their best interest. Demonstrators took to the streets in the UK and France this month to protest against NATO expansion and Washington's manipulation for selfish gains. Disputes have also been reported on a slew of other affairs including Sweden's membership application and NATO's Tokyo office plan during this year's summit.

With cracks showing in its unity, NATO should find a solution from within. Blaming China is not the way forward. Born out of the Cold War, NATO should have dissolved after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, at the instigation of Washington, it has become increasingly aggressive to the detriment of countries in the region. To mend rifts and consolidate solidarity, listening to the international community's just call for peace and development is the right path forward, not hyping the "China threat" theory.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)