The example of China as an employer of “weapons of finance” is important because it provides a theoretical precedent according to NATO’s own logic that coercive debt repayment, particularly when it causes a socioeconomic crisis, can be categorized as aggression, and tantamount to an act of war.
This is extremely relevant to the situation in Egypt today where we see the government literally being given no choice but to prioritize foreign lenders’ demands above the basic needs of the population. To the extent that access to electricity has been cut in half, while the price has doubled; bread is being rationed, and people are forced out of their homes to give space to corporate expansion projects, and so on and so forth.
NATO also includes acts of aggression (including financial aggression) committed by non-state actors as eligible for military retaliation. It should be obvious that the most powerful non-state actors in the world today (in many cases more powerful than states themselves), are not insurgent groups or terrorist networks, but rather, multinational corporations and financial institutions.
These non-state power entities are waging an aggressive war of conquest in Egypt by NATO’s own definition. Through weapons of finance and rogue aid, they do not even have to invade you with an army, because the Egyptian military is so entwined in the economy, the interests of the officers class coincide with the interests of the multinationals, allowing the corporations to invade you with your own army.