The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit, held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on July 11 and 12, provided a showcase for an imperialist alliance that has been a major source of war for decades.
Committing to a major NATO force buildup, world leaders at the conference pledged fealty to Ukraine, which is ranked among the most corrupt countries in the world and has deliberately stoked a war with Russia that threatens to ignite World War III.
The NATO Summit’s communiqué was typical in its over-glorifying rhetoric. It starts off in the following way:
“We, the Heads of States and Government of the North Atlantic Alliance, bound by shared values of individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, have gathered in Vilnius…to reaffirm our enduring transatlantic bond, unity, cohesion, and solidarity at a critical time for our security and international peace and stability.”
There is a lot in that statement to contradict NATO’s real objectives, that is, taking on an imperial role outside of its jurisdiction.
Russia, of course, was demonized:
“Russia bears full responsibility for its illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine…We continue to condemn in the strongest terms Russia’s blatant violations of international law, the Charter of the United Nations, and OSCE commitments and principles.”
The rest of the rant essentially says the same thing: Russia is strictly the “bad guy.” Hypocrisy flies in the face of these statements.
The communiqué concluded that “NATO remains the strongest Alliance in history. As in the past, we will stand the test of time in safeguarding the freedom and security of our Allies and contributing to peace and security.” (And to hell with the rest of the world.)
Other countries were mentioned in the Summit, but Ukraine became a special topic. The New York Times’s Steven Erlanger, writing a piece that sided with NATO, admitted that there were divisions in the Summit, particularly regarding Ukraine.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, a neo-liberal and corrupt leader, pushed for the admission of Ukraine into NATO, but some NATO members wanted it postponed for now until the war ends, and Ukraine meets certain qualifications.
This did not please Zelensky and his Central European supporters who “wanted more and made it loud and clear.” Zelensky “was angry about NATO putting conditions on even inviting Ukraine to apply for membership.”
But in regard to being treated as an equal by NATO members, Zelensky at one point was ignored as others were engrossed in conversation. There is a photo online showing Zelensky alone and with a pissed off look on his face. It appeared Zelensky was not a part of the NATO crowd.
However, Zelensky ultimately declared the Summit a victory after he received multiple assurances that Ukraine would be invited to join NATO once the war with Russia ends, along with concrete plans to provide Ukraine with security guarantees well into the future.
Notwithstanding the views of Ukraine, the whole Summit was really a farce: There was talk of peace when the NATO alliance is really provoking war and dividing the world into opposing camps in a manner reminiscent of the era of World War I and the Cold War when it was founded.
The U.S./NATO alliance continues to push for military solutions and eschew peace.
In mid to late June 2023, the alliance put on a show of strength with a new round of war games. Germany invited the U.S. and other nations of the alliance to simulate an air war over most of Europe. John Wojcik, Editor-in-Chief of the People’s World, wrote that it was “the biggest war provocation in history in its airspace,” noting that it involved “10,000 armed participants from 25 countries.”
The U.S. sent “2,000 Air National Guard members and more than 100 of the 250 jet fighters that [participated].” The alliance also used ships to “close in on European coastlines in their massive simulation of what they say NATO would have to do if it were necessary to defend an attack from—or mount an attack on—Russia, China, or anyone else.”
When the rest of the world is trying to cool tensions, the NATO alliance continues to follow the script of imperial expansion with victims of the war not high on its list of priorities. Wojcik quoted the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Amy Gutmann:
“We will show beyond a shadow of a doubt the ability and swiftness of our allied force in NATO as a first responder. I would be pretty surprised if any world leader was not taking note of what this shows in terms of the spirit of this alliance, which means the strength of this alliance.”
Gutmann shows more proof that peace is not a priority for the alliance, despite reassurances from U.S. officials that the U.S. supposedly prioritizes an avoidance of nuclear war. It is very odd, and cynical, that further fueling the Russia-Ukraine war is at the same time a way to avoid nuclear war. Quite the contrary.
Another imperial shill from the U.S., Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, said on TV, and Wojcik quoted, that it is “clear to the world that the U.S. military is the fiercest and most powerful in the world with a capability of dealing lethal blows that is greater than anyone else’s lethality.” Bragging about your military might while ignoring a chance for peace? Wormuth also made no mention of the victims of the war, Ukrainian and Russian.
Not everyone was exactly happy about the war games (or war provocations) in Germany. Germans came out to protest the military exercises. Editors of the People’s Dispatch wrote the following:
“On June 10, hundreds of activists from various anti-imperialist and anti-war groups as well as the Communist Party of Germany (DKP) marched to the Wunstorf Air Base near Hanover to protest the NATO’s Air Defender exercise scheduled June 12-23. A vigil was also held at the Spangdahlem Air Base near Trier, which will also serve as a base for the exercise. Die Linke [a Leftist party] organized protests against the NATO exercise on June 11.”
The protests condemned the U.S./NATO alliance’s hunger for war. In particular, NATO was condemned for its belligerence. There were calls for a cease-fire and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and the removal of the U.S.’s nuclear weapons from Germany.
In European countries, overall, many are not glorifying the war and its escalation. Quite the contrary, most are not happy about the conflict. It has affected millions of people who are struggling to cope with inflation and an energy crisis, the latter of which was brought on by sanctions on cheap Russian oil. There has been an increase in military spending at the expense of cutting social programs.
Quoting from the People’s Dispatch on Die Linke’s statement of June 12 about the provocations and the fueling of the war: “This military saber rattling is irresponsible! We will not adapt to war and the military as tools of foreign policy.”
There have been assurances from the West, for example, by the media, that NATO could play a progressive and democratic role in the world. Further, there have been progressives and members on the left who seemingly glorify NATO and the prospects of it playing a positive role. This is prompted by the Russia-Ukraine war, where NATO may be viewed as a “liberating” force to aid Ukraine.
But not according to Josefina Martinez and Diego Lotito, writing in Left Voice: “NATO is an imperialist war machine at the service of U.S. and European expansionism. In our time we will undoubtedly see increasing confrontations between world powers, as shown by the war in Ukraine.”
What is the purpose of NATO, specifically? Established in 1949, its original function was to provide security for its member countries in Western Europe in case of Soviet expansionism.
In reality, the Soviets were never really expansionist, seeking only a security buffer in Eastern Europe to prevent renewed Western aggression against them. The communist leaders felt that social revolution would occur organically in countries around the world and not through foreign military conquest.
NATO’s original members were Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. Years later in 1952, Greece and Turkey were admitted, eventually followed by West Germany (1955) and Spain (1982).
The Warsaw Pact was established by the Communist Bloc in 1955 to counter the existence of NATO. Its original members were Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union. In 1989 and 1990, the Communist Bloc dissolved and, in turn, so did the Warsaw Pact.
Now, there are 31 members in NATO, with former socialist countries having joined beginning in the late 1990s.
With the Warsaw Pact dissolved, it would have made sense for NATO to dissolve; if one is talking about mutual agreements and being ethical about it. In February 1990, James Baker, Secretary of State in George H.W. Bush’s administration, promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would expand “not one inch” toward the east. This was based on an agreement that Germany would be reunified.
But the Bush administration contradicted Baker’s promise. Bush retorted: “To hell with that!” Additionally, it is said that Bush told German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, “We prevailed, they didn’t. We can’t let the Soviets snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.” So, based on a lie, NATO expanded right to Russia’s borders. Given that the West, especially the United States, has a historical pattern of breaking promises and agreements, one could say that Gorbachev should have known better, instead of being naïve.
Quoting from Solidarity magazine, in a piece written by Adam Adelpour, Mircea Geoana, NATO Deputy Secretary General, said in June 2022 that “NATO is a defensive alliance whose primary responsibility is to protect one billion citizens in Europe and North America. And “NATO exists to deter any aggression, defend our people, our democratic values, prevent conflict, and allow people to have ideas, to prosper and to fulfill their lives and their dreams.” Compared to this rhetoric, Adelpour wrote, “NATO’s history shows this couldn’t be further from the truth.”
Adelpour then provides examples of NATO’s imperial debacles:
“NATO was anything but democratic. It included the Portuguese Salazar dictatorship amongst its first 12 members.
“When the Greek military launched a coup and seized power in 1967 the right-wing Greek Colonels had the backing of NATO until they were overthrown in 1974.
“France waged bloody wars to defend its colonial empire in Algeria and Indochina while it was a NATO member, with U.S. backing.”
Adelpour continued, citing “out of area operations” by NATO when it bombed Yugoslavia, particularly an 11-week bombing campaign against Serbia. According to Martinez and Lotito, writing in Left Voice, “Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro were bombed by 600 planes from thirteen countries, resulting in the deaths of 2,500 to 5,700 civilians with thousands of others injured, and tremendous material and environmental damage caused by the use of uranium bombs.”
Adelpour wrote that “NATO’s foreign intervention reached new heights when it began running the occupation of Afghanistan after the earlier U.S. invasion.” The 20-year war “killed tens of thousands” with the country in tatters and the retaking of power by the fanatical Taliban.
Emphasizing the obvious due to attacking other countries, Adelpour wrote that “NATO is not ‘defensive’ or ‘democratic.’ NATO is a U.S.-dominated, imperialist alliance willing to carry out overseas invasions.”
Adelpour added that NATO expansion eastward inevitably led to war. It heavily armed Ukraine and pushed for NATO membership for the war-torn country. And Ukrainian President Zelensky has gone along with it. But what is the real reason for it? Perhaps Zelensky has been threatened by Ukrainian Nazis; and has been pushed by the U.S./NATO alliance to continue the war. Or perhaps not.
Another imperial intervention by NATO was in Libya. This started in March 2011, with the United Nations Security Council approving the action with 10 nations in favor and five abstaining. But the Security Council’s intent was to have an immediate cease-fire between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his forces vs. opposition forces, with Islamic fanatics taking over the latter.
A no-fly zone was imposed in Libyan air space, and the tightening of sanctions against Gaddafi’s government. Then, there was the inevitable bombing of Libya by NATO forces. The U.S. and Britain fired more than 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles with their respective navies; plus, the imposition of a naval blockade. The French Air Force, the British Royal Air Force, and the Royal Canadian Air Force conducted sorties across Libya. No NATO ground forces were employed in Libya.
There was a disagreement on the number of civilians killed in Libya. According to the Libyan government and media, more than 3,000 civilians were killed. NATO denied most of the killings. The UN Human Rights Council claimed in a report that only 60 civilians were killed by NATO bombing. The Council concluded that the bombing campaign was “precise” and there was an effort to avoid civilian casualties. So, 3,000 killed vs. 60 killed. Considering NATO’s handiwork in other actions, the latter figure sounds suspect.
There was worldwide criticism of NATO’s intervention. It was asserted that NATO’s objective was not humanitarian, but a way to exploit Libya’s vast resources. Among the international leaders who spoke out were Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, South African President Jacob Zuma, Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, Raul Castro’s government in Cuba, Daniel Ortega’s government in Nicaragua, etc.
There was little sympathy in the West for Gaddafi. For example, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State in the Obama administration, boasted, “We came, we saw, he died.” She then laughed about it. Pretty damn cruel. But Clinton is an imperialist.
Regardless of assurances from NATO members, the real reasons for NATO’s belligerence are hardly mentioned, but there are exceptions.
For example, Adelpour wrote in Solidarity that former Bill Clinton adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski revealed the goals of U.S. policy in relation to NATO: This is “to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence amongst the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” Brzezinski was referring to Russia and China as “barbarians.”
The U.S./NATO alliance seems to be particularly fixated on China. Adelpour: “In a NATO strategy paper published in June [2022], China is mentioned more than Russia—over 180 times.
“The U.S. is using the war in Ukraine to make an example of Russia and demonstrate its willingness to use military force to threaten China.”
NATO’s hypocrisy showed through its “moral” rhetoric when it condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin of asserting “dangerous” rhetoric when he announced that Russia will station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus. While this sounds crazy, how many nuclear-capable weapons does the U.S./NATO alliance have in other countries, like in Western Europe, and in Eastern Europe (Support for Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics program)? How about in Ukraine itself?
No one is totally innocent with respect to the Russia-Ukraine war. Certainly, the U.S./NATO alliance is not. Further, with the Warsaw Pact gone, it is time for NATO to also dissolve. NATO has got to go.
CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptions, orders and donations from readers like you.
Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism
Click the whistle and donate
When you donate to CovertAction Magazine, you are supporting investigative journalism. Your contributions go directly to supporting the development, production, editing, and dissemination of the Magazine.
CovertAction Magazine does not receive corporate or government sponsorship. Yet, we hold a steadfast commitment to providing compensation for writers, editorial and technical support. Your support helps facilitate this compensation as well as increase the caliber of this work.
Please make a donation by clicking on the donate logo above and enter the amount and your credit or debit card information.
CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and your gift is tax-deductible for federal income purposes. CAI’s tax-exempt ID number is 87-2461683.
We sincerely thank you for your support.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI), including its Board of Directors (BD), Editorial Board (EB), Advisory Board (AB), staff, volunteers and its projects (including CovertAction Magazine) are not responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. This article also does not necessarily represent the views the BD, the EB, the AB, staff, volunteers, or any members of its projects.
Differing viewpoints: CAM publishes articles with differing viewpoints in an effort to nurture vibrant debate and thoughtful critical analysis. Feel free to comment on the articles in the comment section and/or send your letters to the Editors, which we will publish in the Letters column.
Copyrighted Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.
Republishing: CovertAction Magazine (CAM) grants permission to cross-post CAM articles on not-for-profit community internet sites as long as the source is acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original CovertAction Magazine article. Also, kindly let us know at info@CovertActionMagazine.com. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: info@CovertActionMagazine.com.
By using this site, you agree to these terms above.
About the Author
David Starr acknowledged his interest in politics in 1986 when he lived in Hawai’i.
From there, he became active, joining such groups as the Latin American and Caribbean Solidarity Association (LACASA), the Hawai’i Union of Socialists (HUS) and Ka Lehui Hawai’i (The Hawaiian Nation).
Starr also created a publication entitled Voices of Change, and had articles published in the Honolulu Weekly and Toward Freedom during the 1990s.
Now Connecticut-based, Starr has published many pieces in Reader Supported News, the Daily Kos, and has been published in the LA Progressive.
David can be reached at dl_starr@hotmail.com.
