The Military-Industrial Complex and the Perils of NATO's Imperialistic Expansion
December 30, 2024•1,219 words
I have heard this a thousand times. Of course every state has the right to organize its security the way it deems appropriate. But the states that were already in NATO, the member states, could also have followed their own interests - and abstained from an expansion to the east. ~ Vladimir Putin
[Mikhail] Gorbachev said that he would agree to the unification of Germany, and even adherence of Germany to NATO, which was quite a concession, if NATO didn't move to East Germany. And [George] Bush and [James] Baker promised verbally, that's critical, verbally that NATO would not expand "one inch to the east," which meant East Germany. Nobody was talking about anything farther at the time. They would not expand one inch to the east. Now that was a verbal promise. It was never written. NATO immediately expanded to East Germany. ~ Noam Chomsky
Okay, NATO expanded to East Berlin and East Germany. Under [Bill] Clinton NATO expanded further, to the former Russian satellites. In 2008 NATO formally made an offer to Ukraine to join NATO. That's unbelievable. I mean, Ukraine is the geopolitical heartland of Russian concern, quite aside from historical connections, population and so on. ~ Noam Chomsky
President [Dwight] Eisenhower warned us, five star general, he said watch out for the military-industrial complex. That's a threat to our freedom, to our economy, and what we have now is a gigantic taxpayer draining empire that is devouring itself, which, as you say, it's creating more resistance, more fighting, against us oversees. ~ Ralph Nader
And in one sense, that is the very foundation of how power thrives on our perceptions and how we exercise that power.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO, stood for so many decades as our initial defence against the Soviet Union's influence. But once the Soviet empire collapsed, the world changed dramatically overnight and thus leaves with a key question, will NATO adapt to a new global reality or remain stuck and outdated to the past, a vestige of the Cold War?
The fall of the Soviet Union offered a opportunity to reshape European security, to build lasting peace. Instead, NATO, led by the United States war hawks and the American and European military industrial complex of massive government funded well over a trillion dollars budget, rapidly expanded into former Soviet bloc states deeper into Russia's borders. This was not to bring Europe and Russia together but to impose hegemony, and it received a fully predictable response from Moscow, their concern was existential.
It would have seemed, from the Russian point of view, that an expanded NATO was an incursion against its security.
Statements of support for Ukraine joining NATO and basing troops in countries around Russia heightened those concerns. In 2021, Russia extended an olive branch to deescalate tensions with its offer of treaties to stop NATO's expansion and re-balance the region. Yet, we rebuffed Russia's concerns, out of hand, refusing to understand Russia's valid concerns. The refusal was more than a missed opportunity; it was the cause of the continuing, devastating war in Ukraine.
Economics plays an extremely important role in the development and proliferation of conflicts throughout the world.
Per year, NATO member countries and Israel collectively spend approximately $1.641 trillion on the military industrial complex of companies, and close to 65% of global military expenditures.
History is rife with warnings of the consequences that await abandonment of balance and foresight. Many individuals in America, including George Kennan, America's architect of the Cold War containment strategy, warned against expanding NATO. As Kennan himself pointed out later, NATO's post-Cold War expansion had been nothing short of a "tragic mistake." His was a lonely voice. Blinded by the power of the lobby industry for the military industrial complex and arrogant war hawks, we failed to bring Russia closer to Europe and North America.
The conflict in Kosovo in 1999 only served to destroy more of the little trust Russia had. That NATO intervened without the consensus of the United Nations only proved in the mind of Russia that it saw NATO as an American led aggressor-state under the guise of NATO. Other options were freely available, not least some kind of unified NATO-Russia peacekeeping mission, but we chose to go it alone. In so doing, we created today's toxic relationship with Russia.
Today, the war in Ukraine with over 400,000 deaths of Ukrainian and Russian civilians and soldiers (some analysis suggest the number of casualties are closer to 600,000, absolutely outrageous), and the conflict is daily getting closer to spiral out of control into a global catastrophe. The military industrial complex of companies are getting richer with NATO arming Ukraine in hopes of destroying the Russian economy, but this course of action carries the real danger of provoking even more war and a destabilized nuclear armed to the teeth Russia with the possibility of a much worst radical Russian leadership. Yes, there are more radical unstable war hawks than Putin in Russia. Russia's nuclear sabre-rattling shows just how precarious this scenario is, and the consequences of an unimaginable global apocalypse.
If we are to prevent further chaos, diplomacy must once again take centre stage.
True peace cannot be imposed; it has to be constructed through negotiation and compromise. The leaders of France and Turkey have kept the lines of dialogue alive with Putin, showing that solutions are possible. We cannot, however, depend on only them. We must assume collective responsibility for forging a settlement that takes into account the security concerns of all parties, including Russia.
This brings us to a very important question: what is the role of NATO in the modern world?
From a shield against communism, NATO risks turning into an outdated revamped imperialistic alliance that cannot find its place or prove its relevance.
According to critics, NATO has become an instrument of U.S. imperialism, and from Europe, it has shifted its focus to the Middle East and now to Asia and the Pacific. The enormous amount spent on the military, over $1.6 trillion depletes the resources that could be put toward pressing global problems like poverty, inequality, and climate change.
Further, NATO's interventions often leave behind instability, not security.
The continued aggressive expansion of NATO and a reliance on military solutions by its members indicate the perils of clung-to strategies.
A few things we can understand so far from NATO countries and Israeli hegemony:
- These countries are spending over a trillion dollars per year into private military R&D industrial complex of companies.
- Due to the extreme wealth of these companies, they have economically powerful lobby groups.
- Also, such enormous wealth has a pull factor of private military missionary companies such as Blackwater/Academi, G4S, Aegis Defence Services, etc., encouraging and feeding off of conflicts. Wars are in the billions of dollars for these types of businesses.
- NATO member countries and powerful companies and their lobby groups are always seeking to acquire more wealth with access to raw materials from friendly countries or destabilized countries, any possible way to get access and ownership to such rare materials is the goal.