Ten false statements of the NATO summit

Ten false statements of the NATO summit

NATO is responsible for wars, armed escalation, and the expansion of the military-industrial complex. NATO operations have never ensured stability and security in their countries. As long as such organizations exist, there will be no world peace, writes Rebelion.

Rafael Silva

Now we will analyze the biggest, in our opinion, lies of the last summit, but this is an incomplete list of lies. There were a lot of interviews and events that deserve special attention.

From June 29 to June 30, the NATO summit was held in Madrid, which, according to many organizers, became a "historic" meeting (holding the summit in itself challenges and contradicts the world, given that NATO is the most powerful military organization in the world). The conclusions of the participants were reflected in a concise 16-page document (actually 11-page, the rest are covers and blank sheets), which summarizes the so—called "Strategic Concept of Madrid". And this can be considered a lie number 0 of the summit. In fact, this is an egocentric statement of the North Atlantic arrogant and belligerent West, which considers itself the navel of the earth and is fiercely fighting not to lose its hegemony over the rest of the world. The following truth lies in the "Strategic Concept": NATO is a cruel tool that serves to achieve domination over territories, possession of natural and energy resources and new markets with the help of force. The Organization stubbornly defends the unipolar vision of the world, characteristic of the past decades, and cannot accept a new reality in which a multipolar, fairer and more balanced model appears on the horizon. But, if climate and energy policies do not change, the collapse of humanity is likely to happen before this new multipolar world appears.

It is also worth noting that in parallel with the summit itself, an event with an openly sexist and conservative agenda, as can be seen in the "family photo" from the meeting, which was attended mainly by men, an "alternative" meeting of those who accompanied the NATO leaders took place. And most of them were already women who, together with Queen Letizia, participated in various social and cultural events, while their important second halves solved world problems in their cruel manner. Now we will analyze, in our opinion, the biggest lie of the summit, although this is, of course, an incomplete list, because during the high-level meeting there were many interviews and events that deserve special attention. Nevertheless, the most important thing can be summarized in ten points:

1. NATO is a defensive organization. They would also say that NATO is a pacifist organization, so that it would certainly be false and meaningless. NATO is a militant and patriarchal organization created to protect the specific interests of specific countries. NATO has always relied on military escalation, militarization of its members and an increase in the defense budget. It is military in itself, and there is no place for another approach. Organizations of this type should not exist in the world at all, and the UN, instead of holding such events, should have launched a campaign to destroy them. The summit host Pedro Sanchez proudly stated that the event was "successful" (?) and that NATO is a club of democracies for the defense of democracies. Such a statement is not exactly false, it's just a real misconception. The arrogance of the West has no boundaries, and its discourse is increasingly inclined to normalize the statements of the far-right.

2. Putin has expansionist and imperialist aspirations. The participants of the meeting called on Russia to "stop" the conflict, and also expressed their firm intention to continue sending weapons to Ukraine, because, according to the smart leaders who arrived at the summit, "Ukraine must win." As we have already said in other articles, there is absolutely no desire to negotiate, there is no interest in a diplomatic settlement, and the only thesis that is being worked on is that Ukraine should remain a battlefield indefinitely, and this is only to exhaust Russia by isolating it and strengthening NATO. To say that Putin has expansionist aspirations is an absolute lie. Since 1949, only NATO has expanded. The organization increasingly surrounded Russia, intervened in the internal politics of certain countries that were once in the Soviet orbit, so that they served Western interests.

3. We, the allies, have become stronger and more united than ever (now there are 32 of us). They also said that Putin wanted less NATO, but he would get more NATO. In fact, the only ones who will have more NATO will be us. At our military base in the Company, the number of American destroyers will increase from 4 to 6. And this despite the fact that the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party of Felipe Gonzalez (Felipe González) promised us to "gradually reduce the American military presence in Spain." Well, thank God, otherwise they will suddenly promise to expand it... our country is turning into a US military colony. We worship their leaders and obey their geopolitical and geostrategic interests. Thus, we are losing our voice in the international arena, abolishing our sovereignty and clumsily and short-sightedly submitting to American interests, as evidenced by our dependence on energy carriers (instead of fast and less polluting gas coming through Russian pipes, tankers with more expensive and less environmentally friendly American LNG will now arrive on our shores).

On the other hand, as we have already said, the number of member countries has increased to 32. The summit approved the inclusion of Sweden and Finland in NATO — two countries that abandoned their historical neutrality for the sake of the American story about the Russian enemy in order to provoke it even more. The length of the common border of Finland and Russia exceeds a thousand kilometers. But no one says that in order to approve the inclusion of these two countries in the alliance, Turkey had to bypass the veto by recognizing the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) as a terrorist organization and promising to extradite to Turkey all Kurds whom the Turkish president considers terrorists.

4. Russia is the main threat. To be more precise, they said that Russia poses a "more significant and direct threat" to the countries of the alliance. It is logical that this creates an atmosphere of greater tension and confrontation. In this way, the United States continues to use the European courtyard to fight Moscow and preserve the hegemony that they are gradually losing. Yes, Russia has entered Ukraine, but it does not threaten any European country. It is an absolute lie that Russia threatens us. In fact, we, the NATO countries, have been threatening to expand the organization for several decades. In Ukraine, the Americans have been preparing the ground since 2014 for the country to move away from Russia and get closer to the EU countries, that is, to become their puppet. There are no voices in NATO calling for ending the conflict through dialogue, negotiations and an agreement, on the contrary, they propose to solve it by military escalation and the constant sending of weapons to Ukrainian territory.

As journalist Olga Rodriguez explained, "Europe is now politically and economically weaker than before the conflict in Ukraine, and it has become more subordinate to Washington. Therefore, American President Joe Biden asks Brussels to resist, to accept instructions, to become a place of escalation, where the United States will send more troops. Due to his privileged position and geographical remoteness, this is easy for him. The United States is implementing its strategy in Ukraine, sacrificing the interests of European partners. These are considerable risks for us."

5. China is a challenge to our values. In fact, the document with the conclusions of the summit participants states that the Asian country is a challenge to the "interests and values" of the alliance. Does no one really understand the seriousness of such statements? Isn't it clear that these are hostile and provocative statements? Don't our NATO leaders understand that such statements only cause rejection among the peoples who were supposed to be not our "challenges", but brothers? Do we really think we have the moral superiority to call others opponents simply because they don't look like us? No, we need to put it more simply: China has overtaken the United States in technology, and Washington, obviously, refuses to admit it and does not want to lose its hegemony at all (which it currently possesses only in the military sphere) and is trying in every way to isolate the Asian giant, to compete with it and even resorts to unfair games for this. And here again, as in many other areas, European countries follow the American giant like a dog. China does not threaten or challenge anyone. Instead of making hostile and loud statements, it is necessary to promote cooperation agreements with Beijing.

6. NATO will protect every inch of its territory. And here comes the arrogant and aggressive statement again. His goal is to intimidate countries that want to "attack" at least some "centimeter" of NATO territory. These statements are so banal that they should not be heard in the speech of such high-level leaders, who are supposed to be the leaders of NATO. It is already known that this will happen, because this is the nature of the organization, but instead of declaring it, NATO countries would have to promote a policy that would guarantee that not a single centimeter of the country or any territory in general will not be attacked. This is what good negotiators do, not neighborhood hooligans, which, apparently, are the leaders of NATO.

7. NATO discussed the problems caused by global warming. You can't think of a bigger lie. How can we say that organizations like NATO are interested in the problems of climate change, if the armies (all the armies of the world) are the most polluting elements on the planet? The Pentagon and its troops are more responsible for greenhouse gas emissions than many countries in the world. Troops consume oil in huge volumes, and they participate in military operations, conflicts and wars, and therefore are responsible for the destruction, which then kills hundreds of thousands of people, animals, ecosystems; pollution of forests, seas and rivers, and loss of regional biodiversity. In addition, the restoration of war-affected places further destroys the environment and leads to excessive consumption of resources. In general, the statement that organizations such as NATO are concerned about this problem, although they themselves bear great responsibility for global warming, contradicts reality.

8. NATO will also deal with the southern flank. In fact, the participants of the meeting agreed to fight terrorist groups in the Sahel, as well as to consider the phenomenon of migration on the southern side as a "hybrid threat. As if there are no serious problems in the countries of origin of migrants, forcing many to look for other ways. As if there are no wars, violence, poverty, plundering of resources, drought, natural disasters, climate crisis, famine… How can migration be called a "threat" if the one who says so (the NATO countries) is responsible for the catastrophic conditions due to which people are forced to migrate? For several hundred years of colonial and neocolonial policies, these countries not only plundered natural resources (and in the past also took away cultural heritage), but also provoked tension for the speed and efficiency of the process, overthrew governments and constantly interfered in domestic politics. Therefore, NATO's statements are not only lies, they also go beyond the bounds of decency.

9. NATO should increase the defense budget to 2% of GDP. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez promised to do this in the next ten years and expressed readiness to convince other parliamentary groups to support the "country project" (?). Podemos leaders have already told him: "Our country needs more teachers and doctors, more hospitals, schools, nursing homes and guaranteed income and less tanks and weapons". Even if there is no need for them, you still need to run far away from any policy that invests in what is hidden under the euphemism "defense", because this is money invested in weapons, they sponsor wars and carnage. Let's finally condemn the classic terrible lie that sounds like this: "If you want peace, get ready for war." Lies. If you want peace, you need to prepare for peace, education should be ready for peace, the budget should be ready for peace, culture should be ready for peace. But this is not at all what NATO stands for. The countries of the North Atlantic Alliance are the antipodes of the culture of peace.

10. We live in a more dangerous and unpredictable world. This is, without a doubt, the most cynical and scandalous statement of all that was made at the summit. How can the very people who make the world more dangerous just say that the world has become more dangerous? It is precisely because of the policies of organizations such as NATO that the world is becoming more dangerous. These people allow themselves to talk about migration as a "threat", although they themselves provoked it with their policy of looting and destabilization of entire countries. They allow themselves to say that wars are unpredictable, while they themselves plan and unleash them. They say that the world has become more dangerous, although they themselves turn it into a powder keg with their decisions. It is the leaders of organizations like NATO who are making the world more dangerous because they are promoting defense budgets instead of a budget to eradicate inequality and guarantee human rights. Yes, the world has become more dangerous, but we owe it to them.

It is structures such as NATO that are responsible for wars, armed escalation, the expansion of the military-industrial complex and the emergence of such intense hatred, suffering, hunger, forced displacement, devastation and devastation in the world. NATO operations have never ensured stability and security in their countries (take, for example, the cases of Libya, Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq), on the contrary, because of them, countries turned into failed states, there was a mass exodus of people and an explosive situation with weapons and a humanitarian crisis was created. Let's not build illusions, NATO sponsors a world of refugees, helplessness, disasters, catastrophes, inhumanity. A world of horror and barbarism. A gloomy world. As long as there are organizations like NATO, there will be no world peace. In conclusion, we come to the only conclusion: the dissolution of NATO is the best thing that can be done, and that after its collapse, the member countries really promote peace, peace agreements and cooperation between countries, peoples, continents and civilizations from around the world, as well as international justice and equality, and not name others."enemies" or "challenges". Then the world would definitely be safer. We join the statements of the Spanish politician Julio Anguita: May weapons, wars and those who unleash them be cursed!