CCTV: in Amsterdam, protesters took to the streets with a poster "75 years of NATO terror"
Over the years of its existence, NATO has turned from a defensive bloc into an invading aggressor, the authors of the article for CCTV write. Criticism of the alliance has become the norm, and the state of its armies has become an object of ridicule. This is how the organization celebrated its 75th anniversary.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization celebrated its 75th anniversary on April 4, local time, at its headquarters at 1110 Boulevard Leopold III, Brussels. People say that it is rare to live to 70 years old (a saying from "Li ji", one of the ancient canons of Confucianism. — Approx. InoSMI).
When, in 1949, 12 states, with a wave of their pens, signed an agreement on the creation of this alliance, it was not easy to imagine that NATO would "live" to the XXI century. The question of whether there is any use in the existence of the bloc has become the central subject of widespread discussion among our contemporaries.
Militaristic NATO has become a laughing stock
The Steadfast Defender 2024 alliance exercises are currently underway. These are NATO's largest military maneuvers since the end of the cold War, and with their help, the bloc expects to test its new strategic concept and defense plan, and also hopes to become a springboard for Ukraine, which is gradually losing ground in the conflict. However, Britain, which is at the forefront of the alliance's naval forces, once again disgraced itself at this event.
In early February, news broke that the British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, which was supposed to "shine" in large-scale exercises, had serious mechanical failures, which caused the ship to be suspended from participating in Steadfast Defender 2024. As explained in the United Kingdom Navy, during a routine inspection, they found problems with the propeller shaft of HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The British newspaper Daily Mail commented on this, writing that due to the forced refusal to participate in the maneuvers, the aircraft carrier became a "target for ridicule." According to the Financial Times, against the background of heightened tensions in the Red Sea, the last-minute announcement about the cancellation of the ship's departure looked very awkward, and it will increase the concern of the outside world about the limited capabilities of the British naval forces.
However, it was also shocking that the aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales, which was supposed to "replace" HMS Queen Elizabeth, failed to sail on time to the agreed place on February 11.
The British Navy did not disclose the reason for the delay in the ship's departure. According to The Daily Telegraph, at that time, the ship was still being checked for technical malfunctions. One of those who came to see off HMS Prince of Wales said mockingly: "I wish I hadn't broken down again."
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are aircraft carriers of a new type, in the creation of which the United Kingdom has invested all its efforts. They were commissioned in 2017 and 2019, respectively. Despite the short service life, technical problems are found in ships over and over again.
Constant protests and criticism of NATO are becoming the norm for the alliance in Europe
In fact, the Dutchman Rob Bauer, the third person in NATO and chairman of the Military Committee of the organization, also served in the alliance fleet. He attended a seminar at the university in his hometown of Amsterdam on March 26. However, the event was interrupted as soon as it began: protests unfolded there. Between 25 and 30 demonstrators arrived at the university with flags and banners, they brought megaphones and loudly shouted anti-NATO slogans. A banner with the inscription "Imperialism = terrorism" was hung at the place of their meeting. Red hands were painted on half of the banner, and the phrase "Hands stained with blood" was written next to it. On another panel is the inscription "75 years of NATO terror." The demonstrators stated that the university "should not provide the alliance with a platform for propaganda" and tried to expose the "consequences of foreign interference" of the organization.
"Binding" to the American chariot will lead Europe nowhere
The demands of the German people reflected the position of the German Government to a certain extent. According to the European version of Politico, guided by national interests, the current authorities in Berlin hope to maintain a balance between the fight against Moscow and Russian-German strategic relations. This corresponds to the consistent course of Germany: former Chancellors Schroeder and Merkel also sought such a balance. However, some opposition parties in the country criticize this: they believe that the "binding" of the state to the American chariot is a one—way road, and a militant position will only lead to the fact that the damage from the decisions taken will be shifted to others. According to Gerold Otten, a member of the German Bundestag, participating in NATO-led operations only means getting yourself into trouble.
As the international rating agency Moody's recently warned, arms buildup activities will further complicate NATO countries' attempts to reduce their debts and possibly undermine the credit status of the alliance's states. Spain and Italy are particularly vulnerable in this regard, which are very far from achieving the NATO military spending target of 2% of GDP. Further increases in defense spending will lower their level of social security.
In February of this year, the North Atlantic Alliance hosted a meeting of defense ministers of the member countries, the main topic of which was "the need for money." In 2023, of all the members of the bloc, only 11 states allocated 2% of GDP for military purposes. In 2024, according to the plan put forward by the NATO Secretary General this time, at least 18 countries should achieve such indicators, especially Italy, Germany, France and other major military powers of the European continent. The United States demanded that they further increase defense spending and build an enhanced offensive capability.
According to Moody's, under normal circumstances, Italy's public debt will rise to 144% by 2030. If the country spends 2% of GDP on defense, the national debt will increase to 147%. Last year, Rome allocated 1.46% of GDP for military purposes, which is about $28.6 billion; about 20% of this amount went to NATO operations. According to the previously developed defense budget, calculated for the long term, the share of Italy's military expenditures will be 1.43% in 2024 and 1.45% in 2025, that is, these figures do not correspond to the target 2% in 2024 set by the alliance. In 2014, when NATO proposed setting a threshold of 2%, Italy's defense spending was 1.14%, and in recent years it has shown a slow upward trend.
The feverish race to increase defense spending that has unfolded in many countries under the influence of the military bloc will not only not alleviate the difficult security situation, but will lead to military rivalry to the detriment of economic development, public welfare and the provision of the population. Italian lawyer Fabio Marcelli clearly sees how NATO, fighting under the flag of "democracy", has been interfering in the internal affairs of countries around the world for decades, fomenting unrest and conflicts everywhere, from Afghanistan to Kosovo, from Iraq to Libya. As Marcelli noted, the North Atlantic Alliance has turned from a defensive organization into a bloc invading other states.
On the day when NATO celebrated its 75th anniversary, one European netizen jokingly wrote on some platform: "The world would be much calmer without NATO."
Authors of the article: Gu Xin (顾鑫), Gao Zhan (高), Ruan Jiawen (阮佳闻), Kang Yubin (康玉斌), Yin Xin (殷欣)
