by Medea Benjamin, published on World Beyond War, July 12, 2024
As NATO wrapped up its Summit and Biden held a crucial press conference, the media frenzy continued to focus on Biden’s age and cognitive abilities. Is he too old and disoriented to lead the “free world”? Was he able to get through his press conference without stumbling too many times? Lost in the media coverage about the Summit, however, has been a serious discussion of NATO’s advanced age and NATO’s ability to lead the “free world.”
At 75, NATO has not aged well. Back in 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron was already sounding the alarm, accusing NATO of being “brain dead.” While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has given NATO a new lease on life, NATO’s embrace of Ukraine actually makes the conflict–and the world–more dangerous.
Let’s remember why NATO was founded. As the contours of the Cold War were emerging after the devastation of WWII, 10 European nations, along with the U.S. and Canada, came together in 1949 to create an alliance that would deter Soviet expansion, stop the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encourage European political integration. Or, as the alliance’s first Secretary General Lord Ismay quipped, its purpose was “to keep the Soviets out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
It is decades now since the Soviet Union has disintegrated and European nations have been well integrated. So why is NATO still hanging on? When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, along with its military alliance called the Warsaw Pact, NATO could have–and should have–declared victory and folded. Instead, it expanded from 16 members in 1991 to 32 members today.
Its eastward expansion not only violated the promises made by Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, but it was a grave mistake. U.S. diplomat George Keenan warned in 1997 “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold-War era.” Indeed, while NATO expansion does not justify Russia’s 2022 illegal invasion of Ukraine, it did provoke Russia and inflame tensions. NATO members also played a key role in the Ukraine’s 2014 coup, the training and arming of Ukrainian forces in preparation for war with Russia, and the quashing of negotiations that could have ended the war in its first two months.
After two years of brutal war, the NATO Summit focused on how to shore up Ukraine’s flailing efforts to repel Russia. The insistence on setting up a “Trump-proof” scenario that would guarantee Ukraine billions in military aid for years to come and an “irreversible path” to NATO membership is really a guarantee that the war will drag on for years–precisely because NATO membership is Russia’s number one concern. There was no talk at the Summit of how to end the war by moving towards a ceasefire and peace talks. Why? Because NATO is a military alliance. The only tool it has is a hammer.
We have seen NATO illegally and unsuccessfully wield that hammer in country after country over the past 30 years. From Bosnia and Serbia to Afghanistan and Libya, NATO has justified this violence and instability as defending “the Rules-Based Order,” while repeatedly violating the core precepts of the UN Charter.
NATO is now a military behemoth with partners far beyond the North Atlantic that encircle the globe from Colombia to Mongolia to Australia. It has proven to be an aggressive alliance that initiates and escalates wars without international consensus, exacerbates global instability, and prioritizes arms deals over humanitarian needs. NATO provides a cover for the U.S. to place nuclear weapons in five European nations, bringing us closer to nuclear war in violation of both the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. NATO is endangering us all in a desperate attempt to reassert U.S. global hegemony in what is now a multipolar world.
NATO’s 75th anniversary is an opportune time to take stock of NATO’s outdated world view and violations of international law. NATO should be laid to rest so we can revitalize and democratize the proper venue for dealing with global conflicts: the United Nations.
Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the women-led peace group CODEPINK and co-founder of the human rights group Global Exchange. She is the author of 11 books, including War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, coauthored with Nicolas J.S. Davies. Her most recent book, coauthored with David Swanson, is NATO: What You Need to Know.
This article by Medea Benjamin supports the line of the U.S. government and its NATO that Russia acted illegally, that it should be demonized like Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya were. It was the U.S./NATO that violated the internationally recognized right of Russia to national security and the right to defend itself when that right is threatened. What should Russia have done in the face of the aims by the U.S./NATO to dismember it and seize its riches for their corporations? Should it have rolled over and played dead? We should oppose what the imperialist U.S. government and its NATO did even if we do not like the Russian government. We should lay off blaming Russia for what happened in Ukraine and oppose that line in the anti-war movement. –Neal Resnikoff
To be fair, Medea Benjamin’s article does NOT demonize Russia, or suggest that we should do so. Medea explains clearly how the US-led expansion of NATO to Russia’s very borders provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yes, she calls Russia’s invasion “illegal.” Arguably it was a violation of the UN Charter, which prohibits pre-emptive wars.
It is unrealistic (and sometimes divisive) to expect the US peace movement – much of it grounded in pacifism – to totally defend military actions that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of poor and working-class Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, and a considerable number of Ukrainian civilians.
What could the Russians have done differently? That is an open question and difficult to answer. One could argue that War is Never the Answer, especially in the era of nuclear proliferation.
The war in Ukraine has brought the world perilously close to nuclear war. If it does end with global nuclear annihilation, our arguments about what is legal and what is self-defense will ring very hollow.
It is fine for anti-imperialists to point out that the US and NATO put Russia in an impossible position, which is most certainly true. It is not realistic, however, to expect groups like Code Pink, Veterans For Peace, or the Peace In Ukraine Coalition to make a full-throated defense of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
We should be pleased and relieved that these broad-based groups consistently point out the role of the US/NATO in fomenting and escalating this dangerous war. And that they continue to call for a Ceasefire and Negotiations to end this war (before it is too late).
END THE WAR IN UKRAINE
NO to US Weapons and “Advisers”
Negotiations Not Escalation!
Apply this to Russia’s response to U.S. government/NATO expansion to its borders with nuclear armed forces and promise to have Ukraine join NATO. What the U.S./NATO did was in violation of international law, and what Russia did was exercise of its rights under international law. To insist that Russia was wrong and took illegal action is to demonize them:
Article 51 of the UN Charter: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
According to Nuremberg Principles the threat of war (or an armed attack) is a crime against peace…
Nuremberg Principle VI (a) which provides that crimes against peace are crimes under international law, specifically (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
And ditto with the UN Charter, Article 2 (4)
All members of the United Nations shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations as per Article 2(4) of the UN Charter,
The U.S. government and its NATO expansion to the borders of Russia, in violation of a promise made by the U.S. government with the Soviet Union/Russia was correctly seen by Russia as an existential threat to their right of national security. — Neal Resnikoff
+1 to Neal’s points
NATO was planning to launch an attack against the Donbas region and Russia acted in not only their self-defense but in the defense of the Donbass.
Calling Russia’s response to NATOs aggression an “illegal invasion” ignores history before Feb 2022 and demonizes Russia. It’s clear this line is being used to appease liberals who bought into the anti-Russia hysteria. Thanks Neal for being principled and calling this behavior out! Lines need to be drawn. ~Richie Merino