And its arms spending is out of control
Picture of Nato headquarters Belgium
NATO and NATO countries have strayed from their original purpose and principles over the past 25 years, going far from being a purely defensive organisation, and becoming expansionist and aggressive.
The US was the leader in taking NATO into the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999 causing immense suffering and taking NATO countries into disastrous violent regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US, as the dominant partner in NATO, is not a beacon of wise defence policy. It is a dangerous threat to world peace. It has led us into illegal, immoral and hugely costly military adventures.
The Cold War
Western leaders, when they were smarter than today’s, kept the cold war with USSR/Russia cold for over half a century. NATO is now a failed organisation whose chief benefit is to US arms manufacturers.
In the last 25 years NATO has failed to maintain peaceful relations with Russia so that we have ended up engaged in a proxy war with Russia. Was it because NATO wasn’t or didn’t look strong enough that this war in Ukraine erupted when NATO had absolutely vastly more military power than Russia?
NATO’s mistake
It couldn’t have been NATO’s military weakness or lack of arms that caused the war. What NATO did wrong was engage in multiple acts of provocation of Russia. For example, expanding NATO to be ever closer to Russian borders and parading tanks along borders with Russia. Acts not calculated to convince Russia of our peaceful intentions. Understandably, I think, Russia did not want Ukraine to join NATO allowing the possibility of the stationing of nuclear missiles close to Russian territory and in particular, Moscow. Talk of Ukraine joining NATO was red rag to a bull.
Now, supplying weapons that the Ukraine is using to strike Russian power supplies and Moscow itself is immensely provocative and the UK is at risk of being on the receiving end of retaliation.
Map shows how Russia is partly surrounded by apparently hostile countries. Sweden and Finland have recently joined NATO.
Can we spend our way to peace and security?
America “demands” increases in European “defence” spending. Is it realistic to believe that meeting a 3.5% of GDP spending target on “defence” – spending billions more – will make us more secure? Where did this figure come from? Did someone work out our military needs and cost them and find that this was the sum needed? It seems to me that it’s just a figure plucked out of the air – a figure the US thinks we can be pushed into spending on their weapons.
A NATO War with Russia is not an option
No country could win an all-out war with Russia, a country with a population of 146 million people and extending over five time zones.
Germany is currently building tanks, out of date thinking anyway but how many tanks does it imagine will be needed to overrun and defeat Russia?
NATO the most powerful military alliance in the world could not defeat Russia in the opening years of the Ukraine v Russia war. Without the US it has less chance of winning. Nevertheless “defeating Russia” remains the NATO aim.
An all-out war with Russia would be a disaster for every country involved, even if it fell short of a nuclear war that would destroy human life as we know it. How many bombs on UK power stations would it take to defeat the UK? A war with Russia is not an option.
What should NATO do?
First we need to understand the concepts of defence and security. Successful defence and security may have nothing to do with possession of destructive power. Consider our former enemy, Germany. Why does Germany not even think of attacking us now? Is it because we have nuclear weapons? The very idea of a war between us is out of the question. We have come to a more mature view of international relations and realised the mutual benefits peace.
Talking to Russia about its security concerns and reaching understandings is the only long-term solution. Peaceful co-existence is the only way. Increasing violence is only the way to increased insecurity.
We need to hear the words diplomacy and dialogue and to get on with it!
Euro-panic, the lost benefits of peace
Politicians in Europe have been panicked into trying to look as if they have answers when, in my view, they have no idea what they are doing. Until a few years ago Germany had been developing friendly relations with Russia to such an extent that most of their gas supply was provided by Russia. That showed a high degree of trust and understanding. This was the sort of thing that could have been developed – until it was scuppered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Causes? Well that’s a longish story, part of which is mentioned above.
So what is needed is European countries – perhaps NATO without the US – dealing directly with Russia and reaching understandings. The present hostilities are awful and dangerous but the end of the war in Ukraine could be the beginning of peace and a sense of security to Europe.
Increased arms spending, not only impoverishes life in this country, but it takes us into ever more dangerous situations.
David Roberts
24 July 2026
.
