NATO has held its last summit in Washington between 9 and 11 July, with the host of US President Joe Biden, who seems to have gone through Abraham. But it has not been any meeting, its 32 member states have celebrated the 75th anniversary of the world’s largest and most destructive military organization. And how to celebrate it.

It would be enough for the reader to read the headings of the general press to realise the intentions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in this global war escalation. Or you can also check on your website, under the title Washington Summit Declaration and in a 38-point summary, a text that has nothing to lose.

In that harsh communiqué, NATO has put China on the border, saying that it is a “key facilitator” of the war that Russia is carrying in Ukraine. “I think the message is very strong and clear: we are clearly defining China’s responsibility in authorising the war in Russia,” said Secretary General of the armed organization, Jens Stoltenberg. The North Atlantic Treaty states that it looks “with concern” at Beijing’s nuclear arsenals and at other “hybrid, cyber, space and other threats” that it considers should be taken into account. According to NATO, Russia and China "are trying to alter the rules of the international order", which are governed by the regulation.

The Washington summit, however, has not remained in games of sterile warmongering words, Ukraine has also been promised subsidies and more weapons – every year since 2022 it has set aside EUR 40 billion for the Zelenski government to continue the war – and another promise has been made: They have described as "irreversible" the entry into the organization of the former Soviet country of eastern Europe. In that word is one of the keys to the risky step taken by NATO on this occasion – although the statement is then softened with the phrase ‘when circumstances allow’ – because the integration of Ukraine into NATO has always been a red line for Russia.

Your brilliant plan is to spend more on the production and sale of weapons. We have already explained in the previous paragraphs the misery of spending 2% of GDP on military spending, as NATO demanded of its partners, including the brutal social cuts. In 2024, the military spending of the European countries and Canada increased by 18%, according to the NATO declaration, "with joy".

This figure, however, seems to have been insufficient: “We reaffirm that in many cases it will be necessary to spend more than 2%,” the adopted text states. The British Prime Minister, Keir Stamer, has assured us that they are prepared to raise the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP and that there are not very many who think that at the next summit in Holland that objective will be the main one.

All this is done by NATO with a thick layer of makeup on the face, in the name of security and democracy, using the imaginary that it is “defending” the international order created after the defeat of fascism. But even long before the creation of NATO, probably since the beginning of the Second World War, the Galician historian María José Tíscar, as pointed out in her book La Exception Ibérica (Editions Akal, 2022), has driven a bipolar world.

As we read the wise historian Josep Fontana, in 1949 the US diplomat George Kennan proposed a plan in which NATO’s “defence” mechanisms could lead to a global conflict: an agreement with the Soviets and the creation of a “disarmed and neutralized” Germany. But the U.S. military sent geese to blacksmith, and since then there has been no place on Earth for third routes.

Myths and Account Burning

The history of NATO has since been narrated by the German Member of Die Link, Sevim Dadulburg, in a very successful book recently translated into English: NATO: Reckoning with the Atlantic Alliance (NATO: Confiscation with the Atlantic Treaty).

In an interview with Amy Goodman, Democracy Now journalist Dafusible quotes the book's writings: “The history of NATO is the history of denial and has three great myths. The first is that it is a defence pact, agreement. Since at least 1999, when he attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, we know that it is a war pact.” The MEP has also set as an example the 20-year-old war in Afghanistan, the attack on Iraq or the attack on Libya in 2011.

Another myth is to make NATO believe that it is a “collective of democracies” fighting authoritarian regimes. It should only be remembered that Portugal was one of its founders at the time of Salazar, while torturing the Africans in the concentration camps in Mozambique and Angola. “NATO has never had any problems with the fascist dictators,” Dagibgen said.

Finally, there is a myth of the defence of human rights. In it, the author removes all waste from the sewers: The torture center of Guantánamo, the lawsuit against Julian Assange, the war crimes of Iraq… According to a study by Brown University in the United States. But you don't have to look back. The left-wing Member refers to the assistance of NATO members, led by the United States and Germany, to Israel to commit the massacre in Gaza: “Killing 15,000 children in Gaza cannot be justified by the legitimate right to self-defence.”

233 million tons of carbon for us

As part of its bleaching strategy of its existence, NATO has also announced measures to address the climate emergency in recent years, such as that the net carbon emissions of the military industry by 2050 are “zero” – which has caused climate damage of $32 billion since Russia invaded Ukraine. Greenpeace believes that hypocrisy is pure because it is in contradiction with plans to increase military spending and because its position has nothing to do with climate justice.

In fact, in 2023 NATO's military spending amounted to CO2 emissions of 31 million metric tons more than the previous year. According to the Climate in the Crosshairs report produced by the Transnational Institute of the Netherlands and published by the Delàs Center for Peace Research, last year NATO allies spent $1.34 trillion on weapons, bringing a total of 233 million tonnes of CO2, the same king carbon footprint as a country like Qatar, no. Excellent, it has another reason to blow the candles.