Why NATO needed war in Ukraine

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO was originally setup as a ballpark against the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc and what would later become the Warsaw Pact. Therefore when the Wall fell surely NATO would go with it? Not so much…

The deal with the Russian Federation

There are varying accounts to whether this deal was formal, informal, or to some if it happened at all, but to most of us who have studied at least part of the fall of the USSR, part of the so-called “Sinatra Doctrine”, was that the west would not move east with NATO, or European Union expansion.

With this we could point out that the EU and NATO are very different organisations , with the EU being a capitalist version of COME-ON (link to external source) and the former being the counterpart to the Warsaw Pact

Many members of the EU are not members of NATO, such as Ireland and Austria (while Finland and Sweden are about to switch over), meaning the EU was never the issue. NATO expansion though went at breakneck speed, starting with the Baltic countries, who legitimately held a grudge against Russia, to not only the whole eastern block, but even countries like Albania and even former republics of Yugoslavia. 

NATO, the EU and democracy and neoliberalism were thus seen as one and the same.

To read about the capitalist war in Ukraine click here

NATO as an MILM scheme

Despite my articles I am not a conspiracy theorist. Man did land on the moon, the earth is round and OJ Simpson was innocent, OK ignore the last one. I will though point out facts when I see them.

The US Military Industrial Complex made its money arming allies against the Soviet Union, all of course through sanctioned arms dealers, mostly from the United States, but also other NATO members, such as the UK.

No Cold War meant no business, unless of course you let in new NATO members in, all of whom must replace their weapons with those approved by the organisation. And this where the Military Industrial Complex looks more like a Multi-Level-Marketing scheme than an actual military alliance. Yes it of course makes sense that everyone is using the same, or almost the same kit, for military reasons, but it also directly benefits those very companies that regularly lobby the US government to go to war.

And thus over the years NATO has continued to expand, even to countries that seemingly have no strategic benefit in being part of the block (from both sides), such as Montenegro, or Albania.

The later of which helped perfectly encapsulate this bizarre state of affairs through the movie “War Dogs”, where the country was forced to ditch its Soviet and Chinese era AK47’s to be replaced by NATO compliant equipment.

The Geographical problem with NATO in a capitalist world

So, while you might question why countries like Albania, seemingly not at threat from anyone would join NATO, the fact is that geographically they fit into the remit of the organisation. 

This though is also problematic for them as the NATO charter clearly states that members as per Article 10 that “The parties, with unanimous agreement, may invite any other European state to join the treaty”. In the words you have to be European to join, meaning a finite amount club members that may join.

To read the full NATO charter click here

That means that staunch western Allies, such as Egypt cannot join no matter how much they want to. This of course does not mean that non-European countries cannot buy arms from the Military Industrial Complex, but they are not enforced to. 

And this is a rule unlikely to change, with the aforementioned Egypt, which briefly had the Muslim Brotherhood as its government, and Afghanistan, which fell to the Taliban as prime examples. You simply cannot kit out countries that might turn against you with the best military equipment. 

And the other problem is capitalism itself, with the end of Cold War One meaning that nations such as China and Russia could also now sell their technology around the world. I personally witnessed a Chinese “Javelin” at SOFEX in Jordan. Same thing, but Chinese and therefore cheaper.

The Russian Federation are also now huge exporters of weapons and even mercenaries, with not only long standing customers such as India still purchasing their kit, but even ragtag tribes in northern Sudan and Bir Tawil sporting the latest in Russian assault rifles. 

In essence Russia and China provide an often cheeper alternative to US made weapons and have less scruples when it comes to dealing with the often picked on sanctioned regimes of the world. Competition means less profits.

So, why did NATO need war in Ukraine?

NATO for all intents and purposes needs a reason to exist, with the Cold War being what gave birth to the organisation. What should have essentially died then, was instead expanded as part of a new world order, one where places such as Serbia were bombed – almost as if to show Russia how weak it was at the time, while things such as the Rwanda Genocide were able to continue without thought or consequence. 

Other escapades have seen Iraq taken over (although without full NATO blessing) and overthrow of Gaddafi, to name but a few. Of note is that on no occasion has NATO been forced into conflict through one of its members being attacked, or as a result of any provision of the NATO charter.

So, why was a war needed? There are essentially two reasons for this, firstly the survival of NATO and secondly the profits of the Military Industrial Complex, both of which are heavily intertwined. 

In the first instance and as mentioned NATO needs a reason to exist, with the most recent mantra being that they are defenders of “democracy”. The problem is that this doctrine has not really gone all that well in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya to name but a few. 


Democracy itself also took a heavy battering with the premiership of Donald Trump and even events seemingly as innocuous as Bexit – you can read our take on the exit of Boris Johnson here.

Essentially US style democracy (for the record it ranks 44th in the world for press freedom) were deemed not the way every country wanted to go, with many nations looking at states such as China, Singapore, Hungary and evens small seemingly unimportant places like Cambodia, or Laos and yes even Russia as alternative models. 

These countries while all a little different have one thing in common, they have largely one party systems and the stability that such a system provides. Therefore not only was NATO losing its grip, but so were  so called western values.

And then there is the whole Military Industrial Complex, who without war, the tread of war, or new members were not making money.

What has the war in Ukraine achieved?

While there is no question that Russia started this extremely unjust war, the question of if he jumped, or was pushed is more up for debate. Whichever it was though, the net winners are NATO and the Military Industrial Complex.

NATO now gets to say “Look we are the good guys, Russia are the bad guys”. Democracy against Tyranny and whether like it or not, Cold War Two. It has of course also had a much more tangible affect in that Sweden and Finland are both now joining NATO. With the later this not only will create the longest border between NATO and Russia, but also has potential legal ramifications, as well as potentially being a catalyst for World War Three. 

The real benefit though is for those countries that make money from death, with literally hundreds of billions of aid being poured into Ukraine in what almost amounts to a proxy way pissing contest to test if western technology can be beat Russian technology.

And the aid going through to Ukraine is quite literally astronomical with even tiny Holland yesterday promising $2.5 billion in (mostly) military aid for 2023 alone. tOtal figures for how much money has poured into Ukraine are hard to count, but the US alone has, or will send $100 billion. And this money is coming at these countries go through severs cost of living and energy price disasters.

And while talk of the Military Industrial Complex often draws yawns, or the preconceived notion that you are a crank, the term itself was born after World War 2, the birth of said complex.

The initial warning came from none other than Dwight D Eisenhower who in his exit speech not only called out the creation of the Military Industrial Complex, but also warned specifically about not letting it have undue power over government, something few would argue it has today. You can see a summation of the video below. 

And if you are still in the doubters camp on the danger and influence of these people, then you can do something very simple and that is look at prices the stock exchange. The world might well be going to shit, but the there are still people making lots of money right now….