The military-industrial sector of NATO is intensifying its efforts to secure the militarization of world politics by manipulating the people of its states. They call it security policy when military men act, although their actions undermine the foundations of life and coexistence.
The security needs of life, on the other hand, require the cooperation of movements that are already committed to the future of life and thus also to a just, solidary and sustainable life today. The military, social and environmental threats to the future cannot be averted in isolation. The explosiveness increases even more, as it can be heard from science that the time that remains to reach the saving shore is running out.
It is therefore increasingly necessary for social movements to see themselves as part of a larger whole, to network, to see the connections of their respective focal topic with those of others and to put the common in the foreground.
The peace, ecology, solidarity, trade union and other movements will not achieve what they are striving for in a sustainable way. They can only live up to their responsibility for the future of nature in the endangered habitat Earth and even for their respective core concerns if they put the common in the foreground. In doing so, they have powerful opponents.
A necessary sustainable interaction of forces requires networked and critical thinking: ecology, climate and biodiversity, peaceful development and diversity in the coexistence of society will only exist if the future and humanity are peaceful and if people do not succumb to the martial narratives of the military. The responsibility of contemporary society extends beyond the lifetime of today’s generations.
Even a narrowing of the content of one of the areas of action, such as that of ecology, can weaken the effect of the commitment. Anyone who sees ecology as essentially the subject of climate catastrophe runs the risk of overlooking, for example, the damaging effect of industrialised agriculture with its extensive monocultures, which lead to the chemical poisoning of the humus soil and to the decline of the insect population. It is also questionable to ignore the ecological impact of the military sector even in times without a declared war. This is demonstrated by NATO’s so-called interventions, for example in the Balkans, in countries between the Gulf region and the Mediterranean, or in North Africa, during which munitions encased in depleted uranium were used repeatedly and en masse. The military uses this waste product from nuclear power plants for use against bunkers and tanks, because it is a particularly hard material with high penetrating power. During explosions, it spreads radioactive fine dust. The people in the direct and wide environment of the battle are slowly absorbing fine dust particles of a deadly radioactivity via the drinking water and the air. The material has a half-life of several million years. This alone shows how strongly the individual topics are related to other future challenges.
With news management as a means of shaping public opinion, the military and other top leaders in the state and business use their influence on the thinking of the people in their sphere of influence to prevent them from resistance and other acts that are radically discredited and to keep their influence small even according to the principle of divide and rule. The media scientist of the University of Leipzig Uwe Krüger in his study Mainstream, picked up by the ZDF program Die Anstalt: “The divergent opinions and the references to system errors and social contradictions can be found today to a large extent combated by the political-media establishment, above all … in an Internet-based counter-public again.“Superficiality and a view that is lost in partial aspects of the great whole meet them in the endeavor to promote a way of thinking that does not question the existing conditions.
NATO successfully applies the strategy of psychological operations to influence the formation of public opinion. It continues to refine them with the concept Strategic Communication.
As a guiding principle take a saying from Abraham Lincoln: “He who shapes public opinion … makes laws and decisions possible or impossible:”
Recommendations for shaping public opinion are ,for example:”It is particularly important that a sustained effort is made to build credibility”. The opposite applies to reporting on the other side: their credibility and legitimacy are to be undermined.
The use of strategic manipulation means that the terrorist alliance Nato, from whose territory the most frequent and massive breaches of international law emanate at least since the Vietnam War, presents itself as a community of values with an ecological touch.
The Brussels NATO Summit of June 2021 follows exactly the double game of further developing upgrades and rearmament, including nuclear arsenals, and at the same time making the military appear friendly with an ecologically democratic mantle, so that green and other ecologically motivated spectra also refrain from resistance. The new concept Nato 2030 includes friendly aspects that can also have a positive effect on alternative forces. The aim is to promote “the diversity of identities” and the concept paper emphasises the principles of “democracy, freedom of the person and the rule of law”.
As in an Orwellian confusion of language, a choice of words intervenes here, which in the end sells the war as democratic and humane. In the same paper, a strategy is planned that sees conventional as well as nuclear and hybrid arsenals “at the forefront of consultation and decision-making”; specifically, this mix of “military capacities” should be kept ready for conflicts, especially with China and Russia.
The concept also includes strategic communication: it “is an important tool of deterrence and defense”. Without the support of broad sections of the population, the military has problems implementing such a strategy.
In addition to the rivalry with China and Russia, there are plans and concepts regarding “military operations that affect the interests of the allies. This formulation further undermines international law, since military intervention here is not bound by the UN Charter, but by the interests and possibilities of NATO states.
According to this document, NATO considers itself open to the option of a major war with at least one nuclear power – Russia is explicitly named here: “NATO must continue to have adequate conventional and nuclear military capabilities and have the agility and flexibility to counter aggression throughout the territory of the alliance, including where Russian forces operate either directly or indirectly, especially on the eastern flank of NATO.”
The strategic preparatory work for this orientation could have been done by a report on the great power competition, which was presented to the US Congress in March 2021. The paper, designed to maintain a leadership role for the US Army, states:
“The renewal of great power competition has led to renewed emphasis in US defense planning on capabilities to conduct so-called conventional warfare at the highest level, i.e. large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated conventional warfare against opponents with similarly sophisticated military capabilities. Maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent is the highest modernization priority in the National Defense Strategy. All three legs of the nuclear triad will be modernized simultaneously”
The modernisation priority includes the planned stationing of nuclear systems in Büchel near Koblenz in the next parliamentary term of the Bundestag, which will lower the threshold for the opening of a nuclear war. These arsenals, which are suitable for surprise attacks, are estimated to cost around 1.5 trillion euros, in addition to the gigantic EU military project of an integrated air combat system FCAS, which is currently being developed further, at around half of this sum. Such an immense and extensive use of the most valuable resources and of creativity for systems of destruction that are capable of causing a final catastrophe for humanity is not to be blamed, even from an ecological and also from a social point of view, if they are never used. Despite the explosive nature of the decisions of the last NATO summit, the peace movement is the only spectrum from which enlightenment and protest can be heard. The criticism of the peace cooperative follows the networked approach by emphasizing: “Spending billions on armaments is irresponsible in times of corona and climate change. The money is urgently needed in civilian areas.”
It’s more than that.