By Medea Benjamin and David Swanson, April 4, 2025
We are passionate supporters of all but one of the items on the Hands Off agenda for the April 5 rallies. We couldn’t agree more that the corrupt U.S. government should stop destroying, privatizing, firing, and giving away the post office, schools, land, Social Security, healthcare, environmental protections, and all sorts of essential public services. But we are deeply disturbed to see NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) on the list of items that we are rallying to protect.
Many people believe that NATO is a peace-loving, defensive alliance, but the opposite is true. During the past 30 years, NATO has fomented a vast arc of violence stretching from Libya to Afghanistan, leaving villages bombed, infrastructure destroyed, and countless dead.
Originally formed in opposition to the Soviet Union, NATO not only failed to disband with the fall of the Soviet Union, but it increased from 16 members in 1991 to 32 members today. Despite promises not to expand eastward, it ploughed ahead against the advice of senior, experienced U.S. diplomats who warned that this would inflame tensions with Russia. While Russia bears full responsibility for invading Ukraine, in violation of the UN Charter, we cannot deny the disastrous role played by NATO in provoking and then prolonging the war in Ukraine. Two years ago, then NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that insisting on NATO membership for Ukraine had brought on the Ukraine war. “[Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders,” he said.
The inclusion of NATO in the Hands Off list contradicts the basic Hands Off agenda. Right now, at the bidding of President Trump, NATO is openly and aggressively pressuring its member nations to move money from healthcare, retirement funds, and clean energy to weapons and militarism. Watch a video of the Secretary General of NATO publicly telling the European Union to move money from healthcare and retirement to war. It should be clear which side of the Hands Off agenda NATO is on.
NATO is a destabilizing, law-breaking force for militarization and war provocation. Its existence makes wars, including nuclear wars, more likely. Its hostility toward the few significant militaries in the world that are not among its members fuels arms races and conflicts. The commitment of NATO members to join each others’ wars and NATO’s pursuit of enemies far from the North Atlantic risk global destruction.
We would be happy to expand the Hands Off demands to international issues, such as Hands Off Palestine or Yemen or Greenland or Panama or Canada. But we do object to including a destructive institution like NATO, an institution that systematically and grossly violates the commitment to settle disputes peacefully contained in the UN Charter. If we are truly committed to human needs and the environment, as well as peace, diplomacy, and the UN Charter, then we should eliminate NATO from the Hands Off agenda.
We should go beyond that. We should recognize that while many government agencies are being unfairly cut and need to be defended, one enormous agency that makes up over half of federal discretionary spending is being drastically increased and needs to be cut. That is the Pentagon. The U.S. government spends more on war and war preparation than on all other discretionary items combined. Of 230 other countries, the U.S. spends more on militarism than 227 of them combined. Russia and China spend a combined 21% of what the U.S. and its allies spend on war. Of 230 other countries, the U.S. exports more weaponry than 228 of them combined. The U.S. spends more on war per capita than any other nation, except Israel.
This is not normal or acceptable, or compatible with funding human and environmental needs. NATO has taught people to measure military spending as a percentage of a nation’s economy, as if war were a public service to be maximized. Trump has recently switched from demanding 2% of economies for war to 3%, and then almost immediately to 5%. There’s no logical limit.
Companies that profit from war, like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, will always push for more military spending. So will NATO. While NATO allies consider Russia their most immediate and direct threat, their long-term adversary is China. The constant search for enemies leads to a vicious cycle of arms races. But there is a different path: the pursuit of disarmament negotiations, the rule of law and global cooperation. If we pursued that path, we could move massive amounts of money away from weapons to invest in addressing the non-optional dangers of climate, disease, and poverty.
The rational and moral international piece of the Hands Off agenda should be to eliminate both NATO and the voracious militarism that threaten the future of life on this planet.
Medea Benjamin and David Swanson are coauthors of the book NATO: What You Need to Know.
##
20 Responses
The headline is Why are Hands Off rallies supporting NATO. I was hoping for some insight on the organization which would lead to that answer. I suspect, perhaps Democratic Party control, but you did not even suggest that.
yes it’s Democrats — that’s not a secret
Unfortunately, many did not understand the Dem connection beforehand and many still don’t understand that connection.
The endorsement of NATO does NOT contradict the HandsOff agenda at all when one understands the Dem connection and what they are trying to do here. I wish you folks had explained that part more fully.
so where did the “hands off” campaign get its start then? what party, corporate entity, or organization, or billionaire is behind it?
the Democratic Party
Garland Nixon did an interesting YouTube, HANDS OFF PROTEST – “FORMER” STATE DEPT OPERATIVE HELPED MASTERMIND SUSPICIOUSLY PRO WAR OPERATION, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fed8_VH2QqA , where he talks about Indivisible , its founders and sponsors and why it supports NATO.
THANK YOU FOR THIS EXCELLENT EXPOSE OF NATO.! It is time the world wakes up to this organization created to offset the aggressive USSR. But it should have stopped in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact stopped. NATO is no longer defensive! It is offensive and has deceived millions who still connect Putin in 2000 with Stalin! I will forward this widely to family and friends!!
You’re welcome. Thanks.
Excellent!!
https://www.veteransforpeace.org/position-statements
Peace
yes we like VFP statements
Medea Benjamin and David Swanson wrote on April 4, 2025
in https://worldbeyondwar.org/why-are-hands-off-rallies-supporting-nato/:
I am in full agreement with what they say about NATO.
I am NOT in agreement with this:
> … While Russia bears full responsibility for invading Ukraine …
This is absolutely NOT true.
Watch “The Scene of the Crime” about the Odessa Trades Hall Massacre in 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2-dimsCtH8&t=1s
Ukrainian Nazis were doing genocide on the ethnic Russian areas.
Russia acted after more than ten years of it.
and this fact brings
> … in violation of the UN Charter …
into question.
The rest of this is fairly accurate. Except this, in light of the above:
> … we cannot deny the disastrous role played by NATO in provoking and then prolonging the war in Ukraine. Two years ago, then NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that insisting on NATO membership for Ukraine had brought on the Ukraine war. “[Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders,” he said.
We’ve addressed the childish notion that when someone has done something wrong everyone else must be perfect angels at endless and ridiculous length. Start here https://worldbeyondwar.org/ukraine
Thank you very much, David and Medea, for your April 4th piece on why NATO should be off our “Hands Off!” lists. It’s very important to state this so explicitly and clearly, and now to get this message out there to ALL “Hands Off!” organizers, and to those organizing the related May Day actions (https://maydaystrong.org/).
You might want to connect with those organzing a “Next Systems” convergence for next November, which I only recently read about: https://nextsystem.org/. I wish but also cannot speak for the organization I work most with, the Alliance For Just Money. But I hope one day all active within AFJM — AND within CodePink and World Beyond War and Mennonite Action, among other peace orgs — agree that the connection between our private, debt-based money system and the military industrial complex is systemic, and in order to get to a World Beyond War — as we MUST asap! — we have to change our money system into a 100% public money system.
The latter is also not an easy lift! But if peace, social & economic justice, and sustainability orgs recognized the systemic connection, and endorsed monetary reform work even if you yourselves can’t work on it, the lift would get easier. Here’s a upcoming webinar at which you can learn more: https://monreform.org/hockett-webinar-afjm/. Even if all you do is read the landing page for it, you’ll learn something. Or check out https://www.monetaryalliance.org/.
We are part of planning NextSystem — it’s in all our email newsletters.
Great!
I should have added to my prior post that (1) disarming, rather than further and greater arming of, the sacred cow of NATO, (2) and refocusing NATO and the international community on the rule of law and global cooperation are CRUCIAL at this juncture of history, with or without monetary reform. It’s just much harder, if not impossible, to achieve that disarmament within our existing private-interest driven, debt-based money system.
Thanks, ~~Lucille
“while Russia bears full responsibility for invading Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter”
This is stated repetitively with an acknowledgement that Nato provoked the war, but leaves out that Nato/US rejected the Security Council Minks peace agreement and the agreed to Istanbul communique. It also leaves out that the US was not just provoking Russia but seeking a proxy war to weaken Russia, even divide it up. No context of the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and Open Skies Treaty. Would any nation not have a security interest in not having an opposing army mobilized on its border and have missiles 5 to 10 minutes from its cites? We now have Biden and Austin, Trump and Rubio stating that the US aimed to “weaken” Russia. Arnaud Bertand listed strategic thinkers who believed that Nato expansion under Clinton could lead to war because Russia, not just Putin, believed that Nato expansion was an existential threat. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1700719253685678286.html
We regret not including the history of the world in every post, but we do have a website that is pretty darn comprehensive, and a good place to start is at https://worldbeyondwar.org/ukraine
I am guessing NATO is on the list because Mark Rutte was at the White House a month ago and Trump tried to rope NATO into helping him take over Greenland.
Wouldn’t that be nice if the DNC gave a damn about Greenland! They think Trump is shutting NATO down. They don’t care that he’s using it for wars and weapons sales!!!!!!!!