NATO: What You Need To Know

by Medea Benjamin, David Swanson

What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)? What role is played by its members and partners? Does the largest military alliance ever to exist serve the cause of peace or the causes of weapons sales and war mongering? Published to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the alliance, this sharp, concise account examines NATO's origins, structure, and its goals at a time of mounting global tension.

NATO has remade itself repeatedly, as its past purposes have disappeared. In the last 35 years it has been part of wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. It has played a major role in Ukraine, and supported warmaking by Israel. NATO is now expanding rapidly, both in geography and in scope, adding partners from Colombia to Mongolia to Australia, and claiming a role in policing, immigration, economics, public budgeting, scientific research, and environmental protection.

With pointed investigations of how NATO's decisions are made, the widely misunderstood question of the way it is funded, its relationship to international law, and the available alternatives to it, NATO: What You Need to Know is an indispensable primer on an organization that not only confronts expanding military conflict but, the authors contend, plays an active part in its escalation.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction

192 pages, Paperback

Published July 2, 2024

About the author

Benjamin grew up in Long Island, New York, a self-described "nice Jewish girl." During her freshman year at Tufts University, she renamed herself after the Greek mythological character Medea. She received master's degrees in public health from Columbia University and in economics from The New School.

Benjamin worked for 10 years as an economist and nutritionist in Latin America and Africa for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the Swedish International Development Agency, and the Institute for Food and Development Policy. She spent four years in Cuba, and has authored three books on the country.

In 1988 with Kevin Danaher, her husband, and Kirsten Moller, Benjamin co-founded the San Francisco-based Global Exchange, which advocates fair trade alternatives to what she describes as corporate globalization. She is a co-founder of the left-wing feminist anti-war group Code Pink: Women for Peace, which advocated an end to the Iraq War, the prevention of future wars, and social justice. Benjamin has also been involved with the left-wing anti-war organization United for Peace and Justice.

Reviews

[Randall Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

A 2014 Gallup Poll conducted in 65 nations found the US was “by far, the country considered the largest threat to peace in the world.” I know what you’re thinking: “Hooray, We are number one!” In fact, 85% of Mexico, 86% of Japan, 87% of Turkey, 80% of Germany, 79% of France, 79% of Spain, 76% of Australia, 74% of UK, and 74% of Canada think the US is the BIGGEST threat to world peace. A 2021 Poll by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation found that 44% of the 50,000 respondents in 53 countries felt that the US “threatened democracy in their country.” In that poll China had a threat level of 38% while the US liberal despised PutinLand (Russia) only got a 28% threat level. Liberal darlings Rachel Maddow and Heather Cox Richardson will never tell you any of this or anything else in this great book.

NATO was created “to defend Western Europe against a possible invasion by the Soviet Union.” Logically, when the Soviet Union ended, NATO should have ended, but it counter-intuitively expanded. US hegemony since the fall of the USSR requires breaking up Russia, but first needs NATO to be surrounding Russia. As Noam will tell you, the threat to US planners was NEVER communism it was nationalism. The Cold War was repeatedly fought against nationalists (Mosaddegh, Nassar, Allende, etc.. – any leaders who dared put their people above US bidding). Think of post-WWII as 4% of the world’s population dictating to the other 96%.

NATO (like the US and Israel) operates in a rogue fashion - it has repeatedly violated/ignored the precepts of UN Charter. Jeffrey Sachs calls NATO “a clear and present danger to world peace, a war machine run amok.” Nehru said NATO was “the most powerful protector of colonialism.” Nehru said NATO had kept Morocco, Algeria (NATO supported France over Algeria), and Tunisia from independence. NATO began with Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal (NATO helped Portugal control Guinea-Bissau, Angola, and Mozambique), the UK, and US. One third of original NATO were colonizers. Its job is to counter any threatening European nationalist militarism – except of course Israel’s. In response to NATO, the Soviet Union created the Warsaw Pact. Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952 when neither country was a democracy. Turkey got the NATO thumbs up to keep it away from the Soviet Union and gain access to the Bosporus Strait. Since 1952, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden, have all joined. NATO is the “most heavily armed military alliance in history.” NATO makes a great pyramid scheme because to join NATO you have to privatize your economy and accept – neoliberalism uber alles and so you can’t have state owned enterprises. NATO members are pressured to import US weapons – there’s endless serious profit in promoting violence but little of course in promoting peace and cooperation. “NATO members and partners together account for 69% of the world’s military spending.” Think of it as “billions ($) in weapons – weapons that have been field tested (on civilians) in Gaza.” Israel’s AI program Lavender “played a central role in the bombing that killed tens of thousands of people in Gaza.” Hey! Those civilians aren’t going to just kill and maim themselves!

Russia & Germany: US military officials have confessed (p.70) that the top means of increasing US military spending is hyping the threat of Russia. Rare is the American who knows that Russia was invaded three times since 1800 and presently might not enjoy the thought of a fourth invasion or NATO missiles pointed towards it. The US as world’s biggest bully doing what it does best. Know that when the USSR reasonably asked to join NATO in 1952, it was turned down by the US, UK and France. Putin’s request to join NATO was rejected in 2000. Not one US liberal will tell you that it is strange that post-WWII, our USSR & China allies quickly became our worst enemies while our enemy Germany became an intimate butt buddy. Our former arch enemy Germany “still stations at least 48,000 (US) troops at 45 bases in 2024.” And after WWII, the US brought more than 1,600 Nazi scientists to work in the US under Operation Paperclip, while the Soviets who actually won WII for us (80% of German casualties happened on the Eastern front, and 27.5 million Soviets died to make that happen) got vilified and hated. Classic role reversal. Let’s face it - the US can turn on any ally (Saddam anyone?) faster than Blake Lively did on Justin Baldoni.

Fun Facts: “Just 3% of the US military budget would end starvation on Earth, while 7% of it would end poverty in the US.” If you want the US to be feared instead of loved, diverting any of that moolah obviously CAN’T happen. Finland and Russia share an 830-mile border. Tomatoes are fruits. Of the more than 900 US military bases around the globe, 56 of them are used by NATO.

Liberals love to say that the US never promised Gorbachev to not move NATO one inch east, because the offer wasn’t in writing, but declassified US, Soviet, German, British and French documents all show that Soviets were given “multiple assurances.” All promises to not expand NATO to Russia’s borders were broken, leading not one US liberal to envision “what would US leaders think if a hostile military alliance surrounded the US with missiles pointed directly at it?” Give me a progressive any day as they still respect the golden rule. Even the chief architect of the Cold War George Kennan warned “that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” If Rachel Maddow never discusses the threat of NATO expansion, how will US liberals ever learn about it? “In 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts warned President Clinton not to expand NATO eastward” and that it was expensive and unnecessary, but Clinton ignored their warnings in favor of saying yes to both Poland and Monica Lewinsky to get its vote and her vote. Putin has mentioned the threat of NATO expansion many times but with so much present concern about the Kendrick Lamar/Drake feud, who honestly has time to be concerned about triggering WWIII and the end of civilization?

Yugoslavia: NATO destroyed Yugoslavia through illegal bombing – NATO’s violent actions are supposed to be ONLY defensive but in Bosnia and Serbia its actions were anything but. 23,000 bombs landed on Serbia alone “followed by the NATO invasion and occupation of the Serbian province of Kosovo.” Just as Israel covets the Occupied Territories, so too did the US covet stealing Kosovo in order to build the ludicrous Camp Bondsteel, which has not one but 52 helipads just on its western perimeter. You know, for those many times when you think having only 51 helipads is just NOT enough. Never mind that in 2002 Camp Bondsteel was exposed as a “secret CIA black site for illegal, unaccountable detention and torture” and “a smaller version of Guantanamo.” Hey, if you don’t routinely torture people, how will you foment enough terrorists to keep our endless bipartisan wars going? The people of Kosovo loved being ripped apart from Serbia and then in 2000, having “80% of the heroin trade in Europe controlled by Kosovar gangs” - yum! – the joy of “the presence of thousands of US and NATO troops fueled an explosion of prostitution and sex trafficking, also controlled by Kosovo’s new criminal ruling class.” You can imagine Kosovo parents routinely thanking the US for the heroin, the violence and their daughters being now brutally sex trafficked to jerk off troops in tents. Pause to salute the American flag.

Afghanistan: The US and NATO had lots of fun dropping 85,000 bombs and missiles over 20 years on Afghanistan farmers and remaining infrastructure. This will make you swell with pride: The US invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, and 20 years later left the country TO the Taliban - $2.3 trillion down the toilet just in Afghanistan to make yourself even MORE hated by the world – Mission Accomplished! To make SURE Afghanis hated the US with a white hot passion as a parting gift, the Biden administration “seized $9 billion in (Afghani) vital central bank reserves , leaving the economy in ruins and the Afghan people hungry.” An Afghan taxi driver told a journalist “Now with NATO we are fighting 28 countries, but we will defeat them too.” I love that a taxi driver knows more than the US military does. Priceless.

Libya: Shamelessly illegally destroying Libya (which offered its citizens free healthcare) was a bargain for NATO – its destruction only cost $3 billion. That will teach you NOT to offer free healthcare! Yum… And don’t forget “Peace negotiations in Libya and Ukraine were blocked by NATO.” And Medea also says, in Ukraine’s case all it had to do was “abide by existing agreements like those made in the 2015 Minsk Accords.”

Ukraine: In 2022 Russia offered to stop its invasion of Ukraine if it agreed to not join NATO or allow NATO bases on Ukraine soil. Zelensky was going to accept but one month later (April 9th, 2022), UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson flies to Kviv and warned him not to, and Zelensky caved. Russia tried to negotiate directly with the US but US officials said no – Hello? How can you have PERMANENT US bi-partisan war if you even think of peaceful solutions? Silly rabbit!

NATO: The Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg openly admitted “that it was NATO’s expansion that led to the Russian invasion”. Putin sent NATO a draft treaty promising no NATO enlargement. Jens said, “It was a pre-condition for not invading Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that, we rejected that. So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO close to his borders.” Poland and Finland both have missiles close to Russia trained at it. Imagine a single US liberal EVER telling you any of this. NATO interferes with elections and facilitates coups and engages in assassinations. The US “disregards the rulings of the International Court of Justice, refuses to join the International Criminal Court, and punishes other nations for doing so.” The US “has vetoed UN condemnation of South African apartheid, Israel’s wars and occupation, chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, US wars in Nicaragua and Grenada and Panama, the US embargo on Cuba, Rwandan genocide, the deployment of weapons in outer space, and much more.” The North Atlantic Treaty “seeks to obscure the fact that it is, indeed, authorizing warmaking outside of the United Nations.” When Trump called NATO obsolete (which it is), Congress “passed legislation banning the president from exiting NATO.” Medea writes, “the United States may one day be tempted to abandon NATO, but only if it sees a superior path to dominating the globe.” Only two countries in Africa have more than 50% support for NATO: Kenya and Liberia. Nowhere in Latin America does support for NATO go above 35%. In Asia, support for NATO only reaches 50% in Australia and New Zealand.

Medea’s Prescriptions: Instead of NATO, the US should pull its head out of its ass and join, “The Landmines Treaty, The Arms Trade Treaty, The Convention on Cluster Munitions, The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and the International Criminal Court.” And “it could end the practice of punishing other nations for supporting international courts” and maybe start adhering to international law itself. And “it could close the hundreds of military bases outside the United States.” But, granted that would put a lot of hookers around the world out of business. Medea defines NATO as “Not A Tenable Option”. I call it “Nations Addicted to Offense”.

Great book once again by Medea. I learned a lot, and you will too. Kudos.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this a valuable primer that sticks to a concise description of NATO's formation and evolution. Little ink is devoted to opinions or judgements. The authors rely on documented history to put substance to their narrative. They warn of the increasing risk of war and nuclear war that NATO's policies are marching the world toward. One obvious, but often unspoken fact, is that the USA retains control over NATO. US troops are never under the command of another country, unlike other NATO partners. The spread of NATO to the Pacific may surprise some as it belies the name itself. It is a short, easy read; quite worthwhile.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read.

[Kirill · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great short primer why NATO is a money eating war machine for the US.

Have to take a star for swinging a bit too much in the other direction: the authors claim that war in Ukraine is a purely Putin's reaction to NATO extension, and that Crimea joined Russia by overwhelming support. That is too much black and white skipping on all the nuance, cant subscribe to that.

[Vince · Rating 4 out of 5]

5 stars for the first half which covers the incarnation of NATO to relatively modern times. The second half falls down a bit as some (not many) erroneous non-NATO "facts" creep in. Plus an obligatory "What are the alternatives?" final section, which I must admit, that being "the glass is 3/4 empty kind of guy, I skimmed over very rapidly. Still a valuable quick read summary of the true purpose of this totally non-democratic organization and once advised it doesn't take too much imagination to expect what comes next. In fact, one could argue that we are witnessing (provided you are paying attention) such movements at hyper-speed.

[Charles Taillon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bon essai bien complet sur les enjeux liés à l'Otan. On arrive a bien comprendre dans quelle meaure cette alliance participe à la prolifération de la guerre un peu partout dans le monde. On parvient aussi à bien saisir les jeux de pouvoir qui ont maintenus cette alliance debout plus longtemps que ce qui était prévu.
4.3/5

[geakin · Rating 5 out of 5]

NATO is an extension of the US military, an essential component to their empire, and the biggest threat to peace. A must read.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like all David Swanson and Medea Benjamin’s books, this is a well-researched and debated work. It is a timely expose of an organisation that actually makes war more likely rather than deterring it.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received two OR books on a single day. I love their books, as they have me think. I may not agree with the material, but it I like that they have authors that present points of views that isn't yet part of the main stream media.

I'm a military history buff and follow the war in Ukraine through those on the ground. I was intrigued by this books premise to discuss NATO and its various issues.

As the authors state, the book is written as a primer. I took as that, for there are extensive notes that can be used as jump off points for further depth.

One point I didn't know was how extensive NATO's reach actually is. They were/are involved in Africa, for example. Not to help liberate, but to enforce colonialism.

Yugoslavia is a case in point as to how far NATO would go to meddle. Nothing good came out of that exercise.

The points about how NATO ensures that US defense contractors gain automatic deals, as the alliance wants to have as much similar equipment as possible. Fighter aircraft (F-16's) and air defense systems (Patriot) are two examples. The original structure really stacks the deck, one that continues to this day.

I disagree when it comes to Russia. The authors seem to give the post-Soviet Russians a free pass, that the Russians would be fine if NATO wasn't expanding. I feel it is a bit of projection to overlay reasonable thinking over a country that has a very different point of view. The Soviets always thought NATO was going to invade, even though NATO never had that intention. Instead, the Soviet leadership ascribed what they would do to the West. (It is an ever common theme in history of not fully comprehending the culture of another place) The Russians have been stirring up trouble for more than 20 years, with Ukraine bearing the brunt of it. The Russians want to keep expanding just like everyone else.

[Michael Hutchison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glad I read this book. So many of us just accept NATO as the good guy. An organization created after WW2 involving 12 nations to deter Soviet expansionism, stop the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe, and encourage European political integration. It certainly has not ended up that way. NATO is the most powerful alliance and conglomeration of state partners in the world. All dominated by the United States. NATO has expanded to 32 members now. Mostly after the fall of the Soviet Union. In order to keep expanding they created NATO partners. Members and partners would bring the number of participating states up to 66. That creates quite a market for weapons purchases. From reading this book it becomes evident that NATO is not defensive but aggressive and expansionist. It starts illegal wars like the one in Libya. As far as Ukraine is concerned, I think the evidence is strong that NATO at the direction of the US pushed this war into starting. I was also surprised to find out that there are two supreme commanders of NATO. The "Supreme Allied Commander Europe". All 20 of which have been from the United States. The "Supreme Allied Commander Transformation". Based in Norfolk Virginia. Tasked with transforming NATO into an institution to police the globe. Much different than the original intent of NATO. So much more information in the 150 page primer. I would recommend everyone read it to get a better understanding of what NATO really is and the near absolute control the US has over it.

[Matthew O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

a great book about NATO. Medea's book about the war in Ukraine is also worth a read. A nice small book that is very easy to understand. I particularly enjoyed learning about NATO crimes in Kosovo and Libya.

the only issue I have with the book is that it says the answer is non-violent resistance. This is wrong, As the great Kwame Ture once said " [MLK's] major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none."

[Nikita Vasilev · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm not a fan of NATO, globalism and interventionism, but...
To denounce that book one doesn't have to dig deep. On the second page we can see the next phrase:
"Bringing its history of aggression up to date, we look at NATO’s role in the Ukraine conflict, including its provocative call for Ukraine to become a NATO member, its role in the 2014 coup [sic!] ..."
No further explanation needed, as for a sane person it's clearly a propaganda pamphlet, nothing more.

[z · Rating 4 out of 5]

as someone who knows nothing about NATO but desperately wants to, this book has been a great starting point. special thanks for including the loads of sources in the "notes" section at the end of the book! i definitely worry about consuming biased information esp when it comes to NATO which already has so much propaganda around it - i love that this book gives us information while also providing sources for us to view ourselves.

[Charlie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful primer on an impactful organization that I have only ever had passing familiarity. Inspires further thought and reading.

[klara · Rating 4 out of 5]

j'ai lu ça pr le boulot mais c'était cool merci

[Françoise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super intéressant

[Marcy Winograd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic Resource!

For those tempted to think NATO is a defensive alliance, this book will change their world view to unmask NATO as an offensive alliance that escalates the arms race. The book, a foundational text on NATO, answers all sorts of commonly asked questions: When has NATO invoked Article 5? What was NATO’s role in Bosnia, Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan and Ukraine? What might be the alternative to NATO? Informative and lively!

[w]

A true eye-opener.

[Claudia Klos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Très informatif, je ne me rendais pas compte de l’opacité de l’OTAN. Pas convaincue par l’idée qu’un pays membre devienne davantage une cible après d’être entré qu’avant.