What NATO 2030 is about: confronting China’s and Russia’s “authoritarian pushback against international order”


That is what NATO 2030 is about: “China and Russia are at the forefront of an authoritarian pushback against rules-based international order”

Rick Rozoff

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg held a press conference today, February 15, at the military bloc’s headquarters in Brussels ahead of the February 17-18 meeting of NATO defense chiefs.

As has been its wont for the past decade or more, NATO arrogates to itself the right to address most every issue on the planet; these include, in Stoltenberg’s comments today, such non-military topics as climate change (“NATO should set the gold standard on reducing emissions”).

As Stoltenberg reiterated in his talk, NATO is a political as well as military bloc, and its politics inevitably align with those of the Pentagon, the U.S. State Department, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the European Union, the World Economic Forum – in short, the conglomerate that is the post-Cold War neoliberal global order.

Even the title of NATO’s current decade-long project, NATO 2030, is an echo of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. The globalist institutions work in tandem, march in lockstep; NATO’s unique role in the arrangement is providing the bombs, missiles, warships, strategic aircraft and submarines for the advancement of the joint project.

NATO’s current Strategic Concept, adopted in 2010, identifies – among many other issues it feels both qualified and entitled to respond to – piracy, cyber security, climate change and global warming, storms and flooding, rising sea levels, water shortages and drought, cross-border migration, diminished food production, natural disasters, humanitarian crises, dependence on “foreign sources of fuel energy” and supplies emanating from nations NATO desires to drive out of regional and world markets, carbon dioxide emissions, “factories or energy stations or transmission lines or ports” that require protection, the melting of the Arctic ice cap and, residually, international terrorism – though the latter more in Eastern Ukraine than in the Levant where NATO is aligned with active practitioners thereof.

Today the NATO chief advocated upgrading the Strategic Concept, presumably to include yet more pretexts for intervention around the world.

One doesn’t have to look far for a causus belli with such a wide-sweeping panorama of reasons for the world’s oldest and history’s largest military alliance to intervene with its customary array of fighter jets, cruise missiles, drones, depleted uranium ordnance and cluster bombs.

Stoltenberg’s comments came ahead of not only this week’s meeting of defense chiefs but also of this year’s NATO summit in Brussels.

He also alluded to several distinct NATO activities in this single sentence: “We will also address burden-sharing, and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will meet with our partners Finland, Sweden, as well as EU High Representative Borrell.”

NATO and the EU are two sides of the same multinational coin, sharing as they do military assets and commanders under Berlin Plus arrangements. Burden-sharing is NATO’s term for among other matters the stationing of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey.

NATO has been involved in the war in Afghanistan since 2001 (“While no Ally wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than necessary, we will not leave before the time is right”) and that in Iraq since 2004 (“I expect Ministers will agree to launch an expanded mission, with more Allied personnel training and advising in more security institutions across the country”). There is no indication that it plans to leave either nation; quite the contrary, NATO has bristled whenever the former Trump administration mooted the point of doing so.

A withdrawal of American and NATO troops from the Middle East and South Asia would be a “violation of Euro-Atlantic trust.” NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan (and in neighboring Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan), where it commanded a 55-nation force that dwarfs any other wartime coalition in history, was an obligation it assumed by the only activation to date of its Article 5 collective military assistance provision, which Stoltenberg also alluded to today (“Spending more together would demonstrate the strength of our commitment to Article 5, our promise to defend each other”).

His most revealing, and surely most alarming, comment was this: “We need to take a more global approach to deal with global challenges….China and Russia are at the forefront of an authoritarian pushback against rules-based international order.”

This is the sort of Manichean rhetoric not heard since the very depth of the Cold War or the World War II fight against the Axis powers.

An authoritarian threat to the international order would seem to demand not only a response, but the most drastic of responses. Notwithstanding NATO’s dubious characterization of the “threat” in question, the bloc is not hesitant to disclose some of the measures it’s resorted to in combating this unprecedented threat.

Stoltenberg mentioned, for example, “Allied deployments in our battlegroups in the eastern part of our Alliance, air policing, maritime deployments and exercises.” NATO multinational battlegroups have been stationed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (all bordering Russia) since 2014, with an equivalent now also in Romania; NATO warplanes have been in Lithuania since 2004 and Estonia since 2014.

He also listed the need to “adopt clearer and more measurable national resilience targets to ensure a minimum standard of shared resilience among Allies,” to address problems “stemming from foreign ownership and influence.” NATO interoperability mandates purchasing arms and equipment only from other NATO members and partners, alleged security concerns aside.

Indeed he added: “To preserve our technological edge, I will propose a NATO defence innovation initiative. To promote interoperability and boost transatlantic cooperation on defence innovation.”

To sustain the announced confrontation with Russia and China, Stoltenberg ended his address by reminding listeners that:

2021 will be the seventh consecutive year of increased defence spending.

Since 2014, European Allies and Canada have contributed a cumulative extra of 190 billion US dollars.

Nine Allies are expected to spend 2 % of GDP on defence.

Twenty-four Allies are expected to spend at least 20 % of investment in equipment.
Conflict with China and Russia doesn’t come cheap. Not in financial terms. Not in diplomatic terms. Nor in economic. Nor, if NATO’s strategy advances in the direction it’s headed toward, in human terms either.

Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. Le Cercle/Pilgrims Society

    “Le Cercle is a secretive, privately-funded, transnational discussion group which regularly meets in different parts of the world. It is attended by a mixture of politicians, ambassadors, bankers, shady businessmen, oil experts, editors, publishers, military officers and intelligence agents, who may or may not have retired from their official functions. The participants come from western or western-oriented countries. Many historical members tend to be affiliated with aristocratic circles in London or obscure elements within the Vatican, and accusations of links to fascism are anything but uncommon in this milieu”.

    “Worse, more than a few of its core members can be linked to the CIA’s Cold War “Strategy of Tension”, in which underground fascist militias almost certainly were used to carry out “communist” terror campaigns to push countries moving too far to the left back towards the right. Some of these campaigns were extremely bloody and cost a lot of innocent lives”.
    From the Institute for the Study of Globalization
    and Covert Politics website. (ispg)

  2. Let me add to the below comment that Europe is host to profound spiritual movements that are almost completely unknown to Americans. This is because Americans are too lazy and stupid to learn European languages or to travel widely in Europe and delve into its culture outside of guided tours, river cruises, and beer halls.

    • Finally, I would like to suggest that if you want to understand the origins of the EU, it’s mandatory to study the writings of Douglas Reed, Otto Strasser, and Julius Evola. Feel free to look them up on Wikipedia. All three are anathema to Anglo-American-Zionist scholars–all really Bolshevists–because they have been labeled right-wing or anti-Semitic. Wikipedia is a Bolshevist screed by the way. So are RT and Sputnik. Evola makes it quite clear that the EU has deep historical roots, manifesting early on in the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. And yes, it was Holy, it was Roman, and it was an Empire–of the spirit. And actually the Catholic Church competed with the HRE and was instrumental in its destruction by its false claims to secular power over kings and princes. In our own time, the Jesuits at least seem to have repented a bit so helped the EU get going.

  3. So we are supposed to cancel NATO, and presumably the EU, so that the world can be carved up by the US, Russia, and China? Neither of which is any more authoritarian than the U.S. and its Zionist clients.
    NATO was created at the instigation of Great Britain and its great post-World War II foreign minister Ernest Bevin who was appalled at what Roosevelt and his communist staffers did at Yalta in turning Eastern Europe over to the Soviet Union. He was also dead set against Morgenthau’s plan to turn Germany into farmland. So Bevin lobbied hard for the Marshall Plan.
    Putin says he want a multi-polar world. Well, one of the primary nodes of the multi-polar world is going to be Europe, with East and West united, behind a collective security shield called NATO, with Germany and France in the cockpit, and with the support of the Catholic Church. Since Great Britain committed suicide with Brexit, the main bad apple is gone and good riddance.
    The Vatican has no plan to conspire with anyone to create the New World Order. The Vatican is entirely behind the EU, however, because it does not want any more civil wars on the European continent.
    At some point, of course, NATO will morph into a European military that will have to power it needs to defend a population of over 100 million.
    Get used to it.

    • Roosevelt turning Eastern Europe over to the Soviet Union?? You should thank for that, the Soviet Union could had grab whole Europe if Stalin had wanted and not eastern alone.

Comments are closed.