SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nato
Protest and Social Change in Europe: Can Students Shift Budget Priorities?
The banging of war drums in France and the student protests there for better schools bring to the fore the class interests of the rulers and the ruled.
Nov 01, 2026
A recent Al Jazeera piece entitled, “Can Protests in Europe Bring About Change?” is instructive. A guest from academia shared a key assumption behind the budget priorities of the Macron government in France, as high school students protested for improved learning and teaching conditions, amid a drop in living standards; the affordability crisis of rising fuel, food, and rent prices; and stagnating wages.
The economic crisis of neoliberal capitalism for the poor and working classes, with youth protesters pushing back against this order, is playing out in the streets of Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Spain, along with Albania and Serbia (non-European Union nations). Back to “Can protests in Europe bring about change?” Rainbow Murray, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, stated in the Al Jazeera piece that there are obstacles to the French government increasing its investments in public services such as education.
Why? The professor cited Russia's threat to France. The corporate and upper class control of the national government is not a threat to the working class majority, apparently.
The political donor class in France’s private sector benefits from Macron's budget priorities. High school students and their teachers don’t benefit. This contradiction seeks a resolution, one that is impossible to predict.
That ideology serves the economic interests of a tiny minority against a laboring many across neoliberal capitalist governments in the Global North. EU student protests for more government spending on public services such as education have no parallel in the US. American student protests that have come the closest to the French uprising have been walkouts against school shootings, such as the recent one in Bend, Oregon.
In the meantime, France is stepping up military spending to defend against apparent threats from Russia, despite or because of its war with Ukraine. President Emmanuel Macron has called for French rearmament to accelerate, doubling military spending in the 2027 budget from its level in 2017, when the first of his two terms began.
French high school students see their government’s funneling money into the military instead of their education as unacceptable. Students' rejection of that budget priority brings its importance to the national but also global radar screen. That's an important development, broadening the boundaries of the possible outcomes for the poor and working class across the Global North.
In the meantime, the political donor class in France’s private sector benefits from Macron's budget priorities. High school students and their teachers don’t benefit. This contradiction seeks a resolution, one that is impossible to predict.
It's easier to look back at government budget decisions. Here's one. “French carmaker Renault has agreed to cooperate with French defence company Turgis Gaillard to produce drones for Ukraine in a move supported by the French Ministry of Defence,” according to the Financial Times. For Renault, profits in drone making versus car making are fine.
Meanwhile, the Russian bear is threatening France. The same bear that lost 27 million people defeating the German Nazis in World War II also threatened the US during the Cold War. In both cases, a threat from Russia has fueled increased military spending.
The geopolitical context of France’s student protests is the unprovoked and unpopular US-Israel attack on Iran and Ukraine’s US- and NATO-backed war with Russia. Geopolitics flows from the profit interests of the domestic donor class. Look no farther than the tech billionaires profiting from fat government contracts after donating millions of dollars to the president, GOP politicians, and so-called opposition Democrats who support forever wars now and in the post-World War II past.
The banging of war drums in France and the student protests there for better schools bring to the fore the class interests of the rulers and the ruled. Will protests in Europe yield social change that improves the lives of protesters? To say that's a heavy lift is an understatement, given the resources that the prosperous few have—beginning with government violence, a fascist option—to maintain a status quo.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Framework for Peace in Ukraine
This proposed settlement—designed to help end a conflict that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and carries a continuing risk of confrontation—addresses the causes of the war rather than only its symptoms.
Oct 20, 2026
The war in Ukraine can be ended permanently on terms that protect Ukraine's statehood, meet Russia's security concerns, and lay the foundation for a durable European security order. As another round of negotiations gears up in Norway, I propose a settlement concluded as a single package, signed by Ukraine and Russia, adopted by a vote of the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, and guaranteed jointly by the five permanent members of the Council together with other states that choose to join. The proposal rests on the principle of indivisible security set out in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris.
The package would have four core commitments.
The first is Ukraine's permanent neutrality, adopted in a constitutional law on the model of Austria's law of 1955, which would return Ukraine to the founding choice of its Declaration of State Sovereignty of 1990. Ukraine would join no military alliance and host no foreign bases or forces, whether of NATO, the European Union, their member states, or Russia. Neutrality would not mean disarmament, and Ukraine would retain armed forces for its own defense.
The second is that Ukraine would pursue its candidacy for membership in the European Union as a permanently neutral state, with a neutrality protocol in its accession treaty on the model of Ireland's, and Russia would affirm that Ukraine's membership in the EU is consistent with Russia's security.
The third is an armistice line drawn along the line of contact on the date of signature. Each side would exercise de facto jurisdiction on its side of the line, neither would recognize the other's territorial claims, and both would renounce force in any future adjustment. This formula is compatible with both countries' constitutions, which bar or severely restrict the cession of territory.
The fourth is the end of NATO enlargement eastward. At signature the North Atlantic Council would declare that NATO will not admit Ukraine or other new members in Eastern Europe or the South Caucasus, withdrawing the Bucharest pledge of 2008.
The settlement would take effect as a permanent end of hostilities on signature, not as a temporary ceasefire, and its provisions would be implemented in stages under international verification. No element would be negotiated in isolation, and no party would be asked to make a concession in advance of signature.
The territorial arrangements are designed to address the concerns and claims of both sides. Ukrainian forces would withdraw from the part of Donetsk region that Ukraine now controls, which would become a demilitarized special zone. Russian forces would not enter it, the existing local civil administration would continue to function, and its final status would be left to negotiation. Russia would withdraw from the areas it holds in Dnipropetrovsk region and from the Kinburn Spit. A Northern Security Zone would be demilitarized on both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian border, and Russian forces would leave the areas they hold in Kharkiv and Sumy regions as Ukrainian forces withdraw from their side. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would remain under Russian control with IAEA safety oversight and would sell an agreed share of its electricity to Ukraine at cost.
A demilitarized belt would run along both sides of the armistice line, with heavy weapons and long-range strike systems withdrawn to agreed distances, and mutual ceilings on forces would apply in the border regions on both sides. In the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, commercial navigation would be free for all Ukrainian and Russian ports, and attacks on shipping and ports would be prohibited.
The settlement in Ukraine should also begin the repair of European security as a whole. NATO and Russia would agree on a moratorium on ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in Europe, refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in any additional state, and restore the NATO-Russia Council. Normal diplomatic relations would be restored on both sides. The parties would convene the first summit of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe since 2010 to entrust the OSCE with monitoring the settlement, verifying arms limits, and overseeing the provisions on rights.
Questions of language, education, culture, and religion would be resolved according to European standards, with the Russian language treated on the same basis as Ukraine's other minority languages, and Russia would accept the same obligations toward Ukrainian speakers and religious communities on its side of the line. All obligations concerning extremism and incitement would be mutual and monitored by the OSCE. Prisoners of war would be exchanged on an all-for-all basis, detained civilians released, and separated children reunited with their families.
Sanctions would be lifted during 2027. Russia's immobilized sovereign assets would also be released, and private property seized or immobilized on both sides would be restored. An international reconstruction fund administered by the European Investment Bank would finance reconstruction on both sides of the line, with contributions from all parties, Russia included, in a common effort rather than as reparations. Gas transit through Ukraine could resume wherever there are willing buyers, without any commitment by the European Union to purchase Russian gas.
A report of serious violation by an OSCE monitoring mission of unarmed observers from states outside NATO would trigger consultations among the guarantors and referral to the Security Council. Ukraine would lift martial law and hold elections under OSCE observation, and the newly elected Verkhovna Rada would ratify the settlement and adopt the constitutional law on neutrality, while the Russian Federal Assembly would ratify it at the same stage.
This proposed settlement addresses the causes of the war rather than only its symptoms. Europe has been largely absent from the design of the peace. By putting forward such a framework, European governments can take the lead in building Europe’s indivisible security and help end a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and carries a continuing risk of confrontation between nuclear powers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Books or Bombs? France’s Student Revolt vs. NATO’s Spending Push
The student struggle comes at a moment when France faces mounting pressure to cut public spending while dramatically increasing its military budget. Will France invest in its young people—or in missiles, weapons, and war?
Oct 09, 2026
For the third week in a row, high school students across France are taking to the streets demanding more investment in their education. They want more teachers, smaller classes, decent school buildings, and a public education system that works for poor and working-class students.
But their struggle comes at a moment when France faces mounting pressure to cut public spending while dramatically increasing its military budget. The question at the heart of this uprising goes far beyond education: Will France invest in its young people—or in missiles, weapons, and war? Books or bombs?
What began in the Paris suburbs has spread to more than a thousand schools. On October 6, more than 250,000 people reportedly took to the streets in demonstrations supporting the students.
An entire generation is being asked to accept austerity while Europe embarks on one of its largest military buildups since the Cold War.
The government's response has only deepened the anger. Instead of addressing students' demands, authorities have unleashed riot police, tear gas, grenades, and mass arrests. More than 6,500 people have reportedly been arrested since the protests began, most of them minors. Some young protesters have suffered horrific injuries, including a 15-year-old who lost his hand after a police grenade exploded. Amnesty International has condemned what it calls the "disproportionate" use of force against young people peacefully demanding their right to education.
The contrast is striking: Students are asking for teachers and decent schools, while the government deploys riot police against them—and finds billions more for its military.
The student movement is unfolding just as NATO is pressuring European governments to massively increase military spending. Under intense pressure from Washington, NATO leaders agreed in 2025 to a staggering new target: 5% of each member country's GDP by 2035. At least 3.5% is supposed to go directly to military expenditures, with another 1.5% devoted to military-related infrastructure, cybersecurity, and "resilience."
This represents an enormous shift from NATO's previous 2% target, which many members already struggled to meet. For countries facing growing deficits, heavy debt, and deteriorating public services, such an increase comes at a steep price.
France provides a glaring example. The country has nearly $4 trillion in public debt—roughly 119% of GDP, one of the highest levels in Europe. To tackle its deficit, the government has proposed approximately $48 billion in spending cuts and tax increases, putting already strained public services under even greater pressure.
Yet even as the government demands belt-tightening, its proposed 2027 budget increases military spending by approximately $7.2 billion in a single year, compared with just $1.2 billion more for education. The education budget would also eliminate 1,588 permanent teaching positions.
Imagine being a 16-year-old sitting in an overcrowded classroom, with a leaking ceiling and no regular teacher, hearing that your government cannot afford better schools—but can somehow find billions more for weapons.
France's own fiscal watchdog has pointed out that increases in central government spending are being driven largely by rising interest payments, contributions to the European Union, and increased military expenditures.
NATO officials insist that this massive military buildup is necessary to protect Europe from Russia and other threats. But the notion that Russia is poised to invade France is absurd, and the push for ever-greater military spending raises a fundamental question: What kind of security is the French government actually providing if their schools, hospitals, and other public services are left to deteriorate?
France is not alone. Students and teachers in Belgium, Spain, and Portugal have also taken to the streets over education funding and working conditions, reflecting growing frustration across Europe with governments that claim there is not enough money for basic public services.
An entire generation is being asked to accept austerity while Europe embarks on one of its largest military buildups since the Cold War. Political leaders may insist that education and military spending are separate issues. But they compete for the same limited public resources.
And some French students are already making that connection themselves. Protest signs have declared, "Money for schools, not war" and "Fund high schools, not genocide," linking their immediate demands to the broader question of what—and whom—the government chooses to fund.
These young people are challenging the very definition of security. NATO measures security in tanks, missiles, drones, and ammunition. The students are demanding another kind of security: decent schools, equal opportunity, and a society that invests in their future instead of sacrificing it to an endless arms buildup.
Their demands should resonate throughout the NATO alliance, including in the United States, where public services are under attack while President Donald Trump seeks a staggering 54% increase in the military budget.
That's why CODEPINK and allied groups are organizing a Taxpayer Uprising in Washington, DC, November 10-12, bringing people into the halls of Congress to demand a fundamental reorientation of our national priorities. Instead of funneling ever more tax dollars into war and weapons manufacturers, our government should invest in healthcare, education, affordable housing, green energy, and a sustainable future.
From the classrooms of France to the halls of Congress, the question is the same: Will our governments invest in life—or in war? Books or bombs?
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Has Trump’s Invasion of Greenland Already Begun?': Experts Fearful as MAGA-Linked Oil Company Prepares Unauthorized Drilling
"Let nobody think Trump has given up on taking Greenland," warned one professor of European politics.
Aug 08, 2026
After appearing to back off earlier this year, President Donald Trump this week renewed his threats to seize Greenland. A Saturday report that a Texas oil company with ties to Trump had begun preparing to drill in the Arctic territory without permission has raised fresh concerns that his push for control of the island may already be moving beyond rhetoric.
As The Guardian reported, Greenland’s government issued a “strong warning” last week after learning that a Texas oil company called Greenland Energy had begun making unauthorized preparations for oil extraction in Jameson Land, a remote area of eastern Greenland, including bringing drilling materials ashore.
The company, founded last year, has claimed that Jameson Land may contain $1 trillion worth of crude oil and announced plans to drill two wells there—a project that requires approval from Greenland’s government.
The company also has ties to several Trump allies and associates. According to The Guardian:
Greenland Energy has retained Phil McGraw, better known as Dr. Phil, a prominent right-wing former chatshow host who served on Trump’s religious freedom commission, to make a documentary series that will “capture the mission of these modern-day wildcatters.”
It has also appointed as a director a US Navy veteran who is working on Golden Dome, the missile defense plan for which Trump says controlling Greenland is “vital.”
Larry Swets, Greenland Energy’s chair and a big shareholder, appears to enjoy access to Trump’s circle. He has said the oil project is “not related to American annexation.”
A Greenland Energy representative falsely claimed in June that the company had permission to place equipment on Jameson Land, before later saying there had been confusion.
But the following month, residents saw a barge arrive with drilling equipment. A Danish outlet confirmed that the delivery was intended for Greenland Energy.
Following the delivery, Greenland’s government said on July 30 that the company "did not have the necessary approvals from the mineral resources authority" and would receive a warning that "all future logistical matters must be advised and approved by the mineral resources authority—before they are carried out."
Two days later, Trump posted an ominous digitally altered image to Truth Social depicting himself as a giant looming over a Greenlandic town, captioned "Hello, Greenland!"
A day earlier, Trump had appeared on the right-wing network Real America’s Voice, where host Steve Gruber reminded him that he had predicted Greenland would be under US control by the time he leaves office in 2029.
“You’ll be right," Trump replied. "Greenland is important. Not from their standpoint, from our standpoint. You should make that bet.”
Before this week’s comments, Trump had spoken far less publicly about Greenland since January, when he threatened to use military force to take over the island if Denmark did not cede it. To pressure NATO allies, Trump threatened steep tariffs on several European countries, but backed off after Europe pledged retaliatory tariffs, causing panic in the financial markets.
"Let nobody think Trump has given up on taking Greenland," said John O’Brennan, professor of European politics at Maynooth University in Ireland. He added that Greenland Energy’s unauthorized activity "is the latest act of lawlessness his acolytes are engaged in."
Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, responded to the story by asking, "Has Trump’s invasion of Greenland already begun?"
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat suggested it was possible. "Invasions," she said, "often start with 'technical' projects that justify the presence of operatives and 'technical experts' who are also doing recon and advance prep."
The Greenlandic government ultimately said it “would not be proportionate” to order Greenland Energy to remove the drilling equipment, a decision that The Guardian said underscored the difficult position facing its officials.
"They could grant permission for oil drilling, even though the planned wells appear to fall within a conservation area protected by the Ramsar convention on wetlands," the report explained. "Or they could refuse and, some worry, give Trump a pretext to advance his imperialist agenda."
Although the project has not been approved, a Greenland Energy representative said a vessel carrying additional drilling equipment would depart Canada in September, with drilling set to begin in October.
Jessica Berlin, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, warned that allowing the equipment to remain would signal weakness that Trump could exploit.
"Don’t even think about allowing this," she wrote in a post directed to the Greenlandic and Danish governments. "If you give them an inch, they’ll take 100 miles. Kick them out now or accept that you just opened the floodgates."
"Like Putin, you can’t negotiate with Trump," she added. "Showing weakness will just guarantee the next outrage."
As part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland is covered by NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense clause, which obligates member nations to defend one another from armed attack. But NATO has no precedent for how Article 5 would apply if one member—the US—attacked another.
O'Brennan warned, "Europe—you are about to be seriously tested."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NATO 3.0 Emerges Alive and Dangerous from the Ankara Summit
What was gained—and what did they refuse to admit—when the powerful military bloc held talks in Türkiye?
Jul 13, 2026
Despite its well-advertised tensions and tectonic geopolitical changes, this week’s NATO summit demonstrated that NATO has survived and is resilient. It remains committed to reinforcing US hegemony across Europe and globally. Not a lot has changed since former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that US global dominance relies on controlling the periphery of Eurasia: NATO in the West, in Southwest Asia to the South, as well as its Asia-Pacific allies from South Korea and Japan through the Philippines and Australia. In the 21st century, military planning as well as trade is deeply integrated across these three regions.
The Summit served to reinforce what is emerging as a new bloc system for our yet to be named era. Threatened by the US and NATO, as John Mearsheimer remarked, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea each see the US as a mortal enemy. While each of these nations’ situations and ambitions are vastly different, they share an interest in fending off threats from the US. They are thus increasingly binding themselves to one another economically, militarily, and diplomatically.
There were four major dimensions to the summit: 1) NATO’s survival despite its fault lines, 2) the first day’s focus on expanding and integrating European and US military production infrastructures and weapons sales contracts. 3) The final declaration celebrated and committed to still more European military spending. And 4) support for Ukraine was manifest.
The move to what is termed NATO 3.0, with European nations assuming greater responsibilities for the European theater, reflects the United States relative decline, something which has been glaringly demonstrated in its failed war against Iran. Trump and his coterie understand that US “leadership” is only possible with NATO. Despite his rhetoric, Trump and company value NATO because it allows them to do what they want to do elsewhere, especially in the most economically dynamic part of the world: the Indo-Pacific.
The transatlantic and increasingly global NATO alliance remains strong despite its fault lines due to what the elites understand as overlapping US and European shared interests, if not values.
NATO Secretary General Rutte and his allies insulated the alliance from Trump, from his madness, his dementia, his claim that US ships have been attacked by the Islamic Republic of Japan, demands for Greenland, and his complaints that European nations didn’t deliver all that he wanted in his war on Iran. Toward that end, the summit was convened and adjourned in less than a day, and the final declaration was limited to just six paragraphs, leaving little room for debate.
In fact, although not widely reported, during the war European allies have allowed US warplanes and ships to operate from bases across the continent, and they have provided access to their facilities for repairs and refueling.
As we could read in Carnegie Europe, “…trans-Atlanticism was never only a values project. It was—and remains—a convergence of security, economic, and technological interests between two regions that together account for roughly 43 percent of global GDP and comprise the world’s most capable alliance.”
The best way to understand what transpired in Ankara may be to use the lens of transactional dealmaking among Mafia families. Trump and Colby got what they wanted: European elites signed onto NATO 3.0 with increased European military spending and preparations to militarily contain and press Russia, so that the US can focus on containing China’s ambitions and reinforcing its 21st century Indo-Pacific hegemony. Remember, this has been a US goal that began with Obama’s “pivot to Asia.”
With NATO 3.0, the US intends to gradually reduce its ostensible role in guaranteeing European security. It is worth noting that European NATO members already massively outspending Russia on their militaries. They have conventional military superiority over Russia. And with NATO 3.0 these differentials will only become greater.
In time, the US will provide only what its European allies cannot: nuclear threats and high-tech intelligence. But it is also worth noting is that Trump said nothing in Ankara about pulling more troops out of Europe. The announced 5,000 troop reduction in Germany has yet to begin, and a commitment for increased US troop rotations in Poland was made. The Hegseth-Colby campaign for major US force reductions in Europe has been slowed by the two-month review won by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In the end, Trump, and no one else, is the decision maker. Remember too that despite Trump ranting about NATO’s limited support for his war against Iran, the US would be very limited in its Southwest Asian and North African power projection without it bases still in Europe.
The West wasn’t shattered. In the transactional exchange, the US joined the dominant European narrative forged by the Baltic states and Poland about Russia and signed onto the summit’s final declaration with its commitments to support Ukraine in the war with Russia. This includes blessing Ukrainian debilitating attacks on Russian energy infrastructure deep within Russia. The declaration identified Russia as a long-term threat and reinterred the Treaty’s Article V commitment to come to the aid of any NATO member that is attacked. Ukraine won’t be joining NATO any time soon, but its advanced military technologies and warfighting experience make it an increasingly powerful adjunct to NATO.
In fact, the arms sales announced as the summit began serve as glue for the alliance’s future. Fifty billion dollars in weapons contracts were signed, with commitments made to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Palantir, Anduril, Germany’s Rheinmetall, French Airbus, Sweden’s Saab, and Turkey’s Aselsan. Even Denmark, despite Trump’s Greenland threats, will be buying US Hellfire missiles and ships to patrol the Arctic.
NATO 3.0 makes it possible for the US to reinforce its lattice-like military alliance system and its military buildup across the Indo-Pacific. Note that the RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) naval show of force was held at the same time as the NATO summit. It includes the forces of 10 of 30 NATO nations. Almost one-third of all NATO countries sent military forces: land, air, and sea to Hawaii to participate in the RIMPAC 38-day war drills.
The summit also demonstrated Turkey’s increased role in NATO, both in relation to Southwest Asia, but also via its increased weapons production capacity for the alliance. Trump tossed Erdogan what may prove to be only a symbolic military bone with his offer to endorse the sale of F-35s to Turkey. There remain two major obstacles to those sales: Turkey’s S-400 air defense systems which were purchased from Moscow and the need for Congressional authorization for those sales.
On the subject of weapons sales, in his ostensible tilt toward Ukraine, Trump authorized the much-ballyhooed licensing for Ukraine to produce Patriot missile defense systems. This is too little too late to be meaningful. It will take at least a year to get such a complex weapons manufacturing system up and running. And Putin would certainly make these weapons facilities a primary target while they are being built. Moreover, to defend the construction of these facilities the already beleaguered Ukraine would need to divert its very limited missile and drone defenses to protect the construction, leaving the country still more vulnerable.
Reinforcing the global commitments of NATO, at a meeting on the sidelines of the summit the Japanese government called for deeper cooperation between NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners Australia, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand at a meeting on the summit sidelines. Japan, which hosts more than 100 US military bases and installations, and has its most militarist government since 1945, has a security and defense pact with the EU. In recent months, Tokyo has created or deepened strategic partnerships and weapons development agreements with countries including Britain, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.
Tokyo is in the process of doubling its military spending. It is moving to trash Article 9, the heart of its Peace Constitution. It has deployed conventional preemptive strike missiles that can reach China and North Korea. And it has declared its readiness to go to war for Taiwan.
Despite the still open wounds of Japanese conquest and colonization of Korea in the last century, the US backed Japanese-ROK alliance is the strongest it has ever been. And there is increasing discussion in South Korea about returning US nuclear weapons to the Peninsula or developing its own nuclear arsenal.
Filling out the network of Indo-Pacific alliances, the US has been deepening military ties with its former colony, the Philippines. Add to this AUKUS (Australia, Britain and the US) and the QUAD (US, Japan, Australia, and India).
Several other points are worth noting. Europe’s massive military spending increases, trending at an annual rate of 20%, have been financed by increasing debt. That can’t continue. As Stop Re/Arm Europe network warns, if this increased spending continues it can only come at the expense of essential social services. Those cuts, and the suffering they cause, will further open the way for far-right wing political gains.
In truth, we are still a long way from an operational NATO 3.0. As the French and German refusal to cooperate on development of the next jet fighter indicates, continuing divisions among the leading European powers remain very real. Issues of command and control and many other concerns will be challenging for NATO to address. And while not widely reported in the US media, US and European national security mandarins have been remarking about the failure to announce a NATO summit in 2027. The absence of a NATO summit next year may serve to prevent a new round of headlines and reports about US-NATO divisions, and it will also allow for more backroom deals.
For more than 60 years (1945 – 1980) humanity was plagued by the clash of competing block systems. The Cold War was not always cold, and on several occasions, we were confronted by the specter of nuclear annihilation.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy and his advisors believed the odds were 50-50 that the crisis would end in a thermonuclear exchange.
Computer and human errors were not uncommon. NATO’s 1983 Abel Archer military exercise sparked fears that they were under attack. That same year computer Soviet systems mistook a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds for incoming US nuclear armed missiles. Most of us are alive today because Soviet Colonel Petrov, believed it to be a false alarm, defied his standing orders, dismissed the nuclear alert, and was later reprimanded for his courageous act.
Millions, from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Greece to Mozambique died in proxy wars between the US and Soviet led blocs. As President Dwight Eisenhower warned, the US military-industrial complex threatened democratic values and practice. And trillions of dollars, rubles, francs and other currencies were wasted on weaponry at the cost of essential medical care, education, housing and more.
One definition of stupidity is doing the same thing twice but expecting different results. With the creation of a new bloc system, the expansion and upgrading of the world’s nuclear arsenals, the climate emergency’s fires and rising seas, and uncertainty over where new high-tech weaponry will lead, it appears that NATO, Russian, and many other elites failed to learn the Cold War’s existential lessons.
But there is still time. It should be obvious that the only way to end the war between Russia and Ukraine is with a dirty deal that includes a ceasefire in place, security guarantees for both Ukraine and Russia, and a commitment to negotiate the status of currently occupied territories over time. How many more Russian and Ukrainian lives should be sacrificed in the killing fields of Donbass? How long should we tolerate spiraling military spending at the sacrifice of our living standards which in turn opens the way for fascist forces on the right?
There is also the lesson of Common Security diplomacy which thankfully provided the foundation for détente and the end of the Cold War. We can take some hope from off the record Track II discussions and others among elite Europeans, Russians, and US figures that there are increasing references to building on the traditions and surviving resources of the Helsinki process and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) to build a post-war Common Security European and transatlantic strategic architecture. Too few among us now remember that three decades ago the Cold War came to an end when NATO and Russian leaders finally came to understand that security cannot be achieved against a nation’s rival, but only through hard won win-win diplomacy that addresses the fears of all parties to a conflict.
Keep ReadingShow Less
An Open Letter to NATO: The False Promise of Militarized Security
NATO’s leaders would do well to remember that true security is not measured in the size of an arsenal, but in the strength of the societies it claims to protect.
Jul 08, 2026
As NATO convenes once again to double down on military spending, arms production, and the logic of deterrence through superior firepower—this despite the alliance’s own members having repeatedly used force in violation of international law in recent years, in Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, and the open-ended War on Terror—it is worth asking: What kind of security are we actually buying?
These interventions, often justified under the guise of humanitarianism or collective defense, have in practice destabilized entire regions, fueled insurgencies, and visited immense suffering upon some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. The result is a perverse paradox of an alliance that presents itself as the guardian of a rules-based order but has, through its own actions, undermined that very order, deepening the insecurity it claims to combat.
The record is unambiguous: Militarized security is reactive, not preventive. It treats symptoms—territorial disputes, insurgencies, great-power rivalry—while ignoring root causes such as inequality, resource scarcity, political exclusion, and the erosion of trust in institutions. The post-1945 era, for all its flaws, demonstrated that stability is not the product of arms races, but of norms, institutions, and the rule of law.
The relative peace among liberal democracies, the decline in international armed conflicts, and the gradual expansion of human rights all occurred not because states built bigger arsenals, but because they built stronger frameworks for cooperation. International organizations—including the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the International Court of Justice—have encouraged cooperation and stability, while aircraft carriers or hypersonic missiles have mainly spread terror and destruction. Yet as NATO attempts to expand its influence these very institutions of social cooperation are under attack by the same NATO member states who have cut funding and even withdrawn from the organizations in some cases.
What we require is a legal framework that serves as the foundation for a truly equitable international community—one that enforces cooperation over competition, shared development over extraction, and the rights of all people over the privileges of a few.
The opportunity cost of this militarized approach urged by NATO is staggering. The combined military expenditure of NATO members now exceeds $1.3 trillion annually according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The UN Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Reports indicates this is a figure that dwarfs the estimated $40 billion needed to close the global gaps in education, healthcare, and food security.
For the price of a single nuclear-powered submarine, a nation could fund universal pre-kindergarten for its entire population for a year. For the cost of a new fighter jet squadron, it could eliminate malaria in an entire region. These are not moral abstractions; they are strategic failures.
Study after study has shown that spending on healthcare, education, and renewable energy generates far greater economic multipliers in terms of job creation and GDP growth than equivalent spending on defense. Military expenditure distorts economies, prioritizing a narrow industrial base of contractors and exporters over diversified, sustainable development. It exacerbates inequality by funneling public resources into capital-intensive sectors that benefit elites, while social services—hospitals, schools, public transit—suffer from chronic underfunding. When citizens see their tax dollars funding bombs rather than bridges, cynicism replaces civic engagement, and the very legitimacy of a country’s governance is undermined.
International law, which has been a strong impetus to cooperation in the world and which can provide fundamental rules of fairness, has been used as an instrument to promote militarization and violence in the world by the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world.
The path forward demands a radical reimagining of international law—not as it is currently wielded by powerful states to justify intervention, enforce economic dependency, or entrench global hierarchies, but as a tool for genuine equity, cooperation, and shared prosperity.
Today, international law is too often a weapon of the strong, invoked selectively to punish adversaries while ignoring the transgressions of allies. This is not the international law we need. What we require is a legal framework that serves as the foundation for a truly equitable international community—one that enforces cooperation over competition, shared development over extraction, and the rights of all people over the privileges of a few.
Such a system must prioritize binding agreements on climate change to ensure our natural environment is protected not as a luxury but as a fundamental right. A fair international legal system would mandate fair trade practices that prevent the exploitation of weaker economies, and it would guarantee economic rights—food, water, education, healthcare—as inalienable entitlements for every human being, not as charities doled out at the discretion of the wealthy. A rejuvenated international law would also hold all states, regardless of power, accountable to the same standards, ending the hypocrisy that allows some nations to flout norms with impunity while others are punished for far lesser offenses.
The argument for participatory governance is not merely moral but strategic. States that involve all their citizens in a meaningful way in the governance of their country are less likely to engage in external conflict because their leaders are accountable to electorates who bear the costs of war. But this participation must be substantive, not procedural. Holding elections means little if economic inequality allows elites to dominate policy, if media concentration distorts public discourse, or if voter suppression silences marginalized groups. True participation requires deliberative assemblies, workplace unionization, digital direct democracy, and local autonomy. When people feel ownership over their government, they are less susceptible to the siren song of populist demagogues and the xenophobic chants of nationalists.
The post-2008 austerity consensus has been a disaster for global stability. Neoliberalism’s core assumption—that unregulated competition drives progress—ignores the fact that markets produce winners and losers, and that losers, when abandoned, turn to extremism. The rise of far-right parties, the spread of extremist movements, and the surge in gang violence are all, in no insignificant part, responses to economic despair.
A global fair deal must prioritize universal basic services as human rights, not commodities. It must invest in green industrial policy to create high-wage, low-carbon jobs. It must cancel the crushing debts of the Global South and replace free trade with fair trade, ensuring that corporations cannot exploit weak regulations in developing States. And it must tax extreme wealth to fund the end of extreme poverty. These are not socialist or communist ideas; they are merely common sense policies.
Yet NATO’s current trajectory assumes that security is a zero-sum game, where one state’s gain is another’s loss. This ignores that the greatest threats of our time—climate change, pandemics, nuclear proliferation—respect no borders. Even China and the United States, despite their rivalry, have cooperated on climate accords and pandemic response when it served their interests. The Montreal Protocol succeeded because states realized ozone depletion threatened them all. Collective security, properly structured, can work. The question is not whether cooperation is possible, but whether we have the will to pursue it. NATO does not answer this challenge, but seeks to exploit it by setting people against each other in the name of militarization.
We have a choice. We can continue down the path of militarized security, where trillions are spent on weapons that guarantee mutual destruction, where inequality festers, and where the logic of competition ensures that no one is ever truly safe. Or we can invest in a future where no child goes hungry, no family lacks healthcare, and no nation lives in fear of another—a future where international law serves as an equalizer, ensuring that the rights and dignity of all people are upheld, and that our shared planet is preserved for generations to come. The former is the path of barbarism. The latter is the path of civilization.
NATO’s leaders would do well to remember that true security is not measured in the size of an arsenal, but in the strength of the societies it claims to protect—and that those societies are far weaker when their most vulnerable members are abandoned to the consequences of unchecked militarism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Spanish Minister Says Trump 'Is Confusing Diplomacy With Bullying' After Trade Threat
"Trump calls Spain a 'terrible partner' because it accepts neither blackmail nor threats. Because we are a sovereign, democratic country that defends multilateralism and peace."
Jul 08, 2026
US President Donald Trump's call on Wednesday to "cut off all trade with Spain" over what he said is the NATO ally's failure to pull its own weight in the alliance was shrugged off by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez as "business as usual," but a member of the leftist leader's Cabinet responded to the largely infeasible threat by declaring that her government will not succumb to bullying.
Sitting alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the alliance's summit in the Turkish capital Ankara, Trump told reporters that “Spain is a wasted cause."
"We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore, by the way,” the Republican president continued. “Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate. They don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits. Watch them come running back. Oh, they’ll come running back."
President Trump says he is "not happy" with NATO and demands to cut trade ties with Spain: "I don't want anything to do with Spain... cut off all trade with Spain please, including visits... watch them come running back." pic.twitter.com/3WCTAZU5mA
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 8, 2026
According to NATO's official estimates for 2025, Spain spends 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, equivalent to about $35.7 billion, the seventh-highest amount in the alliance. Five other NATO members—Belgium, Czechia, Luxembourg, North Macedonia, and Portugal—also spend 2% of their GDP on their militaries, the lowest percentage in the alliance. NATO members have agreed to meet a defense spending goal of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, while Trump has repeatedly urged alliance nations to budget 5%.
Sánchez brushed off Trump's tirade as "business as usual" while touting Spain's "excellent" trade relations with the United States and vowing to respond "with calm and patience" to the president's threat.
"When you step back a bit from these kinds of actions, what you see is that relations between the United States and Spain are very, very positive socially, culturally, economically, and politically," he said.
"Spain is a country that strives to maintain the best possible relations with all countries, especially allied countries, with whom we have very consolidated ties that have transcended the ideological orientation of the administrations that have governed Spain or the United States over the decades," Sánchez added.
Spanish Health Minister Mónica García was more blunt in her response to Trump's remarks.
"Trump calls Spain a 'terrible partner' because it accepts neither blackmail nor threats," she said on social media. "Because we are a sovereign, democratic country that defends multilateralism and peace. What's terrible is confusing diplomacy with bullying."
Experts say that while the International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants US presidents broad authority to block or limit trade with countries, they must prove that targeted nations pose an "unusual or extraordinary threat" to national or economic security, which Spain clearly does not. Furthermore, as a European Union member, any trade negotiations must be conducted via Brussels, not Madrid.
This isn't the first time that Trump has floated cutting off commercial relations with Spain. Earlier this year, he threatened a full trade embargo on Spain over its refusal to allow use of its military bases to wage the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran. Spain's rejection of Trump's call for NATO members to spend 5% of their GDPs on defense, its formal support for South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, and its broader pro-Palestine stance have also angered the US leader.
Responding to Trump's renewed airstrikes on Iran and apparent abandonment of a frayed three-month ceasefire, Sánchez said Wednesday that "what we want is to avoid war."
"Wars are always bad news," the prime minister added, "especially for civilians, particularly children and women."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump at NATO Summit: Greenland 'Should Be Controlled by the United States, Not by Denmark'
"This will not happen," Denmark's prime minister said for the umpteenth time.
Jul 07, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday renewed his calls for US control of Greenland—an autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark—in remarks delivered at the Atlantic alliance's summit in Türkiye.
Greenland "doesn't help Denmark," Trump told reporters in Ankara. "Denmark doesn't really spend money to help Greenland. But it's an important part for the United States."
Trump falsely claimed that the Arctic island "is surrounded by China ships and Russian ships" and "should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark."
"With all the money we spend to help [Europe] with Russia, we don't have to spend any money, we can remove all of our soldiers out of Europe," he said.
"Because as you probably noticed, Europe's a very different place than it was 20 years ago... and they better be careful with immigration and energy; if they're not careful with those two things, you're not gonna have a Europe anymore," Trump added.
Hours later, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said at the Ankara summit that she expected allies to respect her country's sovereignty and understand that Greenland is not for sale.
"I have heard what the American president has said," Frederiksen told Danish media. "It is a well-known position of the United States that it wishes to own and acquire Greenland. And I hope that it will continue to be, as always, a well-known position of the kabingdom of Denmark that this will not happen."
Trump has publicly floated acquiring Greenland since his first term, when he even reportedly mulled swapping the island for the hurricane-ravaged US territory of Puerto Rico. The president renewed talk of gaining control of Greenland "whether they like it or not" after returning to the White House last year, while threatening allies who opposed his plans with additional punitive tariffs amid his roller-coaster global trade war.
Greenlanders, Danes, NATO allies, and much of the world were alarmed by Trump's threats to take Greenland by any means necessary—including armed invasion—which came amid a surge in "Donroe Doctrine" militarism.
Trump ordered dubious airstrikes on boats his administration claimed without evidence were transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, as well as the brief invasion of Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro on what critics called trumped-up narcoterrorism charges. The self-proclaimed "peace president" also threatened to retake the Panama Canal, launch armed attacks on Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico, and make Canada the "51st state."
Leaders of the European Union and NATO nations warned that any US attack on Greenland would effectively mean the end of the Atlantic alliance.
Only a handful of Greenland's 57,000 inhabitants want to join the United States. More than 8 in 10 favor independence amid often strained relations with Denmark and the legacy of a colonial history rife with abuses. Greenlanders enjoy a Nordic-style social welfare system that features universal healthcare; free higher education; and income, family, and employment benefits and protections that Americans lack.
In the United States, only 17% of those surveyed in a January Reuters/Ipsos poll said they favored acquiring Greenland by any means, and just 4% said it would be a "good idea" for Trump to seize the island by force.
Trump also said Tuesday that he "was very disappointed with NATO."
"We weren’t treated well because we did something in Iran," he said, referring to the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on the Mideast nation. "We don’t need anybody’s help, but before I asked they said they wouldn’t be there."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details How Climate Crisis Fuels Crop Failure Risk in Global Breadbaskets
"As globally important food-producing regions face growing risks of climate-driven disruption, the effects can ripple through livelihoods, supply chains, food assistance systems, and geopolitical relationships."
Jun 09, 2026
The climate emergency is sharply increasing the risk of crop failure in regions that produce an outsized share of the world's staple food grains, according to a report published Tuesday that warns of "serious threats to Europe, the NATO alliance, and global stability" if cooperative resilience initiatives and other mitigation strategies aren't pursued.
The report, "Global Breadbaskets: Food System Resilience as a Strategic Imperative," was published by the Center for Climate and Security—part of the Council on Strategic Risks, a Washington, DC-based security policy think tank—and the Woodwell Climate Research Center, an independent nonprofit located in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
"Geopolitical fragmentation, conflict, extreme weather, and global aid cuts already strain food security. Meanwhile, climate change is increasing the likelihood of crop failures in the American, European, and Asian breadbaskets, which produce most of the staple crops underpinning global food security," the report states.
🆕 Across India, France, and Germany, in the next decade and a half, the odds of key crops failing are set to increase by between two- and six-fold. This isn't just a food story. It's also a #NATO security story.
[image or embed]
— Council on Strategic Risks (@councilonstrategicrisks.org) June 9, 2026 at 12:13 AM
The publication follows an April report from a pair of United Nations agencies on how extreme heat is impacting food production and food security around the planet. The new report includes a storymap that explores climate change-driven threats to wheat, rice, and maize (corn) crops in France, Germany, and India—three of the world's "global breadbaskets."
The analysis' authors note that compared with 2010 threat levels, by 2040, "the risk of a given year’s crop failing is projected to grow roughly twofold for Indian wheat and German maize, roughly threefold for French wheat, roughly fourfold for French maize, and roughly sixfold for Indian rice, with sharp increases in critical producing regions."
Climate-driven extreme heat "not only threatens crops, but also the laborers and infrastructure that translate them into food security," the report continues. "Extreme heat is projected to reduce the suitability of 15-40% of India’s rain-fed rice-growing regions by 2050, and to reduce physical work capacity during the average growing season to as little as 40% of 2000-era levels by 2100."
"By 2040, southwestern France will average up to 16 additional days per year above 35°C (95°F), exceeding thresholds that reduce yields, impact grain quality, and cause heat stroke," the paper warns. "Extreme heat also threatens to damage or disable road and rail networks critical to food transportation, agricultural machinery, civil defense, and military mobilization."
The publication also states that global breadbasket failures in Europe "could open rifts for Russian meddling, fuel instability in key partners, and elevate food production as a geopolitical lever."
The Council on Strategic Risks operates within the transatlantic security policy community, whose work often overlaps with NATO's interests.
“We have plenty of examples of how crop failures can contribute to political instability, from the French Revolution to the Arab Spring," Center for Climate and Security deputy director and report lead author Tom Ellison said Tuesday in a statement. "In today’s environment, global breadbasket failures could strain NATO priorities, prompt unrest in key countries, and upend trade relationships."
Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist and report co-author Alexandra Naegele warned that “climate change doesn't just threaten crop yields and grain quality—it destabilizes entire food systems, from labor and livestock to food storage and transport."
"Quantifying these climate-driven risks is an essential step toward building resilient food systems and safeguarding global food security," she added.
The report recommends steps countries—specifically members of the European Union and NATO—can take to mitigate risks to food security, including strengthening cooperative resilience, anticipating instability and hybrid warfare, supporting strategic and vulnerable partners, coordinating trade responses, and investing in agricultural research and development.
"Amid climate change, geopolitical uncertainty, food shocks from the war in Iran, and Russian hybrid warfare, investing in a resilient food system isn’t in competition with security—it’s a key part of it," Ellison stressed.
Monica Caparas, a scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center and report co-author, said, "Understanding and preparing for breadbasket failures is both a national security priority and a humanitarian imperative—one that can help protect lives, reduce instability, and strengthen food resilience before a regional shock becomes a wider crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Makes No Sense’: NATO Allies Bash Trump’s Strait of Hormuz Blockade as Oil Rises Above $100 a Barrel
"It’s one more episode in this whole downward spiral into which we’ve been dragged,” said Spain's foreign minister.
Apr 13, 2026
Contrary to President Donald Trump's claim that "other countries will be involved" in imposing a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz after ceasefire talks ended over the weekend without a deal with Iran, North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries on Monday made clear they did not plan to join Trump's effort as the news of the blockade sent global oil prices skyrocketing once again.
“We are not supporting the blockade," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the BBC Monday before the closure began at 10:00 am Eastern time. “It is in my view vital that we get the strait open and fully open, and that’s where we’ve put all of our efforts in the last few weeks, and we’ll continue to do so."
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened through diplomatic means, while Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles told Al Jazeera that Trump's decision to block ships “entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas" in the strait "makes no sense."
"It’s one more episode in this whole downward spiral into which we’ve been dragged,” said Robles, who along with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has vehemently condemned the US and Israel's decision to go to war with Iran and has refused to involve Spain's military assets in the conflict.
Starmer called the closure of the strait "deeply damaging" and said that this week the UK and France will convene a summit "to advance work on a coordinated, independent, multinational plan to safeguard international shipping when the conflict ends."
US Central Command said Monday that US forces “will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports," appearing to step back from Trump's original Sunday statement, which he reiterated Monday on Fox News, that he would impose a "complete blockade" on the key trade waterway.
The news of the blockade came after Iranian negotiators accused Vice President JD Vance of acting in bad faith in the high-level ceasefire talks and Vance claimed Iran would not comply with US demands regarding nuclear development.
The two-week ceasefire deal that was announced last Tuesday—just before a deadline Trump had imposed, saying the US would obliterate Iran's "whole civilization" unless the government struck a deal—sent oil and gas prices tumbling blow $100 per barrel, but prices rose again after Trump's new threat of a blockade.
Brent crude prices were at $102.52 per barrel on Monday, a 7.7% increase, while US crude also rose nearly 8% to $104.02. The UK's wholesale gas contract for the month of May rose by 11.7%.
About 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz before Iran effectively closed the waterway after the US and Israel began the war, as well as major shipments of fertilizer.
Priyanka Sachdeva, a senior market analyst at the broker Phillip Nova, told The Guardian that "the market reaction" to Trump's threat "underscores a simple but powerful reality: Hormuz risk is not theoretical; it is structural, and it is real.”
“In today’s environment, every barrel of risk added to oil markets carries an inflation price tag for the global economy," Sachdeva said.
Trump's threat of a blockade included any ship that has paid Iran a toll to pass through the strait since the Middle Eastern country began its blockade, with the president accusing Iran of "extortion."
At Responsible Statecraft, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos wrote on Sunday that under Trump's threat, the US is now planning to block "major allies."
"The Philippines is a treaty ally and gets 98% of its energy resources through the strait," Vlahos wrote. "A Japanese vessel carrying liquefied natural gas reportedly passed through the strait two weeks ago."
Sarang Shidore, director of the Global South program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said the US blockade "is another step toward a might-makes-right world."
"Illegalities are being heaped on top of illegalities. The attack on Iran that started this war was compounded by Tehran's seizure of the Strait of Hormuz. Washington's blockade of the strait has further upped the ante," said Shidore.
An adviser to Iranian Supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei said that Iran has "large, untouched levels" to fight back against a US blockade, while Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, said that Americans will soon "be nostaligic for $4-$5 gas."
At The Conversation, international law professor Donald Rothwell of Australian National University wrote that Trump's blockade would "certainly" imperil the fragile temporary ceasefire while roiling international markets.
"In purely legal terms, if the US imposes a blockade then the ceasefire is over and hostilities have resumed," wrote Rothwell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy