The United States, which has been the world's leading superpower for decades, is now fighting to maintain its hegemonic position. That is why the United States is demanding that the military alliance NATO and its member states – including Finland – support its efforts, if necessary in violation of international law. The so-called defense alliance is taking off its mask and is openly transforming into an American offensive alliance. It is up to the member states to decide to what extent they are prepared to submit to American interests and thus pay for their alliance with the United States.
President Donald Trump stated in his discussion with the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutten with a few days ago that the United States may withdraw from the military alliance. Trump said he was disappointed with NATO's ability to function and the commitment of its allies. This was because some European countries have been critical of the United States' demand to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic with military force. Rutte appeased Trump by stating that the overwhelming majority of NATO countries support the US and Israel's attack on Iran in various ways.
Secretary General Rutte assured after the meeting that NATO does not have one foot in the grave. However, according to Rutte, NATO needs a major change in the relationship between the United States and its European partners to become a “balanced” alliance. In an interview with the news channel CNN, Rutte said that some of NATO’s European member states had failed the US test because they were reluctant to respond to the US’s request for help after the US attacked Iran without informing the allies.
Rutte stated in an interview with the Newsmax channel on March 5 that “NATO is a platform for the United States to project its power on the world political stage.” None of the previous secretaries general of the military alliance had stated this open secret so directly.
According to media reports, instead of withdrawing from the military alliance, the United States would consider punishing some NATO countries – most notably Spain. The United States could withdraw its military forces from countries that did not support the United States unconditionally in the Iran war and transfer them to NATO member states that did support the United States.
NATO Trump's bargaining chip
The United States intends to use its leadership position in NATO as a bargaining chip with European countries.
First, the United States wants to benefit economically from leading and maintaining NATO. This is evidenced, for example, by the strict energy and investment requirements of the customs agreement signed between the European Union and the United States in July 2025.
Second, the United States wants its European allies to commit to supporting the country's military operations outside NATO's traditional area of operations. Foreign Minister Marco Rubio proposed the restoration of the Western empire at the Munich Security Conference as early as February 2024. In his speech, Rubio said that the United States was ready to restore Western dominance alone, but hoped that it would happen together with European countries.
The United States uses threats of withdrawal from NATO as a bargaining chip to extract all possible benefits from the military alliance. Later, the United States will assess whether NATO is more beneficial or detrimental to its national interests.
If the United States sees itself benefiting from European countries economically through purchases and militarily through European countries committing to supporting its military operations outside Europe, the United States can remain the leader of NATO and the keeper of the entire Euro-Atlantic system. However, if the United States sees NATO as more of a burden, it will not hesitate to withdraw from the military alliance.
Even if the United States decides to remain a member of NATO, it intends to continue its military withdrawal from Europe, in accordance with its new national security strategy. The United States' role in European conflicts would primarily be to sell weapons to its European allies.
Growing discrepancy between theory and practice
The new US policy is creating pressure to change NATO and increase the commitment of its members. NATO, based on the North Atlantic Treaty and old practices, may soon be just a memory.
According to Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s mission is to “defend itself against armed attack.” However, the United States has demanded that other NATO members support it and Israel in a war of aggression against Iran. This would change NATO’s official nature from a defensive alliance to an offensive one.
According to Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an armed attack means “an armed attack directed against […] the territory of a Party in Europe or North America.” The US requirement for Allied support in wars outside the European area would significantly expand the geographical scope of the North Atlantic Treaty from its current scope.
According to Article 7 of the Agreement, “the Agreement shall not affect, nor shall it be construed as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties as Members of the United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations, nor the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
NATO member states therefore have the normal obligation to comply with their obligations under international law.
However, the United States has demanded support from its European allies for its war against Iran, which is clearly in conflict with international law, the provisions of the UN Charter and the role of the UN Security Council. NATO Secretary General Rutte also supports the US demand. NATO is increasingly transforming into a military alliance that openly supports US hegemony, which considers itself above international law and can act without regard to its obligations.
Finland has to choose its side
Finland joined NATO in April 2023. However, in a short time, Finland, as a NATO member, has found itself in a situation where it is forced to realize that the military alliance is a completely different organization from the one it joined. In the new situation, Finland and other NATO member states have the right and also the obligation to assess whether a NATO that complies with the requirements of the United States meets the national interests of the states.
In Finland, NATO is described as a defense alliance by, for example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, and the Defense Forces. Prime Minister Sanna Marin said joining NATO was an act of peace. However, US demands are turning NATO into an offensive alliance that does not hesitate to violate international law anywhere in the world. How does this fit in with the rules-based world order that Finland has declared itself to be a defender of?
The Finnish leadership must answer the question of how the new NATO will advance Finland's national interests. Is it in Finland's interests to commit to supporting the United States in its overseas wars that violate international law, even though the United States itself has fewer and fewer resources and desire to participate in wars in Europe? Or will NATO create security problems that would not exist without it?
Euro-Atlantic institutions provide the basis for the dominance of Europe's current political elites. It is therefore likely that they will also cling to NATO's existence until the end and support the overt transformation of the military alliance into an offensive alliance.
Image collage: image source: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
8 comments on the post “The masks are being taken off: NATO as an American offensive alliance"
Reply
You must log in to comment.
Article 5 begins solemnly stating that an attack on one member state is considered an attack on all allies.
But the article later says that each member state decides for itself the level of participation in the common project. Now the US is commanding others to participate in its war of aggression, which means that it is also violating the agreed rules of the alliance.
That article is deliberately worded that way. If it were about automation, meaning that every NATO member country would automatically be at war against an aggressor, many countries would consider many times whether it was worth joining such a “war automaton” at all. NATO would probably not exist then. 🙂
Finland (and perhaps the Baltics too) is another country. Here, people believe that if small and loyal (model student) Finland is attacked (i.e. if Russia attacks), the superpower across the ocean, the United States, will immediately rush to the rescue and save Finland, defeat evil Russia, and perhaps even help us create a “Greater Finland.” Incredibly naive childish faith.
The United States (or any other NATO country) will not start a war against Russia because of some "fucking" Finnish leader. Finland (and the Baltic countries) have a completely different role in NATO. We have been pushed forward as an attack platform in case a war with Russia breaks out for some reason. In that war, Finland would be destroyed before the actual war has even really started.
It's worth recalling what has happened in the Middle East step by step. Iran, which on paper is a much weaker military power than the United States (and also Russia), destroyed all US DCA bases within a 2000 km radius of Iran in a few hours. The US could not prevent it. The US has also not yet dared to attack Iran with ground forces, because it would probably lose a ground war. Iran wouldn't even need ground troops. Its drone and missile fleet would do the job.
Finnish leaders are trying hard to provoke Russia to attack here. If that were to happen, how could they possibly visit Finnish DCA bases? Fortunately, Finland has the protection of a moderate Vladimir Putin, who does not baselessly attack here and there like his American counterparts.
The US and Zionist Israel have been bombing Iran heavily for weeks (we are talking about over 100,000 civilians dead or wounded), but it has not had a crippling effect on the Iranian state, let alone that it could be conquered. It is simply so large in size that the USrael does not have the resources to destroy it. Russia is even many times larger (the world's largest) state. It is impossible to conquer such a thing – even more impossible than conquering the USA, for example.
Finland should still consider whether it was wise to join NATO and hand over its territory to the United States as bases. They are not a guarantee of security at all. On the contrary, they are a sure sign of Finland's destruction if war breaks out with Russia.
"Fortunately, Finland has the protection of a moderate Vladimir Putin, who does not baselessly attack here and there..."
If only Finns would realize this, as many former CIA intelligence analysts seem to have done...
After all, NATO has attacked before. The Ukraine project, from its very beginning with the coups and later in the form of military and economic support for Ukraine, is also in practice an attack on Russia and Russianness. The attack on Iran was such an openly brazen trick that even European vassals hesitated to support it. When attacking Russia, the enthusiasm of Europeans in particular is also driven by such a strong racist Russophobia that the Israel hype and Islamophobia do not seem to reach the same level.
The actions of the United States in the past, but especially now in Trump's second term, are in my opinion very similar to those of Hitler. Trump may not be as ambitious about living space as Hitler, but he is even more ambitious about power and natural resources. Hitler especially hated Jews and Slavs. Trump hates Muslims and Trump's European vassals are Slavs.
I would like to make a small side note to Linden's excellent article: NATO has marketed itself as a defense alliance, and most decision-makers accept this outright lie both in Finland and elsewhere in Europe. But, but: the war to break up Yugoslavia, the wars of occupation in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria, and now the war in Ukraine have all been wars of aggression led by the US/NATO, in which other NATO countries have also participated – and Finland, before it even became a NATO country, gained its spurs in Afghanistan and also in Ukraine. Why is it necessary to conceal this fact that is easily visible to everyone, but which no one dares to say out loud, perhaps to mislead the citizens.
Good article. The most important thing was already in the title. To supplement it, here is the following excerpt:
"Rutte appeased Trump by stating that the overwhelming majority of NATO countries support, in various ways, the US and Israel's attack on Iran."
This completely unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression, as the mainstream media does not present it, is contrary to all possible international agreements. In the splendor of darkness, its supporters and war provocateurs are war criminals according to the norms. This also applies to TP Stubb, who in his statements has expressed his support for military actions against Iran. The US actions towards Iran, and the demands for the NATO collective farm to join the playing field are strange, because the USA has not been the target of a threat of attack.
The events in Iran will eventually call into question Finland's foreign and security policy choices. Steps have been taken without any real basis, and without any understanding of what has been done, let alone any understanding of what should be done next.
The NATO alliance is primarily a political organization that achieves its goals through political means, and then through military means if political means fail. Finland is committed to that. This package is then wrapped in a blanket of words that reflect defense needs (real or imagined), which is offered to citizens who only see the wrapping paper and believe what they see.
The events in Iran and President Trump's fuss over the matter will at least prove this to be true.
The sooner the brains rotted by syphilis are removed from the decision-making of Europe and the so-called "Western" world, the sooner peace and prosperity will gradually begin to flourish.
Good writing overall, but there is a slight contradiction. For example, it is rightly stated that NATO has long been an instrument of US imperialism. All those who are aware have known this and the Finnish foreign policy leadership should have known it too. Now Rutte has finally admitted it. In other words, there is no “new” NATO.
Other considerations:
".. in what way does the new NATO promote Finland's national interests."
– The “new” NATO does not promote them, but neither did the “old” NATO.
"Is it in Finland's interests to commit to supporting the United States in its overseas wars that violate international law,..."
– Maybe, if we believe the US will win and accept the imperialist agenda (which the undersigned does not do).
"...even though the United States itself has fewer and fewer resources and desire to participate in wars in Europe?"
– The USA has caused the wars in Europe in recent decades. Hopefully it will stay away so that new wars do not break out.
"...does NATO create security problems that would not exist without it?"
– Its expansion has caused Europe's security problems of recent decades, precisely because it is an instrument of US imperialism.
Good points. Indeed, any military alliance against Russia certainly does not serve Finland's interests. I don't see why we should increase confrontations when friendly cooperation (which Russia would be very willing to do with Finland, for example, and has with Ukraine) would be in everyone's interest. Well, maybe scoundrels like the United States (or are there others besides the United States) benefit from their scoundrelism. In any case, it is shameful and condemnable.