NATO Shapeshifting, Arms Dealing, and Empire

https://natowatch.org/default/2026/shape-shifting-nato-keeps-transatlantic-arms-flowing-loyalty-alms-us-president    

This article provides a different assessment of the July 2026 Ankara NATO Summit than what you'll commonly find in the mainstream media. The website is not anti-NATO in any way shape or form. These are true believers but ones wary of corruption or mission creep. The site exists as a means to promote serious discussion and inquiry toward holding NATO accountable and keeping the alliance (as they see it) on course.

That said, the site often reveals some rather interesting aspects and angles to NATO thinking and planning. It's something I look at from time to time. When you view it all through different eyes, it can be quite revealing.

You don't commonly hear much about NATO 3.0, but this is the reality. NATO 2.0 came into existence in the 1990's - attacking the former Yugoslavia, fighting in Afghanistan, and overthrowing the government of Libya. It was an alliance that needed to justify its existence. As tensions grew with Moscow in the 2000's, a new anti-Russia imperative came into being - it was a return to its original posture but in a new era.

And now in the age of Trump, the NATO 3.0 project is attempting to salvage the alliance in the face of rising nationalism and avoid the creation of an EU Army. NATO 3.0 keeps the US in the alliance under a downgraded Atlanticism, and it also leaves a place for Canada as well. Other European powers such as France were quite eager to 'step up' (as it were) and assume greater responsibility and leadership - something seen especially in the 2011 Libya regime change operation. But at this point (fifteen years later) both France and Germany are so beset by internal problems, political wrangling, and even economic debate that they are proving less than able.

While NATO has been diminished overall, the financial investment is still staggering and this demonstrates how in many respects NATO (like the Pentagon) has a life of its own. It also reveals the role of the Secretary-General. Subservient to the US in terms of actual policy, on a practical level he represents a sprawling complex of military-corporate interests. The investment in new systems and pledges to funnel weapons to Ukraine constitutes a pretty staggering sum of money - all of which comes out of budgets that were once earmarked for things like healthcare, education, and other services. This plays into American Right-wing ideology and narratives but the overall assessment in the European Right is mixed. Many would like to see privatisation, but not in the name of trans-national geopolitics and corporate interests.

Note also the overlap with the energy industry as NATO is making a point to invest in infrastructure and security connected to it.

These events are also something of a carnival - the marketing, side-deals, and lobby attempts to promote and sell arms and weapons systems is a huge component of what these summits are all about - an aspect rarely focused on by the media. Many a 'forum' is nothing more than a platform for industry representatives to make a sales pitch.

The NATO website says it best:

Whether you're a global prime contractor, a small or medium-sized enterprise, or a deep -tech startup, this is your main entry point to see the current opportunities to work with NATO, Allies and other companies, in support of the Alliance’s collective security.

And while the big summit meetings make the news, there are multiple meetings and forums wherein companies are able to present their wares.

Rutte did not disappoint. He pressed the corporate sector to expand their operations and increase production. Future sales are guaranteed - that was his message.

That's a sure recipe for war - a war that's been in the planning for years. That's what NATO represents. It has nothing to do with defense. It's about money and power, they always go together.