Premal Kumar Khanal
At the NATO summit held in The Hague , Netherlands on June 25, member states agreed to a landmark decision: allocate 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense by 2035. This figure, more than double the previous 2% benchmark, includes 3.5% for core military spending and 1.5% for defense-related investments. This commitment, called The Hague Defense Commitment, though politically powerful, is not legally binding.
The move marks an intensification of the global arms race. The 32 NATO countries—including the U.S., UK, Germany, France, and others—have already started ramping up military budgets. Critics argue that this expansion benefits the arms industry and multinational corporations while worsening inflation and living conditions for ordinary citizens.
Since World War II, the world has seen two dominant power blocs: the capitalist West, led by the United States, and socialist powers, primarily Russia. The U.S., alarmed by the spread of communism after Lenin’s October Revolution, formed NATO as a collective capitalist defense mechanism. The alliance was designed to block socialist expansion, secure Europe under Western influence, and counter the Soviet Union militarily, politically, and ideologically.
NATO’s declared goals were to defend against invasions, block Soviet influence in Western Europe, provide a security umbrella, and deter nations from adopting communism. Initially formed for defense and socio-economic cooperation, it eventually became a large-scale military alliance.
Public perception, however, paints NATO as an aggressive force. Instead of fostering peace, critics argue it seeks global dominance by interfering in sovereign nations’ affairs and expanding militarily. Many believe NATO’s actions hinder international peace efforts, and that its arms buildup may ignite future conflicts.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez labeled the 5% GDP military target “disproportionate and unnecessary,” citing deepening rifts among European NATO members. U.S. President Donald Trump also applied pressure, warning of weakening U.S. support for Europe and threatening increased tariffs on countries like Spain for not contributing enough. These tensions underscore growing divisions within the alliance.
The summit also took a tougher stance toward socialist powers like China and Russia. It declared Russia a cyber threat and affirmed support for the ongoing U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine. Ukraine was officially designated a “strategic partner,” with NATO pledging increased military, cyber, and weapons support.
The summit further outlined ambitious technological and geopolitical goals. It announced the development of a command structure focusing on artificial intelligence, space, and cyber warfare. Sweden was granted full NATO membership, and the alliance expanded cooperation with Indo-Pacific and Global South nations like India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. NATO also unveiled its Diana Strategic Plan 2025–2030 for defense technology research, indicating a new era of war preparations using advanced technologies.
In 2024 alone, NATO members spent over $1.3 trillion on defense, up from nearly $1 trillion in 2014 (in constant prices). This immense allocation to militarism is in stark contrast to urgent humanitarian needs. Globally, 733 million people suffer from hunger, and 2.83 billion cannot afford healthy food—roughly 35% of the world’s population. Nearly 712 million people live in extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as living on less than $2.15 a day. Over 1.1 billion people face multidimensional poverty, including 566 million children.
This correlation between military spending and global suffering is glaring. Critics argue that diverting a portion of these funds to welfare could significantly reduce hunger, poverty, and inequality. Instead, militarism continues to dominate national priorities. Unemployment, another contributing factor to poverty and food insecurity, worsens the problem as millions lack income to meet basic needs.
Spanish peace scholar Pere Ortega has been a long-standing critic of NATO. He believes NATO’s interventions and bombings have escalated regional tensions rather than resolved them. According to him, conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war are partly a result of NATO’s aggressive expansion and foreign policy. Ortega advocates for a shift away from confrontation towards mutual cooperation and common security under international frameworks like the United Nations.
Marxist perspectives align with this criticism. From a Marxist lens, NATO is viewed as a tool of Western capitalist imperialism, designed to uphold the dominance of capitalist states and suppress socialist movements. It serves the interests of the bourgeois class by using military might to secure global economic and political control, especially over developing nations.
Supporters of NATO argue the alliance exists for collective security and stability. They claim NATO helps deter external threats and uphold democratic values. However, Marxists emphasize economic inequality and class struggle as core drivers of global instability, viewing NATO’s actions as exacerbating these divisions rather than solving them.
Fundamentally, the divide between Marxist and NATO-aligned worldviews is rooted in differing concepts of power. While NATO emphasizes state security, diplomacy, and military partnerships, Marxist ideology stresses social justice, anti-imperialism, and solidarity among the working class. According to Marxists, meaningful peace cannot be achieved through militarism, but only by restructuring global systems of power and production.
This ideological clash highlights the broader crisis of capitalism. As inequality, environmental degradation, and conflict worsen, working-class people around the world increasingly search for socialism . Western powers, however, use institutions like NATO to preserve their dominance. Whether these tools succeed ,depends on the shifting balance of class forces and geopolitical realities.
The path to lasting peace lies not in escalating military spending but in replacing the capitalist system that fuels poverty and war. Only through global solidarity, democratic planning, and cooperative development can the world move toward a future without militarism. The alternative is a world permanently locked in conflict, where billions suffer while trillions are spent on war.
[Premal Kumar Khanal is Presidential Council Member of World Federation of Trade Unions ,WFTU]
