Liberal militarized states must rely on secrecy and must even deceive their own populations when the country's interests require it.1

Background

Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, we have seen membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) more than double. This is bizarre, when recalling that it was established as a bulwark against the spread of communism from the USSR to Western Europe. The USSR collapsed and ceased to exist in December 1991 as West Germany was reunited with East Germany.

In this article, we will explore the question of why an organization established to deter an enemy that no longer exists may continue to exist. These concerns have become particularly pronounced with the war in Ukraine, allegedly initiated by Russia, because, as President Putin states, the West crossed the red line by insisting that Ukraine must join the NATO alliance.

The military industrial complex

Which other arguments could weigh heavier than those presented to President Clinton by military experts, academicians, and diplomats in the letter signed by 50 personalities? A closer look at this question shows that the impact of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC)2 accelerated in the 1990s at the end of the Cold War.3

At the collapse of the USSR and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact countries, arms manufacturers panicked. A number of them merged to avoid immediate bankruptcy, and four major companies emerged. The largest one of them was Lockheed Martin. Its CEO was a member of a little-known committee named the Defense Policy Advisory Committee on Trade. It advised and guided the Secretary of Defense on arms export policies.

While the home ground prepared itself for large-scale export of arms, representatives and lobbyists flooded Eastern European countries, previously part of the USSR empire. They worked hard on Poland, where its president was anxious to join NATO. He got unexpected help from Clinton's foreign policy advisor, Brzezinski, who in 1994 informed Clinton that he would lose the Polish vote in several Midwestern states in the 1996 election if he did not let Poland into NATO.

The actual reasons for NATO's enlargement thus had little to do with European security, as several think tanks, such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution, claimed. It had more to do with the personal greed of those who control the arms industry.4

In this context, think tanks take on special importance, providing credible explanations to journalists, politicians, and the general public, thereby enhancing their understanding of regional conflicts and crises. The arms industry sponsors think tanks that exert significant influence over public opinion, which, in turn, determines who will be elected to policy-making assemblies.

Upon this logic, the arms industry, in fact, dictates the context that determines the daily lives of the majority of populations in the Western world.5 It can be reasonably postulated that the industry supports NATO's continued expansion and warmongering, as it is more profitable for the industry than the peaceful coexistence of nations.

Rearmament

"Buy, buy, buy!" encourages the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, who is the most vocal war hawk among EU leaders supporting Ukraine in the ongoing war. As a result of these calls for rearmament, EU Member States collectively spent €52 billion on defence investment in 2021, of which €43 billion was allocated to purchasing military equipment and €9 billion to research and development. This is more than double the €21 billion EU member states dedicated to new defence equipment at their low point in 2014.

Following Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, the European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, decided to bypass the laws of the EU, which, in fact, legally ban it from using its budget to fund military activities.

In 2016, he found a workaround by defining defence as part of the EU's industrial strategy. The European Defense Fund (EDF) was established in 2017. Once Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a call from the EU as well as national politicians for militarization. A Belgian NGO notices that the group of personalities who had advised on the need to establish EDF all had links to the arms industry.6The establishment of the European Defense Fund resulted in an unprecedented acceleration in the militarization of the EU.

Over the next decade, the European Union plans to allocate 40 billion euros for research, development, and procurement of new weapons. Decisions by the EDF are taken without any public debate, not even within the European Parliament.

Lobbying for bellicose solutions to solve regional conflicts

The lobbying budgets of the largest European defence companies surged around 40 percent between 2022 and 2023. In 2023, the combined lobbying expenses totalled €6.7 million, representing a nearly 40 percent increase from the previous year. US defence giant Lockheed Martin, for example, signed on the EU lobbying register for the first time in May 2024 and has already deployed two lobbyists to the European Parliament.7

Four American companies lead the increase in lobbying activities following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 8They compete with numerous European companies, of which the largest are based in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Sweden.9 Out of 46 armed conflicts, 34 of them involve parties armed by the USA. 31 of these countries were defined by Freedom House as 'not free'.10

Arms companies and their networks increasingly lobby on policies that are important to them, such as exemptions from environmental regulations. The call for rapid rearmament by the Danish Prime Minister resulted in the immediate granting by the Danish parliament of authorization for procurement to the head of the armed forces, without applying the usual tender procedures and parliamentary oversight.

The arms industry invests considerable resources in rebranding itself as a contributor to societal well-being. The most recent attempt at this is evident in its efforts to establish itself as the guardian of global sustainability. It is as if lobbyists are blind to the images coming out of Gaza of the destruction of infrastructure and living quarters by American weapons in the hands of the Israeli Defense Force!

Lobbying activities have resulted in significant increases in funding programs for the arms industry from 2025 as part of the 2021-2027 budget review of the EU. The EU has adopted new funding mechanisms as a matter of urgency, notably the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP), which provides €300 million in subsidies to the arms industry to boost ammunition and missile production.11

The revolving door

There are no doors between the arms industry and policymakers. At best, one can observe a revolving door, which leaves a notion of parliamentary bodies being independent from external influences. Individuals will move from government positions to think tanks and lobbyists, and vice versa. A former vice president of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms manufacturer, became an independent lobbyist upon retirement. 12

In 2022, it was reported that the arms industry employed 766 lobbyists. The vast majority of these lobbyists passed through the "revolving door" from senior positions in the Pentagon, Congress, the State Department, and the White House. They utilize their connections with former colleagues to provide an inside track for advocating the interests of weapons manufacturers. More than a dozen former Pentagon and military officials, who held positions in the US administration with responsibilities for arms sales and security assistance, went on to work for the weapons industry.13

The nomination of Lloyd Austin, U.S. Secretary of Defense under the Biden Administration, serves as a noteworthy example of the revolving door practice. He was recruited from the board of Raytheon, the largest company in the USA, which manufactures aerospace equipment.

Think tanks

Think tanks are interest groups that pursue research and analysis to advance a set of values or ideas, often through political action, policy change, and cultural and social influence. Think tanks funded by the defence industry frequently advocate for military expansion and develop intellectual justifications for military interventions abroad. Some of the most important ones in terms of influencing government policies receive large donations from the arms industry.

One of the most influential think tanks, the Brookings Institution, was headed by a retired four-star Marine Corps general from 2017 until 2023. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and United Technologies donate funds to a select group of think tanks, including the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), New America Foundation, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings, Heritage, and more.

In 2018, CNAS released a report suggesting that the US Air Force purchase a high number of B-21 bomber jets. The report did not disclose that Northrop Grumman, the maker of the B-21, is one of CNAS's most prominent donors and would stand to gain $33–$49 billion in sales from this recommendation if carried out. The Biden administration appointed over a dozen CNAS staff members to top executive positions, from where they exerted a direct influence on US involvement in the war in Ukraine.14

Creating public support

NATO often emphasizes that its commitment to defend shared values unites its members and partners. NATO never forgets to remind the world that wherever it intervenes, it always enjoys support from populations of its respective member and partner nations. Emphasis is given to values such as individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. NATO's wars are often portrayed as promoting democracy, freedom, and human rights. The implicit definition of the concept of democracy as applied by NATO suggests that it is the authorities in alliance countries that decide the degree of participation of people in their own affairs.

This practice of liberal democracy implies that information must be controlled by the authorities to ensure that people conform to government policies. An authority on this subject observes that militarized liberal states, such as the USA with its NATO alliance, "must rely on secrecy and must even deceive their own people when the country's interests require it." Elected policymakers want to avoid accountability if chosen policies turn out to be wrong solutions. Therefore, they often choose to keep the public in the dark.15

As far as military services and intelligence agencies in the West are concerned, it is always the other side that manipulates facts. However, evidence has begun to emerge, suggesting that NATO may even be testing its principles of cognitive warfare on its own people, with the intention of ensuring conformity with its policies on rearmament and expansion of the organization.

If this is eventually validated, it will help explain why a political majority in most Western countries now supports NATO membership. Socialist parties, which had traditionally opposed the Alliance, have now shifted their stance and advocate for, and vote in favour of, NATO activities. Obviously, NATO and the arms industry in the US and Europe are jubilant with the growing support for rearmament.

Humiliation fosters conflict

NATO's attempts to justify its bellicose behaviour cannot hide its many violations of international law committed in the name of democracy and human rights. Mainstream media does not consider it disrespectful to misinform or omit information about Russia and its government, even when such information could contribute to a more positive image of Russia and possibly lead to possibilities for a negotiated solution to the long war in Ukraine. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has on several occasions proposed collaboration and dialogue with the West. There is little doubt that the West's response has been perceived as humiliating by Russia.

A renowned psychologist reminds us of the importance of the sentiment of humiliation as a cause of war. Humiliation is an emotion that very often is held by at least one of the parties in a conflict.16 NATO's installation of missiles on the border with Russia in Poland and Romania and the characterization of its president as a liar are definitely perceived as humiliating and, at best, disrespectful to the entire population of Russia and constitute a serious obstacle to a peaceful solution to the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Concluding words

Julian Assange declared that 'wars start with lies'. His statement refers to disinformation, which often serves as a pretext for belligerent actions by a government. The general public is likely to assume that decision-makers are well-versed in matters about their respective areas of responsibility. Concerning peace and security, politicians are easy prey to powerful arms lobbyists and think tanks. Politicians are rarely part of groups known for generating original ideas.

In many cases, they lack the intellectual courage and the time to examine the complex issues affecting the daily lives of their populations. Primarily, they are driven by the desire to project an image of themselves as indispensable and influential individuals. Hence, they allow themselves to be manipulated by lobbyists, who know that the most effective way of influencing entire populations is to capture the minds of elected parliamentarians.

It is tragic for the future of humanity that so few journalists dare to go beyond the news as presented by mainstream media. Conformity of mind among the majority of people is unlikely to lead to a more dignified world composed of individuals willing to engage in respectful dialogue with one another. Shockingly, we have allowed our lives to be ruled by the Military Industrial Complex.

Notes

1 The Great Delusion. Liberal Dreams and International Realities, by John J. Mearsheimer, Yale University Press, 2018.
2 Concept was launched by the American president, General D. Eisenhower.
3 The Industry Agenda: The Military Industrial Complex, by Elias Alsbergas and Vishal Shankar. 2021. Also The Revolving Door Project.
4 The Spoils of War, Andrew Cockburn, Verso 2023.
5 Against that background, Julian Assange referred to journalists as war criminals. The US government charged Assange with having violated the 1917 Espionage Act. He spent years in hiding at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and subsequently five years in a high-security prison in the UK.
6 Alter-EU, How the arms industry is hijacking Europe’s defence policy, Report by Bram Vranken.
7 The defense industry spends big on lobbying Brussels, by Elisa Brown and Giovanna Coi in Politico, March 5, 2025.
8 Four companies produce 58 percent of weapons systems: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics (Quency Paper no. 9, Oct. 2022, by William D. Hartung.)
9 The largest European companies are BAE (UK), Airbus Defence and Space (EU), Thales Group (Fr), Rheinmetall (Germany), Leonardo (Italy), and SAAB (Sweden).
10 Freedom House was founded in 1941 to rally policymakers in the USA in the fight against Nazi Germany. Today, it is the leading American organization devoted to supporting democracy around the world.
11 From war lobby to war economy: How the arms industry shapes European policies, by Mark Akkerman & Chloé Maulewaeter, December 2023.
12 L’Otan, Une Alliance au service de la guerre, by Medea Benjamin and Davis Swanson, Lux 2022.
13 Quency Paper no. 9, Oct. 2022.
14 The Revolving Door Project (RDP) scrutinizes US government appointees to ensure they use their office to serve the broad public interest. This information is from an RDP report dated February 10, 2021.
15 The Great Delusion, Liberal Dreams and International Realities, by John J. Mearsheimer, 2018.
16 Making Enemies. Humiliation and International Conflict, by Evelin Lindner, Praeger Security International. 2006.