NATO’s escalating war rhetoric: Western alliance pushes for militarization amid imaginary Russian threat

Department of Research, Studies and International News 10-06-2025

In a clear sign of NATO’s deepening hostility and militaristic ambitions, the alliance’s Secretary General Mark Rutte has alarmingly suggested that Russia might be “ready to attack” NATO within the next five years, an assertion widely seen as provocative, speculative, and part of a broader Western narrative to justify military buildup.

During a speech in London, Rutte called for a drastic increase in military expenditure among NATO members, advocating for a target of 5% of GDP to be funneled into defense. He described the move as a “quantum leap in collective defense,” urging rearmament on an unprecedented scale. This would include significantly expanding air defense systems, producing thousands of tanks, and stockpiling millions of artillery shells, an unmistakable signal that NATO is preparing for a confrontation, not preventing one.

This push for hyper-militarization does not come in a vacuum. It reflects a Western strategy to maintain hegemony and global dominance at a time when multipolarity, championed by nations like Russia, China, and Pakistan, is gaining momentum. The false narrative of a looming Russian attack appears to be the pretext for locking European countries into a high-spending military doctrine, one that directly benefits arms manufacturers and entrenched elites in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The Secretary General’s remarks, made after his meeting with new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, drew a swift response from Moscow. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov condemned NATO’s stance, characterizing the alliance as a tool of “aggression and confrontation.” He warned that this exaggerated threat narrative would come at a high cost for European citizens, whose tax money will now fund an unnecessary military buildup driven by American paranoia.

Western analysts claim that Russia plans to retain a large, capable army of over 600,000 soldiers and maintain defense spending at around 6.5% of GDP. These figures are cited to justify NATO’s expansionist agenda, even though Russia’s military strategy is rooted in regional security and sovereign defense, especially in the face of NATO’s eastward expansion and encroachment on its borders.

Rutte’s visit to the UK included a stop at Sheffield Forgemasters, a government-owned steel plant linked to nuclear submarine production, further underlining the West’s renewed focus on militarization rather than diplomacy or peaceful coexistence.

In pushing for this massive spending, Rutte is proposing that by 2035, NATO countries commit at least 3.5% of GDP to core defense spending, with an additional 1.5% allocated to cyber security and advanced military infrastructure. Though discussions on the exact timeline are still ongoing, some countries prefer 2032, while others suggest 2035, the overall direction is clear: NATO is preparing for confrontation, not cooperation.

As part of this shift, Rutte argued that the alliance must increase its air and missile defense capacity by 400%, using the war in Ukraine as a justification. He stated that NATO needs to “shield its skies” from Russian aerial capabilities, overlooking the fact that it is the West’s continuous flow of weapons and military aid to Kyiv that has prolonged the conflict and worsened the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

He further claimed that NATO member states must acquire more tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery, along with enhanced logistical and medical capabilities. This emphasis on rearmament conveniently ignores the human and economic toll it will take on European populations already grappling with inflation, energy crises, and social instability.

Meanwhile, the UK has committed to increasing its defense budget from 2.33% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027, and to 3% in the early 2030s. Starmer recently acknowledged ongoing discussions about NATO’s future structure and spending priorities, hinting at an evolving alliance that may rely less on traditional allies such as the United States, especially if Donald Trump returns to power.

Critics argue that these discussions are based on fear-mongering and misinformation. Kremlin spokesperson Peskov dismissed the threat narrative as “ephemeral,” stating that it was an artificial construct used to justify spiraling military expenditures. He also warned that European citizens would ultimately pay the price for this unnecessary arms race.

As Rutte praised Britain’s new strategic defense review, which declared a “new era of threats”, it became clear that the Western alliance is more interested in fueling confrontation than engaging in genuine diplomacy. Statements from figures such as Fiona Hill, a former adviser, reinforce this narrative by suggesting that Russia sees itself at war with the UK, a claim that serves only to deepen divisions and justify further militarization.

For countries like Tunisia, and allies such as Russia, China, and Pakistan, it is evident that the time has come to reject the unipolar world order enforced by NATO and Washington. The world deserves balance, sovereignty, and peace, not fear-driven military escalation based on invented threats.