Sevim Dagdelen: The EU and NATO's massive rearmament plans have nothing to do with defense

PASCUAL SERRANO

The former member of the German Bundestag and spokesperson for international affairs of the parliamentary group of Sahra Wagenkecht's party, BSW, Sevim Dagdelen, has been in Spain (Madrid and Valencia) presenting her book “NATO. A reckoning with the alliance of values”, published in Spain at the beginning of the year. Previously, he was responsible for the Left Party's Foreign Affairs, Defense, Interior, and Economic Affairs committees.

We chatted about his book, but also about Europe and the war in Ukraine. (Thanks to Carlos García Hernández of Lola Books for the translation.)

The European Commission has proposed mobilizing €800.000 billion for defense in the EU. Your country, Germany, was the first to support and request a fiscal exemption to overcome the deficit limit if it is for defense. The main contradiction I see is that it says this spending is needed for Europe to have its own defense system because the US is no longer willing to assume it. On the other hand, if we remain in NATO, that money will be for the Alliance's military structure.

I mean, in the end, under the guise of European sovereignty, we ended up accepting the demands of the United States and NATO to increase military spending. What do you think?

The escalation of the war in Ukraine in recent days is also due to NATO. Without the military alliance's support, Ukraine's attack on Russian nuclear forces would be hardly conceivable; it may even have been planned and coordinated at NATO's headquarters for Ukraine in Wiesbaden. The West thus risks a third world war. NATO's geopolitical objective remains, as Foreign Minister Baerbock put it, "to ruin Russia." This is a dangerous game with fire, fueled by deep-seated Russophobia.

It's clear that the EU and NATO's gigantic rearmament plans have nothing to do with defense. On the contrary, they paint a picture of a looming war. The plan is to set a target of 5% of GDP for military spending at the NATO summit in The Hague on June 25-26, 2025. This would correspond to more than €3 trillion, 18 times Russia's military spending.

The United States is focusing on its main competitor, China, and demanding that Europeans arm themselves against Russia. This represents a new division of labor within NATO. The objective of the military pact remains to ensure US global hegemony. In the past, European NATO states surrendered their sovereignty in exchange for a promise of security. Today, the price is much higher. Countries like Germany are being pushed to the front lines of a proxy war in Ukraine.

Through the cooperation agreements between NATO and the EU, the EU has degraded itself to an obedient enforcer of the military pact according to a single mold for arms policy. Europe's growing military spending serves solely the United States' geopolitical struggle to maintain its supremacy, controlled by American investment funds, which have now become central political actors. We are witnessing the oligarchization of politics in the United States. In the end, it is not about European interests, but about vassalage.

In his book, NATO: A reckoning with the alliance of valuesYou review the false myths of the Alliance. What has NATO lied about?

NATO claims to be a defensive alliance, but at the same time it has waged wars of aggression around the world, for example in Yugoslavia and Libya. The United States, NATO's largest member, is responsible for millions of deaths as a result of invasions such as the one in Iraq. NATO is an integral part of these acts of aggression and must be held accountable. Therefore, one cannot talk about defense when talking about NATO. Moreover, NATO is now focused on its expansion into Europe and Asia and on an escalation of proxy warfare. Of course, defense is anything but.

Another myth is that NATO is an "alliance of values." However, if we look at Gaza, we see how the two largest NATO states, the United States and Germany, are supporting a far-right Israeli government and supplying it with weapons. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch speak of genocide. What values ​​are represented when genocide is promoted? Here too, NATO as a whole must be held accountable. No member state has raised in the NATO Council the issue of the United States and Germany supporting the heinous war crimes committed by Israeli security forces.

NATO's self-image as a defender of democracy and the rule of law is pure hypocrisy. Portugal, under the Salazar dictatorship, was a member of NATO, and Franco's fascist Spain was also internationally recognized thanks to its military pact with the US. Today, we see support for al-Qaeda in Syria or far-right battalions like the Azov Regiment in Ukraine. The supposed defense of democratic values ​​serves as a facade for its geopolitical interests, even if it means supporting Islamist terrorists or fascist regimes.

I have the feeling that the country that has sunk the lowest in servility is Germany: accepting the destruction of gas pipelines, suffering more than any other European country from sanctions against Russia, unconditionally supporting Israel, and repressing pro-Palestinian demonstrations. You talk about all of this in your book. And yet, the result of all this seems to only benefit the far right.

By producing Taurus missiles, which could reach Moscow, the German government risks entering the war. Germany is on the way to becoming a military state again. I'm surprised at how little this is recognized in other European countries. Chancellor Merz wants to make the Bundeswehr the "strongest army in Europe," and apparently many see no problem with this, believing it is directed solely against Russia. However, this is an illusion.

They want Germany to be able to wage war again. 5% of GDP represents €225.000 billion in military spending, almost half of the federal budget. Germany unconditionally follows Washington's instructions. The danger of being drawn into a war with Russia is growing.

German elites say Germany should play a protective role in Eastern Europe, on NATO's eastern flank. The establishment of the first German military base since 1945 in Lithuania, near the Russian border, should also alarm Spain and France. The question arises: Is it really in Spain's interest for Germany to once again become Europe's strongest military power, especially given the ignominious role of Franco's Spanish Blue Division in World War II, the genocide in the Soviet Union, and the murderous siege of Leningrad?

I think there are a lot of people who are very skeptical about it.

We're witnessing the rapid advance of the far right in Europe, although it should also be noted that anything that opposes the European Commission and NATO and proposes a policy of coexistence with Russia is now called the far right. Furthermore, in the European Parliament, what they call the far right is divided into three different political groups. What's your opinion on this far right? Why is it advancing?

The far right was strengthened by governments that proclaimed themselves leftist but betrayed the interests of working people through rearmament, sanctions, and social cuts. Since the French Revolution, democratic sovereignty has always been linked to border control. Only ultra-liberals demanded open borders and uncontrolled immigration, which has a huge impact on social justice.

When left-wing parties adopted these demands, they lost the support of the working class (with or without foreign origins). The vast majority of the people want democratic sovereignty and the resulting control of borders.

Along with left-wing identity politics, militarism, and social cuts, left-wing parties drove people into the arms of the right. If we truly want to stop the right, we must return to the classic left, to classic social democratic politics: social justice, against war and rearmament, and in favor of democratic sovereignty.

Strange things happen in European elections: results are suspended in Romania, the result changes thanks to the emigrants' vote in Moldova, your party is excluded from the German Parliament by just a few thousand votes and you lose your seat, the left wins in France but doesn't govern.

Formal democracy in Europe is in danger. People feel as if they are at war and are willing to tolerate electoral manipulation (as in Romania) or accept presidential regimes without a parliamentary majority, as in France. One could say this is democracy under pre-war conditions. Political science largely ignores this, but the population is well aware of the anti-democratic paradigm shift: in Germany, only 40% of people still believe they can freely express their opinions. In the 70s, this figure was almost 90%. This shows that the cornerstones of democracy are shifting.

In many European countries, and especially in Spain, the left has criticism and confrontation with NATO in its DNA. It seems that this critical spirit is weakening in many countries, and even more so in Germany. What's happening?

Today, attitudes toward NATO are the acid test for whether a party can still be considered left-wing. Anyone who supports NATO's proxy war against Russia through arms supplies or the imposition of economic sanctions has abandoned the principles of the historical left. The same applies to the issue of arms supplies to Israel.

We are experiencing a profound upheaval in the European party system. It is comparable to that of 1914, when support for imperialist war became the decisive dividing line on the political left. Today, it is once again war politics that determines who truly supports peace, social justice, and democratic sovereignty, and who is subservient to the transatlantic mainstream.

The million-dollar question: How do you think the war in Ukraine should end?

Only through diplomacy and negotiations. A balance of interests is necessary: ​​Ukraine must renounce NATO membership. NATO's eastward expansion is perceived as a threat to Russia, and rightly so. Peace is only possible if these security interests are taken into account.

An immediate ceasefire, accompanied by a renunciation of further arms deliveries to Ukraine, would be a viable option. Instead, the focus is on escalation. The 2022 Istanbul negotiations were torpedoed by the West; something similar is now happening with support for attacks on Russian nuclear weapons. Hundreds of thousands of deaths could have been avoided if the West had not arrogantly believed it could achieve a military victory over a nuclear power.