NATO’s original purpose was to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but with the USSR long gone, the alliance has only expanded its reach. The post-Cold War promise to limit NATO’s eastward expansion was abandoned, raising tensions with Russia and contributing to global instability. Meanwhile, its role in military interventions—many of which lacked UN approval—raises serious questions about its true objectives. Is NATO really about defense, or is it a tool for projecting Western power under the guise of security?

Imagine a world where military alliances are genuinely defensive, committed to de-escalation rather than provocation. A NATO that upholds its original mandate—protecting its members without interfering in sovereign states—could play a stabilizing role in global security. But to achieve this, the alliance must confront its own contradictions. It cannot claim to be a force for peace while engaging in offensive operations and expanding its influence unchecked.

It’s time for an honest reassessment of NATO’s role in global security. Should the alliance return to its defensive roots, or should it acknowledge its transformation into an interventionist force? Citizens, policymakers, and global leaders must demand transparency and accountability. The world cannot afford another “defensive” war that looks anything but.

Case Studies: Kosovo (1999), Libya (2011), Afghanistan (2001-2021)

NATO claims to be a defensive alliance, yet its military operations in Kosovo, Libya, and Afghanistan tell a different story. These interventions were not triggered by attacks on NATO members but were framed as necessary actions for humanitarian or security reasons. However, each of these conflicts left behind long-term instability, raising questions about NATO’s true objectives. Were these interventions about defense, or were they exercises in power projection under the guise of security?

• Kosovo (1999): NATO launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia without UN Security Council approval, setting a precedent for bypassing international law. While the operation was justified as a humanitarian mission to stop ethnic cleansing, it resulted in civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and long-term instability in the region followed with another ethnic cleansing (of non-albanian people) and destroying monasteries, churches, and monuments. The recognition of Kosovo’s independence by Western states, despite Serbia’s opposition, further deepened tensions.
• Libya (2011): What started as a no-fly zone enforcement quickly escalated into a regime-change operation, leading to the overthrow and death of Muammar Gaddafi. Libya, once a stable country, descended into chaos, with armed militias, human trafficking, and a prolonged civil war. NATO’s intervention not only failed to stabilize Libya but also created a power vacuum that fueled extremism across North Africa that will be hard to uproot. Libia will never be the same and perhaps never in peace again.
• Afghanistan (2001-2021): NATO’s longest military engagement began as a counterterrorism mission after 9/11 but evolved into a nation-building project with no clear exit strategy. After two decades, trillions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost, NATO forces withdrew, leaving Afghanistan under Taliban control—essentially back to square one. The abrupt withdrawal highlighted the failure of military intervention as a long-term solution to security challenges and left people who supported the west for years, at the mercy of the talibans.

If NATO is truly a defensive alliance, it must critically assess its past interventions and their consequences. These case studies demonstrate that military action often leads to unintended instability, undermining NATO’s credibility. A return to the alliance’s original mission—strictly defending member states rather than engaging in external conflicts—would prevent further geopolitical disasters.

To regain trust, NATO must commit to respecting international law and ensuring that future operations are genuinely defensive rather than interventionist. Without accountability, the pattern of military miscalculations will continue, raising the risk of new conflicts. The question remains: Will NATO learn from these failures, or will it continue to justify interventions that create more problems than they solve?

The Blurred Line Between Defense and Intervention

NATO presents itself as a purely defensive alliance, yet its actions often suggest otherwise. While Article 5 of its charter states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, most of NATO’s military operations have not been in response to direct threats against its members. Instead, the alliance has engaged in interventions far beyond its borders, raising serious questions about whether NATO is still adhering to its original mission or if it has evolved into an offensive force under the pretense of security.

NATO’s interventions in Yugoslavia (1999), Libya (2011), and Afghanistan (2001-2021) highlight this contradiction. These operations were justified with narratives of humanitarian intervention or counterterrorism, yet their long-term consequences have often resulted in more instability rather than security. If NATO’s primary role is to defend its members, why does it repeatedly engage in conflicts that have little to do with collective defense?

 These cases suggest that NATO is not strictly defensive but selectively engages in conflicts based on political and strategic interests. This raises concerns among both NATO members and non-member states about the alliance’s true purpose.

A truly defensive NATO would focus on protecting its borders rather than engaging in foreign interventions. If the alliance is to remain credible, it must clearly define the limits of its military involvement and ensure that its operations align with international law. The world does not need another military force acting under ambiguous justifications—it needs stability and de-escalation.

The key question remains: Will NATO return to its defensive roots, or will it continue to act as an interventionist power under the guise of collective security?

How Non-Member States Perceive NATO’s Actions

While NATO presents itself as a protector of democracy and peace, how do non-member states view its actions? In regions such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, NATO is often seen less as a guardian of security and more as a force of Western influence. Its interventions—both military and political—raise alarms about the alliance’s growing impact on the sovereignty of non-member states. How can NATO claim to defend peace when it’s perceived by many as an aggressive force that disregards national boundaries and interests?

From Russia’s vehement opposition to NATO’s expansion, to the widespread disillusionment in the Middle East after NATO’s interventions in Libya and Afghanistan, non-member states view NATO with growing skepticism.

• Russia sees NATO’s eastward expansion as a direct threat to its sphere of influence and security. Despite repeated warnings and diplomatic appeals, NATO’s inclusion of countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania has heightened tensions and led to a militarization of the region.
• Middle Eastern states, particularly in Syria and Libya, have witnessed NATO interventions that were framed as humanitarian missions, only to result in chaotic power vacuums, economic collapse, and the rise of extremist groups. These actions are often seen as motivated by Western geopolitical interests, rather than genuine concern for regional stability.
• Africa has also felt NATO’s influence, as seen in the fallout from the Libyan intervention. NATO’s role in toppling Gaddafi left Libya in a state of lawlessness, which spread instability throughout the Sahel and beyond, exacerbating the region’s security challenges.

These interventions have left non-member states wary of NATO’s true intentions. They are increasingly questioning whether the alliance’s actions are genuinely in the interest of global peace, or whether they are serving a geopolitical agenda that undermines regional autonomy.

 Conclusion: Maintaining Global Peace in an Evolving World

In a world where tensions are rising and conflicts are becoming more complex, the role of military alliances like NATO has never been more critical. While NATO was founded to ensure collective defense, the challenges of today—ranging from cyber threats to regional instability—demand a broader understanding of what it means to maintain peace. The question is no longer whether NATO is fulfilling its original mission, but rather how it can adapt to the changing nature of global security and contribute to lasting peace in a multipolar world.

NATO has the potential to be a central force in maintaining global peace, but only if it commits to a broader vision—one that prioritizes stability and cooperation over military domination. The alliance must shift its focus to peaceful conflict resolution, global cooperation, and addressing non-traditional security threats. By using diplomacy, promoting dialogue, and reinforcing the values of sovereignty and especially respect for international law, NATO can be a true force for peace in the world.

In the military sense, but also the sense of politics, this development of technology has also led to major changes that can be described as a revolution of disinformation and propaganda. Of course, propaganda is not a new term and has existed as a weapon of rulers for thousands of years. One of the most powerful rulers of ancient Egypt, Ramses II (1279-1213 B.N.E.), was very dedicated to propaganda. The battle for which he is most famous, the Battle of Kadesh (in present-day Syria) against the Hittite Empire, was a battle that Rameses II did not win, but by depicting the battle on the walls of temples throughout Egypt, he presented it as a great victory before his people, who celebrated him because of his military skills and success.

In modern times, at the peak of technology and the possibility of spreading different messages, information (and especially disinformation) has become a very important weapon and tactic both in the internal and foreign policy of each state and in the wars that have been happening in recent decades. In this sense, disinformation would be fake news that is used for the purpose of self-promotion or discrediting the other party. Deepfake, on the other hand, represents a much more complex structure and a more complex approach. In the era of artificial intelligence, with a little logistical support, it becomes extremely easy to insert video or audio of a specific person into disinformation in order to present so-called proof of the disinformation itself. Nowadays, online software also does this very easily, while we can only guess how far the technology of large corporations, states, and state secret services reaches.

In the internal politics of the state, the spread of misinformation, although it can have dangerous consequences, most often represents nothing more than internal political fights and collecting votes and points for the next elections. In the foreign policy sense, misinformation can represent a serious weapon and tactic for achieving dominance in the geopolitical sense. This dominance is one of the very serious goals of the strategy of many large countries. Domination in the geopolitical sense can mean a privileged status in trade, developing the military industry, opening new markets (and keeping the old ones), and various other privileges.

However, in addition to the use of disinformation in peacetime conditions, in a military sense they can represent a weight on the cup that will prevail, and from the comfortable chair of the masterminds of disinformation, bring victory in the wet trenches of the front line. In the following text, we will deal with the main aspects of disinformation in a broader geopolitical sense, but also with the use of disinformation in wartime conditions.

Disinformation in peacetime conditions – a way to achieve political goals

In terms of interstate cooperation and geopolitics, disinformation and propaganda play an important role even in countries that are considered to be at the peak of the evolution of democracy. These countries, not only are not immune to the use of disinformation in the achievement of domestic and foreign policy goals, but have advanced so far in this type of struggle for supremacy that it is now quite difficult to see the border, separate information from disinformation, and find a player on the geopolitical scene who is less or more successfully using this tool.

Events in the USA after the 2020 election are one of the examples where it is difficult to separate quality information and misinformation in the sea of ​​information from two opposing political groups. Neither side had the intention to stop their spread and thus prevent what turned into a huge threat to the internal (but also external) stability of one of the world’s leading powers. Whether it was ignorance, a lack of vision and a look into the future, an inability to understand the real threats that could happen or a mere display of force and measuring muscles regardless of the consequences, it is difficult to say now. Either way, the big political players played on the media playground, each using their own roller coasters, each pulling their own supporters and dragging them unawares into such animosity that what ended up being possibly the largest civil unrest in US history.

Although the spread of disinformation in peacetime conditions most often has consequences for events within countries without spreading to the region, nevertheless, when it comes to large powers that largely control military, financial, social, and other flows, this threat can turn from intrastate challenges to regional and global challenges, risks and threats.

Such and similar tactics are also used by the great powers in relation to smaller states when it is necessary to ensure support, financial dependence, or some other interest. Even though the Eastern powers are not immune to this way of achieving goals, the best examples are often from the Western powers, both because of the number of examples and because of the colorful hypocrisy that is depicted on the canvas of international politics.

Why the hypocrisy? Well, simply because it is interesting how from the part of the globe that considers itself to be the most developed and the most democratic, examples of enormous disinformation arrive in order to lead to a change of government in a country or to a war, in which the same Western powers would then intervene and introduce their multi-trillion capital in military equipment and weapons and thus ensured themselves good earnings and the spread of influence in the world.

Disinformation in Iraq: Fabricating the Case for War

One of the best examples of the use of disinformation by major powers against states that resist the imposition of their geopolitical goals is Iraq.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was significantly fueled by a well-coordinated disinformation campaign aimed at justifying military actions to the domestic and international public. The most prominent element of this campaign was the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Intelligence reports, later proven to be erroneous or exaggerated, were presented as irrefutable evidence of Saddam Hussein’s capabilities and intentions. Senior officials, including members of the US and UK governments, have often cited these reports, arguing that Iraq’s alleged WMD programs pose an imminent threat to global security. This narrative was instrumental in gaining public and political support for the invasion, despite significant opposition and skepticism from various quarters, including several UN inspectors who found no significant evidence of active WMD programs in Iraq.

In addition, the disinformation campaign included spreading false links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorist organizations, particularly al-Qaeda. This narrative capitalized on heightened fears and anxieties following the 9/11 attacks, creating a sense of urgency and moral obligation to action against Iraq. The media played a key role in amplifying these claims, often without sufficient examination or critical analysis. The cumulative effect of these disinformation tactics was to erode public confidence in objective sources of information and create consent for a war that would have profound and lasting consequences. The consequences of these actions have not only led to enormous human suffering and regional instability but have significantly damaged the credibility of the governments involved and their intelligence communities.

After the military intervention, of course, no nuclear program was found or any evidence that it existed.

Disinformation and deep fake in war conditions as modern warfare

False information and deepfakes, in addition to their role in peaceful times, have perhaps a more important role in war situations. How? Well, any war intervention needs the support of public opinion, and it is more easily obtained if information is given to a wide audience in such a way as to direct the public’s perception in the expected direction.

The billions of dollars that the US administration gives to Ukraine Despite the fact that Ukraine, currently mired in corruption, represents a “bottomless barrel”, where probably a very large percentage of the money goes into totally wrong hands. The president of a country that is at war, and that loses hundreds of soldiers every day, should not allow himself to be photographed for a prestigious fashion magazine just a few months after the start of military interventions. Taking a photo with the first lady in an environment that is meant to resemble the front lines should in the real world be at least demeaning. But every propaganda is aimed only at certain groups of people. They are never aimed at a wide range of people, especially those who are critical, and will look at every piece of information from multiple angles.

Although this previous example is not an essential example of disinformation, but rather an example of propaganda (as in the example of Ramses II at the beginning of the text), propaganda AND disinformation (and with disinformation AND deepfake) most often go hand in hand. No misinformation can survive without a wide range of propaganda actions and campaigns.

With the start of the military intervention in Ukraine, we can see a handful of examples of disinformation circulating, especially in the Western world. Of course, it is needless to say that these campaigns are not only used by Western powers, but living in the Western world (or a part of the world that is Western-oriented) it is difficult, due to great censorship and self-censorship, to look objectively at Russia’s propaganda machinery.

Looking at the mainstream media, one can only get the impression of the sincerity of the Western powers and the insincerity of Russia, which is unacceptable to any thinking person. With just a little deeper “digging in the forests of the Internet” you can find a handful of buried examples of insincerity of the Western powers that are just waiting to be unearthed, so we leave it to any reader who has a little time and will.

On the other hand, Israel’s invasion of Gaza is one example of the inconsistency of the Western powers (under the baton of the USA) in relation to the conflicts that are taking place. Tens of thousands of killed civilians who pass by without condemnation by Western administrations, politicians, and the media as well as the UN as the umbrella institution of global security, are only proof that not all victims have the same value.

In this case, it is especially clear how they use disinformation along with propaganda to distort the truth and the factual situation. How a handful of examples of oppression of one ethnic group are forgotten and only events from a certain date (October 7, 2023) are remembered. As the culprit is constantly being sought on one side, and the other side, regardless of many war crimes (witnessed by civilians, journalists, representatives of the UN, and other missions), continues to present itself as a victim of the minority.

Propaganda and Disinformation in Libya: Manipulating Narratives for Regime Change

Also, one of the examples of the spread of disinformation was the war in Libya, where the Western countries had the sole goal of overthrowing Muammar al-Gaddafi from power. In addition, this is another example of the short-sightedness of the same countries and an example of how they rarely have “what to come” or “the day after” in their plans, so as a result we have civil wars, riots, the decline of democracy, etc.

During the civil war in Libya, information about the dictatorship of Muammar al-Gaddafi, the alleged crimes, and the fear with which he maintained his position was pushed on most of the Western media, but hardly anywhere could you see what positive aspects this leader introduced to his country. And maybe, and just maybe, some states can’t even be functional without a “dictatorship”, because the fact is that after the death of Gaddafi, there is not a single faction that is capable of uniting the people and putting the country back on its feet.

Too often it happens that the West enforces its system of values ​​and moral norms while ordinary people in third countries suffer and die. That under the slogan of introducing democratic values, the devaluation of human rights and the growth of corruption, which always accompanies these “democratic actions of the Western powers”, are taking place. And whether it’s a coincidence or not, these countries, where they “invest in democracy”, almost always have mineral wealth or are located in strategic geopolitical areas.