ABSTRACT
Since its establishment in 1949, NATO has been a pillar of transatlantic security, a mechanism that has adapted to evolving geopolitical realities, while maintaining its primary mission of collective defense. Over the decades, the alliance has achieved remarkable milestones, including the containment of Soviet expansion during the Cold War, intervention in humanitarian crises, and more recently, its response to renewed threats from Russia. However, NATO is now faced with the test of time and with the constant challenges that ensue from the current geopolitical reality, such as its unity and effectiveness, uneven member commitments, external threats, and the impact of political shifts, such as the U.S.. President-elect Donald Trump’s stance on the alliance [2] [14].
By examining NATO’s successes, structural weaknesses, and evolving geopolitical challenges, this article aims to achieve a better understanding of whether the alliance remains a strategic opportunity or is increasingly challenged by systemic issues.
NATO’s Historic Successes
Perhaps one of NATO’s most notable accomplishments, which was simultaneously its initial purpose, was its role in containing Soviet influence during the Cold War [9]. The containment strategy ensured the collective security of its members while preventing direct military conflict with the Warsaw Pact, thereby contributing to the 75-year absence of a continent-wide war in Europe.
After the Cold War, the alliance demonstrated adaptability in intervening in the Balkans during the 1990s to halt ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities in Bosnia [8] and Kosovo [5]. While the legitimacy of this intervention remains a topic of debate, and although these regions remain politically fragile, NATO’s actions underscored its ability to address instability beyond its traditional borders.
More recently, NATO responded to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, particularly after the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Programs such as the Readiness Action Plan, Enhanced Forward Presence, and the Four 30s Initiative showcased NATO’s ability to gradually refocus on collective defense. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine called for the involvement of the alliance, as it constituted a threat to the security of the European allies. This resulted in a rapid series of measures: integrating Finland and Sweden [12], bolstering troop presence along the eastern flank, and adopting new regional defense plans. According to the Congressional Research Service, approximately 10,000 allied soldiers currently serve in multinational battlegroups in eight countries along NATO’s eastern flank [13][1].
Challenges NATO Faces
Despite the relative successes, it can be argued that the burden shared among NATO members is uneven and constitutes one of the organization’s contemporary challenges. While the United States consistently provides the bulk of NATO’s military and financial resources, many European members fall short of established defense spending targets. During the Cold War, this percentage reached 3–5% of their GDP, but today, only 18 of 32 members meet the 2% target. This disparity produces a great reliance on the U.S., a trend that is worsened by delays in translating defense commitments into real actions. For instance, countries such as France and Germany have declared that ambitious spending has increased. French President Emmanuel Macron proposed a 40% increase [4] in defense spending for the 2024–2030 budget cycle, reflecting a shift toward prioritizing security. Similarly, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s historic Zeitenwende defense policy includes a €100 billion fund to modernize Germany’s military [3].
However, the slow implementation of these policies raises doubts about NATO members’ readiness to face immediate threats. These promises of future spending are inadequate without immediate contracts to stimulate the European defense industry. Without expanding production capacities, NATO risks being underprepared for potential conflicts, particularly if Russia replenishes its military force following the War in Ukraine. Andrew A. Michta, senior fellow and director of the Scowcroft Strategy Initiative at the Atlantic Council of the United States, has highlighted the slow pace of Europe’s munitions production increase while “without European rearmament, NATO is simply setting itself up for failure” [15].
Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has exposed the vulnerabilities of the alliance [9][13]. The possibility that a Ukrainian defeat could encourage Russia to target NATO has not incentivized sufficient action from many member states. While NATO strengthened its presence along the eastern flank and adopted measures to deter Russian aggression, the lack of urgency among European leaders remains worrying.
The Trump Factor
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s tenure posed significant challenges for NATO, as his rhetoric and policies strained the alliance’s cohesion during his first mandate, and possibly his second. Trump has frequently criticized NATO members for failing to meet defense spending commitments, has called the alliance “obsolete” [2], and often threatened to withdraw the U.S. membership if other state parties did not increase their contributions to the defense field.
Trump’s stance on NATO has only amplified longstanding tensions over burden sharing and raises questions about the U.S.’s commitment to collective defense. For instance, Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. might not uphold Article 5obligations, letting Russia do “whatever the hell they want” to underperforming members [14] created uncertainty about NATO’s credibility as a deterrent force. This ambiguity allows adversaries such as Russia to view the alliance as divided and less resolute, which underscores the need for NATO to reduce its dependence on the U.S. by fostering greater European self-reliance [15].
Strategic Opportunities
Despite these challenges, NATO is determined to seize significant strategic opportunities to secure relevance and effectiveness in a changing global order. Strengthening collective defense is among the most critical of such, especially to meet NATO’s original purpose under Article 5, according to which “an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.” The integration of Finland and Sweden, along with enhanced troop deployments and advanced regional defense plans, signals a commitment to address emerging threats with greater urgency. NATO’s focus on fortifying its eastern flank is a crucial move to counter Russia's aggression, as despite not being officially involved in the conflict, NATO has played a relevant role in circumventing expansionary threats from Russia. The integration of these capable and strategically positioned nations contributes to the alliance's overall preparedness and resilience, and enhances NATO’s ability to deter potential threats in the region. However, the success of these efforts hinges on members' willingness to sustain and expand them.
Another strategic opportunity lies in technological innovation. NATO has long benefited from cutting-edge advancements in defense, and continued investment in high-tech military capabilities is vital for maintaining its competitive edge. Programs such as the acquisition of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and surveillance platforms such as AWACS and Global Hawk drones demonstrate the benefits of collective procurement strategies. These investments enhance operational efficiency and improve the interactions between member states. Using artificial intelligence, cyber defense, and other emerging technologies, NATO can modernize its forces to meet the demands of contemporary warfare [10].
While the United States has historically shouldered much of NATO’s financial and military burden which has led to an overreliance on the U.S., smaller member states see the alliance as a protective umbrella from threats their own military and defense capabilities would not be able to contain. However, for the alliance to ensure meaningful progress and remain a strategic opportunity for its current and potential members, broader participation is needed to expand Europe’s defense industrial base, as it would enable NATO to respond swiftly to crises. Through coordinated planning and resource allocation, NATO can achieve a more balanced distribution of responsibilities and strengthen its overall resilience.
Finally, NATO has the opportunity to expand its scope to address non-traditional security threats, including cyberattacks, hybrid warfare [6][7], and the strategic challenges posed by China’s rise [11]. As these issues grow in importance, NATO must adapt its strategies to safeguard the interests of its members. This will require innovative thinking, expanded partnerships, and willingness to explore new domains of conflict and cooperation.
What is the path forward?
To ensure its continued relevance, NATO should adopt a unified and proactive approach to address its challenges and seize strategic opportunities. Equal burden sharing is critically important, as the alliance cannot sustain its effectiveness if only a fraction of its members meet their defense spending commitments. European nations should recognize the necessity of aligning their investments with NATO’s priorities, focusing on areas that enhance collective security. Meeting the 2% GDP target is not merely a financial obligation but a strategic necessity that reflects each member’s commitment to the alliance.
Operational cohesion ought to be a priority for NATO as it adapts to an increasingly complex security environment. Greater coordination among member states is essential for closing capability gaps and effective conduct of joint operations. This involves enhancing collaborative efforts and decision-making processes and creating stronger partnerships between national militaries [10]. By working together more effectively, NATO can build a flexible force to respond to diverse threats.
NATO must also prepare for emerging threats that extend beyond the traditional military challenges. Cybersecurity, hybrid warfare, and the geopolitical implications of China’s rise demand new strategies and expanded capabilities [10][6][7]. By investing in cutting-edge technologies, fostering innovation, and forging strategic partnerships, NATO can position itself as a leader in addressing global challenges. Embracing a forward-looking approach will enable an alliance to remain agile and responsive in a rapidly evolving world.
Conclusion
NATO stands at a crossroads, embodying both immense potential and significant challenges. Its historic success, from deterring Soviet aggression to revitalizing the collective defense, underscored its enduring value. Yet, the alliance ought to confront internal divisions, uneven burden sharing, and the effects of political shifts.
By embracing a unified vision and fostering greater self-reliance among its members, NATO can reaffirm its role as the world’s leading military alliance. Through strategic investments, technological innovation, and enhanced collaboration [10], the alliance can navigate the increasingly complex security landscape that it is currently facing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archick, Kristin, Paul Belkin, and Andrew S Bowen. “NATO Enlargement to Sweden and Finland,” March 22, 2024. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11949
BBC News. “Trump Worries Nato with ‘obsolete’ Comment.” January 16, 2017, sec. US & Canada.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38635181.
“Germany’s Scholz Wants European Allies to up Defense Spending – POLITICO.” Accessed November 24, 2024.https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-olaf-scholz-wants-european-allies-to-up-defense-spending/.
“Macron Announces Military Spending to Increase by a Third until 2030.” Accessed November 24, 2024.https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2023/01/20/macron-presents-significant-increase-in-military-spending-until-2030_6012339_5.html.
Latawski, Paul C. The Kosovo Crisis and the Evolution of Post-Cold War European Security. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. http://archive.org/details/kosovocrisisevol0000lata.
NATO. “Countering Hybrid Threats.” NATO. Accessed November 24, 2024.https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_156338.htm.
NATO. “Defending against Cyber Attacks.” NATO. Accessed November 24, 2024.https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_118663.htm.
“NATO - Topic: Peace Support Operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995-2004).” Accessed November 24, 2024.https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52122.htm.
“NATO - Topic: Relations with Russia.” Accessed November 24, 2024.https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50090.htm.
“NATO Needs a Defense Industrial Strategy That Prioritizes Being Strong, Smart, and Together - Atlantic Council.” Accessed November 24, 2024. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/nato-needs-a-defense-industrial-strategy-that-prioritizes-being-strong-smart-and-together/.
“NATO Wakes Up to the Chinese Threat - CEPA.” Accessed November 24, 2024. https://cepa.org/article/nato-wakes-up-to-the-chinese-threat/.
“Pentagon Welcomes Sweden, Finland in Ceremony Marking NATO Anniversary > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News.” Accessed November 24, 2024. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3731771/pentagon-welcomes-sweden-finland-in-ceremony-marking-nato-anniversary/.
“Russia’s War on Ukraine: U.S. Policy and the Role of Congress.” Congressional Research Service. June 10, 2024. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12277
“Trump Says He Would Encourage Russia to ‘Do Whatever the Hell They Want’ to Any NATO Country That Doesn’t Pay Enough | CNN Politics.” Accessed November 24, 2024. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html.
“Without European Rearmament, NATO Is Setting Itself up for Failure – POLITICO.” Accessed November 24, 2024. https://www.politico.eu/article/without-eu-rearmament-nato-set-itself-failure-war-ukraine/.
Juna Hoxha
Bachelor’s Student, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
Philosophy, International and Economic Studies
Comentarios