Policy Issue Summary
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, better known as NATO, has been one of the most influential political and military alliances in modern history. Formed in 1949 by 12 countries, NATO has grown into a 32-member alliance across Europe and North America, with Sweden becoming the newest member in March 2024. Its stated purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means, especially through the principle of collective defense: under Article 5, an attack against one member is treated as an attack against all.
A fair assessment of NATO must recognize both its achievements and its controversies. On one hand, NATO has often been criticized for military interventions, high defense spending, and the risk that expansion can heighten tensions with rivals such as Russia. On the other hand, it is also widely viewed as one of the most successful defensive alliances in history. For more than 75 years, NATO has helped deter aggression against its members, contributed to stability in Europe, supported democratic cooperation among allies, and adapted to new threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
One important example of NATO helping the United States came after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the alliance invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history. That moment matters because it shows NATO is not only an American security guarantee for Europe; it has also been a European and Canadian commitment to defend the United States when the United States was attacked. NATO allies later contributed to the Afghanistan mission, showing that the alliance’s collective-defense promise has worked in both directions.
The central policy issue is not whether NATO is simply “good” or “bad,” but how the alliance can preserve its defensive purpose while avoiding unnecessary escalation, wasteful spending, and overreliance on military solutions. NATO’s future value depends on whether it can balance deterrence with diplomacy, burden-sharing with social responsibility, and collective security with respect for international law.
Analysis
In the present geopolitical landscape, NATO has experienced renewed importance because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and growing uncertainty about global security. Vladimir Putin has long opposed NATO enlargement, seeing the alliance’s eastward expansion as a threat to Russian influence. However, NATO argues that enlargement is based on Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which allows European countries to seek membership if they can contribute to Euro-Atlantic security. The decisions by Finland and Sweden to join NATO after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine show that Russian aggression has, in practice, strengthened the alliance rather than weakened it.
NATO’s strongest argument is its record as a defensive alliance. During the Cold War, NATO helped deter direct conflict between the Soviet Union and Western Europe without a major war between the superpowers. After the Cold War, NATO also played roles in crisis management and peace-support operations, including in the Balkans. Its Kosovo Force, known as KFOR, continues to help maintain a safe and secure environment and freedom of movement in Kosovo. These examples support the view that NATO has not only projected military power, but has also helped manage instability in regions where conflict could have spread.
At the same time, NATO’s record is not perfect. Interventions in Afghanistan and Libya remain controversial and show the limits of military power. NATO’s Afghanistan mission ended in 2021 after the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and security forces, leading the alliance to conduct a lessons-learned process. This demonstrates that NATO can organize multinational military action, but it cannot guarantee political success when deeper local, regional, and governance problems remain unresolved.
Another major concern is defense spending. Critics argue that the enormous resources devoted to military budgets could otherwise support healthcare, housing, education, climate action, and poverty reduction. This concern is real, especially as global military expenditure continues to rise. SIPRI reported that NATO members accounted for a major share of global military spending, while NATO’s own figures show that allies have sharply increased defense investment since 2014.
However, NATO supporters argue that defense spending cannot be judged only as a cost. For smaller European states, especially those near Russia, NATO membership provides security guarantees they could not realistically provide on their own. The burden-sharing debate has also become more important because U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO members for not paying their “fair share” and has questioned the reliability of U.S. support for allies. This has pushed European members and Canada to spend more on their own defense, with NATO reporting that all allies met or exceeded the older 2% of GDP target in 2025.
Under Trump, the United States is pushing NATO toward a more burden-sharing model. Rather than acting as the nearly automatic lead spender and security manager for Europe, Washington is pressing allies to take primary responsibility for European defense and to meet the new Hague defense investment commitment of 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% for core defense and 1.5% for broader security-related needs. This does not make the United States irrelevant to NATO, but it changes the political bargain: Europe is being asked to provide more money, readiness, and leadership while the United States remains the alliance’s strongest military member.
The war in Ukraine has also shown both NATO’s strengths and its internal challenges. NATO members have provided major political, military, and financial support to Ukraine, while avoiding a direct NATO-Russia war. Yet alliance politics can be complicated. Hungary under Viktor Orbán resisted some Ukraine-related support, but the clearest funding block was within the European Union, even as Hungary delayed major EU assistance. Within NATO, Orbán agreed in 2024 not to veto NATO support for Ukraine, while Hungary itself opted out of providing funds or military personnel for that effort.
Orbán’s defeat in Hungary also changed the Ukraine funding debate. After his government had been the main EU holdout, Hungary’s shift under Prime Minister-elect Péter Magyar helped clear the way for a €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine. Although this is EU funding rather than NATO funding, it matters for NATO because keeping Ukraine financially and militarily afloat reduces pressure on NATO’s eastern members and helps maintain a united Western front without requiring direct NATO combat involvement.
Looking toward the future, NATO’s value will depend on whether it remains a defensive alliance rather than becoming an engine of unnecessary militarization. The alliance should continue deterring aggression against its members, supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty, strengthening cyber and infrastructure resilience, and encouraging European allies to carry a fairer share of the security burden. At the same time, NATO should be careful not to treat every global problem as a military problem.
The importance of NATO to Europe was also highlighted by King Charles III in his recent address to the U.S. Congress, where he linked support for Ukraine, the transatlantic partnership, and NATO unity. The reference is useful because it shows that, in European diplomacy, NATO is treated not only as a military arrangement, but also as a political symbol of shared democratic security. For Europe, NATO remains the structure that connects national defense, U.S.-U.K. cooperation, and support for countries threatened by Russian aggression.
A balanced social policy approach should support NATO’s core mission of collective defense while demanding accountability, transparency, and diplomacy. Policymakers should ensure that defense spending is tied to real security needs rather than waste, corruption, or the profit motives of weapons manufacturers. They should also invest seriously in nonmilitary forms of security, including energy independence, climate resilience, democratic institutions, humanitarian aid, and conflict prevention.
Ultimately, NATO remains valuable because it gives democratic countries a shared security framework in a dangerous world. Its history includes mistakes, but also major successes. The best path forward is not to dismiss NATO as a conspiracy or to praise it uncritically, but to strengthen its defensive purpose while limiting the risks of escalation, overreach, and excessive militarization.
Take Action
- The Atlantic Council (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/): A nonpartisan organization that focuses on shaping global solutions and deeply analyzing the vital importance of the transatlantic alliance in maintaining international stability.
- The Council on Foreign Relations (https://www.cfr.org/): An independent think tank offering research on international relations, providing accessible insights into how defense alliances are adapting to modern global threats.
- The Official NATO Portal (https://www.nato.int/): The primary resource for understanding the group’s stated missions, its 75-year timeline of collective defense, and current policy updates from all 32 member states.
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (https://quincyinst.org/): A foreign policy think tank that argues for restraint, diplomacy, and caution about military overreach.