Since the late 1940’s NATO has served as the main military alliance for the United States and select parts of Europe to counter the threat from Russia. Approaching 70 years of existence and with the changing global political landscape this paper, written before the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, will examine the question does NATO have a future?

Created in 1947 and formally signed into existence in 1949 (NATO, 2020) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a military and political alliance between the United States and select European countries that was created to counter the perceived military threat from the Soviet Union at that time.

The creation of NATO was derived from the traditional ‘realism’ theory of International Security which argues that the world is full of anarchy and states seek to survive this by maximising their own military capabilities or forming alliances (Malik, 2020, p58). After the anarchy of the Second World War this was the dominate way of thinking among nations states still recovering from the devastation that this conflict caused and their desperation to continue their survival from the new threat caused by the Soviet Union. Classic realism thinker Hans J Morgenthau reinforced this idea for the need of alliances when he wrote in 1993 that nation states have three main options when responding to threats: “They can increase their own power, they can add to their power the power of other nations, or they can withhold power of other nations from the adversary.”(Morgenthau, 1993, p197). The latter two of these three options that he mentions include forming alliances.

NATO is not a unique organisation however and there are many other comparison alliances elsewhere around the world. For example, ‘ANZUS’ is a trilateral military alliance between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Although not as extensive as NATO it serves to provide collective security in the Pacific area between these three countries (Wesley, 2017).
Along with the military balance of power that nuclear weapons provided, and the threat of mutually assured destruction that came with it, thankfully major conflict between the dominating powers was avoided during the Cold War which technically ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.

With the collapse of this perceived Soviet threat then and the end of the Cold War it could have been argued that NATO had served its purpose and was no longer ensured of a future. Indeed, in 1993 respected political scientist Kenneth Waltz wrote a paper in which he questioned: “how long NATO will last as an effective organization “and predicted that: ”NATO’s days are not numbered, but its years are” (Waltz, 1993, pp75-76). However, despite this prediction NATO actually saw more action after the Cold War than it ever did during the years during it. One of the first observations about a post-cold war NATO is that rather than seeing its demise it actually expanded in size and doubled its membership of countries to 30 (NATO, 2020).
It also potentially proved it had a future not soon after the end of the cold war by adapting to change and utilising its resources for peacekeeping purposes when in 1995 it intervened in the Bosnia Civil War. Here it provided security assistance in a capacity far different to how it had originally been envisioned in order to counter the Soviet invasion threat by intervening in a European civil war to deploy 60,000 NATO soldiers in order to safeguard the civilian population there (Pederson, 2011).

In 1999 NATO again proved its value by continuing as a military alliance when it engaged in ‘Second Generation Peacekeeping’ by using airpower and ground forces to intervene in the Kosovo War after the UN was unwilling, or unable, to authorize such action (Daalder & Goldgeier, 2006). Here again it served a different role from that of the purpose of its creation by providing offensive peacekeeping operations in a humanitarian role.

Perhaps one of the most significant events of NATO’s lifetime was the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 when Islamic terrorists belonging to the Al-Qaeda terrorist group hijacked and crashed four planes across the United States causing almost 3,000 civilian deaths. It was here that NATO, led by the United States, for the first time ever invoked ‘Article 5’ of its charter. This article was originally designed in mind with the purpose of deterring Soviet aggression against individual NATO members with the agreement that an attack on one member state was an attack on all. Again it showed NATO was assured of a future by taking the lead with responding to new threats by switching focus from conventional military threats to Counter Insurgency warfare in Afghanistan. Here, NATO members joined forces with the aim of removing Al Qaeda from the country and denying them safe territory from which to plan and launch future attacks against the United States and other members of the alliance (Orend, 2019).
It was during this period of time in the history of NATO however which perhaps highlighted for the first time weaknesses or flaws within the alliance for which it attracted criticism. For example, it was argued that as a United States led

NATO responded to these threats from outside Europe it drew the attention of the United States towards Central Asia and the Middle East thus shifting the focus away from Europe and NATO itself (Rühle, 2003). It also highlighted problems between member states with issues such as chain of command and rules of engagement with governments placing caveats on the use of their troops on deployment. For example, it was alleged that whilst deployed in Afghanistan under NATO German army units were not allowed outside their base after nighttime (Morelli & Belkin, 2009). Historically this clearly would not have been a particularly useful situation in the early days after the creation of NATO should Europe happen to have found Soviet armour rolling across its borders, let alone being a viable alliance dealing with the current issues of the day whilst on live operations with a real and active enemy.

At the same time as working together to deploy military resources to Afghanistan another high-profile mission that NATO conducted was anti-piracy naval patrols. Since 2008 NATO forces have joined with EU forces to patrol the ocean waters near Somalia to combat piracy and safeguard maritime shipping operating there (Gebhard & Smith, 2015). This is another example of the flexibility and diversity of NATO by again moving away from a conventional military role to that of an international law enforcement type mission but again taking away the focus from core European located members.

In 2011 NATO forces again intervened in a foreign conflict this time in Libya under a UN Security Council resolution. Protests against the country’s ruler in the midst of the ‘Arab Spring’ turned violent and descended into civil conflict causing humanitarian concerns. NATO once again deployed airpower to protect civilians, but this escalated to the killing and overthrowing of the Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi by rebels who were using these NATO airstrikes for protection. These actions drew criticism from fellow UN Security Council members Russia and China who accused NATO of overstepping the mark and under international law the legality of NATO’s use of force were brought to question (Ulfstein & Christiansen, 2013). It also caused a further split amongst actual NATO members themselves when member states such as Poland and Germany refused to take part and openly criticized NATO’s role in operations there (Hallams & Schreer,2012).

Most of the issues with that we have examined so far with NATO revolve around traditional military and defence related issues that have historically dominated the theoretical approach to International Security. There are however different theoretical approaches to International Security that widens the scope of global security issues. ‘Critical Security Studies’ theory, for example, seeks to remove the state as the referent object in order to focus on a wider scope of security issues that places the individual human at the centre. An example of theses security issues includes topics such as Food Security, Energy Security or Health & Medical Security etc.

So perhaps it is here then that NATO may find a future for itself by working together to tackle these diverse security issues that are not necessarily or traditionally military related in nature. For example, with Energy Security, obtaining a secure supply of energy is critical for the economic and social wellbeing of the population of a country. Russia with 25% of the world’s natural gas and hard coal resources (Umbach,2010) has in the past used energy as a political weapon by cutting supplies to Ukraine, for example, thus causing hardship to the civilian population there. NATO could therefore continue to prove the value of its alliance by securing the supply of energy to its member states by political and economic means with other nation states or maybe even the physical protection of energy supply lines from sabotage or terrorism.

Food security, a secure source of food is a basic human necessity and the lack of this can cause human suffering with malnutrition and famine as well as civil unrest and conflict as seen in parts of the world such as foot riots in Algeria and Tunisia in 2011 and historical famines in Ethiopia and Somalia (Hough, 2020) NATO therefore may find itself in the future using its collective resources to provide food security for less secure nation states which may even help prevent conflicts before they occur.
Medical Security, in the wake of recent events surrounding the outbreak of the COVID19 virus this has brought to attention global medical issues. NATO therefore could find itself in the future using its resources to share medical information and intelligence amongst its members to combat and control diseases or even deploying ‘boots on the ground’ with troops distributing medical supplies and providing security for vaccine programmes in austere environments.

Despite these opportunities however for NATO to secure a role for itself with future diverse nonmilitary related security issues it still faces internal challenges that present obstacles for it to overcome if it is to continue to be a viable alliance. For example, there is a statutory agreement for each member to spend 2% of their GDP on its defence budget but not all members meet this target causing a contentious issue. Countries such as Germany drastically fall below the required target with only 1.24% spent of defence as of 2017 (DW News, 2018). This creates division among members which was acknowledged by Robert Gates, the former United States Secretary of Defence, in a speech in which he highlighted the difference between NATO members ‘willing to pay and share the burdens of the alliance’ and other members ‘who enjoy the benefits but don’t want to share the risks and costs’ (Mattelaer, 2011, p127).

Further internal political problems remain between NATO members for example with Turkey signing a deal with Russia to obtain the Russian made S400 Surface to Air Missile systems. This has caused an argument between NATO allies Turkey and the US who fear Russian interference with the air defence capability of the new fifth generation F35 stealth fighter. Turkey wishes to purchase this key air platform but risks being ‘frozen’ out of the procurement programme because of its close ties to Russia and the Surface to Air Missile system purchased from them (BBC News, 2019).

With a membership of 30 countries NATO has quite possibly already reached the limit of its capacity and any further geographical expansion with additional members could bring it into conflict with Russia. For example, Ukraine and Georgia have expressed interests in joining the alliance however the Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it quite clear that this is unacceptable and would have ‘consequences’ for the alliance (Reuters, 2018).

Perhaps some key pieces of compelling evidence proving that NATO still has a future occurred when two events of the 21st Century signalled the return of the ‘old enemy’. Firstly, in 2008 Russian military forces invaded Georgia to intervene in the conflict Georgia had with its South Ossetian neighbours causing NATO to freeze most military and political cooperation with Moscow during which NATO foreign ministers condemned Russia’s actions (de Haas, 2009). Secondly, in 2014 Russian military forces invaded parts of Ukraine and annexed a whole portion of sovereign territory by removing Crimea from Ukrainian control.
NATO has responded in various different ways to this latest Russian development with measures such as stepping up the programme of ‘air-policing’ patrols with NATO fighter jets patrolling the air space of member states bordering Russia such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (NATO, 2020). NATO has also taken these air patrols one step further with the ‘enhanced forward presence’ mission which sees actual NATO troops deployed on the ground in these bordering states. For example, in 2017 the UK sent 800 soldiers to Estonia on a continuous rotational mission to ‘deter Russian aggression’ in this area (BBC, 2017). These are now real tangible commitments to alliance members that NATO will have a responsibility to continue to honour for the foreseeable future.

From providing military security upon its creation for its members against the Soviet Union, to peacekeeping and counter terrorism missions as well providing potential future food, economic and medical security NATO has proven that despite the change in geopolitics since its creation it still has a future as an alliance. Furthermore, Russia’s willingness to use force to protect its perceived foreign interests in nation states bordering European and NATO countries perhaps provides all the evidence required to prove that the future existence of the alliance remains as valid now more than ever before.

However, it can only secure itself of this future as a purposeful alliance if it can continue to adapt to change and respond to new global security issues such as cyber security, energy security and medical security. In order to be an effective alliance assured of a future it must also resolve internal issues and challenges such as agreed budget issues where members pay their fair share, expansion issues where it must engage with other countries without bringing it into conflict with Russia and political disagreements and troubles with current members such as Turkey over weapons procurement projects. These are all hurdles that NATO must overcome if it wishes to ensure itself of a future and survive the 21st Century and possibly beyond.