In the 35 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has faced one existential crisis after another. Now, it confronts yet another challenge. What purpose does an old Cold War-era defensive military alliance serve when the Cold War is long over? Like a shark, NATO has kept moving to avoid death. It intervened in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, incorporated a dozen new members from the former Soviet bloc, extended its reach post-9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and adapted to cyber and other modern threats. The current crisis, however, is different. As NATO gathers in Washington for its 75th birthday celebration this week, the alliance has never had more clarity and urgency about its mission. There should be no existential doubts: NATO's role is to defend the Western democracies against an aggressive Russia, prepared for a prolonged conflict, and its key ally in Beijing.
Despite this clear and urgent mission, political realities are daunting. Washington pharmacies might want to stock up on Xanax. As detailed by Michael Hirsh, the ascendant former President Donald Trump and his advisers are drafting plans that could disrupt the alliance. In Europe, politicians who are friendly to Russia and skeptical or even hostile towards NATO are gaining ground, prompting the coalition and governments to prepare for potential changes in Washington.
These are significant issues, but NATO's bigger challenges go beyond who holds power in the White House or any other capital. Looking ahead, the U.S., under any administration, is likely reaching the limit of its support for Ukraine and will expect Europe to step up, utilizing its increased defense budgets more effectively. America's focus is shifting back to the Middle East and China, and NATO must align with these priorities to maintain its relevance in Washington.
Throughout this week, you will hear that NATO is the most successful military alliance in history. This is true. The critical question now is: how do you keep it that way?
NATO’s outgoing secretary general
For a decade, Jens Stoltenberg has focused on one critical question: keeping NATO united. When asked recently about his greatest achievement, he responded without hesitation, “That I have been able to keep this alliance together.”
Stoltenberg, a Norwegian, comes from a nation known for thoughtful reflection rather than hysteria or hyperbole. As a former prime minister with interests in finance and climate change, he was chosen by Germany’s Angela Merkel in early 2014 to improve NATO’s deteriorating relations with Vladimir Putin. This decision, in hindsight, seems almost ironically optimistic. Stoltenberg’s father, a former foreign minister, warned him that the NATO role in Brussels would be “boring.” However, by the time Stoltenberg took over later that year, Russia had annexed Crimea and begun a proxy war in eastern Ukraine. Initially, Stoltenberg appeared overwhelmed, struggling to adapt to his new role.
Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 forced NATO to prepare for a significant land war in Europe, unifying the alliance. Stoltenberg's political education at NATO began earlier, thanks to Donald Trump. Trump’s constant complaint was that Europeans relied too heavily on the U.S., spending too little on defense. At the 2018 summit, Trump threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO if allies didn’t increase their defense budgets.
Stoltenberg recalls this as a “dramatic” moment. Reflecting on this, he advises his successor, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and other leaders on engaging with potentially the next U.S. president: “Engage with him, sit down with him, spend time with him,” he suggests. Stoltenberg's strategy included acknowledging Trump’s critique of European defense spending as “a valid point,” a concern shared by every American president for the past 25 years. During his final visit to Washington in June, Stoltenberg proudly announced that 23 NATO allies had met or exceeded the defense spending target of 2% of GDP, a significant increase from just four members a decade ago when the target was set under Barack Obama. Stoltenberg managed to convince Trump that this progress was due to his influence, earning him the nickname “Trump whisperer” among NATO colleagues.
“Unlike most West Europeans, he doesn’t freak out about Trump,” says Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and Trump’s Ukraine envoy. “You don’t know what the Trump policy will be. Neither does he.”
In the past, the primary political threats to NATO came from Europe, particularly from the French, who viewed the alliance as overly American. Now, skepticism towards NATO has grown within the U.S. Despite his impending departure, Stoltenberg provides a model for advocating NATO’s value.
“NATO makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. stronger and NATO creates a market for U.S. equipment,” Stoltenberg argues, drawing on his extensive experience on Capitol Hill and his financial background. He highlights that in the past two years, the U.S. has signed $140 billion in defense contracts with European countries due to increased spending.
Under his leadership, NATO has mobilized half a million combat-ready troops and deployed eight new multinational battle groups to the Baltic and Black Sea states—goals that seemed unattainable when first adopted. Although the U.S. still accounts for nearly 70% of NATO’s military spending compared to half of its combined economy, non-U.S. defense expenditures grew by $64 billion in 2024, effectively adding the combined defense budgets of France and Norway to the alliance. “Quite serious money,” as another senior NATO official in Brussels remarks.
Jens Stoltenberg's arguments aim to counter the emerging view on the political extremes in the NATO alliance that may see support for Ukraine as a distraction. Here are some key points from his perspective:
- Interconnected Security: Stoltenberg emphasizes that security is not confined to specific regions but is a global concern. The events in Europe, including the conflict in Ukraine, have significant implications for the Asia-Pacific region and vice versa.
- China's Involvement: He highlights that China, along with North Korea and Iran, is indirectly involved in the Ukraine conflict by supporting Russia. This means that the struggle in Ukraine is part of a broader geopolitical contest involving major global powers.
- Consequences of a Russian Victory: Stoltenberg warns that a victory for Putin in Ukraine would be a significant strategic win for Chinese President Xi Jinping. This would embolden China and its allies, potentially shifting the global balance of power in their favor.
- Unified Response: He argues that NATO and its allies, including the United States, must remain united in their support for Ukraine. Allowing Russia to succeed would not only undermine European security but also have broader implications for global stability, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.
By framing the conflict in Ukraine as part of a larger global struggle, Stoltenberg seeks to reinforce the importance of a united and continued effort to support Ukraine, countering the narrative that it is a distraction from other global challenges.
The idea of a “global” NATO
The concept of a "global NATO" was considered after 9/11, with some advocating for Israel to join the alliance. This idea reflects a broader trend of extending Western alliances, such as the AUKUS pact between the U.S., Britain, and Australia, aimed at countering China's rise in the Pacific. Rutte’s slogan, “Security is not regional, it’s global,” could fittingly be displayed at NATO’s headquarters.
Nevertheless, NATO’s future will largely be shaped by developments closer to its traditional sphere. Under Jens Stoltenberg’s decade-long tenure as Secretary-General, NATO experienced significant military transformation, although Stoltenberg admitted, “Of course, we could have done some of these things faster.” This understatement highlights the Ukraine war's exposure of major shortcomings. European and American stockpiles and industrial capacities are insufficient, European air defenses and long-range strike capabilities are lacking, and most European militaries do not have the necessary manpower, brigades, logistics, and technology to effectively conduct a land war or operate cohesively. The focus had been on counterinsurgency and global deployment rather than territorial defense, leading to these deficiencies.
European military capabilities are finally starting to improve. Poland’s defense budget exceeds 4% of its GDP, the highest in NATO, while Denmark has doubled its defense spending to 2.3% of GDP within a year. The addition of NATO’s newest members, Finland and Sweden, brings two of the continent’s most capable and advanced militaries into the fold. Although new contracts for weapons are being signed, it will take years to fully implement these changes. If the U.S. reduces its military aid to Ukraine and European stockpiles remain inadequate, one EU minister suggested using European funds to purchase American armaments for Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Russia is significantly increasing its production. Both Europe and the U.S. need to significantly boost their war preparations. During the Cold War, defense budgets ranged from 3-5% of GDP. Given the current global tensions, the 2% target should be the minimum, not the goal. Europe has benefited from NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense protections at a relatively low cost for most of this century.
“NATO is stronger than ever militarily,” says Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Danish prime minister and NATO secretary general from 2009 to 2014. “But what I think it lacks is courage and strategic vision.” Rasmussen recognized the threat posed by Putin a decade ago, prompting Merkel to seek a more dovish NATO leader. Now in the private sector, Rasmussen believes the alliance must provide stronger military support for Ukraine and offer Kyiv a clear path to membership. He argues that as long as countries like Ukraine and Georgia are denied the choice to join the EU or NATO, they will remain vulnerable. European history shows that “gray zones” invite conflict. Thus, political courage and vision are crucial. Rasmussen, who frequently visits Washington and engages with both political parties, warns of the dangers of perceived weakness: “Trump undermined NATO politically by publicly raising doubts about Article 5. He tempts Putin to test our resolve.”
NATO must be prepared to navigate unpredictable political landscapes. Trump is not alone in this unpredictability. The alliance’s future hinges on its ability to remain serious and fulfill its pledges in response to new security realities in Europe and globally.
American critics of NATO often confuse it with the United Nations. NATO was designed to follow America's lead and serve its interests, mirroring America's structure and even its frugality. It has served U.S. interests for generations, and it can continue to do so in this new era. However, this case must be made convincingly in both Europe and the U.S. through words, budget commitments, and concrete actions.
Comments
Post a Comment