As The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) observes its 75th anniversary in Washington, The General Secretary of NATO writes that the outcome of the 75th Summit will result in a stronger alliance that can respond to challenges both now and in the future.
Furthermore, The President of the USA, Joe Biden during the three-day summit in Washington stated that the US would be sending hundreds of munitions and dozens of tactical air defense systems to Ukraine in the coming months to support the country’s ongoing resistance against Russia as part of NATO’s efforts to boost confidence in the alliance. However, such hubris has become uncertain as the organisation now finds itself facing a multitude of challenges that threaten its continued relevance.
The Alliance which was a bulwark against the Soviet expansion, has had to adapt and evolve to handle rising security problems, including the growth of global terrorism, the resumption of great power competition and most recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Ever since its inception, the alliance, which bases its principles on the idea of collective defense and preservation of peace and security has undergone a dramatic transformation and today it is at a critical crossroads, grappling with an uncertain future amidst a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
The obscure future of NATO looms with the possible return of the former President Donald Trump in the White House who has always viewed the 32-nation bloc alliance from a critical lens. According to the experts and European Diplomats especially, the reappointment of Trump as president could signal the withdrawal of The US from the alliance. There are multiple arguments for NATO’s ineffectiveness and likewise, its conventional deterrence may disappear without American help, in addition to losing much of its conventional advantage over Russia.
First, the major portion of spending on NATO comes from the USA, which Trump has always asserted at the negotiation table calling it unfair to the American citizens. During his tenure as the president, he repeatedly called the alliance “obsolete” and questioned the commitment of member states in terms of spending. Of NATO’s €1.304 trillion in defense spending in 2023, the US will bear a full 875 billion alone and largely for tasks outside Europe. The US is left with the majority of the responsibilities due to NATO’s over-reliance on US power. Even though NATO countries collectively spend two per cent of GDP on defense, however, reports suggest that, even in the unlikely event that the US withdraws, Europe’s armed forces and military infrastructure are still ill-equipped to take on major power adversaries.
The United States stations roughly 100,000 troops in Europe and it has been the largest contributor in terms of air power, logistical support and spending. In this regard, three possibilities can be comprehended in the face of adversity. With President Trump back in power, the trust deficit within NATO and heavy American reliance on defense spending could lead to Trump officially withdrawing the US from NATO in his second tenure. Another possibility is that even if withdrawal is not an option, Trump could dramatically weaken the alliance without formally leaving it. Despite difficulties, one argument also suggests that Trump could restructure NATO to meet the present geopolitical challenges through various mechanisms such as raising the NATO spending floor from 2 to 3 per cent of GDP, and ensuring that the North Atlantic Treaty includes the increased spending caps.
Second, after the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, followed by the strategic ambiguous position of Taiwan and the impending trade war with China, it is likely that the attention of the possible Trump administration would move towards Iran and China during the possible second tenure. According to several academics, the US engineered the Washington Consensus and therefore, it dominates international organizations and regional alliances like the QUAD to demonstrate its hegemony. However, the other side of the story, is that the United States’ domestic economy has been impacted in some way by the military’s expenditures and vital activities. It is therefore in charge of reducing back on military spending and refocusing on other geopolitical issues as a dominant superpower. The longstanding question is how will an America less NATO sustain in the face of geopolitical tension? Washington’s global strategy places a higher priority on China, and European countries are forced to face the harsh fact that increasing defense spending and actively participating in their own security is now a need rather than an option.
Third, several criticisms have been levelled at NATO’s “out-of-area operations” over the years. These operations are military missions and interventions carried out by NATO forces outside the geographic region established by the North Atlantic Treaty, which usually covers Europe and North America. This clause has almost surely heightened Russian insecurity by going out-of-area. Likewise, this failure is especially concerning because joint efforts to increase the capacity for out-of-area activities have resulted in large opportunity costs. Investments to increase expeditionary capacity have unavoidably resulted in a major disregard for traditional territorial defense capabilities because European allies have not allocated much money for defense throughout the post-Cold War era. Since these operations typically involve NATO member states coming together to address security challenges beyond their immediate borders.
Fourth, the acquisition of independent nuclear capabilities by some NATO members has further complicated the alliance’s strategic framework, calling into question the underlying assumption upon which it was founded. The diverging threat perceptions within the Alliance have posed a significant challenge. While some members may prioritize the threat of Russian aggression, others are more concerned with the destabilizing effects of global migration or the looming spectre of climate change. NATO’s response to the Ukraine crisis, however, has demonstrated its ability to engage in successful collective securitization, explicitly identifying Russia as a source of threat. The war in Ukraine, however, has presented some sort of NATO renewal in terms of purpose, capabilities, and even membership with the inclusion of Finland and Sweden. This has helped to reinvigorate the Alliance’s purpose and focus, but sustaining the unity of purpose will be crucial in the years to come.
As NATO seeks to redefine its roles and capabilities, it must navigate a complex web of military, political, and technological developments. During the Cold War, a mere unified NATO, bound by shared social, cultural, economic and demographic factors thrived against a clear and singular order. Today, many challenges stand in the way of any attempt to transform NATO into a worldwide system of collective security. If the US withdrew its support from NATO, Russia might be inclined to act more imprudently and the conventional deterrence based on the foundation of collective security and defense can be weakened. With the 75th anniversary of the alliance at full throttle in Washington, navigating the challenges in the changing landscape is of immediate concern for NATO and European security.
[Photo by the White House, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Rajyavishek Pradhan is an Assistant Professor at North Bengal St. Xavier’s College, India. His research interests include International Relations Theory, US Foreign Policy, Indo-China Relations, and Security Studies.
