Reforming NATO to save the Alliance

Springer eBooks, 2022

This book wants to provide a full and scholarly assessment of NATO's performance during and particularly after the Cold War. The guiding methodological principle is to evaluate the elements of continuity and the factors of transformation in NATO before and after 1989. The historical approach qualifies this volume among the literature on the Atlantic Alliance, largely dominated by political science and strategic studies. Good reasons justify a new book on NATO. In 2019 the 70th anniversary of the Atlantic Alliance received comparatively little attention by the general public and also by scholars. Much more attention had been dedicated in 2007 to the 50th anniversary of European Union (EU, born as European Economic Community, EEC), the other key organization

Comparative Strategy, 2004

The Prague Defense Capabilities Strategy is invigorating the relevance of NATO by improving capabilities, streamlining the command structure, and establishing the NATO Response Force. Even though the latter two initiatives are progressing well, the issue of capabilities could become the Achilles Heel of the NATO Alliance unless a corrective course is made. Generally, European states show little inclination to improve their military capabilities for the betterment of the Alliance, and the European Union Rapid Reaction Force is well on its way to becoming a white elephant for European security and defense policy, as well as a Trojan horse for NATO. On the other hand, NATO's streamlining of its military structure and the establishment of a response force provide the Alliance with a veritable expeditionary capability. These reforms place NATO on the cusp of equality with the United States as a security partner, but under its current military structure, the issue of capabilities will keep it from crossing the final hurdle. A fundamental overhaul of NATO's military structure is called for. Under the aegis of collective contributions for collective defense, downsizing the Alliance to nine integrated multinational divisions, each located in a division-sized base, would permit greater interoperability and burden sharing among NATO members as well as realize tremendous cost savings. Each member would contribute military forces according to its size and relative wealth rather than maintaining a standing army for potential crises. In the end, NATO would be able to enjoy a collective defense dividend that has eluded it for centuries, while making a significant contribution to global security.

JOURNAL OF ADVANCE RESEARCH AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY STUDIES, 2021

The complexities inherent in the process of reconstruction is one that cannot be overemphasized, most importantly, the need to reconstruct NATO in the post Trump era. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established in 1949 with the aim of providing collective security against threats and ideological conflicts posed by the Soviet Union. The United States of America has since then played strategic, pivotal and leadership roles for the sustainability of NATO. The organization's essential purpose is to safeguard the liberty and security of all its members by both political and military endeavors. Collective defense and security heart is the alliance, as well as the need to foster unity, solidarity and cohesion amongst member states. This paper, hinged on historical and analytical approaches, examines the essence of NATO from a historical perspective, and proper solutions as regards the reconstruction of NATO in the post Trump era. Evidently, realities on ground show the need to reconcile alongside member states, the vision and purpose of NATO in the 21st Century.

International Affairs, 2009

This year the Atlantic alliance will celebrate its 60th anniversary. The world's most powerful military alliance has indeed been a remarkable success story. Founded in 1949 to counter the emerging Soviet threat, for over half a century NATO has provided relative peace and stability for Europe. When the existential threat provided by the Soviet Union disappeared, the alliance was able to adjust to the emerging post-Cold War order. It did so by developing new strategic concepts (1991 and 1999), incorporating new members, reorganizing its military structures and deploying troops to theatres across the world. Thus, those who after the demise of the Soviet threat were quick to predict that the end of NATO was all but inevitable have been proved wrong. 1 On the contrary, NATO has shown a consistent ability to adapt to a changing international order.

The report addresses the question of whether the Alliance is developing into a security organization ‘à la carte’ – engaging in security tasks on a case-by-case basis and serving the interests of different groupings and partners – or whether unity remains the key to NATO'S future. Introducing an inside-outside spectrum, it suggests that in terms of both tasks and relations, the alliance is experiencing a change in rhetoric and action that challenges its role. With regard to tasks, the inside-outside tension refers to debates on core tasks and areas vs. NATO’s global role. Regarding relational structures, the report discusses the bilateralisation and formation of camps within NATO, whereas the outside tension mainly concerns the role of significant partners like Russia. A third category is also introduced: actors like the EU and the United States, who challenge the unity of the alliance from both the inside and the outside.

Group III p. 140 Emiliano Alessandri 6 Dynamic Change 7 Dynamic Change

The profound geopolitical changes that have taken place on the world stage in the five decades since the foundation of NATO have caused some commentators on both sides of the Atlantic to question its relevance in the modern age. NATO's mixed fortunes in the Balkans in the late 1990s and its subsequent relegation to the sidelines of the United States' war on global terror have only served to heighten suspicions that it is no longer equipped to face the security challenges of the day.

The American Conservative, 2024

Expansion was a misstep, but the situation is not unsalvageable—history offers clues to a better way. By any plausible metrics, NATO in its current form is an ever pressing burden on American shoulders. It need not be. If a grand bargain between Russia and a dormant defensive NATO helps Washington focus more on the rising dark clouds in the east, then that’s a good compromise. To reach that stage, drastic and original measures might be necessary. At the risk of mixing metaphors, Fenrir might have to cut the knot instead of trying to untie it. That starts with a reckoning with history.

Foreign Affairs, 1999

transatlantic defense-industry cooperation Transatlantic defense cooperation is a little like the weather: everybody talks about it, but nothing much seems to happen. Meanwhile, Europe is building a separate "European" defense industry, based in part on shortsighted, if not downright misguided, calculations of self-interest. For its part, the United States is tentative at best and ambivalent at worst about greater cooperation. But as the United States and Europe dither, the eªectiveness of the nato alliance-and ultimately its future-is increasingly at risk. The costs of inaction mount daily. Declining defense budgets, already stretched too thin, are denied the e⁄ciencies that greater transatlantic cooperation could yield. Both Europe and the United States have therefore had to delay the modernization of their military forces and thus have been slow to take advantage of advances in technology-notably information technology that applies to command, control, communication, and intelligence. The air war in Kosovo [ 54]

Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, 2010

Transatlantic Policy Quarterly

In an ever-changing world marked by geopolitical shifts and evolving security threats, it is crucial to reassess and adapt the collective defense architecture that underpins international stability. Established more than 70 years ago, NATO has been a crucial element of global security and a demonstration of the effectiveness of collective defense. The expansion of NATO's reach has become a significant topic of debate as the world evolves. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has effectively ensured the security of its member states through a collective defense framework, making it a successful alliance. The evolving global landscape, which includes emerging threats, changing power dynamics, and evolving security challenges, has led to a reassessment of NATO's role and scope. There are those who advocate for the acceptance of NATO's expansion as a means of strengthening security and fostering collaboration among nations with similar values. The argument posits th...

After 60 years of existence, the Atlantic Alliance remains the most reliable security organization for the Euro-Atlantic security. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has succeeded in adapting itself to the new international scenario. Starting from the '90s, NATO has undergone a deep evolution, both in qualitative and quantitative terms. On the one hand, the Alliance transformation consisted in the update of strategic goals, the development of new military means and new partnership frameworks. On the other hand, from being an occasional choice the enlargement has turned out to be an enduring open door policy. Over the course of the last decade, it brought about the admission of twelve new members. The NATO's evolution processes implied a shift from a traditional military pact to a new cooperative organization and from a defensive posture to a new expeditionary role. The depth of these processes entailed a reconsideration of the Alliance raison d'être involving new political and security challenges. These, in turn, have implied different and in some cases contradictory responses from the Allies. The aim of this book is to assess the challenges to NATO enlargement and transformation, offering national perspectives on the Alliance's evolution. Accordingly, the analysis focuses on three different levels - old members, new members and partners - in order to provide an appraisal of convergences and divergences on NATO's changing character and responsibilities.

2011