Growing Pains or Death Rattle? NATO at 77
The world’s foremost defensive alliance has a storied past — and an uncertain future
“No Action, Talk Only.”
The world-famous “backronym” describing the alliance with “swanky offices and passable coffee” has only gained more prevalence in its 77-year history.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 in the context of a growing Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. When the treaty passed the Senate 82–13, you’d think the public was widely receptive of the defensive potential of the new alliance.
You’d be wrong.
Even after the whole spectacle that was the Second World War, many Americans still held the age-old belief that they should let Europe be Europe and let America be America. Especially in isolationist Republican and Southern Democratic circles, foreign entanglements were the name of the game in NATO, and they wanted no part.
Dissenters argued that this new “defensive alliance,” especially through Article V (an armed attack against one NATO member in Europe or North America is considered an attack against all), would commit American forces overseas permanently.
That being said, Cold War paranoia did do a lot of the heavy lifting, enough to shore up public approval, especially after the Berlin Blockade, when the Soviet military blocked all land and water routes into West Berlin to try to force the U.S. and her allies out of the city.
In Western Europe, the feeling was a cautious optimism. On one hand, NATO felt like a security guarantee against the Soviet Union, especially considering the economic carnage wrought by WWII.
Nations like the United Kingdom and France were economically exhausted, militarily battered and politically volatile. Investing in the alliance felt like a blank check from the one nation that still had gas in the tank: the United States of America.
On the other hand, however, some Europeans feared, and in many cases still fear, becoming too dependent on American power. Right-wing pro-Europe parties completely disagreed with the notion of being “babysat” by the United States, and would rather brave the threat to the East on their own. Centrists believed that trading one imperialist for another was strategically unwise, and left wing parties, primarily in France and Italy, thought the alliance a pro-capitalist, anti-Soviet venture. On a deeper level, some just genuinely feared outright provocation of the USSR.
Nevertheless, on April 4, 1949, the Washington Treaty, known majorly as the North Atlantic Treaty, was signed, with its founding members being the U.S., Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. The Alliance based its existence on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a UN member state.
Seventy-seven years, several mass casualty events and one invocation of Article V later, NATO now finds itself at an inflection point. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the alliance was given a new lease on life: if autocracy still exists, and if a credible threat to the region remained, then there was a case to be made for the continued existence of a once decrepit entity.
If the Soviet Union was gone but Russian military aggression was alive and well, the threat felt very familiar. Because NATO no longer had to deal with terrorism, guerrilla warfare or nation building, all Brussels had to do was go back to the basics: classic state-on-state conflict in the continent of Europe.
Before the invasion, the story went a little like this: Nations bickered over spending, dues and strategy all while some poor bureaucrat soul in an office that hadn’t been renovated since 1991 had to referee. Afterward, countries suddenly ramped up defense spending without a second thought and those on the fringes of Russia kicked into high gear.
Perhaps the largest unforeseen benefit to the alliance, though, was its expansion. When Finland and Sweden joined the alliance in 2023 and 2024, respectively, a massive strategic hole had been plugged. Finland shattered its previous non-aligned stance, and Sweden ended over 200 years of neutrality.
Above that, Russia became increasingly closed off via the Baltic Sea, which now falls exclusively under NATO control. Even the port city of Baltiysk in the Kaliningrad region, the only year-round ice-free port Russia has on the Baltic — and in general — is now at risk of becoming a chokepoint between the combined navies of the Nordic and Baltic. Add in Finland’s over 838 mi (1,350 km) border with Russia, and Moscow is now in a very tough position.
Still, the political fulcrum is…shaky at best. So, what changed?
Agreements like these are easier to manage when everyone is scared in the same direction, but problems start to rear their ugly heads when priorities begin to diverge.
Fortunately for NATO, Ukraine didn’t collapse. Much to their chagrin, however, neither did Russia. Instead, the war became a slow, grinding stalemate with tactics resembling the Western front of the First World War. Russia has made incremental gains, but there’s been no substance. At the same time, Ukraine holds on amidst an enormous cost.
No matter what the spreadsheets tell you, that’s poison to an alliance like this, and ultimately unsustainable in the long term. Vladimir Putin knows he can’t beat the whole coalition on his own, so his strategy instead becomes to simply outlast. Wait for unity to fracture and for the nations to turn on each other.
Get Mason Bibby’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
And, shockingly, that doesn’t take much.
Another big issue is that despite all of the haughty rhetoric, NATO struggles with a very age-old issue. Countries say they’ll spend more, then they drag their feet, hoping everyone else forgets, until ultimately beginning to gripe about why they had to spend in the first place. It’s a frustrating and fruitless cycle for many.
In fact, that’s exactly what people like U.S. President Donald Trump and his Administration have been arguing for a very long time.
President Trump often laments over the lopsided level of spending and commitment to NATO, and while many have not gone so far as to employ some of the more aggressive negotiating tactics that he does, nearly every President since Eisenhower has complained of lopsided spending within the alliance.
In a coalition as deeply entrenched as NATO, some argue that European allies cannot continue to rely on the United States, especially considering that policy can change drastically over two, four or eight years, depending on the high turnover of congressional and presidential elections. Case and point, the shift from President Biden to President Trump.
President Biden would frequently use more encouraging rhetoric, citing historical parallels and past achievements, whereas President Trump more directly chastises his allies, most recently for their inaction within his war against Iran. His ire is most directly aimed at the United Kingdom, France and Spain. He and the Pentagon have even questioned commitment to Article V.
This is coupled with a broader strategic drift, which some could argue would happen no matter the President. Russia, while still the main event, runs the risk of becoming a sideshow within the confines of Middle East conflict, competition in the Arctic, cyber and hybrid warfare and the rise of China as a competitor in Africa and Latin America. NATO’s problem is now that it has too many of them.
Behind all of this, there is a very real fear in Europe: “What if the U.S. doesn’t show up next time?” That question used to be unthinkable. Now it’s debated across dinner tables and behind closed doors in those offices that still desperately need renovations.
It posits that, although NATO is militarily strong, it’s as politically weak and polarized — more so than it’s ever been.
So where does the Transatlantic alliance go from here?
The options on the table are far from a silver bullet. Those options are, however, difficult, expensive, politically annoying and, in some places, politically costly. Hence why Brussels tends to do all of them halfheartedly.
The U.S. shoulders a heavy military and financial burden, more so than any member would care to admit. European members could contribute to sustainability by hitting (and sustaining) serious spending benchmarks.
Translation: Europe, strategically speaking, needs to grow up a little. It must act even when the U.S. is distracted or hesitant, or it runs the risk of becoming drones — the very premise the alliance was conceived to reject.
This is the most glaring issue, and if it stands unresolved, a hawkish President backed by control of Congress wouldn’t mind checking out.
Secondly, the entire alliance rests upon the fact that an attack on one is an attack on all. If this wavers, even slightly, the whole structure becomes fundamentally wobbly. Presently, deterrence depends far too much on predicting U.S. behavior than personal action. Assumptions are fine until they’re false.
This doesn’t absolve the Americans of all personal responsibility, though. NATO could also benefit from a little more commitment from the “overworked team leader.”
When U.S. leaders waffle on allied support and treat the alliance like a subscription service that can be cancelled once the others get annoying, it sends a clear message to adversaries that the bonds between the U.S. and her allies can be questioned.
Furthermore, though Washington has become renowned for its assertiveness, the U.S. might find better results in treating her allies like partners, not interns. Slower coalition decision-making is, unfortunately, a price to pay for an alliance of this caliber.
The U.S. has global interests. NATO is a regional defensive alliance focused on the North Atlantic. When the United States tries to pull NATO into Middle East conflicts, stretch it toward Asia to counter China or send it on whatever menial side task requires American attention, allies wonder if they’re defending each other or simply backing American foreign policy.
If Europe needs to grow up, the U.S. needs to grow consistent.
So, in plain terms, the alliance isn’t facing imminent demise because of a few diplomatic fissures. What it is facing is lapses in funding, leadership and occasionally morale.
For all of the complaints about NATO, there really isn’t a cleaner, simpler or better alternative. At its core, all it seeks to be is a few countries trying to figure out defense in a hostile world that has a habit of punishing that kind of optimism pretty brutally.
So, in an ironic twist of fate, that ill-fated backronym could better be characterized as NATO: “Nice Attempt to Organize.”
It’s up to those 32 nations now whether they’re going to let that become the truth or not.
