Listen to the article
The twelve countries that founded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on April 9, 1949, in Washington, D.C., possibly did not foresee that this alliance would last 75 years, including more than thirty years after the fall of its rival, the Warsaw Pact, which dissolved with the collapse of the Soviet-led socialist bloc before the Soviet Union itself disintegrated in 1991.
Today, NATO is expanding, with its member states increasing to 32, the latest addition being Sweden. This expansion extends NATO’s responsibilities to Arctic security, an area previously dominated almost entirely by the Soviets, and later by the Russians.
As NATO marks its 75th anniversary, the question arises: is it a political or a military alliance? Especially considering that its members did not feel the need to dissolve it in 1991 after the fall of its primary adversary for which it was originally established. Instead, NATO continued to seek new roles, including contributions to “European security” and “global stability,” among other objectives.
Washington exerts part of its unilateral global leadership through NATO, providing Europe with security. The need for NATO emerged after the significant political, economic, and ideological divide that Europe and the world experienced following the end of World War II in 1945, which separated the Allied forces: the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, and France. Essentially, the only thing binding Moscow to the other three was their shared opposition to Nazism and Fascism.
Europe primarily relies on Washington for its security, as evidenced by the Russian war on Ukraine. Without the intervention of the European Union and NATO, the situation on the ground would have been entirely different. This reliance has dampened old calls for establishing an independent European army separate from NATO. It seems that Europe will continue to depend on Washington and NATO for its security for a long time.
Moreover, Washington insists that NATO’s role extends beyond its military aspects, important as they are, to include political dimensions. It argues that NATO is tasked with supporting democracy against dictatorship. However, this claim has never been consistently reflected in US foreign policies across successive administrations. Washington has often overlooked dictatorial regimes that served its interests and opposed democratic regimes that did not. In international politics, interests take precedence over slogans used for political consumption.
Another significant challenge for NATO is the rise of China, which represents a substantial shift in international political dynamics and complexities. The four NATO allies in the Far East—South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand—alone cannot confront China, which directly challenges Washington in the realms of economy and international trade.
The determined Russian stance, the patient Chinese strategy, and the involvement of influential regional allies like Iran and North Korea complicate NATO’s deterrent mission. Despite differences among these actors, they are united in their opposition to Washington, which remains the spearhead of NATO.
The world is facing fundamental changes, increasingly dangerous in light of the involvement of non-state actors, particularly in volatile regions like the Middle East and other geographic hotspots. The crucial hope is that those who possess nuclear weapons do not pull the trigger, thereby avoiding the risk of catastrophic destruction.
