As NATO marks its 75th anniversary on Thursday, the Alliance is seeing renewed dynamism, particularly with the recent accessions of Finland and Sweden. But the organization also faces multiple challenges, from the war in Ukraine to the possible return to power of Donald Trump in the United States. According to military historian Guillaume Lasconjarias, the transatlantic alliance finds itself in a state of “paradox” between a renewed sense of purpose and a wealth of new challenges.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) celebrates its 75th anniversary on Thursday at a time when Europe and the Alliance itself are facing a host of new threats. The occasion also marks 25 years since the accession of Poland, the Czech Republic (Czechia) and Hungary, as well as 20 years since the three Baltic states joined alongside Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia and Bulgaria.
The 32-nation Alliance has seen significant expansion since its founding 12 members first joined forces on April 4, 1949, in the turbulent years following World War II. But it also now finds itself facing key new challenges, notably war returning to the European continent with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the attendant difficulties of marshalling support for Kyiv from all NATO members.
While the war in Ukraine has underscored the continuing importance of the transatlantic alliance, it has also highlighted many of the challenges going forward. NATO foreign ministers gathered starting Wednesday in Brussels to discuss the creation of an aid fund for Kyiv worth some €100 billion over five years, with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declaring that NATO must “ensure reliable, predictable and long-term military assistance for Ukraine”.
Guillaume Lasconjarias, a military historian and associate professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, says NATO finds itself in something of a "paradox" as it marks three-quarters of a century. On the one hand, it has “never been so rejuvenated and revitalized – it has never been as necessary as in recent years”. But he notes the Alliance has also been facing “existential crises for more than a decade, at fairly frequent intervals”.
What prompted the renewal of an Alliance that French President Emmanuel Macron famously called “brain dead” just a few years ago?
NATO has overcome some of its policy challenges and the perception of the Alliance has seen a renewal. Sweden and Finland joined after having remained neutral for almost 70 years. Ukraine is also eager to join this politico-military organisation and is making profound internal changes to be able to one day. Even countries that are beyond the NATO sphere are interested in partnerships with the Alliance.
When Macron made this statement to The Economist in 2019, he undoubtedly hoped to generate some sort of electric shock. His comments ultimately had a positive effect, coming at a time when NATO was already doing some soul-searching over what should be done about a world then in upheaval – Donald Trump was in power, the Brexit vote had happened and there were lingering questions about the future of relations with Russia.
Since then there have been other notable developments, with the invasion of Ukraine – which was rather a rude awakening for the entire international community in February 2022 – and with the new security framework unveiled at the June 2022 Madrid summit, which significantly changed the look of NATO (including advancing its forward presence and shifting NATO forces into high readiness).
What key issues does NATO face on the international scene?
The Alliance still faces several unresolved challenges. The first of these is that there is not always a convergence of interests between its member countries. Moreover, NATO is a fairly heavy and costly bureaucracy, and it sometimes takes up issues that the EU would, for example, be better able to deal with. Finally, there are still some very sensitive issues within the Alliance, such as with Turkey – which sometimes takes an ambiguous stance – or with Hungary and Poland.
Regarding the war in Ukraine, NATO is above all a defensive alliance, as Article 5 stipulates – the Alliance is responding to aggression and is not envisaging a preemptive attack. It will not voluntarily engage in conflict unless the international community requests it – through, for example, a UN Security Council resolution.
As for Ukrainian accession, that would appear to be impossible in the immediate future. A country in territorial conflict with one of its neighbours cannot join NATO since that would immediately place the Atlantic alliance in a state of conflict itself. And NATO does not plan to wage war against Russia.
How can NATO manage internally destabilizing factors such as the possible return to power of Trump, who is very critical of the Alliance?
I do not believe that the United States will destabilize the Alliance. A US absence and the breakdown of the transatlantic link would indeed be a moment of crisis ... something we already witnessed between 2016 and 2020 (during the Trump administration).
As for the future, there are two opposing visions. The more pessimistic would see Trump suspending US participation in NATO's integrated military command, for example. An optimistic view would be to see European states reacting (by becoming more self-sufficient). The latter have entered into a form of bilateralism with the United States, particularly on arms contracts. In so doing they proved themselves to be reliable allies that are contributing financially and that there is, therefore, no point in the US leaving NATO.
More than half of member states (18 in total) devote at least 2% of their GDP to investing in defense, which clearly indicates that NATO democracies now recognize the importance of meeting the 2% Alliance spending guideline.
Read moreNATO chief Stoltenberg expects US to remain 'committed ally' even if Trump returns
This article has been translated from the original in French.
