As NATO meets in Madrid this week, the question inevitably arises: why does the United States need the alliance in the first place? Why is it worth risking New York to save Vilnius or Warsaw, capitals of distant countries separated from the United States by a vast ocean? The answer lies in how NATO has worked, as has been amply demonstrated in practice, for the simultaneous advancement of US and European interests.
Although the United States’ guarantee of security for its NATO allies has been at the heart of the alliance’s politico-military framework, and the United States has spent considerable sums on maintaining defense capabilities in Consequently, it has never been a one-way market. These treaty relationships have given the United States a position of strategic leadership. Because of America’s central role in the transatlantic and international relationships cemented by NATO, Americans have enjoyed tremendous economic prosperity and freedom.
In clearer terms: Successive U.S. governments have been accorded privileged status when it comes to issues like commercial partnerships and base access, largely because of the outsized role the U.S. plays. in defense of their allies. Nor would the United States have been able to maintain its large portfolio of foreign military sales and cooperative defense technology activities without the strategic foundation laid by its role as the primary guarantor of NATO security for seven decades.
As NATO meets in Madrid this week, the question inevitably arises: why does the United States need the alliance in the first place? Why is it worth risking New York to save Vilnius or Warsaw, capitals of distant countries separated from the United States by a vast ocean? The answer lies in how NATO has worked, as has been amply demonstrated in practice, for the simultaneous advancement of US and European interests.
Although the United States’ guarantee of security for its NATO allies has been at the heart of the alliance’s politico-military framework, and the United States has spent considerable sums on maintaining defense capabilities in Consequently, it has never been a one-way market. These treaty relationships have given the United States a position of strategic leadership. Because of America’s central role in the transatlantic and international relationships cemented by NATO, Americans have enjoyed tremendous economic prosperity and freedom.
In clearer terms: Successive U.S. governments have been accorded privileged status when it comes to issues like commercial partnerships and base access, largely because of the outsized role the U.S. plays. in defense of their allies. Nor would the United States have been able to maintain its large portfolio of foreign military sales and cooperative defense technology activities without the strategic foundation laid by its role as the primary guarantor of NATO security for seven decades.
This position of leadership, which manifests itself in its presence abroad, also enables the United States to set the international security agenda in both political and practical ways. America would not have been able, for example, to pursue expeditionary and counterterrorism operations in the Middle East and Africa without the bases and prepositioned equipment that the United States was able to maintain on Allied soil in Europe.
Coalition operations aimed at stabilizing the Balkans or conducting anti-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa would not be so simple (or perhaps even possible) without decades of normalization agreements. interoperability, multinational training exercises or the international military staff through which allies can collectively plan and integrate their military operations. NATO structures also provide US military leaders with first-hand experience of the complexities of commanding multilateral military operations.
Another long-standing reason for American engagement in the European theater is to enable American strategic depth. Referred to as “defense in depth” by security practitioners, military technological developments and adversary operations during the World Wars demonstrated that the United States was no longer protected by the two oceans off its coasts. As a result, it was deemed strategically prudent to station American forces overseas so that adversary aggression – if not outright conflict – could be met away from the American homeland.
Not only did this make the American homeland less vulnerable to outright war, but the forward presence was also seen as relatively cost-effective, especially given the potentially enormous social, political, and economic costs of war on the continental United States. The advent of the nuclear age changed this calculation somewhat – intercontinental ballistic missiles made the American homeland vulnerable – but given that even a nuclear war with the Soviet Union would likely also involve combined arms combat in the European theatre, the logic of defense in depth held.
Over the decades, this logic has persisted even when the strategic context has changed. For example, one of the main reasons for US counterterrorism operations in the Middle East after the 9/11 attacks was to address the root sources of violent extremist groups before they could again build sufficient capacity and capability. to carry out terrorist attacks against the American homeland. The war in Ukraine, together with security and defense concerns on the European continent that are now heightened, underscore once again the importance – and relative cost-effectiveness – of a forward military presence. Moreover, the global political significance of the United States’ track record of maintaining these alliances over the long term can arguably give the United States another kind of depth: credibility.
While the reliability of the United States as a security partner is frequently questioned in response to daily events, looking back, it is quite remarkable that American commitments to their allies in Europe have withstood a certain number of geopolitical storms. The day-to-day management of alliance relationships is a complicated business, of course. But by building and recalibrating security relationships with other states, including critical ties in Asia, the United States’ record of building and sustaining a longstanding alliance helps build credibility with others.
More generally, NATO offers its members an extraordinary – and extraordinarily large – degree of strategic flexibility. NATO has proven capable of reinventing itself, as its post-Cold War experience has shown. From the late 1990s until around 2014 – and largely as a result of US incitement – NATO focused primarily on collective security and near-abroad crisis management. of Europe and the Middle East. Security interests have been framed in terms of promoting global stability and prosperity, including by countering and dismantling terrorist groups outside NATO’s allied borders. In other words, contrary to the expectations of the early 1990s, NATO has endured and evolved to meet a myriad of security challenges in the absence of an overwhelming threat. And, by the way, in this context, US-European trade has remained strong.
In 2014, as Russia annexed Crimea and began waging a proxy war in Ukraine, the old adversarial geopolitics rushed back. NATO’s role as a bulwark against an expansionist and revisionist power immediately regained prominence, although today the front line is considerably further east than during the Cold War. To complicate matters further, despite numerous assurances from Brussels, Russia has made it clear that it views NATO’s eastward expansion as contrary to its own interests and that it views the existence of the alliance itself as a threat. Yet NATO manages to both meet the challenge of a vengeful Russia and address a broader range of security challenges for the alliance, including China, climate change and disruptive advanced technologies.
More broadly, the lines between foreign policy and domestic policy, war and peace, civil and military, public and private are blurring, challenging longstanding approaches to dealing with security and defense challenges. Non-traditional security challenges, including disinformation operations, pandemic response, migration and terrorism, have placed significant pressure on the governments of allies on both sides of the Atlantic. None of these challenges can be met by a single state, not even by the United States. And in these gray spaces, NATO can – and has – played an important role in catalysing solutions to these complex problems. For example, NATO has played a key role in facilitating the international community’s response to the rise of the Islamic State, plans drawn up on the sidelines of the 2014 summit in Wales.
Strategic leadership, strategic depth and strategic flexibility are the reasons why NATO’s value is hard to overestimate. It is a politico-military arrangement that has proven remarkably resilient over the decades and has consistently demonstrated its value to its members on both sides of the Atlantic. This is probably why Vladimir Putin’s Russia is so determined to undermine it.
The strategic conundrum for the United States – and for its NATO allies – is therefore how to keep intact the alliance system that serves as the foundation for myriad social, economic and political benefits for its members in the face of to an aggressive opponent. But defend its old and new allies the same way the United States must. Otherwise, he risks losing a leadership position and advantages that have become a central, if neglected, aspect of American prosperity. In very concrete terms, the security of NATO allies is inextricably linked to American interests.
In fact, the creation of the Alliance was part of a larger effort to serve three purposes: to deter Soviet expansionism, to suppress the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and to encourage European political integration.
What countries are not NATO?
| Major non-NATO ally | |
|---|---|
| Type | Non-NATO military alliances with the United States. |
| Members | 20 countries Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Argentina Australia Bahrain Brazil Colombia Egypt Israel Japan Jordan Kuwait Morocco New Zealand Pakistan Philippines Qatar South Korea Taiwan Thailand Tunisia |
| Establishment | 1987 |
Are all countries part of NATO? The 12 founding member countries of NATO are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
What countries have left NATO?
Eighteen countries have joined NATO since its founding in 1949 by 12 countries (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States). No country left.
Which country opposed NATO?
Sweden and Finland’s historic bids to join NATO have hit a snag after senior Turkish officials took a tough stance against a northern expansion of the transatlantic alliance. See the article : DC seniors often struggle to find food.
Is Japan under NATO?
Japan is a member of the G7 countries and all G7 members except Japan are part of NATO. It is therefore natural that some people wonder if Japan is in NATO or why it is not. On the same subject : Review of Chinese Words for ‘America’ Over Time. Is Japan part of NATO? No, Japan is not in NATO.
Is NATO more powerful than the UN?
The UN probably has more global influence, but NATO, for example, is militarily more powerful. To see also : NJ is launching a national population health data project. Intergovernmental organisations, such as the European Union, are extremely powerful on a global scale.
Is NATO controlled by the UN? Following the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Dayton Agreement) on 14 December 1995, NATO received a mandate from the United Nations, on the basis of resolution 1031 of the United Nations Security Council, to implement the military aspects of the peace agreement.
Has a NATO country ever been attacked?
3500 soldiers were involved. The September 11 attacks in the United States, a NATO member country, invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It is the only time since the creation of NATO that an attack by an outside party or state has been considered an attack on all NATO members.
Is NATO a world power?
The power of NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is known worldwide as the strongest and most powerful Alliance in the world; but where does NATO’s power come from?
What are the four basic points of NATO?
The 2010 Strategic Concept After describing NATO as “a unique community of values committed to the principles of individual freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law”, it presents the three tasks fundamentals of NATO – collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security.
What is the NATO document 4 used for? Under Article 4 of NATO’s founding treaty, member countries can bring a matter to the attention of the North Atlantic Council (Council or NAC – NATO’s main political decision-making body) and discuss it with the Allies.
What are the parts of NATO?
In the 21st century, NATO has an extensive civilian structure, including:
- Public Diplomacy Division.
- NATO Security Office (NOS)
- Direction.
- Political Affairs and Security Policy Division.
- Operations Division.
- Defense Policy and Planning Division.
- Defense Investment Division.
What are NATO’s basic points?
2 Fundamentals POLITICAL – NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defense and security matters to solve problems, build trust and, in the long term, prevent conflict . MILITARY – NATO is committed to the peaceful settlement of disputes.
