With multiple global conflicts, a retreating United States, and shifting geopolitical alliances, NATO faces internal fractures and external threats. Its survival now depends on strategic reforms, increased defence commitments by European members, and redefined priorities in a multipolar world shaped by regional blocs, nationalism, and emerging non-Western powers.
AMBASSADOR JEITENDRA TRIPATHI, IFS (R), FOR THE NEWS ANALYTICS JOURNAL
a 4 mins read.
The 2025 NATO summit in the Hague, is going to be a defining one which will decide the future trajectory of the organisation as it is being held at the time when, besides the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, Israel versus Palestine and Lebanon and the heightened tension in the South China Sea, new flash points are arising in Azerbaijan-Armenia and India-Pakistan. The USA has almost washed its hands not only from the Russo-Ukraine war but has also effectively distanced itself from leading the organisation of which it was the leading founder.
THE COLD WAR LEGACY
To examine NATO’s relevance, we must see how it was formed and its journey so far. After World War II, twelve members of allied forces formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on April, 1949, in Washington, D.C. They were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. The United States, having emerged almost unscathed from the war, took natural lead of the organisation whose primary objective was to ensure the collective security of the allies against the forces allied to the Soviet Union.
Containment of the growing communist influence in Europe under the Soviet leadership was its Raison d’être. Barely five years after the inception of NATO, the USA expanded its influence by creating SEATO in 1954 and helping the UK to create CENTO in 1955. This was responded to by the Soviet Union by establishing the Warsaw Pact in 1954. This was the era of the zenith of the Cold War.
Ironically, the charter of each of the three organisations talked highly about its commitment to uphold the principles mentioned in the UN Charter, but the real purpose was to contain the opposing philosophy from spreading further. Though in view of the changed political situation in many countries in Asia, the SEATO and CENTO were disbanded in 1977 and 1979, respectively, NATO thrived. At the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, NATO membership had gone up to 16. The Warsaw Pact was also formally dissolved in 1991.
NATO’s post-Cold War expansion triggered tensions with Russia, culminating in the ongoing Ukraine war, which has exposed limitations in alliance unity and deterrence.
POST-COLD WAR EXPANSION
Now, with no more threat against NATO, the most logical step should have been to dissolve it. But unfortunately, it did not happen! Despite the clear assurances given by the then US Secretary of State James Baker to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, NATO was not only allowed to exist, but it kept on expanding eastwards! Baker famously told Yeltsin,” NATO will not be allowed to expand eastwards even by an inch,” but later backtracked. Not only that, the then Secretary General of NATO, Manfred Worner, also assured in a speech in 1990 that “the fact that we are ready not to place NATO army outside the German territory, the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee,” an assurance that proved hollow in the coming years!
Logically, NATO became irrelevant the day the Warsaw Treaty breathed its last, but it kept on expanding towards the east and by February 2022, it landed almost on the doorsteps of Russia in the form of a possible membership of Ukraine to a now 30-strong organisation. Naturally, a miffed off Russia objected to Ukraine’s entry into NATO and the latter’s refusal to abide by the Minsk Protocol and the Nice understanding. This resulted in the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which is still on. 
ERODING US LEADERSHIP
Once considered to be invincible, chinks in NATO’s strength became visible during the war against Russia. As Ukraine was yet not a member of NATO, the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO charter could not allow its members to rush with all their might to Ukraine’s rescue. Short of landing the feet of their armed forces on the Ukrainian territory, all that the NATO forces could do was support Ukraine with arms and ammunition, impose sanctions against Russia and gather support in the UN and other regional institutions, but nothing worked.
Even the USA, having accounted for the biggest war assistance to Ukraine, started feeling the pinch, and the new incumbent in the White House, Donald Trump, clarified that the priorities of his country lay somewhere else and not in Ukraine. This was a shock for the European members of NATO. It came as a wake- up alarm for NATO when speaking in the Munich, Pete Hegseth told directly to the NATO delegates that “the stark strategic realities prevent the USA from being primarily focused on the security of Europe as the US faces consequential threats to our homeland, so we must and we are focusing on security of our borders.” In other words, he told Europe to manage its security affairs without any support from the USA, the biggest economic and defence power in NATO, driving the latter’s agenda so far.
EMERGING REGIONAL ALTERNATIVES
NATO thus needs a transformation to meet the challenges arising from the USA’s reluctance. Three factors are driving this much-needed transformation. Firstly, the geopolitical shift from the unipolarity that resulted from the Cold War I. Many developing and underdeveloped nations are now reluctant to be dragged into Cold War II as they find the small regional groupings more productive. The rise of BRICS, BIMSTEC, ASEAN, etc. is an example of such groups. Secondly, the rise of sovereigntist strategies in many nations, including the USA (America First), has resulted in the loss of interest in the concessional economic policies towards other nations. Thirdly, the recent rise of right-wing nationalism in Europe has indicated that, by and large, the European population doesn’t care about others when it comes to their national interest.
One big challenge that NATO faces is that of adequate funding. Even before the USA indicated its reluctance with NATO, the organisation’s Secretary General Mark Rutte testily warned the members on 13th January this year, “Raise defence budget or start learning Russian.” The budget of NATO for the year 2025 is US$ 1.47 trillion. In 2024, it was $ 1.85 billion out of which the USA alone had given $967 billion, i.e. 3.4% of its GDP. Except for six countries, viz. Poland, Estonia, the USA, Latvia, Greece and Lithuania, other members had paid less than 2.5% of their respective GDP. While the UK plans to achieve the suggested goal of 2.5% of the GDP on defence spending by only 2027, Italy strives to achieve this during the current year. Canada is lagging far behind, as it is yet to reach the threshold of 2%. This is in sharp contrast with Russia spending US$ 149 billion (7.1% of GDP) and China spending $ 314 billion.
The U.S. shift towards isolationism, growing right-wing nationalism, and underfunding among European allies signal an urgent need for NATO’s strategic, structural and leadership redefinition.
REFORM OR REDUNDANCY?
However, all hope is not lost as the new German leadership has shown a robust resolve to come to the rescue of Europe. Speaking at a function in Brussels on 28th April to commemorate the 70th anniversary of German entry into NATO, the German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier assured NATO in unequivocal terms, “We got the message, you can count on us…We will strive to make Germany, both its military and its infrastructure, the backbone of conventional defence in Europe.” France, too, has promised to increase its defence spending from the current figures of Euro 34 billion (2.48% of GDP) to Euro 67.8 billion by 2029.
NATO’s complete failure in the Russia-Ukraine war has compelled the organisation to review and redefine its priorities, objectives and role in Europe. Though it has been able to delay Russia’s conclusive victory in the war, NATO has not been able to secure membership for Ukraine, a key issue in the war. However, instead of Ukraine, NATO has been able to include Sweden and Finland, two other neighbours of Russia. But the cost at which this inclusion has been achieved is highly disproportionate to the expenditure incurred so far.
The restructuring of NATO, prompted by Trump’s intention to leave the supreme command of NATO forces, is on the cards. NATO will, therefore, have to regroup itself in view of its defence supplies too. So far, NATO has used to outsource from the USA the manned and unmanned surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft and equipment, which NATO will have to scurry to produce. Secondly, the possible exit of the USA from the organisation will heavily imbalance the nuclear deterrent power of Europe. The few nukes possessed by France and the U.K. are far outnumbered by Russia, which reportedly has more than 6,000 nuclear warheads.
Given the foregoing facts, it is yet to be seen whether NATO, on the sickbed since Trump made his priorities clear, will recuperate and survive or find a place in the pages of history books. The forthcoming NATO meeting this month may be able to give some answers.
(Ambassador Jeitendra Tripathi, IFS (Retd.), Former Ambassador to Zimbabwe. He has vast experience in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. He was also India’s Ambassador to Zimbabwe. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The News Analytics Journal.)
Major Highlights
- NATO, formed in 1949, faces relevance questions in today’s multipolar world.
- NATO’s eastward expansion broke promises, triggered the Ukraine war, and exposed strategic, diplomatic flaws.
- The U.S. reduces NATO’s role, urging Europe toward defence and security independence.
- BRICS and ASEAN rise as alternatives, challenging NATO’s global multilateral dominance directly.
- The upcoming 2025 summit may decide NATO’s reform or slide into irrelevance.
