Has NATO Lost its Way?

For the members of NATO, they would say its existence has been a net-positive post-war response to the threat of totalitarian-dictatorship and, in the event of war, a necessary pact to come together and ‘win’. But what is winning? If the second world war was the victory for freedom, prosperity and democracy, then why aren’t these values still being upheld less than a century onwards from it? Our freedoms that once seemed guaranteed are being infringed upon everywhere we look. Immigration is uncontrolled, regulation is rife and we don’t know what a woman is. Has the alliance preserved Western values, or merely its own existence?

When it was formed in April, 1949, NATO was seen as a response to the ‘Iron Curtain’ that was forming “From Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic” in the famous words of Winston Churchill. Back then, there were only 12 members of the alliance, covering a combined 7,541,139 square miles. There are now 32 member countries now covering 9,716,590 square miles. Now, you may conclude that thanks to NATO expansionism, the world is a safer place. Or, you could say that the invasion of Russia into Ukraine was the culmination of years of it - the last straw of Vladimir Putin. He probably sees the invasion of Ukraine as a response to the falling of the Soviet Union in 1991 (which he called “the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century”) and a necessary act of vengeance towards the military alliance.

Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has represented something much larger at play here: NATO isn’t about membership; it is in fact, about forming quasi-pacts and alliances with countries that share a similar rhetoric towards common enemies: Russia and its proxy states, China, North Korea etc. As for the organisation's involvement in the Ukraine war, it is certainly questionable. By late 2024, NATO allies had provided roughly €150 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian aid, per estimates from sources like the Kiel Institute. According to David Lammy, the UK’s Foreign Secretary, “99% of military support to Ukraine has been from NATO allies.” This is quite remarkable considering that Ukraine, despite not having NATO membership, has been granted membership-like protection. Technically speaking, NATO has no obligation to offer defence packages to Ukraine. When questioned on this sort of thing, European leaders trot out the typical: “We must support Ukraine or else European safety is threatened”. If this is the case, why not just have all the other 13 European countries who aren’t in the alliance join NATO? If a foreign country decided to invade Austria - a non-NATO member - for whatever reason, European safety would obviously be threatened then, so it’s obviously more of a response to a nearby invasion led by a totalitarian dictator than it is a military pact. 

Another issue with NATO lies in its funding, which is completely lopsided. In 2024, NATO’s $1.47 trillion defense spending leaned heavily on the U.S., which contributed $967 billion—65% of the total—while 31 allies mustered $503 billion. This imbalance, rooted in America’s economic and military dominance, exposes a reliance that predates Ukraine but intensified since.

This brings me to a larger, more important point: many NATO members’ economies might not be able to sustain a viable contribution to NATO. In 2023, just 10 countries met the defence spending target of 2%. In 2024, following renewed efforts to improve security this jumped to 23 countries. Many members have recently been suffering with economic troubles though. Debt-to-GDP ratios have been rising across NATO, especially post-COVID: the U.S. reached 125% by 2024, Germany hovered around 70%, while Italy and Greece exceeded 140% and 160%, respectively. This shows just a fraction of the scale of the economic mismanagement of practically all of the member nations. 

With all of this in mind, it’s clear that NATO, the organisation that is responsible for defending close to a billion people, has cracks forming and, if not carefully managed or watched, could burst at the seams. If it does, what will that mean for the world order? Will a world engaging in isolationist politics be a positive move in the right direction? Or will the smaller, more vulnerable countries have to pay the price?