

The future of NATO

Fewer dragons, more snakes

NATO is about to adopt a new strategic concept. Can it keep pace with the way the world is changing?

See article

Readers' comments



"..In the 20 years since the end of the cold war NATO’s obituary has been written many times, so far always prematurely. In a world of fewer dragons but a great many more snakes, it can look clumsy...."

NATO, Should've Dis-Banded when the WARSAW Pact did!
NATO, Should've NEVER got involved in Afghanistan & Iraq!!

For this Defunct/Discredted Organization, to THINK that they can Make a Difference, then they are....................................

Peace, Love & Respect.


The article states: "But given the range of common interests that NATO and Russia have—from slowing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to preventing conflicts in the Eurasian region and fighting terrorism, maritime piracy and the illegal drugs trade—there is hope that something constructive can be forged."

Russia preventing conflicts in the Eurasian region? Excuse me, which power invaded Georgia, proclaimed independence for two of the regions there (which nobody of import will recognize, not even China), and remains in areas that according to European demands it was to have evacuated long ago. The Russians may have gone on to Tbilisi had Bush, whatever his faults, not sent the US Navy to the region.

Hillary Clinton had a meeting in Tallin, as mentioned in the article. Well, who was responsible for the thoroughly irresponsible cyber-attack on Estonia? And Russia gives prominence to its nukes in its military plans. And which power forces "lease" ahem extensions for its Black Sea Fleet naval fleet in neigbouring sovereign countries?

I believe the invasion of Iraq to have been a tremendous mistake by Bush; it took away from the mission in Afghanistan, gave Al-Qaeda a second breath, and sullied NATO's image to a certain extent in countries still wishing to join. Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that countries which once were buried behind the Iron Curtain - Poland, the Baltics, the Czechs/Slovaks, Hungary - bless the day they joined NATO, and their economic transformations are to a large extent a result of the political stability allowing for economic growth resulting from NATO membership.

About every country in NATO is a democracy with the rule of law; Russia has neither - where exactly should it fit in or with NATO when its political system is neither democratic nor liberal?


Mr. Common Sense wrote: "NATO might, however, equally well consciously use its energy market to bring the commodities-dependent Russia to its knees."

A common nonsense! First you freeze before chewing gum withdrawal is felt in Russia.


Take heart. World and domestic economic imperatives soon will force the US to cut real and relative military spending to, say, the percentage of GDP typical of its NATO partners. It stands to reason, then, that the US will have roughly the same anemic military capability as the rest of NATO … probably less since Europe’s cumulative GDP is greater than the US’s.

With such diminished military capabilities, the US will have to make hard strategic choices, and those choices will shift priorities overwhelmingly to the Pacific. China should match and surpass the US’s military capability in the Western Pacific no later than 2030, even without the inevitable large cuts in US defense spending. Already, leaks from a draft of the 2010 annual report of Congress’s US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, scheduled for release on 17 November, state that China’s “upgraded missile arsenal, including a 30 percent increase in cruise missiles since last year, ‘poses a significant challenge to U.S. forces operating in the region,’” and already have “the capability to attack” and close down five of six major U.S. Air Force bases in South Korea and Japan.

With US attention focused firmly on countering China’s rise, some would say NATO is already anachronistic toast, perhaps to be supplanted in US strategic planning priority by an integrated alliance with some combination of nations that are uncomfortable with the idea of Chinese hegemony in their region. India, Japan, South Korea, Philippians, Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand come to mind as likely candidates for such an organization.

In this environment, some geopolitical theorists hypothesize that Germany is quietly beginning to question it’s relationship with/dependence upon the US and it’s obligation to sustain the rest of Europe economically, that a tacit alliance between Germany and Russia is growing, and that at some point in the future the combination of Germany’s technology and Russia’s natural and military resources (especially nuclear) will create an economic and military alliance that will subsume Europe and Central Asia and challenge for world hegemony, or at least co-equal status with China and, perhaps, an American-led Pacific alliance. (It’s interesting to wonder where Britain would fall in this scenario … America’s last outpost near Europe, or submerged into the German-Russian sphere.)

Russia worries that China covets the vast natural resources in its hard to defend far east, so potential Great Power conflict between them could offer even a diminished US a decisive role in deciding who prevails between two more powerful nations, or blocks of nations (shades of 1917).

Still, by mid-century, the best the US can hope for is to be coequal in a bi- or tri-polar world, but could well be an increasingly less relevant second or third tier economic and military power. Many on today’s American and European Left (and among American Libertarians) cherish that vision, but I wonder how they will like living it.

Mr. Common Sense

Crucial will be how NATO manages to defend itself from energetic, economic and cyber-attacks.

More interesting: NATO, with its enormous economy, can turn energy, supply chains and cyber-warfare to its prime weapons.

NATO might stay in denial that gas cuts from Russia were attempts of economic warfare to destabilize and eventually dominate smaller post-communist countries. NATO might, however, equally well consciously use its energy market to bring the commodities-dependent Russia to its knees.


NATO is a relic from the Cold War, no longer needed. The US scrambled in the 90s to find something to do with it, and ended up dismembering Yugoslavia for the profit of Germany. As then, now its only purpose is to subjugate Europe's defense policy and foreign affairs to those of the US, and prevent any kind of true integration of Europe which could compete with American "interests".

It's about time for Europe to get its own defense policy, its own European Army, pursue its own interests, and get rid of this old tool of imperialism once and for all.

stefano de santis

First of all,it is totally false that Russian president Medvedev decided to meet the NATO summit after the meeting in Normandy,answering to the request of Merkel and Sarkozy.The summit was one of the many propaganda initiatives of the continuously and laughably dying and again raising from the tomb Francogerman link.The FIGARO admitted that Medevedev joined Merkel and Sarkozy having already decided to show up in Lisbon.Nor i see why he should have granted such importance to two members that are turning more a burden that a resources:the ECONOMIST first,in an aricle of some time ago,wrote that Germany is becoming a problem for the Alliance.Second,the ECONOMIST doesn't name those who denied any increase of forces in Afghanistan,after the Obama request:it was FRANCE.I also can't see why Brazil,a poorly armed and politically ambiguous country,should join the Alliance.Quite different the approach with AUSTRALIA,a staunchy and serious ally of the West that should beinvolved with N.ZEALAND,SOUT KOREA,JAPAN in a frame that should begin in the Mediterranean and continue to Middle and far East to control the terrorist expansionism,and China with his ally North Korea.The NATO new structure is obviously founded on the US leadership.Look at those who followed the US in Iraq,and granted the conversion of a wild regime into a democracy,and you will know who is really ready to defend the West,and grant a serious transformation of the Alliance.

economical aetiology

I think that NATO in the coming days will become redundant as the reason for its formation-Russia is on the verge of becoming partners.....may be it will transform itself into think tank sort of thing for the post modernist geopolitical threats like Cyber war and global terror....moreover on this count also it is not showing any impressive result as is evident from its failures in Afghanistan.....


It has showed how ineffective it is as an 'alliance' of any kind when it allowed Turkey to invade Cyprus in 1974 and stay there under the close 'eye' of the island's military bases in perpetuity, the US and the 'guarantor' of the island's independence, the UK!


'... there is little support within the organisation for NATO “narrowing its ambition”'

Step back a little here. From the comments you have chosen it is obvious to this non-NATO national (and hene outsider) that the debate on the organisation's role - and indeed very existence - is being driven less by the interests of the citizens of the member states and more by the unacknowledged self-interest of the generals and the "foreign policy community". They are looking for ways to make sure THEY - not their countries - remain relevant.

You can see that, too, by the way the Economist has framed things like "inadequate" spending on defence. Inadequate to what? What would be needed for an expansive role for NATO? But that's just what is questionable!


For an alliance that forged to face a common enemy, when that enemy disappears, a new one must be found, or fabricated, to justify its existence.

When that fabricated nemesis seems unrealistic, because it is, well, fabricated, a war would be called upon to validate that threat.

Will NATO go down this road? Let's hope not.


North Atlantic is quite far from Afghanistan, but this cold war relic keeps drifting aimlessly. Even if every country would signed into this institution, some fictitious enemy will still be found.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The week explained: March 14th 2014: Fuelling tensions
The Economist explains 3 hrs 6 mins ago
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18


Products & events