NATO was established in 1949, very much as a bulwark against the Eastern Bloc. Does it still have relevance today?
Yes, NATO remains the alliance through which the United States upholds the vision of a Europe “whole and free.” America’s power of extended deterrence kept Western Europe “whole and free” during the Cold War; today, it applies to the full continent. Critically, and Europeans today realize this, without America’s extended deterrence, Europe would revert to balance of power politics. It would not be whole, and it would not be free.
Does NATO continue to define itself against Russia?
Since February 2022, with its full-scale onslaught on Ukraine, this has been the case. But NATO hesitated for long. Russia’s aggression in 2014, with its annexation of Crimea, provoked only a limited response from NATO. The hope of continental partnership between NATO and Russia lived on – partly because allies had invested so much in this partnership vision through the 1990s and 2000s, partly because they were exhausted from the war in Afghanistan.
There are some that argue NATO should have been dissolved after the fall of the Soviet Union – what is your view on that?
We must recall that in 1990, Germany was unifying, and no one was really and truly in control. Perhaps Chancellor Kohl was largely in control of German affairs, but the key question was whether a German center of gravity in Europe yet again would stoke neighbors’ insecurities. In the past, World War had twice followed. In 1990, leaders could either experiment with new structures, or they could extend NATO’s peace. Chancellor Kohl and President Bush made the latter choice, and they were right to do so.
Many inside Russia, and plenty outside, believe NATO expansionism is the cause of Russia’s aggression, most obviously in Ukraine post 2014. Is that fair?
It is poor history and erroneous judgement. NATO made an extensive partnership deal with Russia (in 1997) before it undertook enlargement. The deal ensured that, as NATO enlarged politically, it softened and weakened militarily. NATO thus grew bigger and softer. NATO trusted this process because, in the deal, Russia was supposed to democratize. However, through the 2000s, Putin and Russia’s security services gained full control of the Russian state and developed other ideas. In time, they were ready to employ military force to confront NATO. NATO allies, caught up in Afghanistan, were slow to perceive this.
Turkey has been a NATO Member since 1952, but its recent moves have undermined that membership (eg relationship with Russia, threats vs Greece and Cyprus, and support for Hamas). Does Turkey’s membership undermine NATO?
No, Turkey (Türkiye) remains an important ally, even if relations are at a low point. But it is not only about Turkish decisions. Some NATO allies have pursued actions in the Syrian civil war and the fight against Islamic State that seriously rubbed against Turkish interests. It befalls to all allied leaders to turn the page. Sadly, President Erdogan does not have the domestic strength or courage to lead on this issue, and so allied reconciliation is a frustratingly slow process. But it remains important.
How does Taiwan fit into NATO strategic defence vis a vis China?
NATO does not have a “strategic defense” vis-à-vis China. NATO considers China a “challenge,” not (yet) a threat, and NATO is mobilizing to create greater awareness of China’s intent and capabilities and to protect allied infrastructures and resilience. NATO maintains close partnerships with US allies in the Pacific region, though not Taiwan, as a contribution to a policy of checking (Chinese) imperialism in the region and of supporting US strategy.
Do you envisage ever expanding membership as a way for NATO to remain relevant?
By its treaty, NATO can invite only European states to join the alliance. But there is work to be done: the alliance has promised Ukraine and Georgia a NATO future, and with Russia’s war, it will have to think about including Moldova. Further south-west, in the Balkans, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo remain restless and a security risk. NATO enlargement will thus continue, but it will not extend beyond Europe.
NATO’s motto (Animus in consulendo liber – A mind unfettered in deliberation) – is not what one would describe as Trumpian. Can NATO survive a second Trump Presidency?
A second Trump presidency promises to be unhinged. If Trump seeks mainly to settle domestic scores, then NATO could survive with enhanced European leadership and burdensharing. If Trump turns his disruptive anger against allies, for the love of dictators like Putin or the passioned distaste of European politics, then NATO as a transatlantic alliance will not survive.
Sten Rynning is the author of NATO: From Cold War to Ukraine, a History of the World’s Most Powerful Alliance, published by Yale University Press.
