Why Nato’s adaptability is both a strength and a liability
Imran Khalid says the alliance’s evolution over recent years raises questions about its role
As Nato commemorates its 75th anniversary, the atmosphere is tense as the transatlantic alliance confronts a critical moment. It faces both familiar and emerging threats. Today, its relevance is again in the spotlight in a world fraught with security risks reminiscent of the Cold War era.
Nato’s endurance for 75 years stems from its adaptability to shifting dynamics. No longer confined to its Cold War origins, it has evolved into a new entity. Yet, this metamorphosis raises questions about its role. Is Nato morphing into a global enforcer, intervening in conflicts beyond its members’ interests? Such ambition risks exacerbating crises rather than resolving them.
While Nato’s flexibility is commendable, its expansion into non-member territories demands scrutiny. As it marks its 75th anniversary, Nato finds itself embroiled in escalating tensions with Russia.
Nato’s eastward expansion has implications for regional stability. The alliance continuing to extend its reach, particularly towards Russia’s borders, has exacerbated long-standing geopolitical fissures.
Whether it’s Russia, China or the proliferation of advanced weapons among non-state actors, the alliance contends with a complex web of actual – and presumed – adversaries. Moreover, it faces emerging threats in unconventional domains, compounded by the intersection of conflict and climate change.
As wars extend to new domains, the alliance must adapt to remain relevant. As its membership expands to 32 nations, Nato has intensified engagements with global partners, fortifying ties with key players in the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.
Notably, Nato is trying to deepen dialogue with long-standing allies such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand while also enhancing cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council and members of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.
Nato’s evolution transcends its original defence mandate. This shift extends its influence worldwide, blurring lines between military and political agendas.
However, this expansion could undermine Nato’s effectiveness. Straying too far from its roots could dilute its purpose and alienate potential partners. While adaptation is essential, Nato must tread cautiously to ensure relevance and not overstep boundaries.
Nato is reportedly devising a strategy to provide substantial military aid to an embattled Ukraine. The proposed Mission for Ukraine initiative aims to secure a US$100 billion aid package over five years.
This plan signifies Nato’s readiness to directly supply weaponry to Ukraine amid Russia’s invasion. The urgency of this initiative is reflected by many leaders’ apprehension that the coming months will be decisive in determining Ukraine’s fate.
Against this backdrop, Nato is preparing for the future. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte is widely expected to be the next secretary general of Nato. As the alliance braces for challenges ahead, strategic foresight and cohesive leadership will be imperative in safeguarding Nato’s interests in an uncertain world.
The incoming Nato leader will inherit a transformed landscape in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. Not long ago, serious doubts shrouded Nato’s relevance, epitomised by French President Emmanuel Macron’s stark declaration of its “brain death”. Underpinning this scepticism was a shifting global order, exacerbated by wavering US commitment during the Trump administration. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine jolted Nato from its slumber, sparking a renewed sense of purpose.
As Nato grapples with its future trajectory, it faces a geopolitical mosaic where strategic recalibration is imperative. Nato stands as one of history’s most formidable military coalitions, instrumental in fostering peace across the Western world. However, the potential for internal strife looms large, particularly if Donald Trump returns to the White House.
Revelations from former administration officials indicate Trump’s inclination to withdraw the United States from Nato. His disruptive behaviour, evident in the tumultuous 2018 Nato summit, underscores the fragility of the alliance under his leadership.
The US withdrawing from Nato would deal a severe blow to the alliance’s credibility. Trump’s expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s moves in Ukraine, which he called “genius”, raise concerns about his intention to pursue warmer ties with Moscow should he secure a second term.
There are reports that officials in Europe are quietly assessing the viability of Nato without American involvement. One scenario involves sustaining the alliance’s military capabilities for a limited period in the hope a subsequent US administration will recommit to the alliance.
As Western leaders advocate for increased defence spending in Europe, the urgency of meeting the 2 per cent GDP target has grown. More than half of Nato members are expected to hit that mark this year. Poland stands out by allocating 4 per cent of its gross domestic product for defence – a move that signals the potential for alignment within the alliance.
This increased defence spending could become a permanent fixture amid Nato’s broader concerns about global security shifts. As Beijing strengthens its strategic partnership with Moscow, Western apprehension about China’s expanding influence will only intensify.
There are reports that officials in Europe are quietly assessing the viability of Nato without American involvement