Debate Desk
Is NATO Obsolete in the Twenty-First Century, and Do Conservatives Agree?
NATO deters Russia at modest cost to America, but burden-sharing has lagged; conservatives differ on its scope and on what allies owe.
The claim
Critics say that NATO was built to counter the Soviet Union, that the Cold War ended long ago and that wealthy European countries rely on American protection while spending too little on their own defense. America, they argue, should not be bound to defend countries that will not defend themselves.
The answer in three points
- Conservatives are divided on this question. Some see the alliance as a bargain that multiplies American power, deterring Russia and keeping Europe stable and trading with us. Others see a dated commitment that exposes America to wars for the sake of others, and that Europe should do more.
- The criticism about burden-sharing is old and is partly right. At the 2014 Wales Summit, allies pledged to move toward 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense, and many fell short for years. The pledge made at The Hague in 2025 to reach 5 percent by 2035 shows that pressure works.
- The treaty is short and worth reading. Article 5 says that an armed attack on one is an attack on all, and each party will take such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force. Each party keeps its own decision, and the commitment has been invoked once, after September 11, 2001, when allies came to America's aid.
The wise course is to keep what works, press allies to carry more of the load and be clear about what the commitment means. An alliance that is credible deters, and a credible alliance requires partners who contribute.
The numbers
- The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington on April 4, 1949, according to NATO.
- NATO's Article 5 has been invoked once, on September 12, 2001, after the attacks of the previous day.
- At the 2025 Hague summit, allies committed to 5 percent of gross domestic product for defense and related spending by 2035, according to NATO.
What they will say next
"Europeans free ride." Many did, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine changed behavior, with Germany and others raising budgets. The trend should continue.
"NATO provokes Russia." Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, and states that sought NATO membership did so out of fear. The alliance is defensive.
"We should focus on China." Asia is a priority, and strong European allies free American forces for it. A weak Europe would need more help from us.
"Article 5 could drag us into war." The text leaves the response to each member, and a clear commitment deters war by making it unprofitable.
Alliances are valuable when they are fair and credible, and the answer is to reform, not to abandon.
"Article 5 is not an automatic guarantee." Correct, and that is why the credibility of the alliance rests on the will of its members. Visible commitments, shared exercises and fair burden-sharing are how allies make the guarantee believable and avoid being tested.