Keeping NATO relevant

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been trying valiantly to reform itself to remain relevant in the face of ever changing global threats. Enlarged definitions of threat have been adopted without clear boundaries and accordingly NATO has transformed itself from an alliance of collective defense to a collective security organization. The complex security challenges, increased number of members and partners, as well as new obligations have created confusion about the extent of and the ways to invoke Article 5 commitments. As a result, after Sept. 11, NATO embroiled itself into operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, all of which were clearly out of area and beyond its mandate.

In contrast to expanding responsibilities and the area of operation, most of the member states, benefiting from the reduction of the Soviet/Russian threat during the 1990s, have chosen to cut defense expenditures drastically. This, as the recent crisis over Ukraine has shown, has severely affected NATO’s defense capability and its presence in Eastern Europe. According to the latest figures released by NATO in February 2014, only four of the 28 members, i.e. the United States, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Greece, have fulfilled their obligation to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. The U.S. has continued to shoulder the lion’s share in defense expenditure by contributing 73 percent in 2013.

Besides, the lack of shared perception about threats, differing priorities of member states, and the trust deficiency among members as a result of the U.S. occupation of Iraq have affected NATO’s capacity adversely. The inability to stop violations of territorial integrity of partners – first in Georgia and then in Ukraine – and the...