OPINION — For much of its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been portrayed as a unified military bloc bound by common values and collective defense. In reality, NATO has always been closer to a pragmatic partnership, an alliance shaped as much by disagreement and national interests as by solidarity. While current headlines suggest an alliance on the brink, NATO’s history reveals that institutional friction is not a sign of failure, but the very mechanism of its adaptation.
Arguments over defense spending, doubts about American commitment, and diverging political priorities across the Atlantic are causing some leaders to question whether NATO is nearing its end. History suggests otherwise. NATO has repeatedly endured crises that appeared existential at the time, only to adapt and continue. Recent tensions are more likely an indicator that the alliance is continuing to evolve, moving away from a post-Cold War era of European reliance on American protection toward a more balanced, albeit tense, partnership necessitated by a volatile international environment.
The lesson is simple: NATO still has a role to play, but sustaining it will require renewed commitment and investment on both sides of the Atlantic. NATO’s endurance rests less on shared sentiment and more on the reality that, in an increasingly dangerous world, the cost of fragmentation far outweighs the burden of disagreement.
Europe’s Strategic Complacency
While NATO has historically utilized institutional friction as a mechanism for adaptation, the current era of Strategic Complacency presents a unique challenge to this pattern of survival. For decades following the Cold War, European allies operated under a security guarantor model, drastically shrinking defense budgets under the assumption of indefinite American protection. This was clearly illustrated by Sweden’s transition from a global air power to a scaled-down posture.
This reliance has not only diminished American patience but has resulted in a fragmented industrial base ill-equipped for the high-intensity conflicts exposed by the war in Ukraine. The pragmatic partnership described at the alliance's outset is now being tested by a critical gap: while the diplomatic victory of a 5% GDP spending target has been established, the actual pace of military modernization and investment continues to lag behind a rapidly deteriorating threat environment.
Washington has increasingly grown less interested in the alliance. Efforts to reshape defense commitments have been impacted by disputes with countries such as Poland (over the Nobel Prize), Denmark (over Greenland), and most recently President Trump’s comments on the lack of NATO support for Iran.
These tensions are not new. NATO defense spending has declined since the 1960s, throughout the Cold War. After the Soviet Union collapsed, many European states dramatically reduced their military capabilities. Even traditionally neutral countries followed this trend. Sweden, for example, once maintained the world 4th largest Air Force but gradually scaled down its defense posture.
The United States also adjusted its military spending over time affected by conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the Global War on Terror, but defense spending cuts stabilized around 3-4 percent of GDP. American pressure led allies to commit to an increase of each country's defense spending to 5%, but this victory was hard won.
An illprepared alliance
Security officials in several European countries, including Estonia and Sweden, warn that the threat environment is changing rapidly and that a confrontation with Russia could occur within the coming years. Such warnings have not yet translated into rapid military investment. Defense spending remains politically sensitive in many democracies, and elections could reverse recent commitments.
Perhaps more concerning than defense budgets is the slow pace of military adaptation. Recent conflicts have reshaped modern warfare through the widespread use of drones, autonomous systems, long-range missiles, and electronic warfare. Recent exercises between Ukraine and NATO forces shows that NATO is not learning and modernizing fast enough. Sweeping doctrinal reforms or procurement changes are needed, with less focus on traditional concepts or local manufacturing. While spending is the cornerstone of modernization, a mindset shift is arguably more critical.
NATO Has Faced Worse
If today’s disagreements appear alarming, they are far from unprecedented. NATO’s history is filled with crises that once seemed capable of breaking the alliance.
In 1952, NATO expanded to include two long-standing rivals: Türkiye and Greece. Their membership strengthened the alliance’s southern flank but did not resolve their tensions. Those tensions erupted during the Cyprus crisis of 1974, when a coup attempted to unite Cyprus with Greece. Türkiye responded with a military intervention. The crisis prompted Greece to withdraw from NATO’s integrated military command structure, though it remained politically within the alliance until returning in 1980.
Another major shock came during the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Britain and France launched a military operation against Egypt after the nationalization of the Suez Canal. The United States opposed the invasion and used economic and diplomatic pressure to force its allies to withdraw, exposing deep divisions within the alliance.
France further complicated NATO politics in 1966 when President Charles de Gaulle withdrew the country from NATO’s integrated military command, insisting on sovereignty over French forces. France did not fully reintegrate until 2009.
Later disputes emerged during the Vietnam War, which many European governments believed diverted American attention from Europe’s security. Another rupture came in 2003 when the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq divided the alliance politically, with Germany and France strongly opposing the operation.
Under the new administration the Greenland Crisis was the first time NATO saw a United States president threaten a NATO ally over land, and more diplomatic work is needed to regain trust. The war with Iran has shown a mixed reaction by NATO allies, ranging from tardiness, refusing US access to airforce bases, but also cautious support.
Signs of Renewal
Despite disagreements, there are reasons for cautious optimism.
The war in Ukraine has served as a wake-up call causing European governments to recognize that the strategic environment has changed. Europe relies heavily on American technology and industrial capacity, but defense spending across the continent is rising and several countries are rebuilding capabilities and innovation hubs.
To be clear, the NATO alliance is symbiotic: a strong, capable NATO benefits America as much as Europe. The NATO Secretary General provided a pragmatic assessment of this interdependence during his remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
One possible indicator is the fact that NATO is expanding. Finland joined the alliance in 2023 after decades of neutrality, dramatically extending NATO’s border with Russia. Sweden’s problematic relationship with NATO did not prevent it from joining in 2024 after a lengthy political process, strengthening NATO’s northern flank.
Parallel Alliances
Europe is also exploring additional security arrangements alongside NATO.
The European Union’s President von der Leyen held a speech that described a more formal defense role for the Union, including deeper military coordination among member states. Regional partnerships are emerging. The Joint Expeditionary Force, including the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Nordic and Baltic countries, is designed to deploy forces rapidly during crises. Another potential is a Nordic Plus alliance, built around protection of Finland's eastern border.
Other alliances are created in the European hemisphere. Since 2010 Israel, Cyprus and Greece have entered an alliance that was reaffirmed in 2025, focused on joint Mediterranean security.
There are also discussions about expanding nuclear deterrence arrangements within Europe. Germany and France are exploring deeper cooperation, while Poland has expressed interest in hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO’s deterrence framework.
The most capable potential partner is Ukraine. Years of intense warfare have produced the most experienced European Army, particularly in areas such as drone warfare and air defense, capable of supporting current US operations in the Middle East and potentially in the Pacific. In fact, Ukraine’s offer of air defense support has inspired foreign policy experts, namely Admiral (Retired) Mark Montgomery, to refer to them as a “Model Ally.”
A Durable Alliance
NATO’s history proves it is a 'pragmatic partnership' born of necessity, not a social club built on shared sentiment. Its future will not be defined by the absence of disagreement, but by the ability of its members to trade 'strategic complacency' for a balanced, symbiotic burden-sharing. If Europe can transition from a protected ward to a modernized, innovative partner—exemplified by the battle-hardened experience of new and potential allies like Sweden and Ukraine—the alliance will do what it has always done: outlast the crises that were meant to break it.
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
