Synopsis : NATO was born as an effective union of 12 nations led by the United States to counter the projected influence of USSR in a devastated Europe after the Second world War. Its objectives were to deter Soviet expansionism , prevent nationalist militarism in Europe and to ensure political integration in Europe . While the political integration is almost complete the nationalist militarism is something which is to be addressed jointly by members of EU. The collapse of USSR did eliminate the Soviet expansionism to a great extent. However , several European countries are viewing the Russian intentions with great suspicion . NATO continues to have a major role to contain Russia . The ideal solution for guaranteeing a war-free Europe will be to accommodate Russia in a mutually acceptable manner by EU. The Crimean war should have opened the eyes of EU on the need for accelerating dialogue with Russia for mutual benefit . The redline for Russia was that Ukraine should not join NATO because it could mean that the US forces could take positions on the long border between Russia and Ukraine . This was a legitimate concern of Russia and EU should have found a workable solution . EU has to formulate a strategy to create an EU military command for protecting its interests in Europe without the help of USA . Having fulfilled its main objective to contain USSR in the post- war period , is it not time to have a new security structure in Europe ? ? . The answer could be YES. EU should find a solution for meeting the rest of the objectives of NATO along with some new objectives adapted to the new situation in Europe . A new European Security Structure managed by EU will be needed. The transition from NATO to the new EU security structure should be planned and executed carefully. Russia should find its legitimate place in Europe in a manner acceptable to EU. USA will try to find its own ways to maintain its hegemonic position by countering rising hegemonic powers including EU ( most likely without success) . UK will tread a careful line dealing with Europe and USA. Turkey may find a new equilibrium as the leader of Islamic Republics. NATO will become history . All good things will have to come to a natural end and NATO is no exception.
Introduction
Although USSR and United States were allies during the Second World War , it was obvious to USA immediately after the war that their future directions are different and could be confrontational . Europe was devastated after the Second World War and USA quickly understood that it will not be in its interest to allow USSR to dominate Europe . US strategists set three objectives :
- Deter Soviet expansionism
- Prevent revival of nationalist militarism in Europe
- Ensure European political integration.
It was clear to President Truman that a strong US presence is required in Europe for achieving all the three objectives and the result was the birth of NATO in 1949 with 12 members : Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, UK and USA. Norway was the only nation with a common border with USSR. Did USA and UK together fix a secret agenda for NATO ? . General Hastings Lionel Ismay , a close associate of Winston Churchill during the Second World War and the first Secretary General of NATO had mentioned later in his memoir that UK had an objective to keep USSR out , get USA in and keep the Germans under its wing. This secret agenda of UK and USA created a lot of issues later for NATO. USA played a crucial role in the reconstruction of most of the NATO members in Europe during the post-war period . NATO also prevented Soviet expansionism in to Western Europe . The rivalry between USA and USSR in the global scene resulted in “ cold war” . With the break-up of USSR in 1991 , several new nations like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland with common border with Russia were born .These nations joined NATO as an insurance against Russian aggression. Finland which joined NATO recently has also a common border with Russia .
Are NATO’s objectives relevant anymore ?
This is a matter which needs critical analysis by EU and USA .
Political integration of Europe
This is almost complete and it can be considered that this objective is achieved .
Could there be nationalist militarism in Europe ? .
This can not be ruled out . It is for EU to take the required precautionary measures .One major step will be to create an EU military force so that there will not be any temptation for any single EU -nation to dominate other nations militarily . A strong Franco-German axis will be an important factor. The decision to create a joint Franco-German brigade in 1987 by President Mitterand and Chancellor Kohl was a step in the right direction . However , similar actions were not really pursued. It is time for EU to have a new reflection on the matter with the participation of all the members . In any case , there can not be any role for USA now in EU .
Military objectives of NATO
While it is true that NATO was mainly to ensure protection against an aggression from USSR on any of the member- nations , it also had an objective that any member attacked by another nation should get the active support from all the members of NATO for countering such attacks . Text of the article 5 and article 6 of the treaty is given below .
Article 5 : The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Article 6 : For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France , on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer
NATO’s current operations
Extracts from a press release by NATO in July 2025:
“ NATO conducts a variety of operations and missions in the Euro-Atlantic area and beyond. These crisis prevention and management activities range from peace support operations following conflicts, to capacity-building missions that help strengthen NATO’s partners, to humanitarian operations after natural disasters “ .
List of major current operations is given below
a) NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR )
b) NATO Mission Iraq (NMI)
c) Operation Sea Guardian (OSG)
d) Aegean Activity
e) Cooperation with the African Union
f) Support to Ukraine
source: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/operations-and-missions/nato-operations-and-missions
Can Russia be a potential threat to USA and/or Europe ? . This would need a deeper analysis . As a nuclear power , Russia could be a threat to USA. Will USA and Russia pursue their efforts for preventing a nuclear war? . Wil such actions give positive results ? . It is difficult to predict . Russia’s approach to some of the countries which chose to break away from USSR continues to be hostile and twelve of these countries joined NATO as a protection against a probable Russian attack . Some others are attempting to join NATO . While Russia has lost its stature as an economic power , it continues to be a formidable military power . While Russia is not likely to engage in a military conflict with any of its former allies in the Second World War , a Russian aggression on some of the former USSR members can not be ruled out . This has already happened twice on countries which are not part of NATO ( Georgia and Ukraine ) . While NATO membership guarantees protection against a Russian aggression to some of the former USSR members , there is a real concern among people in some of these countries having a common border with Russia . Since Russia is a military force to reckon with, EU has to strike a deal with Russia for peaceful co-existence . This is absolutely necessary for creating a Europe without war . However , a strong and unified European Union could challenge the US hegemony and the deep state in USA will certainly make strategic moves to prevent EU becoming a Global hegemonic power . USA has standard techniques for destabilizing nations which may question US hegemony . US involvement in Ukraine war should be seen in this background. The overall objective of USA could be to destabilize both Russia and EU. EU leadership will have to initiate some bold steps to find a solution acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine . In my view , the Ukraine war was avoidable if EU had initiated some bold moves without allowing USA to meddle in the issue .We should also recognize the fact that NATO could not prevent the Russian attack on Crimea in 2014. NATO could not also prevent the Ukraine war.
Will EU accommodate Russia within its economic and security structure ? Russia of today is predominantly a European nation and its economic and political interests are closely interwoven with that of European union . Russia was on the side of Triple entente along with France and Britain during the first world war till the Bolshevik revolution . The same alignment was true during the second world war also when USSR joined the allies in 1941 . Alienation of Russia from the West European powers took placeduring the cold war period . With the end of cold war , there is no need for such an alienation and Russia has to find its rightful place in the structure of a European continent . If and when such an evolution takes place , the clouds of conflicts will disappear from Europe for ever. There will not be any need for NATO in such a scenario and US will leave Europe to manage its affairs . Following table gives a comparison of Russia with Germany , France and EU .
| EU | Russia | France | Germany | |
| GDP Trillion$ | 22.5 | 2.54 | 3.36 | 5.01 |
| Population Million | 450.3 | 143.9 | 66.6 | 83.6 |
https://theworlddata.com/world-population-by-country/
It can be seen that Russia has around the combined population of France and Germany with a GDP which is only around half of that of Germany . While Russia has enormous military power , its economic power is quite small in comparison to EU .While EU does not have much of natural resources , Russia has huge natural resources. It will be in the overall interests of EU and Russia to work together for economic prosperity for all by ensuring a peaceful ambience in Europe . Russia will be able to use its resources for productive purposes rather than for military purposes when a common European security structure including Russia is established .
President Trump and NATO
Right from the campaign for the 2016 presidential Candidate Donald Trump was highly critical about the functioning of NATO and had highlighted the need to review US role in NATO. President Trump during his first term had made a clear statement that NATO has become obsolete and insisted that every NATO member should allocate 2 % of GDP for defence purposes . Although EU was lukewarm to this suggestion, every member made considerable efforts to increase defence expenses . All the NATO members spent more than 2 % of the GDP for defence purposes in 2025. Poland and Lithuania spent 4 % or more . Latvia, Estonia, Norway and Denmark spent more than 3 % of GDP. Only three members spent more than 2% of GDP for defence purposes in 2014. Immediately after President Trump started his second term in 2025 , he was highly critical of the defence expenses of most of the NATO members from Europe and suggested that each member should allocate 4 % of GDP for defence budget .
NATO summit 2025 in Hague
At the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Allies made a commitment to invest 5% of GDP) annually on core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending by 2035 with the following objectives :
- 3.5 % for expenses under the agreed definition of NATO
- 1.5 % for critical infrastructure , civil preparedness and defence industrial base .
I give below the figures of the total Defence expenses by USA and NATO allies in 2015 and 2025,
| Total Defence Expenses | 2015 | 2025 | remarks |
| NATO countries total million $ | 895726 | 1587999 | 77 % increase |
| USA million $ | 641253 | 980000 | 52 % increase |
| Canada million $ | 18689 | 43886 | 135 % increase |
| NATO Europe million $ | 237784 | 564133 | 138 % increase |
| Note: NATO Europe and Canada have increased their defence budget considerably between 2015 and 2025 . | |||
President Trump’s criticism that NATO Europe is not spending enough for defence is no more justifiable.
NATO’s operational budget 2025
Civil budget : 483.3 million Euro
Military Budget : 2373 million Euro
NSIP ( see note ) : 1710 million Euro
TOTAL : 4566 million Euro
Note : The NSIP ( National Security Investment Programme ) contributes directly to deterrence, defence and security, by supporting capability development and delivery, particularly on air, land and naval facilities, bulk fuel pipeline systems and storage, reinforcement, sustainment and enablement capabilities, core communications, information technology networks, satellite communications and readiness initiatives.
Cost sharing by members in 2025
NATO Europe : 77.44 % ( Germany – 15.88 % , UK – 10.86 % , France- 10.19 % )
USA : 15.88 %
Canada : 6.68 % Source : https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/funding-nato#:~:text=NATO%20has%20annual%20budgets%20and,hoc%20sharing%20arrangements%20and%20donations.
Here again President Trump’s complaints against NATO Europe about inadequate contributions to NATO’s common fund are not based on
NATO membership as in March 2026
NATO has 32 members now : 23 from EU , Canada, USA, Turkey and 6 European nations ( Albania , Iceland , Montenegro, North Macedonia , Norway and UK ). Austria, Ireland , Cyprus and Malta are the EU nations which are not the members of NATO.
How will Europe prevent another world war in Europe ?
As is well known , Europe had suffered enormously on account of the two world wars in the twentieth century . A third world war starting from Europe was prevented by the careful actions of the winning side of the second world war , particularly USA in drafting a treaty without insulting the losing side and by providing liberal financial package for rebuilding the nations ravaged by the war ( Many including me believe that the Versailles treaty of 1919 had planted the seeds for the second world war ) . General de Gaulle , one of the greatest visionaries of the twentieth century was convinced that another war in Europe can be prevented only through the formation of a European Union stretching from the Atlantic coast to the Ural mountains ( excluding Britain and including the European part of Russia ) and he laid a solid foundation for such a Union with the active participation of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany . General de Gaulle knew that Britain will act as a spoiler and did not agree for the entry of Britain to the European Union till he left office . It was President Pompidou who agreed to admit Britain into the Union . Brexit proves that de Gaulle had the right assessment about Britain .
The Brexit did not have any negative impact on EU except some border-issues in Ireland . E Many non-European experts predict that European Union may disintegrate because of the rise of rightwing Euro-sceptic parties in several countries and the slow and lethargic EU- bureaucracy. Many EU leaders are conscious of these problems and are examining the possibilities of a lean and agile EU- bureaucracy, stricter immigration control and sound trade practices for stimulating local production and consumption for finding sustainable solutions for creation of jobs. This may also mean that there could be an economically sound ” core group” of nations in EU surrounded by a set of nations which would need more time to have the required discipline . There will be a criticism that such a system will create a Europe with two speeds and the “ core group “ will have to take others into confidence for bringing up them to the same level as the core group . In my view , EU will survive the challenges and it will have a major role in global affairs .
The rise of right wing Euro- sceptics in several countries are exploiting politically the uncontrolled flow of immigrants ( mostly economic immigrants ) into Europe in the context of a high level of unemployment . As is well known , the immigrants become the first target when any country undergoes economic stagnation or down turn . The fact remains that Europe has to find lasting solutions for its economic stagnation by adopting a pragmatic policy for stimulating growth through increased local production and balanced trade . This will in turn create more jobs , higher disposable income for individuals , higher tax-revenues for the States and lower social welfare expenses.
Conclusion
NATO was created primarily to protect Europe from the onslaught of Soviet Union when USA and Russia parted ways immediately after winning the Second World War . NATO did achieve this objective by and large and a stage has come when EU has to be on its own for defending the interests of Europe without help from USA. All good things will have to come to a natural end and NATO is at this stage now and should become part of history . The transition from NATO to the new EU security structure should be planned and executed carefully. EU has to create a military command of its own for ensuring its protection . While such an arrangement could replace NATO, it also could be a step to prevent rise of nationalist militarism in Europe . USA will do all it can to prevent the rise of another power to challenge its hegemony . EU will not be an exception . EU leadership will have to be conscious about this issue in its dealings with USA. The collapse of Sov iet Union has resulted in the creation of several new countries which are really afraid of a Russian aggression . Most of them have joined NATO as an insurance against Russian aggression . A cordial working relation between European Union and Russia will be essential for ensuring lasting peace in the European continent . Russia knows that it is not an economic power anymore and its future is very much linked with that of European Union . The ultimate objective could be to accommodate Russia within the economic and security structure of the European union in a mutually acceptable manner . This will also help to make Europe a war-free zone .
