Is NATO a force of good in the world?

Is NATO a force for good? I'll give a balanced view of its achievements and criticisms — gathering recent analysis and history first.

Is NATO a force for good? It depends on what criteria you use to define "good" - most analysts and polls find majority support in member states, but with significant criticisms. It is best understood as a military alliance with stabilizing and destabilizing effects.

What NATO Is

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II, with the purpose of securing peace and security in Europe.

It is an intergovernmental military alliance that serves as a system of collective security and deterrence, whereby its independent members agree to defend each-other from attack by any outside party. This is enshrined in Article 5 of the treaty, which states that an armed attack against the territory of one member shall be considered an attack against them all.

Throughout the Cold War, NATO's primary purpose was to deter and counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its satellite states, which formed the rival Warsaw Pact in 1955. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the alliance adapted. It was conceived and functioned during the Cold War as a collective defense organization centered on deterring an attack and preparing for the emergencies of Article 5.

Today, NATO protects more than 1 billion people in Europe and North America and has grown from 12 founding members to 32 members.

The Case That NATO Is a Force For Good

1. Deterrence and long peace in Europe: Supporters argue over seven decades, with American leadership, NATO shaped world history for the better, and that it kept the peace and created the conditions for an unprecedented period of prosperity for the United States and its allies.

NATO's finest achievement is described as its contribution to the peaceful resolution of the Cold War, with allies bonded together in unity of purpose with a common strategy, projecting credible force to preserve trans-Atlantic security. The fall of the Soviet Union cemented NATO's record of ensuring peace and prosperity for its members.

During the Cold War no military operations were conducted, which supporters cite as evidence deterrence worked.

2. Collective security in practice: The only time in its history that the alliance has invoked Article 5 for collective defense was after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, invoked for the first and only time by the United States after the September 11 attacks, leading to NATO involvement in Afghanistan. Proponents see this as proof of solidarity - that allies will aid the victim of attack.

3. Peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions: NATO undertook its first military intervention in the Bosnian War (1992–1995); with a United Nations mandate, it enforced a no-fly zone and defended UN safe zones. NATO also intervened in the Kosovo War in 1999 by bombing Yugoslavia with the stated goal of ending violence and repressive actions by the Milosevic government. Since then it has been involved in training Iraq's military and countering piracy.

4. Response to recent aggression: Following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, NATO suspended cooperation and deployed a tripwire force in the east. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted NATO to reinforce its eastern flank and send military aid to Ukraine, and caused Finland and Sweden to join the alliance. Supporters argue this protects democratic states and hedges against Russian uncertainty.

There are strong arguments for enlarging the alliance, above all securing the democratic and Western orientation of selected former Warsaw Pact states and hedging against political uncertainty in Russia.

5. Public support in member states: In polls conducted in 18 countries around the world, findings show that in the 11 NATO states surveyed more people agree (40 per cent) than disagree (14 per cent) that the organisation is a force for good in the world.

Favourability towards NATO is highest in Poland (60 per cent), the US (56 per cent), Canada (55 per cent) and Britain (50 per cent), though lower in Germany 30 per cent and France 31 per cent.

The Case That NATO Is Not, or Not Always, a Force For Good

1. Interventions without clear success or mandate: Criticisms of interventions have broadly centred upon allegations that NATO actions exceeded mandates, contributing to a marked hesitance within some sections of the international community to pursue coercive measures and more specifically the use of military force.

Libya and the 2011 NATO intervention there have become synonymous with failure and disaster. NATO's interventions in Afghanistan and Libya promoted security and stability in these countries but faced criticism for a lack of coordination with other stakeholders and potential economic conflicts of interest among participating NATO members.

In Libya, reeling from ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, most NATO forces are spent and the mission used up resources to such an extent that several allies were literally out of ammunition and fuel and had to beg others for resupply. Critics argue NATO stopped stabilizing after the fall of Qaddafi, leaving state collapse, militia violence, and migrant crises.

In Kosovo, NATO bombed Yugoslavia without explicit UN Security Council authorization, which critics cite as a precedent for illegal use of force. In Afghanistan, after invoking Article 5 and leading the International Security Assistance Force, NATO withdrew without achieving lasting stability, ending with the Taliban's return.

2. Provocation of adversaries and escalation: Key arguments against NATO expansion include the concern that it will exacerbate tensions with Russia. Other critics note expanding NATO could complicate its ability to achieve consensus, weaken the security of those countries not brought in, increase demands on defense budgets when they are already overstretched, and alienate Russia.

People in Russia (72 per cent) and China (68 per cent) are most likely to think NATO's purpose is to protect US interests, and 56 per cent of Russians believe one of NATO's purposes is to harm Russian interests. Critics argue NATO is seen not as a defensive alliance but as American hegemony.

3. Selective values and internal contradictions: Critics note NATO has numerous elements and serves many purposes, but it is first and foremost a military alliance, not primarily a liberal-values organization. They point to membership of states with authoritarian tendencies (e.g., Turkey, Hungary) and inconsistency in defending democracy internally.

The alliance also faces burden-sharing criticisms: members underestimate the financial contribution of the US to NATO while overestimating their own nation's contribution, leading to US complaints that allies free-ride.

4. Failure to prevent war on its periphery: Despite deterrence inside NATO, critics note NATO did not prevent wars in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Syria, or Ukraine, and that its eastward enlargement may have reduced alternative pan-European security arrangements.

Bottom Line

If "good" is defined as:

Polling suggests most citizens of NATO countries themselves lean toward seeing it as a force for good (40% agree vs 14% disagree), but with significant variation by country and strong negative views in Russia and China.

Many scholars therefore describe NATO as a conditionally good force: effective as a defensive deterrent for its members, but less effective and more controversial as an interventionist or democracy-promoting force outside its borders.