Is NATO a force of good in the world?

I'll examine NATO's track record — from collective defense to its interventions — to weigh whether it functions as a force for good.

NATO as a force of good is debated, with assessments depending on how you define "good" - security and stability vs. adherence to international law, democracy promotion, and consequences of military interventions.

What NATO Is

The agreement founding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was signed in Washington D.C. in April 1949 by twelve nations from Europe and North America with the ambition to provide collective security against the Soviet Union, prevent the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe and encourage European political integration.

The alliance is committed to democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, as well as peaceful resolution of disputes.

Its core principle is collective defence, meaning that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all. NATO describes it as: If one NATO Ally is attacked, then all NATO Allies are attacked. This is called 'collective defence', and is the foundation of our Alliance.

Arguments That NATO Is a Force for Good

1. Deterrence and long peace in Europe:
Proponents argue NATO continues to form the backbone of security and stability, that European democracies allied with the United States and Canada created a security alliance with collective defense at its core, and The success of NATO during the Cold War set the stage for the toppling of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Since 2014, NATO has implemented the biggest increase in its collective defence since the Cold War, deploying multinational battlegroups to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to prevent a conflict.

Analysts note the very existence of Article V, coupled with a strong NATO presence, has offered sufficient deterrence.

2. Crisis management and peacekeeping:
In the 1990s, NATO stopped further bloodshed in Bosnia and in Kosovo. NATO took the lead in stopping two conflicts in the Balkans, in Bosnia and Kosovo, and in creating peacekeeping forces that have helped chart a path away from age-old grievances.

Through KFOR, NATO and its Partners have created the secure environment for other organisations to help with civil and economic reconstruction.

Other cited contributions include operations to ensure Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for international terrorists, preventing piracy off the Horn of Africa, and helping address the refugee and migrant crisis.

3. Spreading democracy and stability:
Supporters of enlargement argued for securing the democratic and Western orientation of former Warsaw Pact states and hedging against political uncertainty in Russia.

4. Public support:
In allied countries, NATO remains viewed positively. A median of 66% have a favorable view of the alliance, with majorities in 10 of 13 countries surveyed expressing a positive opinion, including about seven-in-ten or more in Canada, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Sweden and the UK.

In the U.S., Six-in-ten U.S. adults have a favorable view of NATO. Views are highest in Poland at 81%, while opinions are more divided in others.

Arguments and Criticisms That NATO Is Not a Force for Good

1. Offensive operations beyond defense:
Critics point out that two of NATO's major combat missions were offensive operations against states that had not attacked a NATO member: Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011. To deter aggression against Europe, NATO maintains massive offensive capabilities, including its nuclear forces and doctrine.

In Kosovo, decisionmakers reckoned the Alliance must respond to a humanitarian crisis even if there was no direct attack on one of its members, a precedent some legal scholars criticized as lacking UN Security Council authorization.

2. Mixed or negative outcomes of interventions:
Assessments of interventions note that the success of crisis resolution shifted from very positive (Kosovo) to neutral (Libya) and ultimately to negative (contemporary Afghanistan).

The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya was even more disastrous, triggering a generalized destabilization of the whole North African region. The Afghanistan operation absorbed a large proportion of Allies' capabilities for more than a decade and ended with the Taliban returning to power in 2021.

3. Relations with Russia and enlargement:
Key arguments against NATO expansion include the concern that it will exacerbate tensions with Russia. Critics also argue Expanding NATO could complicate its ability to achieve consensus, weaken the security of those countries not brought in, increase demands on defense budgets and alienate Russia.

Some analysts argue NATO expansion into Eastern Europe has contributed to rising tensions between the West and Russia.

4. Values vs. strategic interests:
Analysts note calls to save NATO because it is a bulwark of liberal values have it backwards, because it is first and foremost a military alliance. Its adaptability has allowed it to survive 70 years but creates vulnerabilities against illiberalism and anti-democratic trends within members.

Public opinion also shows variation: Spaniards' opinions are split (47% favorable vs. 45% unfavorable), while views among Greeks and Turks are more negative than positive, and favorability has dipped slightly over the past year in a handful of countries such as the Netherlands, Greece and Poland, though adults in Germany and Canada see NATO more favorably than in 2024.

How to Evaluate

Whether NATO is a "force of good" often depends on the criteria used:

Most polling in member states suggests majorities currently see it favorably, but favorable views are not universal and are politically and geographically divided.