Is NATO a force for good? I'll give you a balanced look at its record — from its defensive mission and interventions to the criticisms it faces.
Whether NATO is a force for good is debated and depends on how its record is evaluated. Arguments exist on both sides:
What NATO Is
NATO was founded in April 1949 by twelve nations from Europe and North America. Its stated essential purpose is to safeguard freedom and security as a collective defense system.
It was founded as a collective security organization to oppose Soviet expansion and promote unity of effort within Europe and across the Atlantic. The agreement aimed to provide collective security against the Soviet Union, prevent the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe and encourage European political integration.
Its core principle is Article 5, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO invoked Article 5 only once in its history, on September 12, 2001, following the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States. That invocation led directly to NATO's involvement in Afghanistan and marked the first time the collective defense clause was activated.
Arguments That NATO Has Been a Force for Good
1.Deterrence and Prevention of War in Europe: Proponents argue NATO is the most successful multilateral military bloc in history and that its success "is measured not in battles won, but rather in lives saved, freedoms preserved and wars prevented". By providing a collective defense guarantee, it is credited with preserving peace during the Cold War and deterring attack on members since.
2.Stopping Conflict and Peacekeeping: NATO took the lead in stopping two conflicts in the Balkans, in Bosnia and Kosovo, and in creating peacekeeping forces. Its current missions include peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, Operation Sea Guardian in the Mediterranean and additional maritime security missions protecting freedom of navigation and combatting illegal human trafficking, supporting humanitarian disaster relief efforts, and counter terrorism operations. It also leads the international peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.
3.Humanitarian and Disaster Response: During the COVID-19 pandemic, NATO sent medical supplies to Allied countries and humanitarian relief to non-NATO countries Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, Moldova, Tunisia and Ukraine. In 2023, when devastating earthquakes hit Türkiye, NATO member countries sent more than 1,400 emergency responders within 24 hours. NATO was also conceived not just to protect from outside attack, but also to create a sense of security that would enable peace and prosperity and contributed to Western Europe's recovery.
4.Support Among Member Publics: NATO is seen more favorably than not across most member countries, with a median of 66% of adults having a positive view. In a 13-member survey, a median of 66% have a favorable view, including majorities in 10 of these countries, with Poles having the most favorable opinion at 81%.
Arguments and Criticisms Against That View
1.Record of Out-of-Area Interventions is Mixed: While the intervention in Kosovo is 'generally regarded as a NATO triumph rather than a debilitating crisis', the same assessments note that NATO's 1990s Balkan interventions have proved to be the most effective and successful of all its major post-Cold War "out-of-area" operations, certainly when compared to either Afghanistan or Libya. Other analyses conclude NATO did succeed in its mission in Kosovo, while it failed in its mission in Libya.
Critics argue NATO's operation in Afghanistan was a failure and failed to stop the Afghan drugs trade, and that its operation over Libya was illegitimate. The Kosovo air campaign was also launched without a UN Security Council resolution — Russia and China would have vetoed it — as NATO acting on humanitarian grounds outside the bounds of traditional international law, a precedent that remains debated.
2.Expansion and Relations with Russia: This is a central point of debate with two opposing interpretations:
•Critics argue US-led NATO expansion in the late 1990s and early 2000s welcoming Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic was an unnecessary provocation towards Russia when it was still reeling from defeat, and that Russians viewed this expansion near their border as an existential threat. Some scholars argue the assurances given to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" were effectively abandoned, creating deep distrust in Moscow.
•Supporters of expansion argue Russia's narrative that NATO expansion provoked its invasion of Ukraine ignores the historical, political, and security dynamics that drove Central and Eastern European states to join, and that expansion was not an act of Western betrayal but a defensive move by nations determined to safeguard their independence against a historically aggressive neighbor. They also argue no such promise existed, even Gorbachev denied any promise.
3.Limited Global Standing and Cost: Outside the alliance, perceptions are more mixed. Across 138 countries, median global approval of NATO's leadership stood at 34% in 2022, with 30% disapproving. Critics also point to burden-sharing disputes and the financial and human costs of prolonged missions.
Conclusion
Supporters view NATO as a defensive alliance that has maintained peace among members, deterred aggression, stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and provided humanitarian assistance.
Critics view it as an instrument of Western foreign policy that has at times acted without UN authorization, produced unstable outcomes in Afghanistan and Libya, and contributed to security dilemmas in Europe through eastward expansion.
Whether it is judged a force for good often depends on whether one weighs its role as a collective defense and stabilization organization against criticisms of its interventions and geopolitical consequences.