NATO's record is contested - I'll survey its history and arguments on both sides to answer.
NATO - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - is generally evaluated differently depending on perspective, with arguments both for and against it being a force for good.
What NATO is
NATO was formed in 1949 by 12 countries to provide collective defense against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It has since grown to a 32-member alliance across Europe and North America, with Sweden becoming the newest member in March 2024.
Its stated purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means, especially through the principle of collective defense: under Article 5, an attack against one member is treated as an attack against all.
At the heart of the alliance's treaty is Article 5, which commits members to mutual defense in the event of an attack against any NATO nation. Deterrence remains the primary goal, with NATO's strategy seeking to prevent conflict and war, protect Allies, maintain freedom of decision and action, and uphold principles and values such as individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
The first and only time Article 5 was invoked was on 9/11 during the terrorist attacks against the US.
Arguments that NATO is a force for good
Proponents cite benefits including:
•Peace, stability, conflict prevention, and deterrence in Europe
•An unrivaled platform for constructing and operating international military coalitions and treaty-based defense support from allies
•Economic stability in the world's largest trade and investment marketplace
•Promotion of democratic values - NATO also promotes the American values of democracy and rule of law, and supporters argue partners share fundamental values of freedom, liberty, democracy
Historically, supporters point to:
•NATO succeeding during the Cold War, which stayed cold until it ended on terms even optimists had difficulty envisioning
•After the Cold War, taking on new roles like crisis management and peacekeeping, participating in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and engaging in humanitarian missions worldwide
•Its open-door policy which has been described as a crucial driver of modernization and reform in candidate countries, has promoted stability and peace in Europe
Arguments that NATO is not a force for good / Criticisms
Critics raise several concerns:
•Escalation and provocation: Potential for escalating tensions with non-member countries and arguments that expansion made Russia feel insecure and resentful towards the West. Some argue NATO's expansion five times eastward has significantly impacted the post-Cold War order and security in Europe, making it the main cause of the conflict in Ukraine.
•Financial burden: The financial burdens of member states supporting NATO's defence budget.
•Interventions and consequences: NATO has received criticism for acting as a global power with Interventions into Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya, resulting in regime change have contributed to the creation of failed states. Critics note that upon NATO's exit, Libya has become a completely failed state and Afghanistan and Libya have both experienced an increase in violent extremism in the absence of a unified state.
Broader critiques include accusations of violations of international law, broken agreements over expansion into Eastern Europe, and proxy wars which plunged countries into chaos, and that more recently, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe has contributed to rising tensions between the West and Russia.
Public Perception
Polling suggests majority support in member states, but with variation:
•NATO is seen more favorably than not across most member countries included in surveys: A median of 66% of adults have a positive view of the alliance
•More Americans say the U.S. benefits from membership in NATO (66%) than say it does not (32%)
•Views vary widely, from 81% favorability in Poland to 28% in Greece
Conclusion
Whether NATO is seen as a force for good often depends on how one weighs:
•Deterrence, collective security, and promotion of stability and democratic norms against
•Concerns about militarization, sovereignty, intervention outcomes, relations with Russia, and costs to members.
Analysts who value collective defense and prevention of large-scale war in Europe tend to view it positively, while critics who focus on interventionism, expansion, and great-power competition tend to view it negatively.