Is NATO a force of good in the world?

NATO's record is fiercely debated — I'll weigh its defense and stability roles against common criticisms for you.

Whether NATO is a force for good is debated and depends on how you define "good" and which actions you weigh most heavily. Here is how the arguments are typically framed:

What NATO is and what it claims to do

NATO's essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defence is at the heart of the Alliance, as set out in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which holds that an attack against one member state is considered an attack against all members.

The Alliance states its deterrence strategy is about preventing conflict and war and upholding principles and values that the Alliance stands for – individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

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 32 members as of 2024, including the newest members Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024).

Throughout its history it has transformed from a regional collective defence organization to a collective security organization having global aspirations.

Arguments that NATO is a force for good

1. Deterrence and stability: Supporters argue NATO deterred a larger war in Europe during the Cold War and continues to deter aggression. NATO describes facing the most dangerous security environment since the end of the Cold War, including Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and terrorism, and that its collective strength deters aggression from potential adversaries.

The only time Article 5 was invoked was after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US, which supporters cite as an example of solidarity.

2. Expanded security roles: After the Cold War NATO took on new roles like crisis management and peacekeeping. Today this includes peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, Operation Sea Guardian in the Mediterranean and additional maritime security mission in the Aegean Sea protecting freedom of navigation and combatting illegal human trafficking, and extensive counter terrorism operations.

Former Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis summarized this view: “NATO brings security. NATO is a force for good in the world".

3. Public perception in member states: Polling suggests this view is common inside the alliance. Across 11 NATO countries surveyed, more people agree (40%) than disagree (14%) that the organisation is a force for good in the world. A 2019 Ipsos / King's College London poll found the same pattern, while noting that favourability is low in a number of key member states.

Arguments and criticisms that NATO is not a force for good

1. Expansion and escalation: Critics argue that NATO expansion provokes geopolitical rivals, burden-sharing is unequal, and reliance on U.S. capabilities is disproportionate. Specifically, NATO’s eastward expansion has been argued to have exacerbated the threat of Russian aggression that the alliance was originally intended to prevent, with Moscow objecting since the Gorbachev and Yeltsin eras.

More generally, criticisms include concerns about its expansion eastward, its potential for escalating conflicts, and its perceived lack of responsiveness to nonmilitary challenges.

2. Interventions without UN mandate and civilian casualties: NATO's 78-day air war over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo — Operation Allied Force — was conducted despite lacking explicit United Nations Security Council authorization.

Critics argue NATO's bombing campaign during the Kosovo War was criticized for causing civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, raising questions about proportionality, and that in Afghanistan operations have been marred by reports of civilian deaths.

The 2011 Libya intervention, while authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, is also cited by critics as an example where regime change and post-intervention instability followed the protection-of-civilians mandate.

3. Perception outside NATO: Views differ sharply outside the alliance. While people in Britain are least likely (11%) to believe one of NATO’s purposes is to harm Russian interests, 56% of Russians believe this is the case, and people in Russia (72%) and China (68%) are most likely to think NATO’s purpose is to protect US interests.

Bottom line

Supporters see NATO as a defensive alliance that has kept peace among members, deterred large-scale interstate war in Europe, and provided crisis management and humanitarian security capabilities.

Critics see it as an instrument of Western — particularly American — power that has overstepped its defensive mandate, provoked adversaries through enlargement, and caused civilian harm in out-of-area wars.

Most assessments acknowledge both elements: NATO has succeeded at its core mission of collective defence for members, while its broader interventions have had mixed outcomes that are judged differently depending on political perspective and the weight given to security versus sovereignty and unintended consequences.