Is NATO a force for good? I'll gauge the case for and against it — searching for its record and critiques.
NATO - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - was formed in 1949 by 12 countries to provide collective defense against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Whether it is a "force for good" is debated, with arguments on both sides.
What NATO claims to do
NATO describes itself as a political and military alliance whose primary goals are the collective defence of its members and the maintenance of a democratic peace.
Its stated purpose is to ensure the collective defense of its members, promote peace and security, foster democratic values, and safeguard territorial integrity. It promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defense and security-related matters.
The cornerstone of its collective defense commitment is enshrined in Article 5, which stipulates that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. The Washington Treaty enshrined the principle of collective defense in Article 5, stating that an armed attack against one or more members would be considered an attack. NATO invokes Article 5 only once in its history, the day after the terrorist attack on the United States on 11 September 2001.
NATO also emphasizes shared values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.
Arguments that NATO is a force for good
Supporters point to several benefits:
•Maintaining international peace and security, providing a forum for diplomatic discussions, and upholding democratic values
•Promoting American values of democracy and rule of law and acting as a force multiplier that gives members access to military tools in greater numbers than they can achieve alone.
•Deterrence and stability. The alliance is described as crucial as a cornerstone of collective defense and a deterrent against potential security threats, with a deterrence strategy based on presenting a united front.
•Peacekeeping and crisis management. After the Cold War, NATO took on new roles like crisis management and peacekeeping.
Specific operations cited as achievements include:
•Taking the lead in stopping two conflicts in the Balkans, in Bosnia and Kosovo, and in creating peacekeeping forces
•Leading the Implementation Force (IFOR) to secure the Dayton Peace Agreement, thereby ending five years of civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
•Intervention in Kosovo in 1999, ending with the activation of the international peacekeeping Kosovo Force (KFOR)
•In Afghanistan, NATO succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime and severely disrupting al-Qaeda’s operations, before transitioning to the Resolute Support mission focused on training Afghan security forces.
This view is reflected in public opinion in many member states. Across 13 NATO member states surveyed, a median of 66% have a favorable view of the alliance. In the U.S., a December 2025 survey found that 68 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of NATO, the highest percentage recorded since that survey began in 2018.
Arguments that NATO is not a force for good / Criticisms
Critics raise several concerns:
•Escalation and financial burden. Potential for escalating tensions with non-member countries and the financial burdens of member states supporting NATO's defence budget.
•Expansion risks. 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.
•Viewed as responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (or Libya).
•Legality and regime change. Critics say it misused a UN Security Council resolution to fight a war for regime change in Libyaand was involved in illegal invasions of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
•Broken agreements and proxy wars. Criticism includes the broken agreement over NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and U.S. proxy wars in Libya and Syria, which plunged both countries into chaos.
•Afghanistan outcome. NATO involved itself from 2003 in a war far from Alliance territory, only to hand power, 20 years later, to the Taliban – whose overthrow had been the invasion's stated objective. That war was marked by alleged war crimes such as the October 2015 US airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz.
•Challenge to "defensive" label. Russian officials have challenged NATO’s description of itself as a defensive alliance, citing campaigns in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya.
Some critics, such as former US Congressman Ron Paul, have called for disbandment, criticising NATO policies in Libya, Afghanistan and Ukraine as failures and arguing that Russian rearmament has been caused by fear of NATO missiles being deployed on their borders.
Conclusion
Assessment often depends on perspective and criteria used:
•If "good" is measured by collective defense, deterrence of attack on members, promotion of democracy among members, and peacekeeping in the Balkans, supporters see NATO as a net positive.
•If "good" is measured by avoidance of war, respect for international law and sovereignty, and long-term stability in regions where it has intervened outside its territory, critics see a more mixed or negative record.
Polling suggests majorities in most member states view NATO favorably, but views are not unanimous — favorable views range from 82% in Poland to 21% in Turkey in some surveys, and unfavorable views are majority in some non-member or peripheral states.
In short, NATO is widely seen by its members and supporters as a defensive alliance that has provided decades of deterrence and peacekeeping, while critics argue its out-of-area wars, expansion, and geopolitical consequences have undermined peace and security.