NATO in the 21st century: guarantor of peace or geopolitical instrument of power?

Introduction

Since its founding in 1949, NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – has transformed itself from a traditional defense alliance of Western democracies into a global security policy actor. In its official self-description, it sees itself as a "community of values of free democratic states" with the goal of securing peace, freedom, and the rule of law. But behind this self-description lies a complex and increasingly controversial alliance whose actions are often questioned not only under international law, but also politically and morally.

This essay critically examines the historical development, strategic orientation, and current role of NATO and asks the question: Is NATO still a necessary stabilizing factor today—or an instrument for enforcing Western interests?

1. Origins and change

NATO was born out of fear of Soviet expansion after World War II. The Washington Treaty, signed by twelve Western states, guaranteed mutual assistance in the event of an attack on a member state (Article 5). The first major test came in 1955 with the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany – which led to the formation of the Warsaw Pact and cemented the bloc confrontation.

With the end of the Cold War in 1991, NATO lost its original enemy. But instead of disbanding or rethinking its role as a defense alliance, NATO reinvented itself as a crisis manager, intervention alliance, and global player. Out-of-area missions such as those in Kosovo and Afghanistan marked a profound strategic and political realignment.

2. Expansion and confrontation

NATO's eastward expansion – with the admission of countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and, most recently, Sweden and Finland – led to a massive expansion of the alliance's territory directly to the Russian border. Russia regards this process as a breach of Western commitments made after 1990 and as an existential threat to its security.

These tensions escalated at the latest with the war in Ukraine in 2014 and NATO's support for Kyiv. Critics complain that NATO's expansion has not contributed to stability, but has instead promoted geopolitical escalation with Russia. The NATO strategy adopted in 2022, which explicitly describes Russia as a "direct threat" and classifies China as a "systemic rival," also reinforces bloc thinking and hinders global cooperation efforts.

3. Democracy and double standards

NATO invokes the defense of democracy and the rule of law. In practice, however, the picture is often different. Even during the Cold War, authoritarian regimes such as the military dictatorship in Portugal and Greece during the junta era were full members. Today, Turkey – under President Erdoğan – is still part of the alliance, despite massive human rights violations and authoritarian tendencies.

This double standard undermines NATO's credibility as a "community of values." Rather, the alliance often serves as a strategic tool for securing geopolitical interests, especially those of the US. Washington's dominance in NATO structures (e.g., military leadership, nuclear strategy) repeatedly causes tensions in Europe—most recently under Donald Trump, who repeatedly described NATO as "obsolete."

4. Interventionism and international law

Since the 1990s, NATO has increasingly acted without a direct threat and often without a mandate from the UN Security Council. The Kosovo War in 1999 set a precedent: an air war without a UN mandate, outside the alliance's territory, without an attack on a member state. The interventions in Afghanistan and Libya also show a worrying expansion of NATO's mandate.

This raises the question: Who controls NATO? Decisions on war and peace are increasingly being made in secret consultations in the North Atlantic Council – far removed from parliamentary control. Although Article 5 has only been officially activated once (after September 11, 2001), but the threshold for military intervention is lowering. Critics speak of a "militarily secured right of intervention without reference to international law."

5. Strategic future – security or arms race?

The NATO 2030 strategy aims to make the alliance more resilient, more effective, and more global. Cyberwarfare, space operations, hybrid threats, disinformation – NATO is trying to respond to a changing threat environment. But one problem remains: NATO's political role is unclear.

Is it a defense alliance – or a Western-style military force for maintaining order?

At the same time, NATO is demanding massive investments in armaments from its member states (2% target). This not only leads to an arms race, but also to the redistribution of public funds – away from social, environmental, and civil projects and toward military structures. Especially in times of global challenges such as climate change and poverty, the question of priorities arises.

Conclusion: reform or dismantling?

NATO is an alliance full of contradictions: it is simultaneously an anchor of stability and a risk factor, a defense alliance and an intervention machine, a community of values and a geopolitical actor. Its existence is historically understandable, but its current role is increasingly controversial. Anyone interested in a peaceful, just world order must question the role of NATO – and look for alternatives.

A new multilateral security architecture involving all relevant powers – including Russia and China – could be one way to counteract a relapse into a 21st-century Cold War. To achieve this, NATO would have to redefine itself – or become obsolete as a historical model.

---

NATO