The FP Survey: The Future of NATO

Does the 63-year-old alliance still matter today? We asked politicians, scholars, and other observers from both sides of the Atlantic to weigh in.

In advance of the May 20-21 summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Chicago, Foreign Policy and the Atlantic Council asked dozens of experts about the role of the alliance today. Heads of state, ministers of defense and foreign affairs, intelligence officers, and current and former members of U.S. Congress were among the respondents who answered our call. Although none of them thought NATO should cease to exist or that the United States would be better off leaving the alliance, they were less certain about whether NATO can adapt to a changing geopolitical and military landscape -- and just who will foot the bill for future operations.

They rated Greece, currently struggling to repay its crushing debt load, the top candidate to be kicked out of the alliance, exhibited deep divides on how to handle a troubled relationship with Russia, predicted that NATO would be unable to pull off another Libya-style intervention three years from now, and overwhelmingly viewed the Afghan mission as a failure.

Unless otherwise noted, figures indicate number of responses.

1. Should NATO exist?

Yes: 57

"If it did not exist, we would have to invent it."
"But the Europeans must get their act together if they are to be worthy partners in the alliance."
"But in a redefined form, with broader alliances and links to regional groups."

No: 0

2. If so, what should be its primary purpose?

Collective defense of Europe: 14

Out-of-area military operations: 2

Policy coordination: 1

Global peacekeeping: 0

Keeping Russia in check: 0

Combination: 31

"Both A and B. The former as the core task, the latter as the useful add-on."

Other: 13

"All of the above, plus crisis response."
"Promotion of a common political agenda."
"All of the above, plus coordination of intelligence regarding global fundamentalism/terrorism."

3. In 1993, Sen. Richard Lugar argued that NATO has to "go out of area or out of business." Since then, NATO forces have deployed in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf of Aden, and Libya. Do you think NATO should continue to support deployable forces for operations outside Europe and the United States?

Yes: 56

"But with strict limits and, ideally, as part of a U.N. mission."
"Only as there is a clear relevance for European security."
"Only in case such deployment contributes to strengthening of members' security. No role as a global policeman."
"In a globalizing world there is no more 'out-of-area.' The world is our area now."

No: 3

"Only on a very highly selective, case-by-case basis; as a rule, no."

Jason Reed - Pool/Getty Images

4. True or false: The United States would be better off if it left NATO.

False: 57

"A stable Europe is important for the U.S., if for no other reason than economics."
"Does anyone remember that Article 5 was invoked only once in the institution's history? Namely, after an attack against the United States?"
"But it would be better off if it limited its involvement to Article 5 and left Article 4 to the allies."

True: 0

5. If you had to kick one country out of NATO, which one would it be?

Greece: 18

"For its behavior toward Macedonia and Turkey."
"Due to its boundlessly selfish egotism and disruptive tactics."

Hungary: 5

Turkey: 4

Iceland: 3

Other: Albania, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg (1 vote each)

None: 22

"Each member counts politically, militarily, and intellectually. NATO should be (carefully and gradually) expanding, not shrinking."

6. If you had to admit one country to NATO, which one would it be?

Sweden: 13

"It is a producer, not a consumer, of security for Europe."

Macedonia: 6

Australia: 5

Georgia: 5

Ukraine: 5

Israel: 4

Finland: 3

Serbia: 3

Montenegro: 2

Other: Bosnia, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Russia (1 vote each)

None: 7

JOHN THYS/AFP/Getty Images

7. Should Russia be allowed to join NATO?

Yes: 10

"Yes, in principle, if its foreign policy changes."
"Yes. At least it should never be excluded."

No: 29

"Allowing Russia to join NATO implies willingness/commitment from Russia's part to do so, which is obviously not the case."
"They continue to define their security in opposition to NATO."

Maybe, but not now: 19

"Not until it is a democracy. Then we can talk."
"If it meets the criteria, including democracy and commitment to human rights."
"Sure, if it meets NATO requirements. That would essentially mean that it would no longer be Russia."
"Only in very different circumstances from today."

8. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = least relevant, 10 = most relevant), rate NATO's relevance to U.S. security. On the same scale, rate NATO's relevance to European security.

Average score:
U.S.: 6.5
Europe: 8.5

9. True or false: NATO is an essential part of my country's national security. (Please also write the name of your country in this space.)

True: 50

United States/Canada: 24
Europe: 26

False: 8

United States: 5
Europe: 3


10. It has been more than 20 years since the Soviet Union was dissolved and more than 10 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Do you think NATO members are safer in 2012 than they were in 1991?

Yes: 41

"At least from the threat of major war, they are much safer."
"The quality of internal security and awareness of potential threats has risen since then."

No: 13

"Weaker militarily and economically with more threats."
"Threats have evolved but not necessarily our capability to meet them."

About the same: 4

"Safer in the sense that the real danger of a sudden and massive Soviet attack against Europe, including the use of nuclear weapons, has receded and is currently very, very low. Less safe in the sense that the host of new global 'low-key' dangers is pressing against us all the time, with the possibility of sudden, cataclysmic black swans ever present."

11. Rank the following NATO military campaigns by how successful they have been, with 1 indicating the most successful and 6 the least.

Average rank:

Bosnia intervention: 2.29

Kosovo intervention: 2.35

Libya no-fly zone: 2.47

Gulf of Aden anti-piracy mission: 4.00

Iraq training mission: 4.59

Afghanistan war: 4.98

12. True or false: The 2011 Libya intervention provided an overall positive model for future NATO military operations.

True: 31

"It confirmed that NATO can act without direct U.S. involvement."
"It demonstrated the political and military ability of NATO to respond quickly to a crisis."

False: 28

"While undoubtedly a big success, the operation in Libya was sui generis, limited in goal and resources, and therefore not a model for future action."

Arif Ali/AFP/Getty Images

13. Could NATO's European members have conducted the operation in Libya without U.S. assistance?

No: 48

Yes: 11

"With real difficulty."
"But not necessarily in the same way as it was conducted and not necessarily primarily with air power."

14. Would NATO's European members have the military capabilities to conduct a similar operation three years from now?

No: 34

"If current trends continue."
"Europe will be even more pathetic then."

Yes: 11

I don't know: 4

15. True or false: Al Qaeda will return to Afghanistan once the International Security Assistance Force mission ends.

True: 24

"There is a large possibility that it will, but it will land in a fundamentally different operational landscape and will take years to rebuild its previous operational capabilities."

False: 26

"At least on any meaningful scale."

Unsure: 9

"False, if the current strategy is properly executed; true, if we rush for the exits."
"Have they ever really left?"



16. Should NATO intervene in Syria?

Yes: 11

"With the Arab League."
"With a no-fly zone."

No: 36

"It could have, weeks ago, with goals similar to Libya. The issue now goes well beyond the question of a Syrian civil war."
"Are you kidding? NATO does not have the resources: no will, limited skill, no tools. Quite apart from the question of what our interests are."

Maybe: 10

"If necessary and only with a U.N. mandate."
"Only to protect Turkey."

17. Where will the next large-scale NATO operation take place?

Middle East: 29

North Africa: 14

"Likely piracy-related rather than Arab Awakening-related."

Europe: 4

"Balkan tensions are not over."

Southern Africa: 2

Arctic: 1

"The Arctic is heating up economically and politically, and key NATO nations have vital interests to protect there and the military resources to do it with."

Latin America: 1

Asia-Pacific: 0

None of the above: 4

"There will be no major operation in the foreseeable future."
"Most probably NATO's next battle will not take place in a geographical location but in cyberspace."

I don't know: 3

18. Which of the following NATO missions would you approve? (Please select any that apply.)

Protecting shipping through the Persian Gulf: 51

Assisting Libyan government with civil-military reforms: 49

Reducing pirate bases in Somalia: 41

Peacekeeping force to support Israel/Palestine peace agreement: 31

Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons: 24

Deploying a peacemaking force in Syria: 22

Blocking large-scale migration across NATO borders: 12



19. What are the five biggest challenges facing the transatlantic alliance? Please rank from among the following, with 1 indicating the biggest challenge.

Average rank:

Economic crisis: 1.84 (45 votes)

Nationalism/internal divisions: 2.39 (25 votes)

Afghanistan: 2.71 (31 votes)

Terrorism: 3.23 (35 votes)

Cyber conflict: 3.27 (35 votes)

Syria: 3.31 (15 votes)

Ballistic missile proliferation: 3.44 (29 votes)

Russia: 3.64 (28 votes)

Climate change/energy: 3.79 (19 votes)

Conventional attack: 4.33 (3 votes)

Other: 12 votes

20. In June 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates described NATO's future as "dim if not dismal," charging that NATO nations were "apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense." Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?

Agree: 40

"He is spot on."
"The economic crisis might be a temporary excuse for doing less, but in the long run European states must contribute more to collective defense."
"Largely true, but it has always been thus."

Disagree: 12

"There is always a crisis in NATO, and future capabilities will depend on operations."
"He's much too dour about the alliance."

Somewhat/unsure: 5

"He is right in blaming the Europeans for their lackluster performance. But this will not mean the end of NATO. Sheer necessity will keep NATO alive."
"Partially true: Common values and interests go far beyond military expenditure."

21. True or false: The United States has too many military personnel in Europe.

True: 22

"It is not the numbers that count, but the commitment to support European NATO members and the ability to do so fast if needed. That does not require a lot of boots on the ground in peacetime, but it does require a commitment on both sides of the Atlantic."

False: 32

"It is appropriate to fulfill the assigned tasks."



22. By 2020, the U.S. force presence in Europe will amount to:

80,000 personnel (current level): 0

68,000 personnel (Obama plan): 10

50,000 personnel: 17

40,000 personnel: 10

Fewer than 40,000 personnel: 22

23. True or false: European member states should devote more funding to NATO.

True: 48

"But unlikely to happen due to resource scarcity."

False: 10

"They should, however, spend their defense money better."

24. True or false: NATO should have both defensive and offensive cyber-capabilities.

True: 52

False: 6

Ralph Orlowski/Getty Images


25. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's "smart defense" initiative -- using "multinational solutions" to help allies invest defense money more efficiently -- will:

Mask NATO's inability to make major necessary reforms: 18

Become the new way NATO does business by "building capabilities together": 15

Produce innovation but not until at least five years from now: 11

Provide an excuse for allies to make further defense cuts: 8

Other: 8

"Have a very limited impact on NATO's future, if at all."
"Increase the risk of member states not having sufficient capabilities of self-help in case of an attack."
"Depends entirely on implementation."

26. True or false: Five years from now, France will still be part of NATO's integrated military command.

True: 54

False: 2

Unsure: 2

"This depends a lot on the French economy. If it is not revived, there will be more and more nationalist pressure from within France. For a weak president, splitting from NATO would be a cheap way to get a few points at home."

27. In 2020, German foreign policy will be defined primarily by:

German leadership of the European Union: 28

Berlin's preference for the status quo: 14

Germany's relationship with Russia: 5

The Franco-German relationship: 4

The transatlantic relationship: 3

Other: 4

"Germany's relationship with China, Russia, and other BRICS."
"Investments abroad to deal with an aging and less productive population."



28. If Turkey has not become a member of the European Union five years from now, its orientation will be:

Pursuing a revival of Ottoman power: 21

More closely aligned with its Muslim neighbors: 13

Still closely aligned with its Western allies: 11

Inwardly focused due to domestic strife: 2

Other: 11

"Turkey will maintain alignment with the West but also pursue closer relations with the East. It does not see them as incompatible."
"More engaged not just with Muslim neighbors but also with Russia."

29. In order of importance, NATO's top three priorities for the Chicago summit should be:

Afghanistan: 37

Reinforcing the transatlantic alliance: 14

"Smart defense" plan: 13

Capabilities: 13

Re-evaluation of NATO mission and role: 13

Finances: 11

Partnerships: 11

Defense capabilities and spending: 8

Ballistic missile defense: 7

Iran: 6

Cybersecurity: 5

Russia: 4

Syria: 4

Arab Spring/Middle East: 3

EU coordination: 3

Nuclear threats/arms reduction: 3

Postwar Libya: 2

Partnerships with Arab countries: 2

Terrorism: 2

Enlargement: 2

Other: 4

U.S. troop withdrawal from Europe
Asian security


Participants (59): David Aaron, David Abrahams, Rafael Bardaji, Hans Binnendijk, Dirk Brengelmann, Yves Brodeur, Ian Brzezinski, Frances Burwell, Christopher Chivvis, W. Eugene Cobble, Heather Conley, Marios Efthymiopoulos, Charles Freeman, Karsten Friis, Jeremy Ghez, James Goldgeier, Ana Maria Gomes, Ulrike Guerot, Jason Healey, P. Terrence Hopmann, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, James Joyner, Rasa Jukneviciene, Karl Kaiser, Lawrence Kaplan, Sarwar Kashmeri, Sean Kay, Daniel Keohane, Jim Kolbe, Aleksander Kwasniewski, Iurie Leanca, Henrik Liljegren, Julian Lindley-French, Richard Lugar, Jüri Luik, George Maior, Tomas Malmlöf, Sally McNamara, Alessandro Minuto-Rizzo, Shuja Nawaz, Boyko Noev, Clara Marina O'Donnell, Ioan Mircea Pascu, Barry Pavel, J. Peter Pham, Tomas Ries, Matthew Rojansky, Stephen Saideman, Kori Schake, Daniel Serwer, Stanley R. Sloan, John Tanner, Jan Techau, Kenneth Weisbrode, Damon Wilson, Boguslaw Winid, Jörg Wolf, Dov Zakheim, Michael Zilmer-Johns.

Produced by Jorge Benitez and Margaret Slattery


Mad Libs: NATO

FP and the Atlantic Council asked a panel of experts to fill in the blanks on one of the world's most enduring alliances. 


Still the indispensable alliance. -Hans Binnendijk • In crisis, as per usual. -James Joyner • An indispensable part of the European and world security architecture (apart from the most successful alliance in history). -Ioan Mircea Pascu •  Remarkably relevant given fundamental changes in world politics. -David Aaron • The only international organization capable of mounting serious military operations, as we were reminded during the run-up to the Libya conflict. -James Goldgeier  •  In need of a strategy that moves it beyond Afghanistan. -Christopher Chivvis •  In trouble because of Europe's deficiencies; why should the U.S. keep paying for the bulk of it? -Daniel Keohane • As necessary as ever, but for different reasons. -Karl Kaiser • A large and important collective defense arrangement that has yet to clearly define its mission for the future. -P. Terrence Hopmann • In search of a role, in need of reform and a recommitment of all allies to do their share. -Toomas Hendrik Ilves • An alliance looking for a mission. -Sarwar Kashmeri • Made up of countries whose warring triggered the largest bloodshed in history only 70 years ago. But for over six decades these former enemies have had their militaries working side by side, as friends. And for all the alliance's shortcomings, this is no mean feat. -Clara Marina O'Donnell •

Composed of allies the U.S. would gladly trade in for better ones, if there were better ones. -Kori Schake • Like democracy: the worst possible institution except for all of the others. -Stephen Saideman • Like a local Rotary Club: still central to the lives of some members but increasingly quaint and of little interest to the rising generation. -Matthew Rojansky • Going to survive its disarray, as it has over the past two generations. -Lawrence Kaplan • One step from the museum. -Tomas Ries


NATO's members, egged on by the United States, put global ambition and political ambition ahead of the will and capabilities of its members. -Sean Kay • To act as if the Cold War was still on, e.g., by enlarging without taking into account Russian sensibilities and pursuing missile defense. -P. Terrence Hopmann • To set itself unattainable goals in Afghanistan. -Jan Techau • The huge scale and poor results of the Afghanistan involvement. -Aleksander Kwasniewski • Declaring Article 5 after 9/11. -Ulrike Guerot  • Not going in to Afghanistan as an alliance from the start after 9/11. -Damon Wilson• Allowing the focus to shift from Afghanistan to Iraq. -Shuja Nawaz •  The inability of the nations to reach consensus toward taking decisive action against Somali pirate strongholds ashore. -W. Eugene Cobble • Not to have built up, along with enlargement, a genuine partnership with Russia. -Karl Kaiser • Promising Georgia membership without giving Georgia membership. -Christopher Chivvis • Denying Georgia MAP, which Russia interpreted, as I predicted, as a green light to invade. -Toomas Hendrik Ilves • Enlargement. Most of the former WTO countries are poor fits and the almost-invite to Georgia put Article 5 in serious jeopardy. -James Joyner • Not pressing members for a larger defense effort. -David Aaron • To allow European forces to decay. -Ian Brzezinski • Harping on the capabilities gap between the U.S. and Europe instead of emphasizing the capabilities gap between Europe and anyone they could conceivably fight against. -Kori Schake • Not developing stronger partnerships with democracies outside of the transatlantic area. -James Goldgeier • Failing to clearly and explicitly explain and demonstrate its raison d'être to the public opinions of its members. -Jeremy Ghez 


A bridge too far, and a clear indicator that those who advocated for a "global NATO" were simply wrong. -Sean Kay • Sound, succeeding in its military elements, hindered by its timeline, but needing to be better supported with a regional political strategy and stronger non-military elements. -Kori Schake • Unloved. -Damon Wilson • Problematic, but so is the war. -David Aaron • A failure, given the means, time, and resources employed, despite some progress. -Ana Maria Gomes • Vital to the credibility of the alliance. However, as Emperor Charles V once said, "Once cannot have peace without the opponent's consent," and the military component of ISAF was not backed by sufficient political efforts to ensure security durability. -George Maior • Likely to be seen by future historians as a failure. -Daniel Keohane • NATO's biggest commitment and a headache. -Rasa Jukneviciene • To fight terrorism and to help the international community to rebuild a failed state in a critical part of the world. -Alessandro Minuto Rizzo • To hand power over to a legitimate government capable of maintaining order and to leave. -Toomas Hendrik Ilves • To limit the damage. -Jeremy Ghez • Get out and contain what remains. -Tomas Ries • To leave together. -Sarwar Kashmeri • Unclear. -Ken Weisbrode • On borrowed time. -James Joyner • To organize an orderly and graceful withdrawal. -Jan Techau • Coming finally to an end, but the lack of stability there will be a permanent challenge to the international community. We will have to newly define the NATO mission toward Afghanistan. -Aleksander Kwasniewski • Very soon going to be a problem for Moscow, New Delhi, and Beijing. -Matthew Rojansky • In trouble as individual nations pull out early. -Jason Healey • Vital beyond 2014. -Hans Binnendijk •  Far from completed. -Ian Brzezinski


Uneven division of labor. -Daniel Serwer • Lack of commitment on Europe's part (with some exceptions). -Toomas Hendrik Ilves • Low military spending from European allies burdened with sickly economies. -Jason Healey • The United States plays too dominant a role, which explains Europeans' excessive dependency and insufficient financial and practical commitment in times of economic crisis. -Ana Maria Gomes • That Europeans vastly underestimate security as a category in their political thinking. -Jan Techau • The combination of growing American disinterest and Europe's declining geopolitical ambition. -Ian Brzezinski • That it consistently amounts to less than the sum of its parts when dealing with Russia. -Matthew Rojansky • That it is an organization constrained by a regional membership despite being called upon to act across the globe. -James Goldgeier • The constant pressure from many politicians and pundits to prove its relevance beyond the Article 5 guarantee. -Jeorg Wolf • A culture of bureaucracy and status quo thinking. -Barry Pavel • A dwindling deterrent. -Ken Weisbrode • Weariness from dealing with all the challenges of the past 22 years. -Kori Schake  • It needs to find a new narrative for young people and profoundly modernize. -Ulrike Guerot • That it lacks a long-term future conceptual framework. -Marios Efthymiopoulos • Resolving its raison d'être. -Lawrence Kaplan • People do not realize that we have few alternatives. -Stephen Saideman

Jason Reed-Pool/Getty Images