argument top image

What is the future of NATO?
Back to question

NATO belongs in the Cold War era.

NATO was set up over seventy years ago to deal with a threat that no longer exists today.
(1 of 3) Next argument >

The Argument

The world is no longer divided between two isolated spheres of influence. Instead, it is increasingly inter-connected with states reliant on each other for economic growth and investment. In a globalised world, where diplomacy and trade is prioritised over conflict, NATO no longer serves a purpose. Conventional security threats have been replaced by complex global threats which impacts nation states equally. From climate change to international terrorism, these threats require multinational solutions and cooperation that go well beyond an archaic military alliance.

Counter arguments

Russia's recent aggressive and adventurous foreign policy, which includes the annexation of Crimea, military intervention in Syria, and the financing and arming of rebels in Ukraine, is a reminder that the conventional threat NATO was set up to deal with, namely to tackle Russian military expansionism, remains relevant. Despite the Soviet Union ending nineteen years ago, Russia under Vladimir Putin continues to pursue an anti-Western foreign policy. The authoritarian nature of his presidency paired with its increasingly aggressive behaviour to neighbouring states has led many members of NATO to reconsider its importance, particularly in Eastern Europe. This has led to an increase in NATO deployments and defence spending amongst NATO members.


[P1] NATO is no longer relevant in a globalised world.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] There are still significant foreign policy threats that make NATO still valuable.


This page was last edited on Thursday, 16 Apr 2020 at 18:23 UTC

Explore related arguments