NATO belongs in the Cold War era.

The argument

The argument is that NATO was built for a world that no longer exists, and that an institution designed for a specific configuration of power cannot simply be repurposed once that configuration has gone. The alliance took its form when the world was divided between two isolated spheres of influence, each armed against the other and each largely sealed off from the other's economy. In that setting a standing military pact between the states on one side of the division had an obvious function. That division is what has disappeared. The world is instead increasingly inter-connected, with states reliant on one another for economic growth and investment, and proponents argue that this reliance changes the calculus that a military alliance was meant to address. Where prosperity depends on partners rather than on territory held against them, diplomacy and trade are prioritised over conflict, not out of idealism but because conflict destroys the relationships each side depends upon. In a globalised world of that kind, the argument runs, NATO no longer serves a purpose. The second strand concerns the nature of the threats that have replaced the old ones. Conventional security threats, in which an identifiable adversary masses forces against a border, have been superseded by complex global threats which impact nation states equally rather than pitting one bloc against another. Climate change and international terrorism are offered as the examples: neither has a capital to deter, neither respects the boundary between alliance members and everyone else, and neither can be met by the instruments an alliance of this kind possesses. What such threats require is multinational solutions and cooperation, and proponents argue that the cooperation needed extends well beyond the membership of a military bloc, including states NATO was formed to oppose. An archaic military alliance is on this reading not merely insufficient for the problems that now matter, but organised around a division that obstructs the collaboration those problems demand.

Premises

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.

Rejecting the premises

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