Considerations on NATO’s Future Direction
The question of how the Alliance can best meet the common security problems of its member states should determine the revision of the Strategic Concept and analysis of the future of NATO in general.
NATO is on the defensive: faltering in Afghanistan, divided over Russia, and uncertain about Iran and a host of other security problems. Doubts about the Alliance’s future are again on the rise – not for the first time, as seasoned observers will note. Rewriting the Strategic Concept, NATO’s core strategy document, is a chance to revitalize the Alliance by redefining NATO’s purposes for the future. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has assembled an expert team led by a former US Secretary of state to take up the task. But the task will not be easy. Consensus within the Alliance is at historic lows. Not only does NATO comprise nearly twice the members it did the last time the Strategic Concept was rewritten, the nature of the security problems its members face has grown manifestly more complex.
A focus on our common problems
On the most basic level, the question that should drive the Strategic Concept revision and thinking about NATO’s future in general should be: how can the Alliance best prepare to serve the common security problems of its member states? This question itself has two parts: First, what are the most pressing security challenges facing the member states? Second, which of these can NATO reasonably be expected to help manage, were it to decide it wanted to? In other words, it is crucial that the rewrite process focus primarily on the threats member states face today, as opposed to NATO’s own problems. The key to the latter is to be found in the former, and the point of the rewrite should not be to ‘save NATO’ but to identify and articulate a coherent vision of how NATO can help preserve the security of the citizens of its members in a global environment that continues to change and evolve. At the same time, idées fixes about what NATO is and is not able to do will have to be relaxed in favor of realistic assessments of what NATO might be if it tried.
Focusing on the threats to member states means accepting, in theory, that an organization like NATO may no longer be needed and might be obsolete. Once the question is posed openly, however, the need for NATO should be self-evident. The vast majority of the security problems member states face today call for a multilateral approach. […]
OUTLINE
- A focus on our common problems
- The art of coherence
- Intellectual challenges
- Future directions for the Alliance
- NATO in the Greater Middle East
- NATO and fragile states
- NATO and non-state threats - NATO’S European core
- The challenge ahead
Christopher S. Chivvis is a political scientist with the RAND Corporation in Washington D.C., and adjunct professor of European Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Considerations on NATO’s Future Direction
Author(s)
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
A New Path for Europe
The construction of the European Union is historically inseparable from the emergence, at the end of World War II, of an Atlantic world dominated by the United States. Successive enlargements and the revision of U.S. policy are undermining the concepts upon which the European Union has been built since the fall of the USSR. It is undoubtedly time to return to a path of more diverse groupings, corresponding to the levels of commitment and the interests of the states of the Old Continent.
How Technology Is Reshaping the World Order
The central role of technology in the competition between the major powers is fueling an ever-more intense rivalry. Artificial intelligence is enabling large corporations to accrue unprecedented power, with consequences for states and even for international conflict. However, states do have tools at their disposal to regulate these developments. In this international competition, Europe has a strong hand, but must be prepared to play its cards in order to create a new kind of international cooperation.
Reflections on A Darkening World
The system that emerged after the Second World War to regulate international relations is now moribund. Russia and China may have weakened it, but it seems that Donald Trump’s United States may deliver the fatal blow. The prevailing atmosphere is one of power struggles, and the rise of nationalisms is fraught with danger. The artificial intelligence revolution also needs to be factored into this equation, as it has a strong bearing on how much power different players can exert. In this respect, Europe must ensure it does not get left behind.
1936-2026: 90th Anniversary of the Journal "Politique étrangère"
Founded in 1936 and published by the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri), Politique étrangère, France’s longest-running journal of international relations, is set to publish a special issue in early June 2026. Bringing together distinguished French and international contributors, this issue aims to provide an overview of an uncertain world and its possible futures. In an unprecedented undertaking, Politique étrangère brings together a wide range of international contributions in an effort to grasp a global landscape that is at once open and fragmented, in all its diversity and dynamism. Through in-depth analyses of cross-cutting challenges, reflections on methods and structures of governance, and projections into futures feared or envisioned by creators from around the world—ranging from alternative histories to speculative thought experiments—the various approaches complement and challenge one another, opening up broad avenues for reflection.