The Alliance cannot avoid a strategic debate about its role, missions and resources. This may be painful, but it will ensure clarity and prepare the Alliance for future challenges.

NATO has proved its renewed usefulness and is today fully engaged, well beyond its former frontiers, wherever its interests and those of its members are threatened.

Reforming the structure does not go to the heart of the problem. A new understanding has to be reached among the allies that takes into consideration the political, economic and technical changes of the last decade.

The lessons learned from its engagement in Afghanistan, a desire to transform itself, and its current financial problems are all factors pointing to the need to reform the Alliance. Formulating a new Strategic Concept will allow institutional reform to be associated with a new sense of purpose.

The changes in the way that NATO operates raise the question of whether the nuclear weapons stationed in Europe would, in a time of crisis, be an instrument of solidarity, or lead instead to divisiveness.

The French decision to re-enter NATO’s integrated military structure is merely the confirmation of a series of shifts that started a long time ago. But it is no less questionable a decision. It is a symbolic decision that affects France’s image internationally. It by no means guarantees that the Alliance will evolve in a way that corresponds to France’s national interests; nor does it shed light on France’s ambiguous future. It does, however, in a very real way, risk diminishing France’s will to defend itself.

The proliferation of theaters (in Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Far East, the Middle East and the Arctic) and cross-cutting issues (proliferation, disarmament, energy, arms sales) demonstrate the overall importance of the NATO/Russia relationship.

A new window of opportunity seems to be opening up for NATO and Russia, to re-think their relationship and how to institutionalize it through binding agreements and a permanent decision-making mechanism.