To Randall Stone<\/a>, a political science<\/a> professor at the University of Rochester<\/a> and the director of the University\u2019s Skalny Center for Polish and Central European Studies<\/a>, NATO\u2019s significance is clear.<\/p>\n \u201cNATO is not just the strongest military alliance in world history, it\u2019s also an effective international organization that materially increases its members\u2019 joint military capabilities and political influence,\u201d says Stone, an expert on international relations and institutions.<\/p>\n Belgium \ud83c\udde7\ud83c\uddea NATO was founded by 12 member countries on April 4, 1949, as a bulwark against a rapidly expanding Soviet Union whose sphere of influence reached into the heart of Europe. Since then, the Western alliance has nearly tripled its membership. With the latest accessions\u2014Sweden joined in March of 2024, and Finland in 2023\u2014NATO currently has 32 members, with headquarters in Belgium. Three more countries are requesting membership consideration: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine.<\/p>\n At NATO\u2019s core lies Article 5<\/a>, the principle of collective defense, under which all members agree that if one member country is attacked by a third party, the whole alliance will come to its aid.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> NATO was created as the Cold War was heating up. Although the Marshall Plan<\/a> was in full swing, European countries were unsure whether the United States would remain engaged internationally or retreat once again into isolationism. Most European countries were emerging from Nazi occupation, devastated by World War II. To them NATO represented a commitment of American support in rebuilding the post-war order, and gave Europeans the courage to invest in their countries and work to build a democratic future.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> NATO provides the logistical support so its members can effectively pool specialized military forces that wouldn\u2019t be as effective if they acted independently. It has advanced command-and-control facilities that allows it to project force anywhere in the world. Much of this relies on US capabilities, but NATO magnifies US military capabilities dramatically. In time of war, all of NATO\u2019s military forces come under the command of the US general who serves as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.<\/p>\n The alliance is continuously evolving to confront new challenges, pooling intelligence resources, coordinating military postures and civilian foreign policies, confronting cyber and terrorist threats, coordinating sanctions against Russia, and providing military aid to Ukraine.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> NATO has had tremendous political significance ever since its inception. Europeans, Americans, and Canadians have had their differences over the years, and the United States has made its share of mistakes that have aggravated them\u2014think of George W. Bush\u2019s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 in spite of the fact that Saddam Hussein did not have the weapons of mass destruction<\/a> that the US had alleged. But overall their arguments since 1949 have always had the character of family squabbles.<\/p>\n The commitment to the alliance is fundamental to these relationships. In fact, the members countries\u2019 commitment was so strong that it transcended the alliance\u2019s original purpose: the allies decided not to disband after the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Instead, NATO has expanded and has been substantially strengthened in the last 33 years.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> US power is based on cooperative relationships and alliances with other democratic countries. When the United States tries to accomplish something in foreign affairs\u2014whether it\u2019s containing Russia, confronting terrorism, dealing with climate disaster, or containing the spread of contagious diseases\u2014it almost always works through international organizations.<\/p>\n Generally, the United States provides leadership in these international organizations, including NATO, because it\u2019s the largest of the rich countries, and it has unique military, financial, and economic resources. The US has a pretty good track record of leading and chooses to do so because its interests are better served by a world with plenty of democratic countries that cooperate with each other, rather than a world that breaks up into spheres of influence dominated by authoritarian countries.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> Traditionally, the United States spends more of its GDP, or gross domestic product, on defense than our NATO allies do. Numerous US administrations of both parties have tried, with varying degrees of success, to convince the Europeans to spend more. A collective defense benefits everyone, but small countries far from the front line often feel little incentive to contribute. For most of the post\u2013Cold War period it wasn\u2019t entirely clear whether more spending was even justified. At the time, we were enjoying a peace dividend, and it made sense to invest in other things that seemed to be more productive. But since Russia\u2019s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, our NATO allies have been increasing their military spending quite rapidly.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> The main problem with Donald Trump is not what we know he would do, but what we don\u2019t know. He\u2019s completely unpredictable. Our European allies are preparing for the worst if he wins. He might try to pull the United States out of NATO, or cut off aid to Ukraine. We got through the last Trump presidency without major disasters because he was surrounded by advisors who were cautious and managed to contain most of his worst impulses. But he\u2019s alienated from those advisors now, so it\u2019s hard to predict what his new foreign policy would look like.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> The core of NATO is Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty, which promises that if any member is attacked, all members will come to its defense. Article 5 has only been invoked once, by the United States after the terror attacks of 9\/11, after which our NATO allies joined us in fighting a long and fruitless war in Afghanistan.<\/p>\n Article 5 is the only thing that has prevented Vladimir Putin from conquering three democratic countries that were former Soviet Republics and that are a thorn in his side: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Those countries were independent between the world wars and were conquered by Stalin at the beginning of the Second World War. They became independent again after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and subsequently became prosperous democracies and members of NATO and the European Union.<\/p>\n Putin has expressed a desire to reestablish the former Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, which is profoundly threatening to US allies like Poland, which has spent centuries trying to throw off Russian domination. The willingness of most of the small countries of Eastern Europe to resist authoritarianism depends on the US commitment to come to their aid if they\u2019re attacked, and ultimately on the US nuclear deterrent.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> Putin\u2019s statements since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the viciousness of his campaign against Ukrainian statehood have made it clear that his past argument\u2014according to which NATO\u2019s expansion justified his concerns about Russia\u2019s security\u2014were never sincere. His aim is to rebuild Russia as a great power, and he thinks that necessarily includes dominating Ukraine.<\/p>\n Russian experts on the Kremlin\u2019s foreign policy have told me that NATO\u2019s expansion played a role in changing the perception among Russian elites in the 1990s and made them pessimistic about long-term cooperation with the US. The NATO operation<\/a> to bomb Serbia to protect Kosovo in 1999 played an even more important role.<\/p>\n But today Putin is the only person who really matters when it comes to Russian foreign policy. His worldview was firmly established in the 1980s when he was a KGB officer working to maintain Soviet control of East Germany. It now appears that the cooperative fa\u00e7ade of the early period of his time in power, like the respect he seemed to pay to democratic principles at the time, was simply a strategy to play for time while he built up Russian military capabilities.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> Absolutely. As a result of the attack, NATO allies have been strengthening their militaries and contributing aid to Ukraine. Two countries with long-standing commitments to neutrality, Finland and Sweden, have joined the alliance since the invasion began.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Russia is objectively much less secure than beforehand because the war in Ukraine has devasted Russia\u2019s military and has demonstrated that it is much weaker than was previously believed. In the future, the most probable outcome of the war is that Ukraine will become a NATO member, which most likely would never have happened without the Russian invasion. Ironically, trying to prevent that scenario was precisely what Putin claimed as the reason for attacking Ukraine.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> Adding Finland and Sweden to NATO meant adding a long border with Russia that has to be defended. However, Finland has a very capable army, and Sweden has a substantial air force, so in the short run their accession makes NATO\u2019s northern flank much more secure. Working cooperatively with all of the Baltic Sea countries makes it much easier for NATO to protect Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.<\/p>\n Stone:<\/strong> Ukrainian membership in NATO carries enormous risks, but it may turn out to be the only way to end the war with Russia. Ukraine will be reluctant to settle with Russia on any terms other than Russian unilateral withdrawal from Ukraine\u2019s pre-2014 territory. Yet, Russia has formally incorporated some of that territory, including Crimea and four other Ukrainian provinces, into the Russian Federation. If a future peace treaty represented a compromise between those positions, both sides would be concerned that the other would renege and return to hostilities if one perceived a tactical advantage.<\/p>\n A return to hostilities by the other side is a particularly grave concern for Ukraine, which is much smaller than Russia, has already been invaded, and has suffered enormous civilian casualties that were deliberately inflicted. Additionally, Ukraine would worry that its tactical situation would rapidly deteriorate if it demobilized its army in order to rebuild its economy, and that it might not be able to rebuild the international coalition that sustained its warfighting capability once the current conflict ended.<\/p>\n As a result, Ukraine might be unwilling to settle the conflict without a third-party commitment, such as NATO, to enforce any peace settlement.<\/p>\n Political scientist\u00a0Randall Stone<\/strong><\/a>, the director of the University of Rochester\u2019s\u00a0Skalny Center for Polish and Central European Studies<\/strong><\/a>, is an expert on international relations and has written extensively on Russia and Eastern and Central Europe.<\/p>\n He is the author of\u00a0Controlling Institutions: International Organizations and the Global Economy<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Cambridge University Press, 2011),\u00a0Lending Credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the Post-Communist Transition<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Princeton University Press, 2002), and\u00a0Satellites and Commissars: Strategy and Conflict in the Politics of Soviet-Bloc Trade<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Princeton University Press, 1996), as well as numerous articles.<\/p>\n Created as a counterweight to the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, the military alliance may be more important now than ever. Political scientist Randall Stones explains why.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":942,"featured_media":605392,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[456],"tags":[21462,19242,24692,16072],"class_list":["post-605022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-society-culture","tag-department-of-political-science","tag-global-engagement","tag-randall-stone","tag-school-of-arts-and-sciences"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\nNATO\u2019s 12 founding members<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nCanada \ud83c\udde8\ud83c\udde6
\nDenmark \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddf0
\nFrance \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7
\nIceland \ud83c\uddee\ud83c\uddf8
\nItaly \ud83c\uddee\ud83c\uddf9
\nLuxembourg \ud83c\uddf1\ud83c\uddfa
\nNetherlands \ud83c\uddf3\ud83c\uddf1
\nNorway \ud83c\uddf3\ud83c\uddf4
\nPortugal \ud83c\uddf5\ud83c\uddf9
\nUnited Kingdom \ud83c\uddec\ud83c\udde7
\nUnited States \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8<\/p>\n<\/div>\nNATO basics in less than a minute<\/strong><\/h3>\n
What is NATO and when was it created?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
What is Article 5 of the NATO treaty?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
NATO expansion: 1949\u20132024\u00a0<\/strong><\/h4>\n
![\"GIF](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/inline-NATO-countries-map-evolution.gif\")
\nQ&A with Randall Stone<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\nWhat was NATO\u2019s original purpose?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
How has NATO evolved since its founding? Is it still the best defense in an age of terrorism, cybersecurity threats, and shifting alliances?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
![\"Archival](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/inline-nato-countries-1954-snapshots-album.jpg\")
How strong is the commitment of NATO\u2019s members?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
According to a recent Gallup pol<\/a>l, two-thirds of Americans support the US commitment to NATO. What about the nearly one-third who seem to believe that membership is either too costly or not useful for the US?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
Why does the US contribute more<\/a> to the alliance than any other member?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
![\"Illustration](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/fea-what-is-nato.jpg\")
What could happen to the United States\u2019 relationship with NATO if former President Trump wins the 2024 election?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
What role has NATO played in maintaining peace and stability in Europe?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
![\"Three](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/inline-what-is-nato-purpose-2022-snapshots-album.jpg\")
Is NATO responsible for Russia\u2019s attack on Ukraine?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
Did Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine inadvertently make NATO stronger?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
What\u2019s the effect of new NATO members Finland and Sweden?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
![\"Man](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/inline-nato-sweden-GettyImages-2075602109.jpg\")
Would Ukraine be a good candidate for NATO?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
![\"Graphic](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/inline-nato-countries-flags.jpg\")
\n![\"Circle](\"https:\/\/www.rochester.edu\/newscenter\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/inline-expert-mask-2023-02-21_Randall_Stone_0046.jpg\")
Meet the expert<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"