When NATO marks its 75th anniversary, the alliance finds itself both celebrated as indispensable and criticized as outdated.

Born in 1949 to contain Soviet expansion and safeguard Western Europe under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, NATO has grown from 12 founding members to 32, most recently welcoming Finland and Sweden. 

To its supporters, NATO is the most successful military alliance in history—one that kept Europe free, defeated the Warsaw Pact, and adapted to new threats from terrorism to cyberwarfare.

Yet critics argue that NATO has outlived its original purpose and risks becoming an American instrument for projecting power in a multipolar world. The questions linger: Is NATO still fit for Europe’s future security? Or is it a Cold War relic struggling to justify itself amid new global realities?

From Defensive Shield to Global Actor

NATO was originally framed as a defensive pact—“an attack against one is an attack against all”—anchored in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Its credibility rested overwhelmingly on U.S. military power, particularly nuclear deterrence. During the Cold War, it succeeded in deterring a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

But NATO’s survival after the Soviet Union’s collapse sparked a profound identity shift. Deprived of its original adversary, the alliance expanded eastward into Central and Eastern Europe, bringing in former Warsaw Pact members and even Soviet republics. This expansion was sold as a stabilizing measure, but Moscow perceived it as a broken promise and an encroachment on its sphere of influence.

NATO also reinvented itself as a global security actor. From the 1990s Balkans interventions to Afghanistan, Libya, and counterterrorism operations, NATO demonstrated a willingness to project force well beyond the North Atlantic. These missions expanded its scope but also revealed cracks—unequal burden-sharing, divergent political interests, and inconsistent results.

NATO and the Ukraine War: Revival or Overstretch?

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 reinvigorated NATO. For years, European capitals had debated whether the alliance was “brain dead” (as French President Emmanuel Macron once declared). But Moscow’s aggression reawakened NATO’s core purpose: collective defense against a military threat on Europe’s doorstep.

• Military reinforcement: NATO deployed additional battlegroups to Eastern Europe, bolstered air defenses, and increased readiness forces.

• Political unity: Finland and Sweden abandoned neutrality and applied for membership, symbolizing the alliance’s renewed relevance.

• Strategic clarity: NATO’s latest Strategic Concept names Russia as the “most significant and direct threat.”

Yet this revival comes at a cost. Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Western support has effectively made NATO the backbone of Kyiv’s war effort. The war has strained U.S. and European defense industries, raised fears of escalation, and exposed Europe’s dependence on American leadership.

The central dilemma remains: NATO thrives when Russia behaves aggressively, but tying its future too closely to Moscow risks overstretching an alliance originally designed for collective defense, not proxy wars.

Burden Sharing: Europe’s Dependence on the U.S.

Perhaps the most persistent NATO controversy is burden-sharing. The United States accounts for about 70% of NATO’s defense spending. Despite repeated pledges, many European members still fall short of the agreed 2% of GDP defense target.

This dependency fuels American frustration. Successive U.S. administrations, from Obama to Trump to Biden, have chastised Europe for free-riding. Trump went further, even questioning Washington’s commitment to Article 5 and hinting the U.S. might not defend allies who don’t “pay their share.”

Europe is slowly waking up. Russia’s war in Ukraine has spurred major defense spending increases in Germany, Poland, and the Nordics. But structural gaps—fragmented defense industries, lack of strategic lift, reliance on U.S. intelligence and nuclear deterrence—still leave Europe tethered to Washington.

This imbalance raises the question: Is NATO truly a partnership, or a U.S.-dominated hierarchy in which Europe remains strategically dependent?

NATO vs. Multipolarity

The rise of a multipolar world complicates NATO’s future. The alliance faces not just Russia but also systemic challenges from China, climate change, cyberattacks, and global instability.

• China: NATO has begun referencing China as a “challenge to security and values,” particularly due to cyber threats, military modernization, and its partnership with Russia. But Europe is divided. While the U.S. views Beijing as its top strategic rival, many European states remain deeply economically intertwined with China.

• Global South skepticism: In Latin America, Africa, and Asia, NATO is often viewed less as a defensive pact and more as an instrument of Western interventionism. Libya’s collapse after NATO’s 2011 bombing campaign remains a cautionary tale.

• BRICS and non-aligned blocs: As Brazil, India, South Africa, and others deepen alternative partnerships, NATO’s Euro-Atlantic focus risks appearing parochial in a world of shifting power centers.

For NATO to remain relevant, it must reconcile its Eurocentric roots with a world where security is increasingly global and contested.

Europe’s Strategic Autonomy Debate

One of NATO’s deepest internal debates is whether Europe should cultivate greater “strategic autonomy.” Advocated especially by France, the idea is that Europe must be able to act militarily without relying entirely on the U.S.

Proponents argue autonomy is necessary:

• U.S. attention is shifting to Asia, leaving Europe vulnerable.

• A potential return of “America First” politics could undermine NATO commitments.

• A multipolar world requires Europe to be an independent pole of power.

Skeptics counter that duplicating NATO is wasteful, that U.S. power is irreplaceable, and that strategic autonomy could fracture the alliance. Germany, Eastern Europe, and the Baltics generally prefer the American security guarantee over uncertain European self-reliance.

The result is an uneasy compromise: Europe slowly boosts its defense capabilities but remains anchored in NATO. Whether this balance holds depends heavily on future U.S. politics.

NATO at 75: Scenarios for the Future

As NATO looks toward its centennial, three broad scenarios emerge:

1. Resilient Shield
   NATO remains the central pillar of Western defense. Europe meets spending targets, the U.S. stays engaged, and the alliance modernizes to tackle cyber, AI, and space threats while containing Russia. NATO adapts without losing cohesion.

2. U.S.-Dominated Bloc
   NATO evolves into a tool for U.S. global strategy, expanding its focus on China and the Indo-Pacific. Europe follows Washington’s lead but struggles with strategic autonomy, cementing dependency. Critics brand NATO as an American empire in all but name.

3. Fragmentation and Decline
   Political shifts in Washington or Europe undermine trust. Burden-sharing disputes worsen, and divergent priorities on China, Russia, and global interventions fracture unity. Europe turns inward, building its own defense capacity, while NATO survives only as a symbolic framework.

Conclusion: Fit for Purpose—or a Prison of History?

At 75, NATO embodies both triumph and tension. It has deterred great-power war in Europe, expanded to embrace former adversaries, and adapted to new challenges. Yet its reliance on U.S. power, its eastward expansion, and its interventions abroad have generated criticism that it is less a collective alliance than an American-led project.

The war in Ukraine has revived NATO’s sense of purpose, but also reinforced old dependencies. Meanwhile, the rise of China, the Global South, and multipolar competition demands a rethinking of what NATO is for. Is it simply a shield for Europe, a global policeman, or a geopolitical tool of U.S. strategy?

For Europe, the answer will determine whether NATO remains a cornerstone of security—or a prison of history, trapping the continent in old patterns of dependency. For the U.S., it will test whether NATO is a true alliance of equals or merely a convenient extension of its global reach.

Seventy-five years after its founding, NATO is neither dead nor immortal. Its future depends on whether it can adapt to a multipolar century—or whether it will be remembered as the alliance that won the Cold War but lost the peace that followed.