North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joining the original signatories were Greece and Turkey (1952); West Germany (1955; from 1990 as Germany); Spain (1982); the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (2004); Albania and Croatia (2009); and Montenegro (2017). France withdrew from the integrated military command of NATO in 1966 but remained a member of the organization; it resumed its position in NATOs military command in 2009.

Britannica Quiz

World Organizations: Fact or Fiction?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization began in medieval times.

The heart of NATO is expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the signatory members agree that

an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in 2001, after the September 11 attacks organized by exiled Saudi Arabian millionaire Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and part of the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., killing some 3,000 people.

Article 6 defines the geographic scope of the treaty as covering an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America. Other articles commit the allies to strengthening their democratic institutions, to building their collective military capability, to consulting each other, and to remaining open to inviting other European states to join.

After World War II in 1945, western Europe was economically exhausted and militarily weak (the western Allies had rapidly and drastically reduced their armies at the end of the war), and newly powerful communist parties had arisen in France and Italy. By contrast, the Soviet Union had emerged from the war with its armies dominating all the states of central and eastern Europe, and by 1948 communists under Moscows sponsorship had consolidated their control of the governments of those countries and suppressed all noncommunist political activity. What became known as the Iron Curtain, a term popularized by Winston Churchill, had descended over central and eastern Europe. Further, wartime cooperation between the western Allies and the Soviets had completely broken down. Each side was organizing its own sector of occupied Germany, so that two German states would emerge, a democratic one in the west and a communist one in the east.

In 1948 the United States launched the Marshall Plan, which infused massive amounts of economic aid to the countries of western and southern Europe on the condition that they cooperate with each other and engage in joint planning to hasten their mutual recovery. As for military recovery, under the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the United Kingdom, France, and the Low CountriesBelgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgconcluded a collective-defense agreement called the Western European Union. It was soon recognized, however, that a more formidable alliance would be required to provide an adequate military counterweight to the Soviets.

By this time Britain, Canada, and the United States had already engaged in secret exploratory talks on security arrangements that would serve as an alternative to the United Nations (UN), which was becoming paralyzed by the rapidly emerging Cold War. In March 1948, following a virtual communist coup dtat in Czechoslovakia in February, the three governments began discussions on a multilateral collective-defense scheme that would enhance Western security and promote democratic values. These discussions were eventually joined by France, the Low Countries, and Norway and in April 1949 resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty.

Spurred by the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950 (see Korean War), the United States took steps to demonstrate that it would resist any Soviet military expansion or pressures in Europe. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the leader of the Allied forces in western Europe in World War II, was named Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) by the North Atlantic Council (NATOs governing body) in December 1950. He was followed as SACEUR by a succession of American generals.

The North Atlantic Council, which was established soon after the treaty came into effect, is composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year. At other times the council, chaired by the NATO secretary-general, remains in permanent session at the ambassadorial level. Just as the position of SACEUR has always been held by an American, the secretary-generalship has always been held by a European.

NATOs military organization encompasses a complete system of commands for possible wartime use. The Military Committee, consisting of representatives of the military chiefs of staff of the member states, subsumes two strategic commands: Allied Command Operations (ACO) and Allied Command Transformation (ACT). ACO is headed by the SACEUR and located at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Casteau, Belgium. ACT is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. During the alliances first 20 years, more than $3 billion worth of infrastructure for NATO forcesbases, airfields, pipelines, communications networks, depotswas jointly planned, financed, and built, with about one-third of the funding from the United States. NATO funding generally is not used for the procurement of military equipment, which is provided by the member statesthough the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force, a fleet of radar-bearing aircraft designed to protect against a surprise low-flying attack, was funded jointly.

Originally posted here:

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) | Founders, Members ...

Article 5 is the cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)andstates that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of its members. But despite its importance, NATO has only invoked Article 5 once in its historyin response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

NATO and Article 5 were established in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II when communist movements supported by the Soviet Union posed a serious threat to democratically elected governments all over a devastated Europe. In 1948, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia overthrew that nations democratic government, while in Germany, Soviet authorities blockaded the Allied-controlled section of Berlin in an attempt to strengthen their position there.

The Berlin Airlift, when U.S. and British planes carried food, fuel and other vital supplies to the isolated citizens of West Berlin, marked an early victory for the West in the Cold War. And with the launch of the Marshall Plan, which provided economic aid to the war-ravaged countries of Europe, the United States had decisively abandoned its earlier policy of isolationism.

But at such a vulnerable time, it seemed clear that Europe required not just economic aid, but also military support, in order to counterbalance the power of the Soviet Union, prevent the revival of nationalist military movements (such as Nazism) and allow for political development along democratic lines.

VIDEO: The Formation of NATO

Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union resulted in the formation of key alliances that would endure throughout the Cold War.

In April 1949, representatives from 12 nationsthe United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Iceland, Italy and Portugalgathered in Washington, D.C. to sign the North Atlantic Treaty.

Men with courage and vision can still determine their own destiny, President Harry S. Truman declared at the signing ceremony. They can choose slavery or freedomwar or peaceIf there is anything certain today, if there is anything inevitable in the future, it is the will of the people of the world for freedom and for peace.

The treatys key provision was Article 5, which began: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all While this commitment to collective defense lay at the heart of NATO, it was left to the judgment of each member state to decide how exactly it would contribute.

On September 12, 2001, the day after the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history, committing its members to stand by the United States in its response to the attacks. In a four-paragraph resolution that passed unanimously, the organization reflected its understanding that the threats to global security had changed radically in the 52 years since the alliance was founded.

AUDIO: NATO Offers Aid to United States Following 9/11 Attacks

On October 2, 2001, NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson holds a press conference to discuss the events of September 11, and pledges support of the 18 NATO allies in the campaign against international terrorism.

The commitment to collective self-defence embodied in the Washington Treaty was entered into in circumstances very different from those that exist now, the statement read. But it remains no less valid and no less essential today, in a world subject to the scourge of international terrorism.

In addition to participation in the war in Afghanistan, NATOs response to the 9/11 attacks under Article 5 included Operation Eagle Assist, in which NATO aircraft helped patrol the skies over the United States for seven months between 2001 and 2002, and Operation Active Endeavour, in which NATO naval forces were sent to perform counterterrorism activities in the Eastern Mediterranean. Operation Active Endeavour, which began in October 2001 and later expanded to the entire Mediterranean region, didnt conclude until 2016.

Though Article 5 has only been officially invoked once, NATO has taken collective defensive measures in other situations, including deploying missiles on the border of Turkey and Syria in 2012. Russias annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the rise of ISIS in recent years led the organization to implement a huge increase in its collective defenses, including tripling the size of the NATO Response Force. In 2014, NATO member states agreed to try and spend 2 percent of their GDPs on defense, although most member states fail to meet this non-binding goal.

President Trump has been highly critical of NATO, calling it obsolete and criticizing other NATO members for not spending enough on defense. But he also affirmed U.S. commitment to Article 5 in June 2017, during a news conference with the president of Romania: Im committing the United States to Article 5, and certainly we are there to protect, and certainly thats one of the reasons that I want people to make sure we have a very, very strong force by paying the kind of money necessary to have that force.

Despite this commitment, Trump appeared to question U.S. responsibility to defend the newest of NATOs 29 member states, under Article 5 during a Fox News interview in July 2018. In response to a question about whether US forces should respond if Montenegro were attacked, Trump said that the tiny nations very aggressive people might end up drawing NATOs members into a war with Russia.

See the original post here:

What Is NATOs Article 5? - HISTORY

NATO defense ministers have reviewed the alliance's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and agreed upon the next steps to take, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said.

Stoltenberg held a virtual news conference in Brussels today after an online meeting of alliance defense ministers. Defense Secretary Dr. Mark T. Esper attended the defense ministers meeting from his Pentagon office.

Alliance members are cooperating in reacting to the pandemic just as if an enemy had attacked a NATO member, the secretary general said. "COVID-19 represents an unprecedented challenge to our nations," he added. "It has a profound impact on our people and our economies, and it is imposing historic shocks on the international system, which could have long-term consequences."

Allied officials planned against the pandemic and looked to the lessons that can be taken from the reaction to the viral plague, Stoltenberg said. He noted that in each country, the military is playing a key role in support of civilian efforts against the pandemic. "And using NATO mechanisms, allies have been helping each other to save lives," he added.

The NATO command led by the supreme allied commander for Europe, Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters was tasked with coordinating military support among the 30 allies. The general briefed the defense ministers on the NATO response.

"Military forces from across the Alliance have flown more than 100 missions to transport medical personnel, supplies and treatment capabilities, facilitated the construction of 25 field hospitals, added more than 25,000 treatment beds and deployed over 4,000 military medical personnel in support of civilian efforts," Stoltenberg said. "Today, I encouraged all allies to make their capabilities available so General Wolters can coordinate further support."

He said the pandemic is in different stages of infection in different NATO nations. This means that effectively coordinating resources makes a real difference, he said.

The pandemic is not the only concern for the NATO leaders, as missions of deterrence and defense must continue, Stoltenberg said.

"The bottom line is that security challenges have not diminished because of COVID-19," he said. "On the contrary, potential adversaries will look to exploit the situation to further their own interests. Terrorist groups could be emboldened."

The security situations in Afghanistan and Iraq remain fragile, and Russia continues its pace and threats, Stoltenberg noted.

"We must maintain our deterrence and defense because our core mission remains the same: to ensure peace and stability," the secretary general said. "While we continue to take all the necessary measures to protect our armed forces, our operational readiness remains undiminished, and our forces remain ready, vigilant and prepared to respond to any threat."

The alliance also is actively guarding against state and nonstate disinformation stemming from the pandemic. U.S. officials said that Russia has been using the crisis to its own ends and wants the United States to abandon NATO and weaken the alliance.

"We are countering these false narratives with facts and with concrete actions," Stoltenberg said. "We are also working even closer with allies and the European Union to identify, monitor and expose disinformation, and to respond robustly."

The defense ministers also looked at the long-term implications of the coronavirus, as the geopolitical effects of the pandemic could be significant, Stoltenberg said.

"Some may seek to use the economic downturn as an opening to invest in our critical industries and infrastructure, which in turn may affect our long-term security and our ability to deal with the next crisis when it comes," he said.

It is still early to draw conclusions from these long-term discussions, Stoltenberg said, and discussions about them will continue. The defense ministers did agree, however, on a set of recommendations to strengthen the alliance's resilience.

Alliance members will update existing baseline requirements for civil preparedness, based on the lessons from the crisis. They also pledged to work even closer with international partners, Stoltenberg said.

NATO has adapted to change throughout its history and will continue to do so, Stoltenberg said. NATO was laser-focused on countering the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but adapted to the change once that threat dissolved. It changed again in response to the Balkan crisis and to the attack on the United States by terrorists in 2001. It changed yet again when Russia illegally annexed Crimea and continues to wage war in eastern Ukraine.

The pandemic is another enemy, he said, and the alliance will adapt. But that doesn't mean the alliance will be the first responder for the crisis.

"We should support the civilian efforts to fight this health crisis," the secretary general said. "We see around the whole world and across all NATO allies that military personnel are playing a key role in the fight."

Military airlift has been essential in the fight against the coronavirus, and military personnel are doing everything from disinfecting public spaces to controlling border crossings. NATO is helping to mobilize and coordinate support to NATO allied countries.

The main lesson so far is "a close link between the civilian efforts to fight the health crisis and the ability of the military to support those efforts," the secretary general said. "That's exactly what we also have to look into how we can do even better when the next crisis hits us," he added.

NATO cannot change its core responsibility to defend member states, but there are good reasons to look into how to further strengthen the cooperation between the civilian society combating a health crisis and military capabilities providing support to those civilian efforts, he said.

See the rest here:

NATO Defense Ministers Discuss Alliance's COVID-19 Response ...

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, pictured earlier this month, announced a drawdown of U.S. troops in Germany on Wednesday. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, pictured earlier this month, announced a drawdown of U.S. troops in Germany on Wednesday.

In a slap at a longtime ally frequently reviled by President Trump, Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced Wednesday that the U.S. plans to withdraw roughly a third of the 36,000 American forces stationed in Germany.

Nearly 5,600 of the 11,800 troops to be removed from Germany would be sent to other NATO allies in Europe, including Poland. Another 6,400 would return to the U.S., although they or similar units would be redeployed to other European countries on what Esper described as a "rotational" basis.

"Our aim is to implement these moves as expeditiously as possible," Esper told reporters at the Pentagon. "We could see some moves begin within weeks; others will take longer."

The Pentagon chief cast the decision to cut U.S. forces in Germany as the result of a months-long review of American deployments in Europe aimed at bolstering defense.

"These changes will achieve the core principles of enhancing U.S. and NATO deterrence of Russia, strengthening NATO, reassuring allies and improving U.S. strategic flexibility," Esper said, even as he made clear that the repositioning of U.S. forces remains tentative. "I want to note that this plan is subject to and likely will change to some degree as it evolves over time."

Trump, for his part, has characterized the troop drawdown as a reprisal for what the American president considers to be a refusal by Germany to spend a greater share of its gross domestic product on defense.

In 2014, members of NATO agreed to increase their defense spending to at least 2% of their GDP by 2024. Germany last year spent $49.3 billion on defense, or 1.38% of its GDP, according to German state broadcaster DW.

"Germany's delinquent. They haven't paid their fees, they haven't paid their NATO fees," Trump told Wednesday reporters outside the White House, even though no such "fees" exist for members of NATO. "Germany owes billions and billions of dollars to NATO. And why would we keep all of those troops there?"

Asked at the Pentagon whether the troop reduction was Trump "basically sticking it to Germany," Esper said the president had simply "accelerated" the decision to draw down forces there.

"Let's be clear. I think Germany is the wealthiest country in Europe. Germany can and should pay more to its defense," Esper said. "It should certainly meet the 2% standard, and I would argue go above and beyond that."

Reaction to the move has been decidedly mixed.

After a briefing last week by Pentagon officials on the force drawdown, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee praised the decision.

"I believe the concept for realigning U.S. military posture in Europe, as the President has approved, is sound," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., despite noting that any changes may be slow in coming. "It is clear to me that this concept will take months to plan, and years to execute."

But another Senate Republican slammed the decision to cut troops in Germany as "weak."

"U.S. troops aren't stationed around the world as traffic cops or welfare caseworkers they're restraining the expansionary aims of the world's worst regimes, chiefly China and Russia," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., a member of the upper chamber's intelligence committee, said in a statement. "The President's lack of strategic understanding of this issue increases our response time and hinders the important deterrent work our servicemen and women are doing. Maintaining forward presence is cheaper for our taxpayers and safer for our troops."

In an interview Wednesday on NPR's Here & Now, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., called the move to cut U.S. forces in Germany "terrible."

"It undermines the credibility of the NATO alliance, it calls into question our commitment to our NATO allies," Van Hollen said. "This is exactly the kind of thing that will cause Vladimir Putin to pop his champagne or vodka bottles in Moscow."

Twenty-two of the of the House Armed Services Committee's 26 Republican members wrote Trump in June warning against the proposed troop cuts.

"The forward stationing of American troops since the end of World War II has helped to prevent another world war and, most importantly, has helped make America safer," the GOP lawmakers wrote in a letter signed by the panel's ranking member, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. "In Europe, the threats posed by Russia have not lessened, and we believe that signs of a weakened U.S. commitment to NATO will encourage further Russian aggression and opportunism."

Among the moves Esper said are being planned:

A former commander of the U.S. European Command blasted those moves in a series of tweets Wednesday.

"What is obvious to me having served 12 years in Germany and having participated in the last force structure change from 2004-2011, this is not a 'strategic' move," retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling wrote on Twitter. "It is specifically a directed personal insult from Trump to our great & very supportive ally Germany."

Hanging over Wednesday's announcement is the presidential election in November and the time it would take to implement the changes.

Given the extended timeline for troop repositioning in Europe that Esper estimates would cost several billion dollars, it's not clear whether any of it will happen before Trump's first term as president ends in January.

Continued here:

Nearly 12,000 US Troops To Be Pulled From Germany, Pentagon Says - NPR

President Trump continues to attack our allies and cozy up to dictators, which impacts all of us. He has attacked Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Denmark, and Sweden. Yet, he has praised dictators such as Putin, Duterte, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, and Erdogan. Due to these actions, our allies are losing faith. The backlash is evident in situations like our European allies resisting American request to reject technology from the Chinese company Huawei in 5G networks. In an interview, the retiring French Ambassador to the United States said, The current president doesnt care about the West. He is a nationalist. He is America alone. This is not what we want for our country. It is our allies and alliances like NATO that deter mutual security threats ranging from Russian expansion to global terrorism. We cant and shouldnt go it alone as Trump urges.

Go here to see the original:

The U.S. should value NATO now more than ever | Opinion | - The Philadelphia Inquirer

NATO flag flutters during the celebration of the 15th anniversary of Lithuania's membership in NATO in Vilnius, Lithuania March 30, 2019. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins

As NATO faces increasing criticismincluding from US President Donald Trumpthat the military alliance is a drain on American taxpayers and no longer serves Washingtons defense needs, two former US ambassadors have come to its defense.

On July 21, John Herbst, director of the Atlantic Councils Eurasia Center, and Alexander Vershbow, a distinguished fellow at the Councils Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, made the case for NATOs continued relevance in the face of Russian belligerence led by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yet China, not Russia, is the real threat today, argued John Mearsheimer, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Sara Moller, an assistant professor of international security at Seton Hall University in New Jersey.

The four took part in a one-hour virtual debateIs NATO still relevant?that was moderated by Dr. Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute.

Absolutely it is, said Vershbow, a former US envoy to Russia and South Korea who also served four years as NATOs deputy secretary general in Brussels.

NATO remains essential to deter Russian aggression, which is a real threat. Its also a standing coalition of like-minded democracies that the United States can still call upon to defend shared interests and project stability beyond NATOs borders, he said.

Herbst, who was US ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006, noted that Europe has enjoyed seventy-five years of peace and unprecedented prosperity thanks to the strong transatlantic relationship.

Foreign policy is more effective, more realistic, and less risky when you have allies, and NATO is the premier alliance, he said, adding that not since the 1956 Suez crisiswhen Washington opposed the joint British, French, and Israeli invasion of Egypt following that countrys nationalization of the Suez Canalhave internal disputes been that dramatic. You also had major ally differences with the deployment of Pershings in the 1980s. Despite that, NATO was essential to defeat the Soviet Union, and NATO is essential today.

Herbst added: China is the big problem, but Russia remains a major threat. Putins activities are truly destabilizing; the fact is that he launched a war in Europethe first time since World War II. We need him to stop, and NATO is the way to do it.

Mearsheimer, however, argued that Putin, aggressive as he may be, is not Washingtons biggest headache at the moment.

It boils down to whether or not the United States should remain militarily committed to NATO, whether we should keep large-scale military forces in Europe, said Mearsheimer. My answer to that is no.

The professor, who has published six books on international affairs, said the Pentagons chief priority right now is containing China.

Three areas of the world matter strategically to the United States: Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf. For the United States, the key question is whether or not theres a potential hegemon in one of those regions, Mearsheimer said. One of the reasons we stayed in Europe during the Cold War was because the Soviet threat was concentrated in Europe. The fact is, there is no regional hegemon in Europe todayor on the horizon, and indeed there is a regional hegemon: China. That means the US should concentrate all its military might in East Asia. That is what really matters. Europe does not matter very much at all.

Mearsheimer further argued that the US and its alliesand specifically NATOcreated the Russian threat in the first place, and that NATO, which was formed in 1949, has pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese.

In November 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron told The Economist that NATO was effectively brain dead due to Trumps frequent complaints that many members were not spending at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense.

Subscribe for the latest on NATO

Sign up for updates from the Atlantic Councils Transatlantic Security Initiative, covering the debate on the greatest security challenges facing the North Atlantic Alliance and its key partners.

In fact, all NATO membersincluding Germany, Europes most populous nationbegan increasing their defense budgets following Putins 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Even so, Moller, whos written extensively on NATO, the Middle East, and nuclear weapons, said the thirty-member alliance could soon become irrelevant because it lacks strategic focus.

A club whose members cant agree on the purpose of the club [is] a club that is in trouble, she said. During the Cold War, it had a very clear and defined purpose: it was to deter and defend against the Soviet Union. Since the 1990s, NATO has been engaged in never-ending transformations. The result has been mission creep; it gets into the peacekeeping business, the counterterrorism nation-building business, security sector reform, counterpiracy, fighting illegal immigration. The result is that members want and expect different things from NATO. They no longer see eye to eye.

For example, she said, NATO member Turkey is purchasing advanced weapons systems from Russia while the French government is exploring rapprochement with Moscow.

This lack of consensus jeopardizes its future relevancy, Moller said, adding that the strategic deficit NATO faces today predates President Trump and his administration, so its a mistake to assume that come January 2021 if theres a change in occupancy in the White House, that NATO can just go back to business as usual. I dont see that happening.

Vershbow called for a new transatlantic bargain on burden-sharing, in which by 2030, Europe would pay for 50 percent of the critical capabilities now provided mainly by Washington.

This would equip them to handle most crises without US support, and allow us to shift more of our assets from Europe to the Asia-Pacific, he said.

Yet Mearsheimer quickly dismissed that idea.

Were not going to get any military assistance from our NATO allies in containing China. Its going to be done by our Asian allies and the United States, he said. The Europeans dont spend enough money on defense, and they have remarkably little power projection capabilities.

Mearsheimer added: I dont dislike NATO, but we live in a completely different world. For most of my life, Europe was the most important area of the world. Thats no longer the case. The distribution of power has changed. Asia is the area that really matters the most to the United States today. The question is, what can Europe do [about China]? What can NATO do? My argument is it can do hardly anything. We have to wake up and smell the coffee.

But Vershbow insisted that NATO gives the United States something that its adversaries lack: a team of ready-made partners. Having allies and institutions like NATO gives us an extraordinary advantage over Russia, China, and other adversaries, he said. There are often disagreements between the members, he conceded, and keeping the allies together is a 24/7 job, but allies usually find a way to resolve their differences, because alliance unity is too important to put at risk.

Larry Luxner is a Tel Aviv-based freelance journalist and photographer who covers the Middle East, Eurasia, Africa and Latin America.Follow him on Twitter @LLuxner.

Mon, Jun 8, 2020

On June 8, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg laid out his plans for a new period of reflection on the Alliances mission and structure over the next ten years. At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has accentuated certain security threats to member states, including unabated Russian military activity, the spread of disinformation and propaganda, and the disruptive ascendance of China, NATO must stay strong militarily, be more united politically, and take a broader approach globally, he stated.

New AtlanticistbyDavid A. Wemer

Read the original post:

Will NATO still be relevant in the future? - Atlantic Council