The Price of Security: U.S. Strategy, European Dependency, and the Future of NATO
by Siamak Naficy
|
04.03.2025 at 06:00am
The Price of Security: U.S. Strategy, European Dependency, and the Future of NATO Image
Ever since the 1940s, the United States has served as the guarantor of Western European security through NATO. After the Cold War, debates arose about NATO’s continued relevance, and the alliance struggled to redefine its mission. However, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 reinvigorated NATO’s original purpose—protecting Europe and American interests against Russian aggression.
Additionally, Russia’s invasion is a stark reminder that large-scale war remains a reality. For years, there was a belief that conflicts were becoming more covert, sub-threshold, and irregular. The fact that NATO has united to support Ukraine has also led to increased interest in membership, reinforcing its core function of defense and security. With Sweden and Finland having joined, the alliance has once again expanded in direct response to Moscow’s actions, highlighting the continued relevance of collective security.
But NATO’s role has never been solely about deterring Russia. As an anthropologist, I am interested in what is particular and local but also in what is true across time and space. America’s alliances worldwide—supported by military bases and shared resources—augment its hard power and reach. To put it bluntly, however, the US’s alliances also serve to contain its adversaries and control regions. NATO, then, exists not solely as a collective defense security framework to stabilize a war-torn region, or merely as a military alliance to counter Russia (or formerly, the Soviet Union), but also as a system to ensure stabilization in ways that favor the United States.
During periods of NATO expansion after the Cold War, Russia was often an afterthought. Instead, enlargement was driven by the desire to integrate countries into a new geopolitical framework—both at their request and due to a general lack of opposition from the West. Now, however, NATO has returned to its foundational purpose: collective defense. The former Biden administration’s response to the Ukraine war has received mixed reviews. Some commend it for committing significant resources to Ukraine’s self-defense, while others argue the U.S. acted either too cautiously or too aggressively. The Biden administration’s approach—supporting Ukraine without direct military intervention—reflects an understanding that the US then, as today, has a genuine but limited interest in Ukraine’s fate.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/04/03/the-price-of-security/
