Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has raised concerns about NATO’s ability to defend against potential Russian aggression towards NATO member states. NATO was founded in 1949 with the goal of collective defense against the Soviet Union. With the end of the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO’s purpose shifted towards crisis management and cooperative security. However, Russia’s resurgence under Vladimir Putin has led NATO to refocus on territorial defense and deterrence, especially after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. As the war in Ukraine continues, questions remain about NATO’s military capabilities and political will to fulfill its core mission of collective defense.
What is NATO?
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is an intergovernmental military alliance between 28 European countries, 2 North American countries (the United States and Canada) and 1 Eurasian country (Turkey). NATO constitutes a system of collective defense whereby member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. It was founded in 1949 in response to the start of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
NATO’s headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium. The current Secretary General is Jens Stoltenberg from Norway. NATO has a combined military force of over 3 million personnel between all member states.
The founding treaty of NATO is Article 5. It states that an attack on one member state is considered an attack on all. This means if a NATO member is attacked, other members are bound to come to its defense, contributing either militarily or otherwise. This collective defense principle is enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
What military capabilities does NATO have?
NATO has significant military capabilities from the combined forces of its 30 member countries. Here are some key facts about NATO’s military strength:
Personnel
- Over 3 million military personnel
- 860,000 total troops at high readiness
Land forces
- 11,000 tanks
- 29,000 armored fighting vehicles
- Over 6,000 artillery pieces
Air power
- Over 7,000 military aircraft
- 1,500 air-to-air refueling tankers
Naval forces
- Over 120 submarines
- Over 280 frigates and destroyers
- 6 aircraft carriers
The majority of NATO’s military capacity comes from the United States, which spends more on defense than all other members combined. However, European allies also contribute significant forces, especially France, the UK, Germany, Italy, and Turkey.
What are NATO’s weaknesses and challenges?
While NATO possesses robust military capabilities, it also faces some weaknesses and challenges:
Underfunding by European members
The NATO guideline is for members to spend 2% of GDP on defense. However, most European members fail to meet this target. Only 8 out of 30 members met the 2% guideline in 2021. This over-reliance on the US undermines burden sharing within the alliance.
Interoperability issues
Integrating personnel, command structures, equipment, and procedures across NATO’s multinational forces can be difficult. Lack of interoperability undermines effectiveness.
Internal cohesion
Political divisions within NATO can harm decision-making and unity. There are debates between supporters of global partnerships vs a Euro-Atlantic focus.
Geographic barriers
NATO covers a vast geographic area across North America and Europe. This creates logistical challenges for any collective defense scenarios.
Russia’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)
Russia has invested heavily in A2/AD capabilities including air defense systems and coastal missile batteries to deny access to air/sea approaches to the Russian homeland. This complicates power projection near Russia.
China’s rising influence
Some NATO members want more focus on responding to China’s growing power, while others believe Russia remains the prime concern. Lack of consensus over this issue divides NATO strategically.
How much does each NATO member spend on defense?
| Country | 2021 Defense Spending (USD billions) | % of GDP |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 801 | 3.5% |
| France | 55.7 | 2.0% |
| Germany | 56.0 | 1.5% |
| Italy | 30.0 | 1.5% |
| United Kingdom | 68.4 | 2.3% |
This table shows 2021 defense spending for NATO’s top 5 highest spending members. It illustrates the oversized contribution by the United States compared to other allies. Most European members fail to meet NATO’s 2% of GDP defense spending guideline.
What threats does NATO face from Russia?
Russia poses both conventional and unconventional threats to NATO:
Conventional military threat
While not as powerful as during the Cold War, Russia’s military has undergone extensive modernization and reform under Putin. Russia has demonstrated new capabilities in recent conflicts. Key risks include:
- Air/missile strikes to seize territory before a NATO response can mobilize.
- Disrupting NATO reinforcements by land/sea with anti-access capabilities.
- Limited nuclear first use to try and deter/de-escalate the conflict.
Hybrid warfare
Russia employs non-military tactics like cyber attacks, disinformation, and funding fringe political groups to undermine NATO societies. Hybrid warfare tactics could supplement a conventional attack.
Nuclear saber rattling
Putin frequently engages in nuclear saber rattling to intimidate NATO. However, Russia’s nuclear doctrine appears to only allow first use in a large-scale conventional conflict.
How has NATO boosted defense since the Ukraine invasion?
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO has taken steps to bolster its eastern defenses:
- Added 4 new multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia
- Increased size of the NATO Response Force from 40,000 to 300,000 troops
- Committed more air/maritime forces to the Baltic and Black Sea regions
- Placed 100,000 US troops on heightened alert status in Europe
- Pledged to increase stockpiles of military equipment in Eastern Europe
These measures have substantially elevated NATO readiness and deterrence. But weaknesses persist in areas like air/missile defense and rapid troop mobility across Europe.
Can NATO defend the Baltic States?
Many experts see the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as the most vulnerable to potential Russian aggression within NATO. Defending them would pose challenges:
- Isolated geographic location limits reinforcements.
- Russian A2/AD limits access to Baltic Sea/airspace.
- Small populations limits domestic military capacity.
- Russian minorities used as justification for intervention.
However, NATO enjoys significant advantages:
- NATO tripwire forces stationed in Baltic States.
- Baltics well-armed with advanced anti-armor/anti-air weapons.
- Exercises show NATO can flow in reinforcements.
- Attacking Baltics means all-out war with NATO.
While hardly risk-free, the equation likely disfavors Russia from directly attacking a Baltic NATO member. Their self-defense and NATO’s aggregate power should be sufficient to deny a quick land grab.
Could NATO defend against a Russian attack on Poland?
Poland represents NATO’s most vulnerable eastern flank country outside of the Baltic region. However, defending Poland has advantages over the Baltics:
- No separation by sea makes reinforcement easier.
- 600,000 active troops in Polish military.
- Ideal location to host large NATO armies.
- Even less justification for Russia to attack.
The downsides include proximity to potent Russian military units in Kaliningrad and Belarus. Overall, Russia would likely lose any campaign against a consolidated NATO defense of Poland.
How could NATO respond to a Russian nuclear strike?
A limited Russian nuclear strike against a European NATO member, while unlikely, cannot be ruled out. NATO has no matching doctrine of nuclear first use. But NATO nuclear powers have options:
- United States could retaliate with a single demonstration strike.
- United Kingdom/France could also contribute limited nuclear strikes.
- NATO nuclear threats could try forcing Russia into ceasefire.
The risks include uncontrolled NATO-Russia nuclear escalation or fracture of NATO cohesion. More likely is conventional retaliation plus increased arms supplies to Ukraine. Ultimately, while imperfect, NATO nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence makes any Russian nuclear use a reckless gamble.
Could NATO intervene directly to defend Ukraine?
Ukraine is not a NATO member. However, direct NATO military intervention to aid Ukraine has been debated. The risks likely still outweigh rewards:
- Could trigger full NATO-Russia war escalation.
- Ukraine still not logistically prepared to integrate with NATO forces.
- Better to continue supplying Ukraine with arms/aid.
But if Russia uses WMDs or annexes new Ukrainian territory, NATO intervention pressures may grow. At minimum, NATO should prepare contingency plans to secure Ukraine’s borders or enforce safe zones.
Conclusion
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exposed vulnerabilities in NATO’s eastern defenses. While NATO retains superior aggregate power, improvements are still needed in areas like air/missile defense, rapid mobility, and joint training. Deterring Russian aggression ultimately depends on political willpower just as much as military capability. Maintaining transatlantic cohesion and credible commitments will be challenged by fears of nuclear risks and economic rifts. Nevertheless, Russia likely understands that any direct attack on NATO territory would end disastrously for the Kremlin. Bolstering defenses, aligning strategy, and boosting dual-use infrastructure will best prepare NATO to defend against Russia’s military threats and hybrid warfare over the long-term.