Why Nato will survive

Bibliographic Data

ID11221465
AuthorsMichael Rühle (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, corresponding author), Nick Williams (0000-0002-3541-5586, North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
Year1997
Volume16
Issue1
Pages109-115
Publication date1997-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueComparative Strategy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0149-5933 • E-ISSN: 1521-0448
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/01495939708403093
OpenAlexW2065039454
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited2

NATO has proven its ability to manage the fundamental tasks determining European security. However, two common misperceptions have emerged that predict its demise. The most common fallacy, that NATO must have a clear‐cut mission to survive, ignores that even during the Cold War NATO served many functions beyond deterring Soviet aggression. Another widely held misconception is that NATO must formally expand its role to engage in out‐of‐area disputes if it is to protect European interests in the post‐Cold War era. Yet, IFOR shows that informal NATO coalitions have the flexibility to succeed where quasi‐automatic action in out‐of‐area disputes is bound to fail. Perennial strategic tasks, such as managing Russia, reconciling European integration with transatlantic security arrangements, promoting fairer burden sharing between the Allies, and maintaining U.S. engagement in Europe all continue to have relevance. Without NATO, these tasks could not be adequately handled

Action (physics · Cold war · Demise · Deterrence theory · Economics · Epistemology · Fallacy · Flexibility (engineering · International trade · Law and economics · Management · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Relevance (law · Sociology · European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies · European Union Policy and Governance · Law · Post-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub