Viewpoint Wiki - All Viewpoints, No Gatekeepers

Proponents of the Indispensable Alliance viewpoint hold that NATO is not merely useful but structurally necessary for Western security, liberal democratic order, and the prevention of great-power war in Europe. Adherents argue that no alternative institutional arrangement - bilateral agreements, European-only frameworks, or great-power concert - could replicate NATO's deterrence credibility, command integration, or political cohesion. This viewpoint is held broadly across the mainstream of Western foreign policy establishments, major think tanks, and most center-left to center-right political parties in North America and Europe.

Collective deterrence cannot be replicated

Advocates argue that Article 5's mutual defense commitment, backed by American nuclear guarantees, produces a deterrence effect no other arrangement could match. The credibility of deterrence depends on the adversary's belief that an attack will trigger a coalition response - a belief rooted in seven decades of institutional habit, joint command structures, interoperability, and demonstrated political will. Proponents contend that deterrence is not a condition that can be created quickly; it is a reputation built slowly and destroyed instantly. Disbanding or hollowing out NATO, they argue, would require decades to reconstitute and would create a window of vulnerability that revisionist powers would exploit.

The liberal democratic peace requires institutional architecture

Holders of this view argue that the post-1945 liberal order is not self-sustaining. It requires institutions that lock in cooperation, reduce transaction costs, and make defection costly. NATO, on this account, does more than deter external threats - it pacifies relations among its members. The alliance helped reconcile France and Germany, integrated a rearmed West Germany in a way acceptable to its neighbors, and later anchored the democratic transitions of Central and Eastern European states. Proponents point to the pre-NATO era as a cautionary baseline: without binding institutional commitments, European great powers repeatedly defected from concert arrangements and went to war. (The phrase “liberal democratic peace” as used by advocates blends liberal internationalism - the view that institutions and trade reduce conflict - with democratic peace theory, the empirical claim that democracies rarely go to war with one another.)

American forward presence prevents miscalculation

Indispensable Alliance proponents argue that American troops stationed in Europe serve a tripwire function that pure treaty commitments cannot. Physical presence makes the cost of aggression immediate and certain rather than conditional on future political decisions in Washington. They contend that adversaries discount paper commitments but must calculate against the certainty that attacking NATO forces means war with the United States. Removing that presence, in this view, degrades deterrence even if the treaty text remains unchanged.

No viable European alternative exists

Advocates are skeptical that the European Union or any proposed European Defence Union could substitute for NATO's capabilities and credibility. They point to persistent European underinvestment in defense, the absence of a European nuclear deterrent with genuine alliance-wide coverage, the EU's slower and more politically constrained decision-making, and the historical record of European-only security initiatives failing under pressure (as in Bosnia in the early 1990s). Proponents argue that calls for “strategic autonomy” are aspirational and that treating aspiration as present capability would leave Europe exposed during the transition period - if the transition ever completed.

Enlargement extended stability rather than provoked instability

Against critics who argue NATO expansion provoked Russian hostility and contributed to the crises in Georgia and Ukraine, indispensable alliance proponents contend that sovereign states have the right to choose their security arrangements and that acquiescing to a Russian veto over Eastern European membership would entrench a hierarchical sphere-of-influence order incompatible with the alliance's foundational principles. They argue that the states most exposed to Russian pressure - Poland, the Baltic states, Romania - sought NATO membership precisely because they had direct historical experience of what their security situation looked like without it.

NATO was founded in 1949 as a response to Soviet consolidation of Eastern Europe and the perceived failure of the United Nations Security Council - where Soviet veto power prevented collective action - to provide reliable security guarantees. The original twelve members sought to institutionalize the wartime alliance's cooperative habits before they dissipated.

During the Cold War, the alliance developed the doctrine of flexible response (adopted 1967), maintained large conventional and nuclear forces in Europe, and survived significant internal strains - French withdrawal from the integrated military command in 1966, disputes over nuclear sharing, and recurring burden-sharing tensions. Indispensable alliance advocates regard the alliance's survival through these stresses as evidence of its institutional resilience.

The post-Cold War period tested a different question: whether the alliance had a purpose absent the Soviet threat. NATO's proponents answer affirmatively, pointing to its role in managing the Yugoslav wars (Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999), its enlargement to include former Warsaw Pact states and Baltic republics, its post-September 11 invocation of Article 5 and operations in Afghanistan, and its adaptation to new threat domains including cyber and hybrid warfare.

Russia's seizure of Crimea in 2014 and full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are treated by indispensable alliance advocates as vindication of the view that European security cannot be taken for granted and that the alliance's deterrence and reassurance functions remain essential. Finland and Sweden's accession - ending decades of deliberate non-alignment - is cited as further evidence that states with direct exposure to Russian power reach the same conclusion when forced to choose.

Madeleine Albright (1937-2022) - U.S. Secretary of State under President Clinton, architect of NATO's first post-Cold War enlargement round. Argued consistently that NATO's adaptation and expansion were necessary to consolidate the democratic peace in Europe rather than being destabilizing provocations.

Jens Stoltenberg (b. 1959) - Norwegian politician and NATO Secretary General 2014-2023. Led the alliance through the post-Crimea reinvestment in collective defense and the alliance's response to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. A consistent public advocate for the view that deterrence requires credible military capacity, not diplomatic reassurances alone.

Robert Kagan (b. 1958) - American scholar and foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institution. Author of The World America Made (2012) and other works arguing that the liberal international order requires active American military engagement to sustain it and does not maintain itself automatically.

Anne Applebaum (b. 1964) - American-Polish journalist and historian, author of Iron Curtain (2012) and Twilight of Democracy (2020). Argues from the Eastern European historical experience that Russian imperialism is a structural feature of Russian politics, not a reactive response to Western policy, and that NATO membership for Eastern European states is existential rather than optional.

Ivo Daalder (b. 1960) - Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Co-author (with James Goldgeier) of The Empty Throne (2018), arguing for robust alliance commitments as a foundation of American security strategy.

Radosław Sikorski (b. 1963) - Polish politician and former Foreign Minister, longtime advocate for NATO enlargement and strong alliance commitments, whose arguments draw on Poland's particular historical vulnerability between Germany and Russia.

Proponents of the Indispensable Alliance viewpoint disagree among themselves on several significant questions.

Burden-sharing - There is genuine disagreement about how to respond to persistent European underinvestment in defense. Some advocates argue the United States should press harder for allies to meet defense spending commitments, accepting short-term alliance friction to achieve long-term sustainability. Others worry that aggressive American pressure - particularly when framed as threats to Article 5 conditionality - erodes the credibility of commitments it is meant to reinforce.

Enlargement limits - Not all indispensable alliance proponents favor unlimited enlargement. Some argue that Georgian or Ukrainian membership would extend commitments beyond what the alliance can credibly defend, potentially undermining overall deterrence credibility. Others hold that any limit on enlargement concedes a Russian sphere of influence and rewards coercion. This is an active debate rather than a settled consensus within the viewpoint.

The nuclear question - There are ongoing debates about the sufficiency of current nuclear sharing arrangements, whether European allies should develop independent deterrents (a position the French have long held regarding their own force de frappe), and how to handle extended deterrence commitments in an era of hypersonic missiles and tactical nuclear modernization.

Scope of mission - Some proponents argue NATO should confine itself to its traditional Euro-Atlantic area and resist pressure to take on roles in the Indo-Pacific or to redefine itself as an alliance of democracies globally. Others argue that a conflict with China would inevitably implicate NATO members and that the alliance must develop relevant postures.

• NATO - Main topic page
• NATO Debate - Arguments for and against the alliance
• NATO Skeptic Viewpoint - The view that the alliance is obsolete, counterproductive, or creates more risks than it mitigates
• NATO Retrenchment Viewpoint - The view that the alliance should continue but with reduced American commitment and greater European responsibility
• NATO History - Historical development of the alliance
• Liberal International Order Viewpoint - Broader framework within which many indispensable alliance advocates situate their arguments
• Collective Security Consensus - International relations scholarship on collective security institutions

1. Albright, Madeleine. Madam Secretary: A Memoir. New York: Miramax Books, 2003.
2. Daalder, Ivo H., and James M. Goldgeier. The Empty Throne: America's Abdication of Global Leadership. New York: PublicAffairs, 2018.
3. Kagan, Robert. The World America Made. New York: Knopf, 2012.
4. Applebaum, Anne. Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956. New York: Doubleday, 2012.
5. NATO. “The North Atlantic Treaty.” Washington, D.C., April 4, 1949. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
6. NATO. “NATO 2022 Strategic Concept.” Adopted at the Madrid Summit, June 29, 2022. https://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/
7. Ringsmose, Jens, and Sten Rynning, eds. NATO's New Strategic Concept: A Comprehensive Assessment. Copenhagen: DIIS, 2011.
8. Goldgeier, James M. Not Whether But When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.
9. Stoltenberg, Jens. “Speech to the Munich Security Conference.” February 2023. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_211857.htm