Abstract: This article examines how NATO has changed in the security environment that has emerged since 2022. It argues that the Russia–Ukraine War has not merely produced a temporary military response but has accelerated a broader process of strategic and institutional change within the Alliance. To examine this process, the article develops the NATO Strategic Evolution Framework (NSEF), which brings together five dimensions of change: military adaptation, political cohesion, technological transformation, industrial resilience, and geostrategic integration. These dimensions are examined as interconnected rather than separate areas of NATO policy, since developments in one can affect the effectiveness of the others. The article also considers the position of geographically important Allies, particularly Türkiye, within the changing Euro-Atlantic security architecture. Three scenarios are used to explore how these developments could evolve through 2035. The analysis suggests that NATO’s future resilience will depend not only on military preparedness and defence spending, but also on political cohesion, industrial capacity, technological interoperability, and the ability to coordinate security priorities across different regions.
Problem statement: How has the Russia–Ukraine War accelerated NATO’s transformation, and which changes are likely to become durable features of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture?
So what?: NATO should use the post-2022 period to strengthen long-term defence planning, improve defence-industrial resilience, deepen technological cooperation, and better connect regional security priorities. Member states should translate these priorities into sustained investment, interoperable capabilities, and stronger coordination across the Alliance.
Introduction
The Alliance now has to consider territorial defence alongside technological competition, economic resilience, infrastructure protection, and security challenges that cross regional boundaries. These developments make coordination increasingly important, because capabilities developed in one area may have limited strategic value if they cannot be sustained or integrated with capabilities developed elsewhere.For this reason, this article examines NATO’s transformation at the level of the Alliance as a system. National differences remain important: NATO is, after all, an alliance of sovereign states with different interests and threat perceptions. The question is how these differences affect the development of collective capabilities and the setting of common strategic priorities.
The return of large-scale interstate warfare to Europe has altered the strategic assumptions that shaped the post-Cold War security order. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine accelerated reassessment of defence planning, alliance cohesion, military preparedness, and strategic deterrence across the Euro-Atlantic community.[1]
For more than three decades after the Cold War, NATO expanded its agenda beyond territorial defence toward crisis management, expeditionary operations, cooperative security, and partnerships. Although collective defence remained its core mission, the perceived probability of large-scale conventional conflict in Europe declined, encouraging many members to reduce defence spending and restructure their forces to meet expeditionary and crisis-response requirements.[2], [3]
The War in Ukraine challenged these assumptions. It demonstrated the enduring importance of conventional military power, attrition, logistics, ammunition production, military mobility, and territorial deterrence, while also highlighting cyber operations, space, artificial intelligence, information warfare, critical infrastructure, and energy resilience.[4], [5]
NATO’s subsequent adaptation—including reinforcement of the eastern flank, expanded multinational deployments, increased defence investment, and greater attention to industrial production—raises a broader question: is the Alliance primarily responding to a particular crisis, or is it entering a more durable phase of strategic evolution?
This article argues that the post-2022 period should be understood as an acceleration of a broader transformation rather than as a response to the war alone. The NSEF provides a framework for examining this process through the interaction of military modernisation, political cohesion, technological competition, industrial resilience, strategic geography, and alliance governance.
The post-2022 literature on NATO has expanded rapidly, covering deterrence, collective defence, alliance cohesion, force posture, defence planning, burden-sharing, and European security. Policy studies have also examined defence spending, military modernisation, and the adaptation of European defence industries. Much of this work, however, continues to examine these issues separately, with limited attention to how institutional change, political cohesion, technological development, industrial resilience, and strategic geography interact over time.
The NATO Strategic Evolution Framework (NSEF) addresses this gap by integrating these dimensions into a single analytical perspective. It treats the Russia–Ukraine War not simply as an isolated military crisis, but as an accelerating factor in a broader restructuring of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. The framework therefore focuses on the interaction between military adaptation, political cohesion, technological transformation, industrial resilience, and geostrategic integration.
The contribution of the NSEF is both analytical and practical. Analytically, it provides a way to examine NATO’s transformation as an interconnected process rather than as a series of separate policy responses. In practical terms, it offers a framework for assessing whether changes introduced after 2022 are likely to remain temporary adaptations or become more durable features of NATO’s strategic posture.
The Evolution of NATO’s Strategic Environment
This evolution has also altered the meaning of readiness. Readiness is no longer only a question of whether forces can deploy rapidly. It also depends on whether equipment can be sustained, ammunition can be replenished, information can be shared securely, infrastructure can withstand disruption, and political authorities can maintain a common strategic direction. Readiness has therefore become a broader question of whether the Alliance can generate, sustain, and coordinate military power under prolonged pressure.[6]
The changing environment also places greater emphasis on endurance. A force that can respond quickly but cannot sustain a prolonged crisis provides a different form of deterrence than a force supported by resilient logistics and industrial production. This is one reason the post-2022 debate has moved beyond force numbers and towards questions of production capacity, stockpiles, interoperability, and long-term planning.[7]
After the Cold War, NATO operated in a comparatively permissive European security environment. Crisis management, peace-support operations, counterterrorism, and cooperative security became increasingly prominent while many members reduced defence spending and restructured armed forces for expeditionary missions.[8], [9]
The post-Cold War assumptions began to weaken more visibly during the 2010s. Russia’s military modernisation, the annexation of Crimea, hybrid warfare, cyber operations, disinformation, and renewed great-power competition all contributed to that shift. These developments signalled that security threats were becoming increasingly multidimensional and required NATO to adapt not only militarily but also politically, technologically, and institutionally.[10], [11]
The 2022 invasion accelerated this shift and demonstrated that conventional power remains decisive, while logistics, industrial capacity, intelligence sharing, cyber resilience, critical infrastructure, and technological innovation have become increasingly important to deterrence. Rather than replacing conventional military competition, these new dimensions have become closely integrated with it.[12], [13]
NATO consequently faces a security environment that is both conventional and multi-domain. Great-power competition, energy security, supply-chain resilience, maritime security, and infrastructure protection increasingly interact with traditional defence planning. The challenge is not simply to restore capabilities that declined during the post-Cold War period. NATO also has to integrate these traditional capabilities with newer dimensions of security into a coherent strategic posture.
Drivers of NATO’s Transformation
NATO’s transformation cannot be attributed to one event. Russia’s full-scale invasion is the immediate catalyst, but several structural drivers interact. The return of high-intensity warfare has brought territorial defence, readiness, logistics, ammunition production, and military mobility back to the centre of Alliance planning.[14] At the same time, strategic competition has become increasingly multidomain: Cyber operations, disinformation, artificial intelligence, space capabilities, critical infrastructure, and economic resilience now interact with conventional military power, making integrated deterrence harder to separate into distinct policy areas.[15], [16]
These changes also have an internal political dimension. NATO remains an alliance of sovereign states with different threat perceptions, economic capacities, regional priorities, and domestic political constraints. Defence spending and burden-sharing are consequently not only questions of resources; they also reflect continuing negotiations over how strategic responsibility should be distributed among the Allies.[17], [18] Geography adds another layer to this problem. The Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Arctic, Baltic region, and wider European approaches are increasingly connected, giving greater strategic weight to Allies located near maritime corridors, energy routes, logistical hubs, and contested regions.[19], [20]
These drivers do not operate independently. Higher defence spending, for example, has limited strategic value if it does not produce usable capabilities or if those capabilities cannot be sustained. The expansion of defence production and joint procurement since 2022 illustrates this link between investment and military readiness. Technological innovation raises a similar problem: its military value depends partly on whether Allies can integrate new systems and operate them together. The growing use of unmanned systems, artificial intelligence, and secure communications illustrates why technological development must be accompanied by interoperability. Geography matters in much the same way, since the strategic value of a country’s position depends on whether its capabilities can be connected to wider Alliance planning. Türkiye’s role in the Black Sea and its wider regional position provide a concrete example of this interaction.
The post-2022 transformation therefore differs from earlier episodes of NATO adaptation. Previous adjustments could often be associated with a particular mission or regional crisis. The present transformation is broader: territorial defence, deterrence, technology, industrial capacity, political cohesion, and regional security are being reconsidered simultaneously.[21]
Internal Challenges within NATO: Cohesion, Burden-Sharing and Strategic Adaptation
NATO’s effectiveness depends on both military capability and political cohesion. The Alliance has repeatedly experienced disagreements over defence spending, military operations, strategic priorities, and relations with external actors, yet it has generally demonstrated institutional adaptability.[22], [23] The differing pace at which Allies have increased defence spending and strengthened readiness since 2022 provides a recent example of this challenge. The distribution of defence responsibilities remains a persistent challenge. Since 2022, many Allies have increased spending and readiness, but differences in fiscal capacity, industrial production, force generation, and procurement continue to create tensions over the sustainability of collective deterrence. These differences should not automatically be interpreted as institutional weakness; they are also a consequence of an alliance composed of sovereign states with different resources and priorities.[24], [25]
Regional priorities create a second challenge. Eastern-flank members tend to emphasise the Russian threat, while Mediterranean members face different combinations of instability, migration, maritime security, and Middle Eastern pressures. Some Allies also devote increasing attention to the Indo-Pacific. NATO must therefore manage strategic diversity without allowing it to undermine common objectives.[26], [27]
Technological transformation adds another layer. Interoperability increasingly depends on secure communications, cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, resilient infrastructure, common standards, and industrial cooperation.[28], [29] Political cohesion and technological cooperation are consequently linked: institutional unity must increasingly be supported by practical mechanisms for shared capability development.
Within the NSEF, cohesion is therefore understood as an adaptive capacity rather than the absence of disagreement. This distinction is important because a politically diverse alliance can remain strategically effective if it possesses mechanisms that convert differences into coordinated policy.
Türkiye’s Strategic Position within the Evolving Euro-Atlantic Security Architecture
Türkiye occupies a distinctive position because its geography connects Europe, the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Caucasus, and the Middle East. This position has acquired renewed importance as NATO’s security agenda becomes increasingly interconnected across theatres.[30], [31]
The Russia–Ukraine War has strengthened the strategic importance of the Black Sea. Maritime security, freedom of navigation, critical infrastructure, intelligence sharing, and regional deterrence now interact more closely. Türkiye’s control of the Turkish Straits under the Montreux Convention and its ability to influence regional maritime dynamics therefore constitute an important element of the wider security environment.[32], [33]
Türkiye also possesses one of NATO’s largest armed forces and substantial operational experience. Its defence industry has expanded domestic production across unmanned systems, naval platforms, and precision-guided technologies. These capabilities can contribute to Alliance resilience, although the depth of cooperation remains dependent on political decisions and broader strategic priorities.[34], [35]
Türkiye’s importance is consequently not reducible to geography. Its ability to engage simultaneously with the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the South Caucasus, and the Middle East makes it a connecting actor within the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. At the same time, differences between Turkish national priorities and those of other Allies demonstrate that strategic relevance and political convergence are not identical.[36], [37]
Within the NSEF, Türkiye illustrates geostrategic integration: the growing importance of Allies capable of linking multiple theatres while contributing military and industrial capabilities. This dimension is particularly important because regional security problems increasingly overlap rather than remain geographically isolated.
The NATO Strategic Evolution Framework (NSEF): A Multidimensional Analytical Framework
The NSEF is designed not merely as a descriptive taxonomy but as an explanatory framework. Its central proposition is that NATO’s strategic evolution is produced by interaction among five dimensions rather than by movement in any one dimension alone.
Military adaptation refers to NATO’s renewed emphasis on territorial defence, readiness, multinational deployments, logistics, ammunition production, military mobility, and integrated deterrence. Conventional capability remains the foundation of collective defence, but it now operates within a broader multidomain environment.[38], [39]
Political Cohesion
Political cohesion concerns NATO’s ability to preserve collective decision-making despite differences in regional priorities, domestic political conditions, and national interests. These differences are not necessarily a weakness in themselves, since political diversity is an inherent feature of a large alliance. The more important question is whether NATO can manage these differences while maintaining a credible common strategic direction.[40]
Technological Transformation
Technological transformation reflects the growing importance of artificial intelligence, cyber defence, autonomous systems, satellites, secure communications, and data integration. These capabilities increasingly influence deterrence, interoperability, intelligence, and long-term defence planning.[41], [42] Their strategic importance therefore extends beyond individual technologies and depends increasingly on how effectively they are integrated into NATO’s wider defence architecture.
Industrial Resilience
Industrial resilience refers to NATO members’ ability to sustain defence production, secure supply chains, protect access to critical raw materials, maintain energy security, and replenish equipment during prolonged crises. The war in Ukraine demonstrated that battlefield effectiveness depends not only on military capabilities but also on the capacity of states and industries to maintain production over time.[43] For NATO, industrial resilience is therefore closely connected to readiness and to the Alliance’s ability to sustain a prolonged defence effort.
Geostrategic Integration
Geostrategic integration concerns the growing interaction among the Black Sea, Baltic, Arctic, Eastern Mediterranean, and wider Euro-Atlantic theatres. Developments in one region can increasingly affect security conditions elsewhere, making regional developments more difficult to assess in isolation. The strategic value of geographically significant Allies therefore depends not only on their individual capabilities, but also on their ability to connect military assets, routes, and regional security environments.[44]
Interdependence of the Five Dimensions
The five dimensions are analytically distinct, but their strategic effects are closely connected. Industrial shortages, for example, can constrain military readiness, while technological fragmentation can weaken interoperability and political disagreement can complicate common procurement decisions. Poor coordination across regions can similarly reduce the effectiveness of deterrence, which means that weakness in one dimension may eventually create problems in others.[45]
This interdependence is what distinguishes the NSEF from a simple list of NATO’s current priorities. The framework assumes that developments in one dimension create requirements or constraints in others. Military adaptation, for example, increases the demand for industrial capacity and sustainable logistics, while industrial resilience in turn determines how long military capabilities can be maintained. Technological change affects how forces operate and, in turn, feeds back into military adaptation. Political cohesion matters because common capabilities still depend on collective decisions about planning and employment. Geostrategic integration adds another layer by determining where those capabilities need to be connected and how different theatres should be considered together.
The framework also distinguishes between adaptation and transformation. Adaptation refers to adjustments that allow existing institutions and concepts to respond to changing circumstances. Transformation, by contrast, implies a more durable reorganisation of priorities, capabilities, and relationships.
The NSEF argues that the post-2022 period contains elements of both adaptation and transformation. Taken together, these developments suggest that NATO is moving towards a more durable reorganisation of its strategic architecture. Such a shift would be visible not only in defence spending and troop deployments, but also in longer-term changes to planning, procurement, technology coordination, the distribution of responsibilities, and the way different regional security theatres are connected.
The NSEF can also be used as a diagnostic tool. A military build-up, for instance, may improve short-term readiness without providing sufficient endurance if industrial capacity remains weak. Technological investment can create a similar problem when new systems are introduced without common standards or adequate interoperability. The same logic applies to geostrategic integration: regional initiatives may add limited value at the Alliance level if political cohesion is insufficient to connect them to common planning and decision-making.
Progress across several dimensions can reinforce NATO’s resilience, while persistent weakness in one area can limit the strategic value of progress elsewhere. The value of the NSEF is therefore not simply to measure performance in each dimension, but to examine where developments reinforce one another and where a weakness in one area creates constraints in another.
Strategic Risks Shaping NATO’s Future
The same five dimensions identify the principal risks to NATO’s future.
Political Fragmentation: Differences in regional priorities, domestic political pressures, and perceptions of burden-sharing can make it more difficult to sustain consensus. The central challenge is therefore not the existence of disagreement itself, but NATO’s ability to manage political differences without weakening strategic credibility.[46], [47]
Industrial sustainability: The second risk concerns industrial sustainability. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of ammunition stocks, production capacity, resilient supply chains, workforce availability, and sustained investment in defence production. Higher defence spending will have limited strategic value if it does not translate into industrial capacity that can be maintained over time.[48], [49]
Technological competition: The third risk. Artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, autonomous systems, quantum technologies, satellites, and advanced data systems are changing the character of military competition. NATO therefore needs to pursue technological innovation collectively while maintaining interoperability and protecting critical digital infrastructure.[50], [51]
Geopolitical uncertainty: The fourth risk. Developments across the Black Sea, Baltic, Arctic, Eastern Mediterranean, and Indo-Pacific can produce indirect effects across the Alliance. Strategic planning therefore needs to account for these cross-theatre connections rather than treating regional security problems as separate issues.[52], [53]
Transatlantic political relations: The fifth risk concerns uncertainty in transatlantic political relations. Changes in national leadership, domestic priorities, defence commitments, and strategic attention can influence burden-sharing and collective decision-making.[54], [55] The durability of NATO’s adaptation will therefore depend partly on whether these political differences can be managed without weakening the Alliance’s capacity for common action.
These risks should not be considered separately. Political fragmentation, for example, can make common procurement more difficult, while industrial shortages can reduce the practical effect of higher defence spending. Technological fragmentation creates a different but related problem by weakening interoperability, and competition among regional priorities can make it harder to maintain a common strategic direction. From the NSEF perspective, the significance of these risks lies in their potential to reinforce one another. A weakness in one dimension can therefore create additional pressure in another, turning an isolated problem into a broader constraint on NATO’s ability to adapt.
Alternative Future Scenarios for the Euro-Atlantic Security Architecture, 2025–2035
NATO’s future will depend on how political, military, technological, industrial, and geopolitical factors develop in relation to one another. A single forecast would therefore provide only a limited picture of the Alliance’s possible trajectories. This article uses three plausible scenarios to examine how different combinations of these factors could shape NATO’s development through 2035.[56], [57]
Scenario I Reinforced Alliance: NATO maintains political cohesion while increasing defence investment, expanding industrial production, and strengthening transatlantic coordination. European Allies assume greater responsibility for defence while retaining strong links with the United States. At the same time, technological cooperation and multidomain capabilities strengthen deterrence. From the perspective of the NSEF, this scenario represents the most favourable outcome because all five dimensions develop in ways that reinforce one another.[58]
Scenario II Adaptive but Fragmented Alliance: NATO remains operationally effective, but political differences become more difficult to manage. Defence investment and military adaptation continue, while national priorities and domestic political pressures make consensus harder to sustain. The Alliance remains functional, although maintaining coordination requires greater political effort. In NSEF terms, adaptation continues, but political cohesion becomes the principal constraint.[59]
Scenario III Strategic Stress: Several pressures emerge simultaneously, including prolonged geopolitical competition, industrial constraints, technological rivalry, hybrid threats, and political divergence. NATO continues to function, but sustaining readiness, interoperability, and political consensus becomes increasingly difficult. From the NSEF perspective, this scenario illustrates how weakness in one dimension can begin to affect performance in the others.[60]
These scenarios should not be understood as fixed predictions. Elements of all three could emerge simultaneously as circumstances change. Their main value lies in identifying the variables that policymakers should monitor, including defence investment, political cohesion, technological innovation, industrial resilience, and regional security dynamics.
Policy Recommendations
The NSEF identifies six priorities for NATO’s long-term adaptation. Together, these priorities focus on the areas where sustained effort will be necessary if the Alliance is to turn the adjustments made since 2022 into a more durable strategic posture.
The Alliance should continue to strengthen collective deterrence while integrating conventional, hybrid, cyber, intelligence, and emerging technological capabilities into a more integrated multidomain planning process.[61], [62] These capabilities need to support one another rather than develop as separate strands of defence policy. A more coordinated approach would help NATO maintain readiness while responding to a broader range of security challenges.
Defence-industrial resilience should also remain a long-term priority. NATO and its members need coordinated procurement, longer-term production planning, secure supply chains, and sustained investment in strategic manufacturing capacity. The experience of the war in Ukraine has shown that military readiness depends not only on available forces and equipment, but also on the ability to replenish them and sustain production over time.[63], [64]
Political cohesion should be treated as a strategic capability rather than simply a political condition. Differences in regional priorities and national interests are unlikely to disappear, particularly within an Alliance of NATO’s size and diversity. Consultation mechanisms, strategic communication, and long-term defence planning can help manage these differences while preserving the ability to make and implement collective decisions.[65], [66]
Technological competitiveness is another central element of NATO’s future security posture. Cooperation in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, cyber defence, secure communications, quantum technologies, and space capabilities should develop alongside common standards for interoperability and technology governance.[67], [68] The challenge is not simply to acquire new technologies, but to ensure that technological development strengthens the coherence of the Alliance’s wider defence architecture.
Regional security should likewise be approached in a more integrated manner. The Black Sea, Baltic, Arctic, Eastern Mediterranean, and other strategically important theatres are increasingly connected through military, economic, and security dynamics. Looking at these regions together would allow NATO to make better use of geographically significant Allies and to connect regional capabilities and security planning across different theatres.[69], [70]
Strategic foresight and scenario analysis should become more systematic parts of NATO’s long-term planning. Considering several plausible futures would allow policymakers to examine how the NSEF’s five dimensions might interact before a weakness in one area becomes a broader strategic problem. This would give the Alliance more room to anticipate emerging pressures rather than relying primarily on adaptation after a crisis has already developed.[71], [72]
These priorities should not be treated as separate programmes. NATO’s ability to deter depends on credible military capabilities, but those capabilities also require industrial endurance, technological interoperability, political support, and access to strategically important regions. The NSEF therefore suggests that policy planning should consider these priorities together and identify where investment in one dimension can strengthen or constrain another.
Conclusion
The NSEF consequently offers a way of interpreting NATO’s current trajectory without assuming either inevitable transformation or inevitable continuity. It provides a structured basis for asking where change is occurring, whether that change is durable, and whether developments in one dimension are reinforcing or constraining developments in others.
The framework’s broader significance lies in its capacity to connect immediate responses to longer-term institutional change. If the post-2022 period results in lasting changes to planning, procurement, technology, industrial capacity, political coordination, and regional integration, then NATO will have moved beyond crisis adaptation toward a more durable strategic evolution. If those changes recede as the immediate crisis changes, the period may instead be understood primarily as accelerated adaptation. Distinguishing between these outcomes is precisely the analytical problem the NSEF is intended to address.
The Russia–Ukraine War accelerated a major period of strategic adaptation in NATO’s post-Cold War history. Yet the Alliance’s transformation cannot be explained by the war alone. It reflects wider changes in geopolitical competition, military preparedness, technology, defence-industrial capacity, political cohesion, and strategic geography.[73], [74]
The analysis demonstrates that NATO’s future effectiveness depends on the interaction of these dimensions. Military capability remains essential, but military power cannot be sustained without industrial capacity; technology cannot produce strategic advantage without interoperability and political coordination; and deterrence cannot remain credible without cohesion and effective regional integration.[75], [76]
The strategic importance of the Black Sea, Baltic, Arctic, Eastern Mediterranean, and other interconnected theatres further demonstrates that NATO’s security environment is no longer easily divided into separate regional problems. Allies with the capacity to connect multiple theatres, capabilities, and security networks consequently assume greater importance.[77], [78]
The three scenarios show that NATO’s future will depend less on a single decisive event than on the cumulative interplay of defence investment, political cohesion, technological innovation, industrial resilience, and strategic decision-making.[79] The NSEF captures this interaction by treating NATO’s evolution as a multidimensional process rather than a response to a single threat.
The principal contribution of the article is therefore the NATO Strategic Evolution Framework, which integrates military adaptation, political cohesion, technological transformation, industrial resilience, and geostrategic integration into one analytical model. It is designed to complement existing approaches to alliance politics and security studies while providing a practical framework for assessing NATO’s trajectory through 2035.[80], [81]
Future research can test the framework against individual dimensions, compare it with other alliances, and examine how technological and geopolitical change affect its explanatory power. The framework’s value ultimately rests on its ability to distinguish temporary adaptation from durable institutional transformation and to identify where weaknesses in one strategic dimension may create vulnerabilities in others.[82], [83]
[1] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO 2022 Strategic Concept (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2022).
[2] Sten Rynning, NATO: From Cold War to Ukraine: A History of the World’s Most Powerful Alliance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024).
[3] International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2024 (London: Routledge, 2024).
[4] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2024 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024).
[5] Marc Ozawa, War Changes Everything: Russia after Ukraine, NDC Research Paper no. 28 (Rome: NATO Defense College, 2023).
[6] NATO, The Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024 (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2024).
[7] European Commission, European Defence Industrial Strategy (Brussels: European Commission, 2024).
[8] Rynning, NATO: From Cold War to Ukraine.
[9] Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
[10] NATO Defense College, NATO’s New Strategic Concept, NDC Research Paper no. 25 (Rome: NATO Defense College, 2022).
[11] Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987).
[12] NATO, The Secretary General’s Annual Report 2023 (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2023).
[13] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024.
[14] Council of the European Union, A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence (Brussels: Council of the European Union, 2022).
[15] European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation Establishing the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) (Brussels: European Commission, 2024).
[16] NATO Defense College, NATO’s New Strategic Concept.
[17] European External Action Service, A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence: Implementation Report (Brussels: European External Action Service, 2022).
[18] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2023 (Stockholm: SIPRI, 2024).
[19] Thierry Tardy, NATO’s New Strategic Concept (Rome: NATO Defense College, 2022).
[20] Andrea Gilli et al., Strategic Shifts and NATO’s New Strategic Concept, NDC Research Paper no. 24 (Rome: NATO Defense College, 2022).
[21] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2023.
[22] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2023.
[23] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024.
[24] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2022 (Stockholm: SIPRI, 2023).
[25] Council of the European Union, Strategic Compass for Security and Defence.
[26] Glenn H. Snyder, Alliance Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).
[27] Walt, Origins of Alliances.
[28] Tardy, NATO’s New Strategic Concept.
[29] Gilli et al., Strategic Shifts and NATO’s New Strategic Concept.
[30] Thierry Tardy, ed., The Nations of NATO: Shaping the Alliance’s Relevance and Cohesion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022).
[31] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Washington Summit Declaration (Brussels: NATO, 2024).
[32] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO 2022 Strategic Concept.
[33] Chloé Berger and Cynthia Salloum, War in Europe: Preliminary Lessons, NDC Research Paper no. 23 (Rome: NATO Defense College, 2022).
[34] International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2024.
[35] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO 2022 Strategic Concept.
[36] Tardy, Nations of NATO.
[37] Sara Bjerg Moller, “NATO at 75: The Perils of Empty Promises,” Survival 65, no. 6 (2023): 91–118.
[38] International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2024.
[39] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO 2022 Strategic Concept.
[40] Snyder, Alliance Politics.
[41] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Washington Summit Declaration.
[42] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2024.
[43] European Commission, European Defence Industrial Strategy.
[44] Tardy, Nations of NATO.
[45] Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).
[46] Dominika Kunertova and Olivier Schmitt, “Assessing NATO’s Cohesion: Methods and Implications,” International Politics 62 (2025): 1097–1110.
[47] Josef Procházka, Aleš Olejníček, and Jakub Odehnal, “NATO Cohesion in Global Power Competition: A Quantitative Cluster Analysis,” Obrana a strategie 24, no. 2 (2024): 157–78.
[48] European Commission, European Defence Industrial Strategy.
[49] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024.
[50] Pol Bargués, Jonathan Joseph, and Ana E. Juncos, “Rescuing the Liberal International Order: Crisis, Resilience and EU Security Policy,” International Affairs 99, no. 6 (2023): 2281–99.
[51] Pol Bargués, Jonathan Joseph, and Ana E. Juncos, “The Transformation of EU and NATO Security Narratives: Towards Resilience and Total Defence?,” International Affairs 102, no. 4 (2026): 1119–37.
[52] Sebastian Mayer, ed., Research Handbook on NATO (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023).
[53] James Sperling and Mark Webber, eds., The Oxford Handbook of NATO (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2025).
[54] Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
[55] Nathalie Tocci, “Resilience and the Role of the European Union in the World,” Contemporary Security Policy 41, no. 2 (2020): 176–94.
[56] Mark Webber, James Sperling, and Martin A. Smith, What’s Wrong with NATO and How to Fix It? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2021).
[57] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO 2022 Strategic Concept.
[58] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024.
[59] Moller, “NATO at 75,” 91–118.
[60] Sperling and Webber, Oxford Handbook of NATO.
[61] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO 2022 Strategic Concept.
[62] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Washington Summit Declaration.
[63] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Vilnius Summit Communiqué (Brussels: NATO, 2023).
[64] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024.
[65] Rynning, NATO: From Cold War to Ukraine.
[66] International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2024.
[67] Matthew Evangelista, “A Nuclear Umbrella for Ukraine? Precedents and Possibilities for Postwar European Security,” International Security 48, no. 3 (2024): 7–50.
[68] Webber, Sperling, and Smith, What’s Wrong with NATO and How to Fix It?
[69] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024.
[70] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO 2022 Strategic Concept.
[71] Rynning, NATO: From Cold War to Ukraine.
[72] International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2024.
[73] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2024.
[74] Council of the European Union, Strategic Compass for Security and Defence.
[75] NATO, Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024.
[76] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO 2022 Strategic Concept.
[77] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Washington Summit Declaration.
[78] Rynning, NATO: From Cold War to Ukraine.
[79] International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2024.
[80] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2024.
[81] Council of the European Union, Strategic Compass for Security and Defence.
[82] Webber, Sperling, and Smith, What’s Wrong with NATO and How to Fix It?
[83] Walt, Origins of Alliances.
