NATO? Whatever next?

Like it or not, questions about NATO's future have to be asked

NATO was created to provide collective security. That is its stated purpose. But purposes are not fixed in time, and when the conditions that justified them change, they must be reconsidered.

We are now in precisely such a moment.

The question is not whether NATO once had value. It clearly did. The question is whether it continues to serve that purpose in a world that has changed profoundly, and whether it does so in a way that is consistent with the interests of those who remain members of the alliance. There are several things we must take into consideration.

Firstly, NATO is, in practice, a US-dominated organisation. That has always been true, but it was once accompanied by a degree of predictability. Allies could assume a shared understanding of threats and a broadly consistent approach to international relations.

That assumption now looks increasingly fragile. When US leadership becomes erratic, openly dismissive of allies, and willing to pursue military action that even its own adviser’s question, then the foundation on which NATO rests is inevitably weakened. An alliance cannot depend on trust if that trust is no longer warranted.

Secondly, there is a striking failure within UK politics to engage with this reality. Labour, Conservative and Reform politicians appear united in their defence of NATO, and equally united in their refusal to ask what it now represents.

This consensus is often presented as strength. In fact, it may be a sign of intellectual failure. When all major political voices agree not to ask a fundamental question, it is usually because that question is politically inconvenient rather than strategically irrelevant.

The world is changing. Power is shifting. Conflicts are evolving. And yet much of Westminster behaves as if none of this requires serious reconsideration. The “special relationship” with the United States is treated as an article of faith, even when the evidence suggests it is no longer what it was.

Thirdly, this silence is reinforced by the media. The absence of meaningful scrutiny about NATO’s future is not simply a political failure; it is also a failure of public debate. The questions that need to be asked, about purpose, strategy and alternatives, are largely avoided.

That avoidance has consequences. It creates a political environment in which outdated assumptions persist unchallenged, and in which the public is denied the opportunity to engage with the realities of international change.

The result is a political culture that prefers comforting illusions to strategic thinking.

So, why does this matter?

It matters because defence and international relations are not abstract concerns. They shape economic priorities, public spending, and the risks that societies are asked to bear. They determine whether resources are directed towards conflict or cooperation, towards security or instability.

If NATO no longer provides a clear or reliable framework for collective security, then continuing to treat it as if it does is not a neutral act. It is a political choice, and one that carries consequences.

What follows from this is not a predetermined answer, but a necessary process.

Firstly, the question of NATO’s relevance must be openly discussed. That should not be controversial. It is the minimum requirement of a functioning democracy.

Secondly, alternatives must be considered. If the existing structure no longer serves its intended purpose, then new approaches to collective security are required. For the UK, this may mean placing greater emphasis on European cooperation and less reliance on US leadership.

Thirdly, politics itself must change. A system that avoids the most important questions of its time is not fit for purpose. What is required is a politics that is willing to confront reality, to acknowledge uncertainty, and to engage with complexity.

It is notable that some voices, particularly outside the traditional centres of power, are beginning to raise these issues. Whether or not they have all the answers is not the point. The point is that they are asking the questions.

And those questions are long overdue.

The real problem is not disagreement about NATO. It is the apparent taboo surrounding discussion of its future. When a subject becomes too sensitive to debate, it is usually because it touches on uncomfortable truths.

In this case, the uncomfortable truth may be that the world has moved on, while much of UK political thinking has not.

That is not sustainable.

A reconsideration of defence and international relations is now essential. It must be grounded not in nostalgia or assumption, but in an honest assessment of current realities. And it must be part of a broader effort to create a politics that is capable of thinking strategically about the future.

Because if we cannot ask what NATO is for, we cannot begin to decide what should come next.

---

This article was co-authored with James Murphy

---