The paper is an analytical study of an issue which could severely disturb the cohesion of NATO. Burden sharing can be regarded as one of the fundamental principles of an alliance consisting of sovereign states. The members of NATO repeatedly declared their willingness to share the risks, costs, and responsibilities as well as the benefits of the common defense. In the U.S. many people believe that the European Allies share an insufficient part of the common defense burden. In fact, this perception is true if burden sharing would be only a matter of comparing financial contributions. However there are several other factors which are also analyzed and assessed. Despite the current controversy it should be emphasized that the basic common interest of NATO to counter the Warsaw Pact's military threat has not changed. The security and prosperity of Europe and North America still depends--and will depend--on a strong NATO. However, burden sharing is a prerequisite for maintaining solidarity and cohesion within NATO. Therefore, the recommendations offer at least a partial solution of the controversy. (kr).

The most powerful military alliance in history, NATO shaped the geopolitical contours of the Cold War and continues to structure the contemporary international system. The NATO agreement is reprinted here with speeches and essential historical documents concerning the alliance’s founding and subsequent evolution. Accompanying essays by major scholars discuss debates about NATO’s evolving governance, its role in nuclear politics, and its appropriate mission during and since the Cold War.

A head of title: Council on Foreign Relations, International Institutions and Global Governance Program.

For much of the last 25 years, NATO has focused on crisis managementin places such as Kosovo and Afghanistan,resulting in major changes to alliance strategy, resourcing,force structure, and training. Re-embracing collective defense —which lies at the heart of the Treaty of Washington’s Article 5 commitment— is no easy feat, and not something NATO can do through rhetoric and official pronouncements. Nonetheless,this shift is vitally necessary if the alliance is to remain the bulwark of Western defense and security. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its invasion of Ukraine have fundamentally upended the security environment in Europe, thrusting NATO into the spotlight as the primary collective defense tool most European states rely upon to ensure their security. Collective defense is one of the alliance’s threecore missions, along with crisis management and cooperative security. It is defined in Article 5, the most well-known and arguably most important part of NATO’s founding treaty, which states: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” Although all three missions are vital to the interests of NATO’s many member states, collective defense has become first among equals once again. However,three very significant hurdles stand in the way of the alliance and its member states as they attempt to re-embrace collective defense. These loosely correspond to an ends-waysmeans construct. First is the alliance's strategy toward Russia. Is Russia an adversary,a partner,neither,or both? How should strategy and policies change to place the alliance and its members on more solid ground when it comes to managing Russia? Second are the ongoing disputes over resourcing and burden-sharing. In recent years, it has become commonplace for American leaders to publicly berate European allies in an effort to garner more contributions to the common defense. How might the alliance better measure and more equitably share security burdens? Third is the alliance’s readiness to fulfill its objectives. Many allies have announced or are implementing increases in defense spending. However, governments of European NATO member states are strongly incentivized by domestic politics to favor acquisition of military hardware or spending on personnel salaries and benefits,usually at the expense of readiness. The result is that NATO military forces risk quickly becoming hollow in a way that is often underappreciated, which will prevent the alliance from fulfilling the collective defense promise inherent in Article 5. The book examines all such questions to assess NATO’s return to collective defense and offer a roadmap for overcoming those challenges in both the short and long-term.

Continuing to provide a concise approach to this crucial organization, the second edition of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization: The Enduring Alliance is fully updated to take in the developments since 2007, with key additions including: Discussion of NATO’s place in a changing world Consideration of recent operations on the alliance Evaluation of the impact of the financial crisis Reconsideration of the NATO-EU relationship Discussion of the US pivot to Asia-Pacific and its impact on NATO The implications for NATO of Russia’s action in Ukraine The rise of emerging security challenges, including Islamic State A new chapter looking to the future of NATO in light of the recent developments Highlighting the continued importance of NATO in the international arena, this accessible guide details the origins, institutions, workings and activities of the organization, as well as contributing valuable insights to the debate surrounding the future of the alliance.