NATO in the 21st Century: An Alliance Redefined for a New Era - Michael DeSantis
NATO in the 21st Century: An Alliance Redefined for a New Era
- Michael DeSantis
NATO was established to meet the threat of totalitarian communism in the form of the Soviet Union. 75 years later NATO still serves to protect its members against threats that include Russia and now also China but it does so in a more complex and multipolar security environment of persistent 5th Generation or “hybrid” warfare that has seen (among other effects) extensive weaponization of national borders through the use of directed illegal immigrant floods. The key to this is expansion of NATO’s Charter to include the border integrity and security of its members, arguably a key foundation of any nation’s survival and therefore an essential element of the national security agenda. Through this initiative NATO members could draw upon the extensive resources of the organization (such as coordinated structures, materiel and its pre-existing budget of $1.2 Trillion) to achieve a significant improvement in their economic and political stability. This paper establishes the validity and mechanisms of such an evolution to make the case for an alliance redefined for a new era and the means to address a widespread border crisis in the U.S. and beyond.
NATO: It’s Mission & Purpose
NATO defines its mission in “Political” and “Military” terms:[1]
“Political: NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defense and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.
Military: NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations.”
There is a clear emphasis on stability and the prevention of conflict and crisis, while simultaneously underscoring the need for military readiness, but also an onus on members to identify and solve problems together through this structure.
This provides a basis from which to consider the future role and relevance of NATO.
The “Truman Doctrine” was established on the foundation that the United States would rise to support “free peoples” in any struggle against “totalitarian regimes” and that Soviet expansionism would be countered; Truman established the principle of providing assistance to protect the political integrity of democratic nations whose security served the broadly-defined best interests of the United States.
NATO in a New Environment
The international security climate has been transformed dramatically since 1949 and in order to understand NATO’s role and potential future relevance it is essential to briefly review the transitions that have occurred and the global security dynamics that now characterize the current period.
The relative stability and significantly greater predictability of a bipolar world gave way to a post-Cold War period that was initially unipolar and largely driven by the U.S.-led “Global War on Terror” or “GWOT”. By 2010 Russia had shaken off the challenges imposed by the 2008-2009 global financial crisis and China had also begun to take a more assertive position internationally. Both countries had also extensively researched U.S. tactics and capabilities during the GWOT and had made significant investments in military capabilities of their own as a result.
During this timeframe there occurred a period of transition to what is now a tri-polar or multipolar, post-pandemic global security environment that is characterized by economic shocks, giant transnational corporations, investment funds of unprecedented size and influence, vast amounts of economic migration, and multiple regional conflicts. These conflicts are replete with a litany of non-state actors and non-state actors operating as ciphers for sovereign states that are all engaged in an emerging concept of conflict that is defined as “5th Generation” (5GW) or “Hybrid” warfare.
Fifth Generation Warfare and the Weaponization of Immigrants
5th Generation (5GW) or Hybrid warfare comprises kinetic and non-kinetic means, the latter including such methods as Information Operations (IO) and social engineering that seek to shape opinions, in other words warfare of “information and perception” as Daniel Abbott has observed,[2] plus means such as cyberattacks that are designed to disrupt or debilitate the adversary’s ability to fight or even function. The use of technology extends to autonomous systems and artificial intelligence. Through these non-kinetic means and the technology behind them 5GW or Hybrid warfare offers the potential for asymmetric effect against an adversary that might be economically and militarily superior in the conventional sense.
Due to the on-going and often unattributable nature of attacks and softening carried out by non-kinetic means, 5GW can also be characterized by the “omnipresent battlefield”, a concept identified by Alex Schmid, wherein anything is subject to attack, anywhere and at any time.[3] This aspect of 5GW is among one of the most potentially destructive and dangerous aspects of modern warfare due to the corrosive nature of such a situation over time and the demoralization and decay it can cause.
It is in this context, as a non-kinetic means of 5GW or Hybrid warfare, that successive and on-going waves illegal immigration, “economic migration” and the cross-border movement of career criminals and contraband must be understood; this gives rise to everything from collapsing wages and soaring crime, including violent crime, against men, women, children and the elderly or vulnerable, the ultimate effect of which is demoralization and despair.
Every country with weak borders has witnessed an explosion in statistics on almost every type of crime and particularly the most heinous crimes such as rape and murder. This serves to divide, anger and demoralize the population and has been exploited by adversaries that now deliberately weaponize the cross-border movement of illegal immigrants, hardened criminals and insurgents.[4] Russia has aggressively employed the tactic at borders that include Finland and Poland and even the US.
In just a two week window in December 2023, Finland saw the arrival of 1000 migrants when the historical figure would be closer to 100 over the course of 6 months. It transpired that Russia had been issuing visas to people in the Horn of Africa to enter Russia for the specific purpose of onward travel to Finland.
Interception and analysis of Arabic-speaking Telegram chat rooms had revealed that the Russian authorities, likely in retaliation for Finland’s accession to NATO, were essentially recruiting migrants to language courses with onward transportation to the Finnish border.
Russia had used the same tactic at the borders of Finland and Norway in 2015-16 when sanctions were imposed after the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass. Belarus, a client state of Russia, has placed enormous strain on the Polish border since 2021 through the same mechanism, as Russia used the territory of Belarus as a simple conduit.[5]
In Central America, Daniel Ortega, the President of Nicaragua, has reportedly had detailed negotiations with the Russian government about deploying Russian cruise missiles on his territory. With a reported range of 5000KM these missiles would be able to strike almost any target in the US and many in southern Canada. Russian state television stated in 2022 that Ortega had invited Russia to station troops on his territory.[6]
This must be considered in the light of an October 2023 report from Associated Press that detailed the organized movement of 260 flights of Haitian refugees into Nicaragua by Ortega’s government, approximately 31,000 migrants, with 27 flights in one 48 hour period alone. All these flights involved chartered aircraft with a cost of $3000-$6000 per seat. Approximately 17,000 people were moved into Nicaragua from Cuba in the same period in 2023.[7] All those migrants are then pushed North to the U.S., in a clear demonstration of the border migrant weaponization strategy that highlights another dimension of Ortega’s collaboration with Russia.
China and the ‘Near Peer’ Threat Environment
Military-aged Chinese males are now among the most frequently intercepted ‘economic migrants’ at the U.S. border, which has raised the legitimate concern that these could be active members of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
All of this occurs at the US southern border with the complicity of the Mexican cartels, if not their direct supervision. According to some estimates the cartels have facilitated the movement of as many as 20 million people into the U.S. illegally in just the past four years since 2020.
These threats together amount to a potentially existential level of challenge for the United States. These are dynamics that have become consistently worse for several decades and now appear to be accelerating on a non-linear curve.
Insurgents, agent provocateurs, fifth columnists and even regular enemy forces are inserted through porous borders under the guise of civilian refugees and economic migrants. Criminals, a litany of contraband including drugs and weapons are infiltrated, while women and children are shamefully and callously trafficked.
Nations with weak and corrupt institutions and underfunded or uncoordinated agencies with poorly-defined goals, suboptimal strategy and a lack of delineated responsibility will increasingly struggle against a rising tide of incursion that is powered by resources from corrupt sponsors, often via sham NGOs, and the profits of organized criminal enterprise.
The inevitable consequences of this are a collapse in rule of law that is primarily experienced by the civilian population, leading to demoralization and the concomitant collapse of confidence in government.
This is precisely what the calculating adversary has in mind for his target, and especially the United States because until now, short of a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) there has been no means through which to mount an effective attack on the US homeland, let alone destroy it. Weak borders now offer the ideal attack vector for an extensive array of threats.
Therefore, borders are a critical element of national and international security; one country’s difficulty quickly becomes a problem for its neighbors and this is how the contagion and existential crisis spreads.
At the U.S. southern border it is evident that all the existing measures, solutions, agencies, strategies and structures have failed to even reduce the rate of the problem, let alone contain or curtail it.
The situation therefore demands a solution that is both workable, affordable and can be readily implemented.
The prevailing wisdom and general perception is that ‘everything has been tried’ so now the clarion call must go out for truly new and effective solutions, and since this problem set exists in many countries and at many borders the solution must be widely applicable, inherently robust and scalable.
A NEW SOLUTION FOR A NEW ERA
The exact same crisis can be found at the borders of numerous countries and the perception of the public is clear. A recent survey conducted in March and April of 2024 underscored the extent to which Europeans are concerned about illegal immigration and lack of border security; Fully 85% of Europeans agreed with the statement that “The European Union needs to take more action to combat illegal immigration.”[8]
Borders under pressure include those of Poland, Hungary, France, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Spain and the UK. All of these are NATO countries and all of them are buckling under the pressure as wave upon wave of immigrants somehow find the means to propel themselves forward and national governments and their agencies lack the resources to tackle the problem.
This is unequivocally the most widespread national security crisis across NATO countries in the era that is the first quarter of the 21st century.
Given the scale of the problem globally and the fact that enemies of the US and western nations have so extensively exploited the border as a primary means of conducting gray zone warfare, it is now time to actively consider new solutions.
Now in its 75th year as the world’s preeminent collective security organization, NATO could expand its role to include border security among its core tenets, responsibilities and priorities.
With an existing budget of over $1.2 Trillion the resource allocation already exists and would neither involve nor require any budgetary acrimony. Nor could the role expansion be prevented by covert enemy operatives that are embedded within the legislature and bureaucracy.
In short, NATO is the perfect, ready-made solution to the border crisis faced by most of its member states.
This would require an expansion of the language in several articles of the Charter but as this paper will show, the precedent and conceptual basis for such a change does appear to exist, based on a review of the Charter and a clear understanding of stakeholder interests.
As the primary financial contributor to NATO (68%), the U.S. could make its renewed support conditional on such a role expansion, and a U.S. President leading on border security in the forthcoming election might choose to take advantage of the opportunity to drive such a change.
Success begets Success
NATO has proven itself time and again to be effective at intelligence gathering and secure dissemination, the application of all the tools and resources that form the foundations of combat power, plus the training and logistics to support and deliver those capabilities.
With well-honed international command and control, and long-established policies and procedures in place the organization would require very little in the way of time- consuming realignment or reshaping. For a country like the US, which contributes approximately 68% of the total NATO budget it would introduce a highly warranted and much needed positive shift in the value for money equation.[9] For US citizens, families, communities, businesses and taxpayers it would introduce new relevance for NATO and reverse a cycle of despair and disillusionment that the country’s adversaries have been working tirelessly for decades to develop.
The proposed expansion of NATO’s role would likely serve to encourage NATO members to finally comply with the 2% GDP spending rate that is intended to be mandatory for members and yet has proven difficult for many to achieve.[10] Due to the widely-shared difficulties imposed by border crisis, the proposal described by this paper is potentially the best method of encouraging member states to finally live up to their commitments, which despite numerous emphatic pronouncements, including formal commitment by members at the 2014 NATO Wales Summit, have still yet to materialize in fact.[11]
For countries such as Poland or the UK that have consistently spent over 2% on NATO budgets, this would be a very welcome initiative, but for countries such as France, Spain or Italy that have struggled with significant border pressure for over a decade it could very well be the decisive catalyst that makes the 2% budgetary commitment politically and economically feasible and readily achievable for the first time.[12]
Existing solutions to the border problem have failed to perform, mostly due to lack of political and leadership fortitude, and any new measures will, deliberately or otherwise, remain mired for years in the bureaucratic process, potentially until collapse becomes inevitable and irreversible.
Such a move would permit members to bring the full resources and capabilities of NATO to bear on their border challenges and benefit from the support, per Article 5 of the North Atlantic charter, of all the other members of the alliance.
This would, for example, introduce extremely powerful measures of intelligence sharing and global interdiction for members that would otherwise be facing the challenge alone while begging a toothless INTERPOL for help in tracing the financial flows of human and drug smuggling networks, or battling against a tide of drugs and immigrants carried on vessels operated by (purely as an illustrative example) private Greek shipping interests that are insured at Lloyds of London in the UK. As NATO members those countries would be compelled to act decisively under the full authority and aegis of a well-established international treaty; assets could be seized, arrests made.
The ports, airports, airspace, national waters and cities of NATO member nations would be off-limits to identified perpetrators and their criminal networks, as would the blue ocean routes patrolled by NATO assets.
Consequently, nation state adversaries would need to factor a new danger into their calculations which is the risk that their covert connections to any effort to exacerbate or exploit border disarray could be discovered and acted upon. Today this is almost never a risk, but that would change overnight.
Thus the tools of 5th Generation warfare, from state to non-state actors to their efforts with both kinetic and non-kinetic means, could be dealt with efficiently and effectively. Adversaries have been able to conduct such border exploitation operations with impunity to date because they know their targets are often isolated nation states with a polity divided and paralyzed by chaos and fear; Until now, the weaponization and exploitation of border chaos has been a highly effective strategy with close to zero cost in terms of casualties on the size of the instigator and a superior return on investment in terms of damage and demoralization.
In the case of the U.S. this could offer an immediate series of practical and decisive solutions for the matter of border security, providing numerous integrated capabilities and allied support for comprehensive initiatives that range from men and materiel to intelligence sharing, supply chain interdiction, physical security measures and of course an entirely pre-approved budget for all the aforementioned, given the potential to access and utilize some element of the more than three quarters of a trillion dollars of US funds already allocated to and approved for the NATO budget, plus the ability to call upon support from fellow members. As in the above example of the shipping and drug interdiction above, it is quite conceivable that the U.S. could call on a new level of support and integration from Colombia, one of the newest “Global Partner” members of NATO, and nation with exceptional experience in matters of contraband and human trafficking.[13]
To be clear, none of this represents any threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. through the deployment of foreign troops on U.S. soil under the aegis of NATO. Aside from the obvious point that the U.S. largely funds the organization and effectively runs it through control of key appointments, the opportunity presented here simply makes the case that NATO’s resources could and should be accessed to augment the defense of NATO members that are facing severe border pressures.
NATO Today: Priorities & Potential
“We will invest in our ability to prepare for, deter, and defend against the coercive use of political, economic, energy, information and other hybrid tactics by states and nonstate actors. Hybrid operations against Allies could reach the level of armed attack and could lead the North Atlantic Council to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. We will continue to support our partners to counter hybrid challenges and seek to maximize synergies with other relevant actors, such as the European Union.”
The 2022 Strategic Concept also categorically emphasizes a significant preference for deterrence and prevention and devotes an entire section to the need for “Crisis Prevention and Management” and the commitment to “increase our efforts to anticipate and prevent crises and conflicts” and “enhance support for our partners, including to help build their capacity to counter terrorism and address shared security challenges.” This is specifically to “...strengthen their preparedness and resilience and boost their capabilities to counter malign interference, prevent destabilization and counter aggression.”
Based on this assessment of the organization’s priorities it is not beyond the scope of imagination to propose an adaptation to the scope of the Charter that concurs with the identification of the principal threats and that would significantly enhance the ability of members to anticipate and deter a litany of potential crises, while strengthening their ability to prevent destabilization.
The NATO Charter: Precedent & Potential
It is possible to review the Charter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO’s foundational document, with this initiative in mind:
Article 2 refers to the commitment by members to “strengthen their free institutions and.... Promote conditions of stability and wellbeing.” It could conceivably be argued that a national border is included among the institutions or critical institutional infrastructure of any nation and that the proper function and inviolability of such is central to the “stability and wellbeing” of any nation. Conversely, it is extremely difficult to argue in law that a border should be excluded from such a definition, particularly when violation of a border, or invasion, remains the most unequivocal and primary hallmark of a declaration of warfare.
Article 3 of the Charter specifically requires that members “will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” It is extremely difficult to do that if borders cannot be secured, and thus border security and the preservation thereof becomes central to the ability of a nation to meet its commitment to Article 3 of the Charter.
Article 4 speaks for itself: “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.” The issue of border security and integrity is now of paramount importance to a majority of Alliance members.
Article 5 is of course the most commonly referenced element of the Charter as the backbone of the collective security agreement that obliges the members of NATO to act in defense of each other as though under direct attack themselves in the event that any one of them is attacked. As discussed earlier in this paper, the Article 5 response could serve to manage and blunt the stratagem of border exploitation across the NATO zone, or potentially deter it altogether due to the elevated likelihood of accountability and direct response against any identified adversaries and their ciphers.
Article 6 has been amended multiple times, for example to remove reference to the “Algerian Departments of France” and with the accession of new members. This illustrates a clear example of the precedent for amendment of a Charter that has been amended to reflect the change which has occurred internationally since 1949 when it came into force.
Article 6 has another important feature, however, in that it specifically identifies and includes key assets of NATO member nations as the trigger for Article 5 if attacked (“...the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties...”) and in particular “when in or over these territories” thereby establishing the conceptual link between key assets and territory. It could be deemed straightforward and entirely consistent to introduce the concept of a border here among the tripwire assets and thereby support the case for border resiliency, to a greater or lesser degree and in any case always at the option of the member, through NATO auspices.
Article 12 clearly underscores the ability of any member to raise issues of concern in order to review and, by logical extension alter or enhance the Treaty (there being no other purpose for any such review) in the light of relevant security dynamics:
“After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security...”
While there is not the scope here to conduct a detailed review of the legal principles behind the NATO Charter or any modification of such, and indeed the writer of this paper is not a legal expert of any kind, it is evident from this cursory review of the Charter articles that there exists an opportunity to propose an amendment of role and scope that could significantly enhance the security of NATO members and that would also be highly consistent with the existing principles, priorities and spirit of the organization.
NATO in a Second Trump Term
With the forthcoming 2024 U.S. Presidential elections in November, commentators anxiously opine as to how former President Trump can be made to see the benefits of NATO and while most of them fail to arrive at any useful conclusions, some do at least identify the obvious point that NATO could start by ensuring that its members pay up and bear the burden at or above the 2% GDP spend floor. This is an essential point for Mr. Trump that he has quite correctly emphasized on numerous occasions.
However, the other entirely overlooked point is that NATO can be made to appear more relevant in the eyes of the public across the NATO zone by actually being relevant through expanding its scope to address the security issues that are of the utmost concern to the populations of most NATO nations: the national security dimension directly related to border integrity.
The public grows tired of hearing about multi-billion dollar foreign military engagements, Carrier Battle Groups and vastly expensive ‘stealth technology’ while they are seeing their communities torn apart by criminals or their hourly wage rate decimated by unfettered illegal immigration through their own country’s completely ineffective border, accompanied by a limitless series of excuses from ineffective politicians about lack of resources or capabilities to address the problem. The public, especially the tax paying sub-set that funds all of this, has every right to feel aggrieved and demand action to address this from the governments they elect and the politicians and bureaucrats they employ and pay. The officials that grasp this reality will therefore prosper, and the initiative proposed in this paper provides a means through which to carry out their mandate from the people.
For former President Trump few issues are of higher priority than the ongoing assault against America through the southern U.S. border. An opportunity to resolve that particular crisis through assistance from NATO and its resources would undoubtedly address the agenda of the man that could potentially soon be serving a second term in office and it would also serve to transform the perceived relevance of NATO in the eyes of the U.S. public.
Conclusion: Difficult Problem, Workable Solution, Proven Organization
While the threat environment has changed over the years since NATO was founded, the primary and core threat to NATO member states (including the U.S.) is essentially still the same totalitarian communism, albeit now at least optically somewhat different and now from Russia and China versus solely the Soviet Union in 1949. The two nations have pursued international competition with the U.S. and its allies, have significantly increased their military capabilities and amplified their combative rhetoric.
The current era is characterized by an apparently persistent state of hybrid warfare and this has provided countless opportunities for adversarial forces to exacerbate and exploit or ‘weaponize’ border chaos as a tool to undermine countries including multiple NATO member states and particularly the United States.
This paper has identified a unique opportunity to address the problem at the U.S.’ southern border and those of other NATO member states by expanding the scope of the organization to encompass border security as a critical element of national security and thereby provide access to NATO capabilities and budgets to counter border disarray and profoundly strengthen member states and therefore the broader Alliance.
NATO could provide such a rapid and effective improvement in the border situation for its member states that America’s adversaries will rue the day they ever sought to amplify this problem set to the extent they have; the viral corrosion they sought to sow might have hereby now provoked an immune response that will render the North Atlantic Treaty Organization even more resilient and relevant in the next century than it has been in the past, for governments, their populations and taxpayers alike. The Communists’ schemes will have strengthened the very structure and states they sought to undermine and destroy.
[1] https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html
[2] Abbott, Daniel (2010): The Handbook of Fifth-Generation Warfare. Nimble Books, p.20
[3] Schmid, Alex (2011): The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, Routledge Handbooks, p. 167
[4] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/border-and-migration-politics-and-the-kremlins-hybrid-war/
[5] https://ukandeu.ac.uk/border-and-migration-politics-and-the-kremlins-hybrid-war/
[6] https://www.intellinews.com/ortega-reportedly-allowing-russian-military-to-establish-bases-cruise-missile-batteries-in-nicaragua-288961/
[7] https://apnews.com/article/cuba-nicaragua-migration-charter-flights-daniel-ortega-3abf2fc16e51e86eb8b25c913b8ec464
[8] https://www.arte.tv/sites/corporate/files/concerns-and-global-perception-of-the-eu-citizens.pdf
[9] NATO BUDGET Total: US$ 1.264 trillion, Total Excluding the US: US$ 404 billion (32%). Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf
[10] https://carnegieeurope.eu/research/2015/09/the-politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-the-security-vacuum-in- europe?lang=en¢er=europe
[11] The 2014 NATO Summit in Wales saw the formal commitment to 2% among members for the first time, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wales_summit
[12] www.nato.int/nato_sta;c_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf
[13] Colombia formally joined NATO as a “Global Partner” in 2018 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-nato-idUSKCN1IR0E8/