NATO in the 21st Century: An Alliance Redefined for a New Era

Exploring NATO's evolution from its Cold War origins to addressing contemporary threats from Russia and China

NATO's Origins and Evolution

NATO was established to counter the threat of Soviet totalitarian communism, and 75 years later, it remains a crucial alliance, now addressing threats from both Russia and China. Today’s complex and multipolar security environment includes persistent hybrid warfare and the weaponization of national borders through directed illegal immigration. The key to NATO’s continued relevance is expanding its Charter to include border integrity and security, a fundamental element of any nation’s survival and, therefore, an essential part of the national security agenda. By leveraging NATO’s extensive resources, such as its coordinated structures, materiel, and pre-existing budget of $1.2 trillion, members could achieve significant improvements in their economic and political stability. This paper establishes the validity and mechanisms of such an evolution, making the case for an alliance redefined for a new era to address widespread border crises in the U.S. and beyond.

NATO's Mission and Purpose

NATO defines its mission in both political and military terms. Politically, 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. Militarily, NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes, but it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations if diplomatic efforts fail. There is a clear emphasis on stability and the prevention of conflict and crisis while underscoring the need for military readiness. This structure places an onus on members to identify and solve problems together, providing a basis from which to consider the future role and relevance of NATO. The “Truman Doctrine” 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, setting a precedent for NATO’s mission of collective security.

A Changing Security Landscape

Since 1949, the international security climate has transformed dramatically. The relative stability and greater predictability of a bipolar world gave way to a post-Cold War period that was initially unipolar, largely driven by the U.S.-led “Global War on Terror.” By 2010, Russia had recovered from the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, and China had begun to take a more assertive international position. Both countries had extensively researched U.S. tactics and capabilities during the Global War on Terror and made significant investments in their military capabilities as a result. This period of transition led to the current multipolar, post-pandemic global security environment, characterized by economic shocks, powerful transnational corporations, unprecedentedly large investment funds, massive economic migration, and numerous regional conflicts. These conflicts involve a mix of state and non-state actors, all engaged in a new form of conflict known as Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW) or hybrid warfare.

Fifth Generation Warfare and Border Weaponization

Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW), or hybrid warfare, comprises both kinetic and non-kinetic means. The latter includes information operations and social engineering that shape opinions, cyberattacks designed to disrupt or debilitate the adversary’s ability to function, and the use of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence. Through these non-kinetic means, 5GW offers the potential for asymmetric effects against an economically and militarily superior adversary. The on-going and often unattributable nature of these attacks characterizes 5GW by the “omnipresent battlefield,” where anything can be attacked anywhere and at any time. This aspect of 5GW is among the most potentially destructive and dangerous, causing demoralization and decay over time. In this context, successive waves of illegal immigration, economic migration, and cross-border movement of career criminals and contraband must be understood. These movements lead to collapsing wages and soaring crime rates, including violent crimes, which serve to divide, anger, and demoralize the population, exploited by adversaries who weaponize the cross-border movement of illegal immigrants, hardened criminals, and insurgents.

Case Studies of Border Weaponization

Russia has aggressively employed the tactic of weaponizing migration at borders, including those of Finland and Poland, and even the U.S. In December 2023, Finland saw the arrival of 1,000 migrants in two weeks, a stark contrast to the usual 100 over six months. Russia had been issuing visas to people in the Horn of Africa for the specific purpose of onward travel to Finland, likely in retaliation for Finland’s accession to NATO. This tactic was also used at the borders of Finland and Norway in 2015-16 and has placed enormous strain on the Polish border since 2021 through Belarus, a Russian client state. In Central America, Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega has had detailed negotiations with Russia about deploying Russian cruise missiles on Nicaraguan territory. With a reported range of 5,000 km, these missiles could strike almost any target in the U.S. and many in southern Canada. Ortega has also facilitated the organized movement of thousands of migrants into the U.S., with 260 flights of Haitian refugees into Nicaragua reported in October 2023. These migrants are then pushed north to the U.S., demonstrating the border migrant weaponization strategy and highlighting another dimension of Ortega’s collaboration with Russia.

China and the U.S. Southern Border

Military-aged Chinese males are now among the most frequently intercepted “economic migrants” at the U.S. border, raising concerns about potential infiltration by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). All of this occurs with the complicity of the Mexican cartels, facilitating the movement of as many as 20 million people into the U.S. illegally over the past four years. These dynamics present an existential challenge for the U.S., with insurgents, agent provocateurs, fifth columnists, and even regular enemy forces inserted through porous borders under the guise of civilian refugees and economic migrants. Criminals and contraband, including drugs and weapons, infiltrate, while women and children are trafficked. Nations with weak and corrupt institutions and underfunded or uncoordinated agencies with poorly defined goals struggle against this rising tide of incursion. This leads to a collapse in the rule of law, demoralizing the population and causing a collapse of confidence in government.

NATO's Role in Border Security

Given the widespread border security crisis across NATO member states, expanding NATO’s role to include border integrity is essential. With an existing budget of over $1.2 trillion, NATO has the resources to address this issue without additional budgetary acrimony. Expanding NATO’s role would require amending the Charter to include border security among its core tenets. This initiative would enhance the security of member states and the broader alliance. A review of the NATO Charter reveals the potential for such an amendment. Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12 provide a basis for including border security within NATO’s mandate. For instance, Article 5’s collective defense principle could be extended to address border threats, while Article 3’s requirement for maintaining defense capacities underscores the importance of secure borders.

NATO's Potential in a Second Trump Term

With the forthcoming U.S. presidential election, expanding NATO’s role in border security could align with former President Trump’s priorities. Emphasizing NATO’s relevance to current security concerns could garner public support and reinforce NATO’s strategic importance. This initiative could also encourage NATO members to meet their 2% GDP defense spending commitments, enhancing collective security. NATO’s resources could address the southern U.S. border crisis, providing practical solutions for comprehensive initiatives, from intelligence sharing and supply chain interdiction to physical security measures.

Conclusion: A Workable Solution

While the threat environment has evolved, the core threat of totalitarian remains, now posed by Russia and China. Hybrid warfare and border weaponization exploit vulnerabilities in national security. Expanding NATO’s scope to include border security offers a practical, affordable, and scalable solution to these challenges. By leveraging NATO’s resources, member states can strengthen their borders and enhance overall security, making NATO more resilient and relevant in the 21st century. This strategic shift could transform NATO into a formidable force against modern threats, ensuring stability and security for its members.

Link to full paper