Quo Vadis, NATO?

January 18th, 2026

It pays to occasionally stop and make sure you know what you are trying to do and how you are trying to do it. Our nation does that - or tries to - whenever the President signs out a “National Strategy.” The most recent effort - “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America November 2025” (NSS2025) - attempts to do just that. 

During the Cold War many - most - strategies were very well done, focusing clearly on US interests vis-a-vis the threat from the Soviet Union and Communism. 

But, since the Cold War ended they have often seemed mushy and, it seemed, meant little. One sitting Secretary of Defense remarked that he didn’t read them as he thought they said nothing of value. NSS2025 is, on the other hand, fairly well written and what they’re trying to do clearly stated. If you search online for “NSS2025” it should be the first or second item that pops up. The link that leads to the White House is the right one; I encourage you to read pages 3-5 (about 600 words: What do we Want? And What are our means?); it tells you what the nation - our nation - is trying to do.

The first thing to note is that what it says is consistent with both the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution, both of which give clear statements of US interests.

These two documents, as well as NSS2025, talk about a particular viewpoint of government and the nation (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; a limited government which derives its powers from the Creator and people, as well “a more perfect union… the blessings of liberty…”). This is particular imagery, Judeo-Christian imagery, Western Civilization imagery.

The second thing is that these interests raise an interesting question: where is NATO heading and is that in line with US interests?

NATO was created in the wake of World War II to directly address a civilizational threat; the preamble of the North Atlantic Charter states:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. 

The Soviet Union, specifically Soviet Communism, represented an existential threat to Europe, Western Civilization and the US. The reference to our “common heritage and civilisation (sic)” is the core of the purpose of the treaty. As such, creating it, and leading it was clearly in the US interest. Then the Soviet Union fell apart more than 34 years ago (summer 1991). That particular threat went away. 

It can be readily argued that Russia represents an existential threat simply by its possession of 5,000 nuclear weapons; true. But does Russia show any immediate interest in conquering the world and wiping out Western Civilization? Is Russia likely to attack and try to destroy the US?

At the same time, the actions of some states in Europe in limiting individual rights, in attacking political parties that differ from those in power, from catering to certain groups over others, has shown that fairly large slices of Europe have recoiled from  Western civilization and arguably have shown that they actually dislike Western civilization. Vice President Vance’s address last summer may have been indelicate, but it so irritated many in leadership positions in Europe precisely because it struck a nerve. The "common heritage and civilization” spoken of the charter seems to have fallen away just as has the external existential threat from Communism, replaced by a shift leftward, a shift that would limit individual rights, and establish far-left autocracies.

Why is that in the US interest?

Lord Palmerston (Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, Prime Minister of the UK 160 years ago) noted that:

We have no eternal allies, and we have not perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Many others have used different words, but the same idea: the only concern of a leader are the interests of his nation - Machiavelli 

It is worth noting that prior to WWII the US had had only one ally: France, from 1778 until 1800. After that the US was party to no alliance until the Ogdensburg Agreement with Canada signed in 1940.

From 1776 until 1917 the US didn’t really have any interest in Europe. We did have interest in individual countries, but when taken as a whole, we really voiced no interest in Europe or the idea of Europe as the cradle of Western Civilization. In part, that was because there didn’t seem to be any sort of existential threat to Western Civilization. We could be allied with France or not, but the interests, political and cultural and economic, were balanced against the specific politics and economics of individual countries. There was no need, and no desire, for any sort of alliance. When the US did engage in diplomatic contact with any country it was conducted in terms of accessing opportunities for trade and to ensure fair treatment of US citizens trading in that particular country. 

Even during WWI there was no alliance. There was an effort to create some sort of overarching agreement after WWI ended, but the Senate never ratified the League of Nations. The US did enter in a series of arms control treaties, the value of which, 100 years later, is still open to debate.

As WWII expanded, a preliminary statement, dubbed the “Atlantic Charter” was drafted (in August of 1941) during the FDR - Churchill meeting (the meeting at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland) which became the basis for the UN, signed by FDR and Churchill (and representatives from other nations) on January 1st, 1942, though the US Senate didn’t approve it until July 28th, 1945. 

All of which leads around again to this: the US has a long list of interests. The  one immediate existential threat is China, and it deserves the nation’s focus. It would seem prudent to get our “house” in order (all the internal issues - economic and social) as well as the issues of our “immediate neighborhood” (the Western Hemisphere.) This will allow us to focus more energy on the Chinese Communist Party and the “China Problem.”

But it also means that we need to be equally prudent in focusing less effort on those areas and issues that represent less of an immediate threat, or are no longer coincident with US interests. As such, perhaps it is appropriate that we take a hard look at the need for NATO, as wherever the majority of NATO states are headed, it does not appear to be in US interest to go there; shouldn’t we at least be seriously asking the question?