We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Soldiers of the seven newest NATO members parade during a ceremony marking the expansion of NATO's membership from 19 countries to 26 at the alliance headquarters in Brussels April 2, 2004. NATO foreign ministers participated in an event marking the formal accession of the seven newest members, Bulgaria, Estonia Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slonevia.
NATO turns 75. Will it make it to 80?
Seventy-five years ago today, 12 leaders from the US, Canada, and Western Europe signed the North Atlantic Treaty, creating the world’s most powerful military alliance: NATO
Where it’s been: As World War II drew to a close in 1945, Europe faced the overwhelming challenge of reconstruction. Over 11 million displaced people were wandering the bombed-out cities and scorched countryside, including hundreds of thousands of war orphans. And on the east bank of the Elbe River stood the massive, battle-hardened Soviet Red Army, a worrying prospect as the USSR came increasingly into conflict with its erstwhile allies.
Just 18 months later, Britain and France signed the Treaty of Dunkirk, pledging mutual defense as world powers rapidly coalesced into ideological blocs. Following a Soviet-backed communist coup in Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands joined to create the Western Union in March 1948, but within months, the Soviet blockade of West Berlin would make clear only US involvement could deter Moscow.
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty just over a year hence, binding one another to mutual defense.
Five months later, the USSR tested its first nuclear bomb.
Identity crisis: Through the Cold War, NATO had a clear mission to deter the Soviet Bloc. But as the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union itself collapsed in 1991, what would become of the alliance?
Instead of guarding against Eastern Europe, NATO began absorbing former Soviet bloc countries and protecting the liberal democratic order more generally. In March 1999, the alliance welcomed Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary — and initiated a bombing campaign that ended the Serbian invasion of Kosovo.
Then, in 2001, the alliance’s mutual defense clause was invoked for the first time in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the US, leading to the multilateral International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. By 2004, another seven former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries had joined.
But Moscow’s sudden invasion of Georgia in 2008, just months after the small Caucasian nation voted overwhelmingly to start NATO accession talks, raised the specter of a renewed Cold War. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014 restored focus on the old enemy.
Future peril. Today, NATO has expanded to 32 countries with over 3.3 million active troops, 1 million armored vehicles, 20,000 aircraft, and 2,100 warships, all backed by the US, French, and British nuclear arsenals — without question the most powerful military force ever assembled.
Yet despite its strength, the alliance is beset by anxiety over its future. Should Donald Trump win reelection in November, planners from Ottawa to Ankara worry he will hollow out the alliance’s core and expose members to Russian predation while abandoning Ukraine to the cruel fate of partition, or worse.
The upside? Europeans are starting to get more serious about protecting themselves. The invasion of Ukraine spurred a 13% increase in defense spending in Europe 2022, and Sweden and Finland, both of which punch above their weight militarily, to join NATO. Most pressingly, NATO is working on a $100 billion fund to keep Ukraine in the fight — money Trump 2.0 couldn’t touch.Europe's energy future: Perspective from Norway's PM Jonas Støre
Listen: In the latest episode of the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer discusses the critical themes of energy security and geopolitical stability in Europe amidst ongoing global challenges with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Støre on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. Støre outlines Norway's ambitious plan to transition from oil and gas to renewable energy sources by 2030. This transition is not just a local endeavor but a necessary shift for Europe, aiming to address both the climate crisis and geopolitical tensions by reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
With Europe cutting off nearly all Russian energy imports, Norway has become a key supplier. Støre emphasizes the importance of technological innovation, international cooperation, and the pivotal role of the market economy in facilitating the transition towards green energy. “You cannot make it unless you make the market economy be at the service of the transition,” Jonas Gahr Støre explains. Moreover, he touches upon the broader implications for NATO and the transatlantic alliance, underscoring Europe's need to bolster its energy security and military capabilities to support Ukraine independently, if necessary.
The discussion also explores the broader context of democracy, social media's impact on society, and Norway's innovative approach to enhancing educational and social environments by limiting digital distractions among youth.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Sweden's Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson speaks during a press conference at the government headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, February 26, 2024.
Sweden joins NATO: what has the alliance gained?
On Monday, after stalling for 19 months, Hungary voted in favor of Sweden joining NATO. The vote completes the alliance’s Nordic expansion in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Why does Sweden want in? Sweden was caught with its pants down when Russia ended the European peace party.
After remaining heavily armed but neutral through the Cold War, its military has waned in recent years. Its army has shrunk by 90% in terms of manpower, and defense spending has dropped to barely 1% of GDP. Russia's invasion was a wake-up call that it needed NATO's protection.
In contrast, Finland maintained a strong military, in no small part because it shares a 1,300-kilometer-long border with Russia.
So what does NATO want with Sweden? An underfunded military full of peaceniks?
Not exactly. Despite military budget cuts, decades of armed neutrality left Sweden with a robust and advanced arms industry, most of which is fully compatible with NATO standards. It is one of the world’s largest arms exporters and builds advanced jets, tanks, warships, and more – all of which European allies need after draining reserves to support Ukraine.
NATO now dominates the Baltic Sea. All of the surrounding countries besides Russia are now NATO members, insulating Baltic allies like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which worry they could be the next targets of Russian aggression.
Two years of war in Ukraine: Power players at the Munich Security Conference weigh in
Listen: It’s been two years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While Ukrainians remain steadfast in their fight, political battles and crisis fatigue in the US and EU make a victory much more elusive. How long can Western allies remain united in their support for Kyiv? Does Ukraine have any chance of winning in this environment? On the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer sits with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoanǎ for a hard look at progress on the battlefield and Ukraine’s future in NATO, just as news broke of the death of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. Later, Ian talks with another power player at the conference and on the continent, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, about European security, the threat of AI-generated misinformation, and Greece's landmark LGBTQ+ rights law.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
- Israel, Iran, and the metastasizing war in Ukraine ›
- Russia-Ukraine war: How we got here ›
- “Crimea river”: Russia & Ukraine’s water conflict ›
- Russia-Ukraine: Two Years of War ›
- UN chief: We must avoid the mistakes that led to World War I - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine is still standing two years after Russian invasion - GZERO Media ›
NATO membership for Ukraine?
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Sweden will join NATO. Is Ukraine next?
Well, sure, but next doesn't mean tomorrow. Next means like at some indeterminate point, which makes President Zelensky pretty unhappy and he's made that clear, but he has massive amounts of support from NATO right now, and he needs that support to continue. So, it's not like he has a lot of leverage on joining NATO. As long as the Americans are saying it's not going to happen, that means it's not going to happen. No, the real issue is how much and how concrete the multilateral security guarantees that can be provided by NATO to Ukraine actually turn out to be. We will be watching that space.
Is Taiwan readying itself for an invasion by conducting its biggest evacuation drills in years?
I wouldn't say readying for an invasion. I would say, you know, sort of preparing for every contingency, and that means taking care of your people. I mean, the Americans weren't readying themselves for nuclear Armageddon by doing drills in classrooms and by, you know, having bomb shelters, but they had them because we were in a world where nuclear war was thinkable. Well, we're in a world where Chinese, mainland Chinese invasion of Taiwan is very unlikely, but thinkable. And of course, the Taiwanese have to think about it a lot more than you and I do.
Elon vs. Zuck. Thoughts?
Well, my thoughts are mostly about the battle of the social media platforms and the fact that of course you now have the big gorilla in the room with a Twitter competitor. And I've seen it pretty functional for the first several days. Obviously, massive numbers of people are on it, mostly because it's really easy to sign up. They're all coming over from Instagram and it's owned by the same person, by the same shareholders. Unclear to me who's going to win. If I had to bet, I would say that within 6 or 12 months, we're going to have a fragmented social media landscape politically, the way we do blogosphere or cable news, which is, I guess, good for consumer choice, but it's bad for civil society. What else is new?
Biden attends NATO Summit
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hey, everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a happy Monday to you. A Quick Take to kick off your week.
And this week the big news is coming from NATO, the summit that will start within a day in Vilnius. Heads of state from all the key NATO countries, including of course President Biden. And the big topic will be Ukraine. Not the only one big question about Sweden, whether or not they're joining NATO or not. Erdogan can always decide to change his mind and cut a deal at the last minute. But the big news is what's going to happen with Ukraine, with continued military support for Ukraine that we still see expanding pretty much every week. And all, both in terms of the amount and also the types of armaments, and I'll get into that in a moment. And also as to where we stand on NATO membership and a pathway to that for Ukraine itself. Erdogan interestingly very strongly supporting Ukraine to get into NATO, also providing directly some Asov battalion leaders to the Ukrainians that, you know, he had told the Russians he wasn't going to do. This is a couple of indicators and there are many that the grain deal between the Ukrainians, the West and the Russians is not going to get extended in another week's time. Erdogan was critical to that deal. That relationship with Russia is getting more brittle by the day. At the same time, Ukraine is not about to get an immediate pathway into NATO, and Biden made that clear with my friend Fareed Zakaria. Over the weekend, Biden's perspective is, "Hey, we're fighting a war in Ukraine by proxy. We're giving all of the equipment, all the weapons, but we don't want the Americans directly fighting on the ground."
Don't want, a no fly zone with, you know, American fighter pilots defending Ukraine directly. That would both risk a direct war with the Russians, essentially, World War III is what we're talking about. And it's also just unacceptable. The Americans and other NATO allies don't want their own troops directly in harm's way. They're happy to fight a proxy war. They're not happy to fight directly. And that is not a unified position, by the way, the Polish government, the Balts, the Fins now a part of NATO increasingly willing to say, "Yes, we should be giving Ukraine membership now. And that doesn't mean we have to deploy Article 5, everybody knows we're not going to be fighting directly, but they need that security umbrella going forward. It's the only way that we can guarantee that the Russians won't invade again."
And by the way, Macron, who in the early days, the French president, of the war thought that was entirely too provocative, has flipped his view. And now in terms of NATO is aligned with the Poles and the Balts, which is very interesting, while the Americans, I think, are still closer to the German position. Be that as it may, there's an enormous amount of support that the West is providing to Ukraine militarily, the US is leading it. And I think what we are moving towards are multilateral guarantees. In other words that NATO collectively would be prepared to provide commitments to Ukraine, that going forward, they will continue to ensure that Ukrainian troops are trained, are equipped. Intelligence is provided. In other words that there are treaty obligations to Ukraine to help them defend themselves very effectively. That prevents the Russians from believing they get another bite of that apple, that they can wait NATO out, and that eventually Russia will be able to accomplish militarily what they've not been able to accomplish in the first 500 plus days of this war.
The other big thing that's being debated are the cluster munitions that are now going to be provided by the United States. They are not a signatory, of the ban of cluster munitions. And these things are banned because they are so brutally dangerous to civilians. A lot of those bomb pieces that are then on the ground and can sit around for a long time until, you know, civilian inadvertently months, years later walks, trips over it, it acts like a landmine, a kid curious picks it up, maims or kills the kid. I mean, anyone that has seen these cluster munitions in operation, and I know a lot of people that have been involved in NGOs that have tried to help clean them up in places in war zones they've been used, understands just how brutally dehumanizing these weapons are.
So, no, you absolutely don't want them in the fight. Having said that, the Russians aren't signatories. The Ukrainians aren't signatories, and the Russians have been using these weapons all the way through the war. So it's not with the fact that the Kremlin has come out and they said, how dare the Americans provide cluster munitions is just yet another point of massive hypocrisy of the war crimes that the Russians have committed. Now, I understand why Biden is doing this. The Americans are very very low on ammunition all in and want to give the Ukrainians everything they can to help ensure that the counteroffensive is successful. So far, the last couple months, very little land, Ukrainian land has been retaken by the Ukrainians, even as they have initiated this counteroffensive. Part of that reason, not all of it, part of that reason is because they lack ammunition. Part of it is they don't have any air defenses that are effective, any air cover in the region. And so as the Ukrainians take more land, they'll have a hard time defending those soldiers that'll be exposed. But be that as it may, you know, there is a question that the Ukrainians are not in the same position as NATO, you know, the Biden administration is saying, "we're going to defend Ukrainians as long as it takes that the Ukrainians are in charge of these negotiations." It makes one think that the Ukrainians are basically an American core national interest. The reality is that NATO is a core American national interest. The United States is a core national interest and long-term fighting and long-term security, long-term American ability to ensure that its values are promoted globally does mean that you don't want to be dragging yourself down to the same brutal fighting that the Russians are doing.
This has gotten the Americans in trouble in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Gotten Americans in trouble in Guantanamo, in Abu Ghraib. And so if I were Biden, would I approve these weapon systems for the Ukrainians? It would be very hard after many months of, you know, sort of thinking about it, maybe I would, but maybe that's why I'm not Biden. I mean, look, I'm never going to be elected president, but also is, I never would be interested in serving in a position like that, in part because the Americans do not have the same level of moral authority on the global stage that say, Canada does or Germany does, or Japan does. And you know, let's keep in mind, Japan and Germany, we're talking about countries that were involved in fighting World War II and actually being the initiators of World War II with massive brutality, but also systems that recognized that what they did was fundamentally inhumane and brutal and needed to be never repeated. And therefore the institutions had to grow and learn and become more morally accountable to their own people and globally. And I fear that the United States does not have that level of lesson taking from so many of its mistakes over the past several generations, you know, from Vietnam and from some of the others that I've just mentioned. And in that regard, even as it makes it harder for the Ukrainians to take additional territory in the counteroffensive, I would be a "no", on these cluster munitions. But I think it's a good place to debate and I'm more than happy to have that debate publicly over the coming weeks and months.
That's it for me. I hope everyone's doing well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Podcast: NATO’s Russia problem: the increasing danger of military confrontation between nuclear powers
Listen: As tensions between Russia and NATO continue to escalate, the world is once again on the brink of a potential nuclear confrontation. On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with Ivo Daalder, former US Ambassador to NATO and current President of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, to discuss the complex geopolitical landscape and the challenges faced by nations caught between Russia and the West
From Moscow's aggressive nuclear saber-rattling to NATO's territorial expansion along the Russian border, the risk of a military clash between two nuclear-armed superpowers is at its highest since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bremmer and Daalder delve into the possibility of a new Cold War and explore the difficulties faced by countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa, which find themselves trapped in the midst of escalating tensions.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.- Russia has pushed Finland towards full NATO membership: former Finnish PM Alexander Stubb ›
- Finland joins NATO in face off against Russia ›
- As Russia balks, NATO might gain two strong Nordic recruits ›
- Odds of NATO-Russia war rising ›
- Russia-US nuclear war is no fantasy, says Kremlin ally - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Russia's view of the Ukraine war: a Kremlin ally's perspective - GZERO Media ›
Putin looks on during his meeting with the Lebanese president at the Kremlin in Moscow.
Is NATO expansion bad for Russia?
For the first time in nearly two decades, NATO just got a lot closer to Russia’s borders. At a summit in Madrid on Wednesday, alliance leaders
formally invited Sweden and Finland to join, ending more than half a century of neutrality by both countries.
At the same time, the alliance adopted a new strategic plan in which Russia has gone from being the West’s “strategic partner” to its “most significant threat.” And to underscore the point, NATO is
putting more than 300,000 troops on high alert against Russian aggression.
Looks pretty bad for Vladimir Putin, wouldn’t you say? Well, let’s consider a few perspectives.
Yes, of course it’s very bad. NATO’s border with Russia has just doubled to more than 1,600 miles, and those two new members are no strategic slouches. Sweden and Finland are both highly advanced militaries with decades of experience keeping a close eye on Russia, especially the Finns.
From the Kremlin’s perspective, this is obviously not great. Ever since the first round of NATO expansion in the late 1990s, Moscow has complained that the eastward growth of the Cold-War era alliance is at best a snub to Russia, and at worst a direct threat to its security. Invading Ukraine — which Russia feared would join NATO one day — was meant in part to show that Moscow meant business about defending its sphere of influence against the alliance’s encroachments and expansion.
Now that looks like it’s backfired. “If Putin and Russia’s leadership view national security in terms of a sphere of influence that is threatened by the expansion of NATO borders,” says Zach Witlin, a Russia specialist at Eurasia Group, “then Finnish and Swedish accession is clearly a net loss.”
Or as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg put it in Madrid: “He wanted less NATO, but now President Putin is getting more NATO on his borders.” Nice work, Vladimir.
No, it’s so bad that it’s actually good. Maybe there’s a silver lining for Putin. He’s spent years telling Russians that what the West really wants is to encircle, enfeeble, and humiliate their country.
In this story, Putin is the hero — a historic figure working to resurrect Russia’s dignity and great power status after the humiliations of the 1990s. The crackdowns on oligarchs, on the media, on opposition figures, on protesters — all of that was merely the breaking of so many eggs to remake the omelette of Russian greatness.
It’s a message that resonates. In 2014, the first time Putin invaded Ukraine in order to stop it from turning westward, his approval rating soared 20 points. His current war, increasingly framed as a contest between Moscow and the West, remains popular too.
But with the war grinding on far longer than he anticipated, and his economy largely isolated from the West in ways that will cut deeply over time, Putin can point to Finland and Sweden joining NATO as proof of the story he’s always told: there is a Western threat to Russia that transcends Ukraine — the bogeyman under the bed is real.
It may be that over time, as the economic reality of isolation from the West really hits home for most Russians, even this narrative could lose its appeal. But for now, there’s something for Putin and his state media to mine, and they’re doing it: some 60% of Russians
think they have “reasons to fear” NATO. That’s up 20 points since before the invasion.
Or maybe it’s not the most important thing right now, after all? Putin has a lot going on at the moment, between his bogged-down war and his moribund economy. And while he doubtless lost face by failing to scare NATO into shutting the door on Sweden and Finland, it’s hardly the biggest issue for him right now, says Mark Galeotti, a Russia specialist and senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.
“It’s on the level of getting a splinter from the arrow that’s just gone through your thigh.” Ouch!
This comes to you from the Signal newsletter team of GZERO Media. Subscribe for your free daily Signal today.