The central challenge facing NATO today is not external aggression alone, but the accumulation of internal tensions that increasingly limit the alliance’s ability to act decisively. These tensions run along two interconnected axes: between the United States and Europe, and among the Europeans themselves.
Russia and China exploit these fractures, but they did not create them. Their roots lie in history, geography, energy dependence, political culture, and deeply divergent views on the Middle East, especially Israel.
Together, these forces weaken NATO’s core function: protecting the space in which liberal democracies can survive and defend themselves.
The Historical Fault Line: Protector and Protected
Since World War II, NATO has rested on an asymmetric bargain. The United States emerged as the dominant military and economic power, while Europe, devastated and exhausted, accepted U.S. leadership as the price of stability. Over time, this arrangement solidified into habit.
From the American perspective, NATO increasingly looked like an alliance in which the U.S. paid and planned, while others debated and delayed. From the European perspective, American power came with unpredictability, cultural assertiveness, and, at times, a willingness to act unilaterally.
This unresolved historical imbalance fuels recurring tension:
- Americans ask why wealthy European states still rely on U.S. taxpayers for defense
- Europeans fear abandonment, coercion, or strategic whiplash
When Donald Trump openly challenged this arrangement, he did not invent the conflict, he exposed it. His blunt, transactional language stripped away decades of diplomatic smoothing and revealed how fragile trust had become.
East vs. West: Memory Versus Comfort
Within Europe itself, the most consequential divide is between East and West.
Eastern NATO members, Poland, the Baltics, Romania, carry direct historical memory of Soviet domination. For them, Russia is not an abstract problem but an existential threat. Deterrence must be immediate, visible, and uncompromising.
Western Europe, by contrast, has lived for decades under relative security. Its political culture emphasizes restraint, legalism, and crisis management. The instinct is to prevent escalation rather than confront it head-on.
This divergence plays out most clearly in NATO’s response to Ukraine:
- Eastern members demand maximal deterrence and permanence
- Others worry about escalation, economic fallout, and domestic fatigue
The result is consensus, but slow, qualified, and reactive. For deterrence, that is a dangerous posture.
Energy: The Strategic Weakness Beneath the Surface
Energy policy has been one of the most corrosive sources of tension, both within Europe and across the Atlantic.
For years, parts of Western Europe, especially Germany, deepened dependence on Russian energy, believing economic interdependence would moderate Russian behavior. Eastern Europeans warned this was a strategic mistake. They were ignored.
When Russia weaponized energy, the alliance paid the price:
- Eastern Europe felt vindicated and resentful
- Western Europe faced economic shock and political backlash
- The U.S. criticized European complacency while stepping in as an emergency supplier
Energy exposed a core NATO problem: strategic decisions taken nationally can produce alliance-wide vulnerability.
Israel and the Middle East: Moral and Strategic Fragmentation
NATO’s internal divisions are further deepened by conflicting European views of the Middle East, particularly Israel.
Here, history cuts in opposite directions:
- Germany, Austria, and some Central European states see Israel through the lens of historical responsibility and security realism
- Others, France, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, frame the conflict primarily in humanitarian and post-colonial terms
These disagreements spill into NATO indirectly:
- They complicate alignment with U.S. Middle East policy
- They weaken Western credibility against Iran and its proxies
- They fracture the moral language of counterterrorism and self-defense
While NATO is not a Middle East alliance, instability there affects migration, terrorism, energy routes, and U.S. strategic focus, making European disunity a real security liability.
Turkey: The Alliance’s Permanent Ambiguity
Turkey magnifies all of NATO’s internal contradictions.
Turkey seems indispensable:
- Militarily capable
- Geographically critical
- Central to Black Sea and Middle East dynamics
Yet it:
- Balances between NATO and Russia
- Uses veto power transactionally
- Leverages migration pressure against Europe
- Backs Al-Jolani's attacks against the Kurds - and who knows what minority is next?
- Is antii-Israel
European states disagree profoundly on how to deal with Turkey, some prioritize containment, others accommodation. NATO, bound by consensus, does neither fully.
China and the Global Dimension
Finally, China exploits NATO’s lack of strategic alignment beyond Europe.
The U.S. increasingly sees NATO as part of a global competition. Many Europeans do not. Some welcome Chinese investment; others fear strategic dependence. This prevents NATO from articulating a coherent long-term posture toward systemic authoritarian competition.
Once again, China does not need NATO to oppose it, it only needs NATO not to agree.
The Strategic Consequence: Hesitation Instead of Deterrence
Taken together, history, energy, East-West memory, Middle East divisions, Turkey, and transatlantic imbalance, these tensions create a single, dangerous outcome: NATO hesitates.
Russia and China understand NATO’s mechanics better than many of its members:
- Consensus is slow
- Unity is fragile
- Political disagreement weakens deterrence even when military power exists
They exploit this not through frontal assault, but through pressure, delay, and ambiguity.
Conclusion: Unity as a Condition for Survival
NATO remains the most powerful alliance in history. But power alone is not enough. In a world of persistent, hybrid, and authoritarian challenge, unity of action matters more than unity of rhetoric.
Europe cannot protect liberal democracy if it cannot reconcile its internal contradictions. The United States cannot lead effectively if it alternates between overextension and disengagement. And NATO cannot deter adversaries if its decisions are perpetually slowed by unresolved historical, moral, and strategic divides.
This is NATO’s defining test, not whether it can win a war, but whether it can decide in time to prevent one.
In the current geopolitical environment, that capacity may determine whether liberal democracies remain secure, or merely hopeful.
Dr. Avi Perry is a former professor at Northwestern University, a former Bell Labs researcher and executive. He served as Vice President at NMS Communications. He represented the United States on the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Standards Committee, where he authored significant portions of the G.168 standard. He is the author of the thriller novel 72 VIRGINS, a Cambridge University Press book on VOICE QUALITY IN WIRELESS NETWORKS. More recently, he published: UNLOCKED: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO LEARNING AND APPLYING AI TO SOLVE REAL WORLD PROBLEMS, and A WINNER’S PLAYBOOK FOR STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE: WHY SMART PEOPLE KEEP LOSING, and is a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News