The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded with a single mission — to thwart Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe. In 1991, the Soviet Union fell, but the mission of NATO stayed alive, in the evolved form of maintaining a union of defense for Europe and specifically protecting the sovereignty of the Baltic states, only recently freed from the iron grasp of Soviet communism.
That said, NATO has to change. Specifically, Turkey has got to go, and it should be replaced by Georgia and Ukraine.
The reasons for the ouster of Turkey are simple, Western countries should not be subsidizing the defense of countries that reject their values. The leader of Turkey, Recep Erdoğan, is an authoritarian Islamist, and has been a de facto dictator since 2017, when he declared himself the winner of a nationwide referendum that granted him a plethora of new anti-Democratic powers.
The referendum widened his control over the judiciary, dramatically expanded his power to enact new laws by simple decree, and abolished the Turkish parliamentary system. The same referendum also allowed Erdoğan to run for two more five-year terms, all but guaranteeing that he stays in power until at least 2027.
In short, if Erdoğan wants to govern with an iron fist and use the same tactics we see in Russia, his presence in a coalition against Russia doesn’t make sense.
The West originally warmed to Turkey in 2003 because it was seen as a bridge between Europe and the Middle East after 9/11 and through the beginning of the War on Terror. That vision may still hold true geographically, but ideologically the Turkish leadership has taken on more aspects of Arab authoritarianism than European liberalism, and as such has outlived its purpose.
As for the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, those nations are at the front of the fight against Russian expansion, as the world saw in 2008 and 2014, respectively. If the two countries had already been part of NATO, Russia would have not dared invade them in recent years, lest they feel the military might of the Western liberal order.
The case against their inclusion is that the move would be seen as aggression against Russia, and that in response Russia might up the ante with its aggression, risking a hot war. In this view, NATO is meant to operate as basically an insurance company. To include Georgia and Ukraine is to increase the risk pool.
But that interpretation of NATO’s purpose is completely wrong. Insurance agencies exist to keep costs low and turn a profit. NATO’s economic incentive structure is the opposite of an insurance company — not at all risk-averse. NATO should be as bold as possible, as a weak collective resistance to Russia is in fact counterproductive. It would grant Russia the benefits of rallying its people against a seemingly large enemy (Europe at large) without putting up resistance to Russian aggression.
NATO should make as many bold moves as possible, and use the momentum of those move to flex its military potential, as it stares down Russia. President Trump has not helped this image, as his threats to cut funding to NATO have only made the resolve of the transnational alliance appear to waver, in a time when it needs to be stronger than ever.
His alleged attempt to hold military aid over the head of Ukraine in exchange for an investigation of the son of his chief political opponent is also the exact opposite of what he ought to be doing.
As long as Russia has territorial ambitions to push and expand their borders west or south, the muscles of NATO must be continually flexed in warning of what is to come if they try to follow through.
Dylan Meisner studies political science at San Diego State University. Follow him on Twitter @DylMeisner.
