{"id":27721,"date":"2026-01-22T19:53:21","date_gmt":"2026-01-22T17:53:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/?p=27721"},"modified":"2026-01-22T19:53:21","modified_gmt":"2026-01-22T17:53:21","slug":"what-type-of-alliance-is-the-atlantic-alliance-part-of","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/?p=27721","title":{"rendered":"What type of alliance is the Atlantic Alliance part of?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In order to adequately understand and analyze the current crisis in the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) and its looming end, the reader should read the analysis below. More specifically:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The History of Alliances<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alliances fall into three main types of alliances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Defense Alliances<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Multilateral Alliances<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Security Alliances<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The historical analysis of the three types of alliances, their durability over time, leads to some key conclusions regarding the potential viability of NATO. In the last 5 centuries (1500 AD to the present), 63 major military alliances have been created, of which 43 have been classified as \u201cdefense alliances\u201d. However, the most common form of military alliance does not make it the most durable over time. Multilateral alliances are the ones that have the longest lifespan. Of the 63 alliances, 10 have existed for 40 to 250 years. Of these 10 long-lasting military alliances, 9 included the purpose of a multilateral alliance. Defense alliances had an average age of 15 years, while security alliances had an average age of 17 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What do the statistics show?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Statistics indicate a trend regarding the durability of these three types of alliances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Defense and security alliances are the least durable over time. They are formed when countries, nations, are challenged by an aggressive enemy and dissolve upon the termination of the conflict.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. It is proven by statistics that multilateral alliances are the most durable over time. Based on these findings, the 70-year-old NATO is one of the 6 longest-lasting alliances of the last 500 years. To shed light on the reasons why NATO has enjoyed such longevity, beyond the statistical average, and to draw conclusions about its potential sustainability, we need to understand what type of alliance the Atlantic Alliance is.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Defense alliance. <\/strong>Article 5 of the NATO Treaty commits all members to the defense of others. This article apparently defines NATO as a defensive alliance, as it states in detail that: \u201cThe Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of their members in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently all agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of the members, in exercise of its right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the contracting party or parties so attacked by taking, individually and in consultation with the other parties, such measures as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Although not explicitly stated in Article 5, the reason for all members committing to defend each other was to harness the collective strength of the Alliance against the common threat of the Soviet Union and subsequently the Warsaw Pact, something NATO was successful in doing in this role for the first 40 years of its existence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Security alliance.<\/strong> The second major reason for the creation of NATO, according to the statements of those who planned its establishment, was to put an end to the terrible wars that had been fought between European nations in recent centuries, in the 20th century in the form of two world wars. Characteristic in this regard is the phrase of the first Secretary General of the Alliance, Lord Ismay, who had sarcastically observed that \u201cthe purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down\u201d. This phrase codifies the adoption of the second purpose of the Alliance, namely the reduction of tension between member states, particularly with regard to Germany. This concept of reducing tensions in order to increase stability between member states meets the criteria of the definition for a security alliance, a role that NATO, with the exception of the Greece-Turkey conflict, has managed to fulfill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Multilateral alliance. <\/strong>The 1949 Washington Treaty for NATO explicitly describes the Alliance as ideologically based, given the promise to promote freedom, the rule of law and democracy. Consequently, from its inception, NATO also undertook the task of a multilateral alliance, aiming to promote common ideals and interests, having as its adversary the communist ideology. In the first 40 years, the alliance\u2019s multilateral activity focused primarily on building interoperability of the militaries of its member states. Efforts to promote the principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law were reserved for strengthening these systems within the framework of membership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      After the Cold War, after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO increased its activities as a multilateral alliance to justify its imperialist structure and expansion towards other countries. Specifically, under the guise of the principles of \u201cfreedom\u201d, \u201cdemocracy\u201d, \u201crule of law\u201d it carried out military operations in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Libya and elsewhere, in addition to promoting \u201creforms\u201d in the former Soviet republics with the objective of their accession to the Alliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The conclusions of the historical analysis of the three types of military alliances show that NATO’s role as an alliance of collective defense and collective security is at risk, given the absence of a major external threat or internal threat, as the tensions of the 20th century between its European member states have completely disappeared, with the exception, as always, of the tensions between Greece and Turkey, which NATO has been unable or unwilling to resolve in any case for the last 45 years, since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. In fact, NATO today is better characterized as a multilateral alliance, given that most of its activities after the collapse of the Soviet Union are based on its enlargement with the objective of imperialist domination of world power. This observation is particularly important when faced with the causes of a possible dissolution of the Alliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Reasons for Alliances to Disintegrate<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      History has shown that in most cases, the following 4 criteria must be met for an alliance to dissolve:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      • Defeat of a partner.<\/strong> When one of the partners of an alliance collapses or ceases to exist as a member, the alliance is often modified or canceled. This rationale is the primary reason for the dissolution of an alliance. The collapse of the Axis powers in World War II, which was a consequence of the defeat of Germany, illustrates this phenomenon. Also, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1990-1991 determines that the collapse of a country, in this case the Soviet Union, can signal the end of an alliance, even if the guns do not sound.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Divergence of interests of partners.<\/strong> This is the second most common reason for the dissolution of an alliance. It occurs when the interests of the alliance members diverge to such an extent that the activities of one member cannot be tolerated by the others. Pakistan’s withdrawal from SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) in 1973 due to divergent interests with fellow member India is a concrete example. Also, CENTO (Central Treaty Organization) was dissolved in 1977 due to disagreements between Iran, Iraq and Pakistan regarding US policy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Elimination of the threat.<\/strong> The most widely recognized rationale for an alliance to terminate its operation is when the threat that supports the existence of the defense formation disappears. This form of dissolution is characterized by the defeat of the Axis powers, which caused the dissolution of the Allies of World War II.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • The partners do not comply with the founding agreement.<\/strong> When one or more partners do not comply with the principles or spirit of the agreement, then the alliance is de facto annulled. The Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, the Soviet Union’s attack on Finland in 1939 were direct violations of the principles of the League of Nations and signaled its collapse.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Of the 63 major alliances formed after 1500 AD, 58 were dissolved. Applying the aforementioned 4 dissolution criteria, we find that,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        • 23 of the 58 were dissolved due to the defeat of a partner (first criterion).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • 17 were dissolved due to the divergence of the 8 interests of the partners (second criterion).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • 13 were dissolved due to the elimination of the threat (third criterion) and 5 due to the partners’ non-compliance with the agreement (fourth criterion).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          40 of the 58 dissolved alliances belong to the \u201cdefense alliance\u201d type, 7 to the \u201csecurity alliance\u201d type and 11 to the \u201cmultilateral alliance\u201d type.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          These statistical data reflect some trends<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          First, defense alliances are largely dissolved due to their defeat or the defeat of the enemy. This means that the existence of a threat is very important for the durability of defense alliances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Second, the existence of a threat, on the contrary, is not a significant factor for the longevity of security alliances or multilateral alliances. This observation is also based on the fact that security alliances are internally focused on the actions of their members and multilateral alliances by definition do not focus on issues of mutual defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          A key conclusion from the aforementioned data is the following: Alliances tend to dissolve when their purpose is no longer valid, that is, alliances are nullified when they remain without a goal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What Does the Historical Statistical Analysis Above Indicate for NATO?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          NATO is not in danger of dissolution due to the defeat of a partner, but the elimination of the threat that came from the enemy\u2019s self-dissolution places it in the category of alliances that terminate their operation when the threat of defense formation disappears. As mentioned above, defense alliances are largely dissolved due to their defeat or the defeat of the enemy. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the threat that prompted the establishment of NATO ceased to exist. The loss of this threat suggests that NATO could be in the twilight of its existence. The Alliance\u2019s basic purpose has disappeared, and with it the basic purpose of collective defense. Thus NATO finds itself in a precarious situation. Continuing the role of collective defense through enlargement and in the absence of a threat is rapidly neutralizing the purpose of the Alliance, which is now shedding its mantle of \u201cdefense alliance\u201d and assuming the role of \u201cmultilateral alliance\u201d to justify its imperialist structure and its expansion to other countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          By transforming itself into a multilateral alliance, NATO has a better chance of survival. NATO as a multilateral security alliance has the ability to operate over extended distances with military, economic and diplomatic power, thus contributing to the plans of imperialism. NATO, codifying this role since the beginning of the 21st century, is adapting its policies, structures and capabilities to eliminate much of its oxymoronic, to some schizophrenic, geopolitical behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          NATO as a security alliance has reached a critical juncture in its role in today\u2019s geopolitical environment. For the past 30 years, it has been trying to adapt to the changes imposed on it by its masters in the post-Cold War political systems. Its efforts are sharpening the debate within the Alliance among its leaders, that is, whether the Alliance can thrive in a more multipolar world by clarifying its purpose, since the imperialist purpose alone cannot be sustainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Without meaningful defensive action, without an external enemy, NATO\u2019s imperialist structure will suffer from a loss of trust among its members. The attempt to portray Russia, China and other emerging powers as enemies, the lack of support even among its members for current operations (see Greenland today), the lack of confidence that the US will lead the Alliance in actions of value (see Venezuela today), and the lack of confidence in the Alliance\u2019s purely military capability (see Ukraine today) constitute a huge basis for insecurity. If all of this prevails, then the end of the Alliance cannot be postponed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          In order to adequately understand and analyze the current crisis in the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) and its looming end, the reader should read the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":27722,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[988,7],"tags":[2917,124],"class_list":["post-27721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-political-science","category-research","tag-alliance","tag-nato"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=27721"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27721\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27725,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27721\/revisions\/27725"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/27722"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=27721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=27721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=27721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}