May 2025
Two years after the Vilnius Summit, NATO is entering into the phase of deep strategic transition. The Alliance is seeking a new balance between traditional collective defense and adjustment to the challenges of the multipolar system. The war in Ukraine, the growth of Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific, and the return of the grand power logic are shaping this transition. The increase of defense expenditure, which became a political imperative in 2025, represents a central element of this process. This opens up a series of questions about the long-term stability within the Alliance itself.
Even though the United States remains the key NATO support, the burden is increasingly being transferred to its European members. With 23 countries that reached 2% GDP expenditures in 2025, the Alliance is entering the phase of qualitative change in the allocation of responsibilities. However, in other words, the sustainability of this tempo remains uncertain, and this opens up a series of questions regarding the real capacities of European armies.
Since 2014, when the Crimea Annexation activated a “virus of instability” in the European security environment, NATO is systematically insisting on the increase of expenditure. Until 2025, this process accelerated, but not equally. The eastern members are redirecting up to 3% of their GDPs into modernization of land and anti-aircraft systems, while the members of the southern wing, burdened with economic problems and migration pressures, are reacting more slowly. In other words, the heterogeneous national capacities are affecting the cohesion of the Alliance, and this opens up a series of questions about its long-term resilience.
At the same time, NATO is introducing the new logic of collective financing through strengthening coordination in procurement, development of technologies, and logistical capacities. The concept of “smart defense” is once again gaining significance. Still, the increase in expenditures is not a guarantee of greater efficiency. Divergent priorities remain visible: eastern states insist on the conventional threat of Russia, while the western ones are increasingly stressing the cyber threats, disinformation, and climate risks. In other words, we are speaking of a different “political DNA” within one single bloc, which opens up a series of questions about the ability of the Alliance to define its own strategy.
The US still represents the driving force of NATO reforms, but at the same time insists on European responsibility. In the context of American priorities in the Indo-Pacific and the growing polarization in Washington, the stability of the trans-Atlantic partnership is increasingly dependent on the fact whether Europe will be able to take up a more active role. Statements on common protection of democratic values stress this transformation, but in other words, the political reality shows that the gap between declarative goals and practical possibilities remains significant.
The strategic tensions within the alliance remain present. France and Germany are promoting greater autonomy of European defense, while the eastern members and Washington see it as a potential competition to the NATO structure. In parallel, Turkey is implementing the policy of balancing between the West and Russia, relying on its geographical position and military and industrial capacities. This opens up a series of questions regarding how much the Alliance can sustain the functional “social immunity” against internal political differences.
In such an environment, NATO acts within a complex political geometry, in which the need for unity clashes with different national priorities. The concept of collective security, defined by Article 5, is going through the biggest evolution in the last seven decades. Cyber-attacks, hybrid operations, and the misuse of artificial intelligence are all creating a “grey zone” in which classical defense does not have a clear response. The launch of new initiatives for strengthening cybersecurity and the protection of critical infrastructure is an attempt at adjustment. The definition of an “armed attack” is shifting, and this opens up a series of questions about the future application of Article 5.
The increase in defense expenditures represents more than a budgetary setup: we are speaking of a search for the new identity of the Alliance in the era of strategic instability. NATO is entering the third decade of the 21st century as the strongest, but also the most burdened alliance in contemporary history. Challenges – from preserving political cohesion to monitoring technological changes – demand not only greater means, but the new vision as well.
The fate of collective security will depend on the ability of members to understand growing threats and limitations of joint actions in a world that functions as a polycentric system. In other words, the NATO transition in 2025 represents a test of the political maturity of the Western community, and this opens up a series of questions about its ability to fight the return of geopolitics as the key regulator of international relations.
Author: Miloš Grozdanović