NATO Summit in Wales: From global megatrends to the new Euro-Atlanticism

Lidija Čehulić Vukadinović and Monika Begović


Numerous representatives of theories of international relations, security theories or alliance theories have examined the new role of the North Atlantic Alliance or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the post-bipolar world. Parallel with the theoretical examination of goals and tasks, NATO has transformed itself in practice, following the realities of the contemporary global era. In trying to achieve and keep the primacy of the strongest military- political organization, the Alliance has - especially in the Strategic Concept adopted in Lisbon in 2010-set the normative and institutional foundations of its global engagement, fulfilling the military (hard) and a wide array of non-military (soft) security challenges. This strategy has given rise to "Euro-Atlanticism", as a subsystem of international relations based on strong American-European relations, to fit with the process of regionalization of global politics. However, the 2013-2014 crisis in Ukraine has turned the focus of interest and activities of NATO once again primarily to Europe and it has stressed the importance and necessity of strengthening Euro-Atlantic security and defence ties. The most powerful member of the Alliance, the United States, is again strongly engaged in Europe and Russia, as a kind of successor to the Soviet Union, is once more detected as a major threat to European security. There have been many aspects of theories of international relations that have tried to explain the dynamic of the post-Cold War international community. However, the approach based on neo-realistic assumptions of the role of a security community, collective defence and the use of military force has proved to be dominant. NATO will continue to work on its political dimension as an alliance of the democratic world and the September 2014 Wales Summit will certainly mark the return of NATO to its roots, strengthening its security and military dimensions in the collective defence of Europe from Russia.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • A Secure Europe in a Better World - European Security Strategy, Brussels, 12 December 2003. Available at: (accessed 8 May 2014).

  • Bergsman, S., 2001. The concept of military alliance. In: Reiter E. and Gaertner, H. eds. Small States and Alliances. Heidelberg, New York: Physica Verlag.

  • Blackwood, M., 2012 . How smart is smart defense? A review of NATO’s smart defense proposals connections. The Quarterly Journal, 11 (3): 85-93.

  • Bugajski, J., 2004. Cold Peace. Russia's New Imperialism. Washington DC: CSIS.

  • Bugajski, J. andTeleki, I., 2007. Atlantic Bridges. America’s New European Allies. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

  • Burns, R. N., Wilson, D. M. and Lightfoot, J., 2012. Anchoring the Alliance. Washinton DC: The Atlantic Council of the United States.

  • Christensen, T. J. and Snyder, J., 1990. Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization, 44(2): 137-168.

  • Cehulic, L., 2001. Clinton inovisvjetski poredak. Zagreb: Politicka kultura.

  • Davies, N., Eager, A., Maier, M. and Penfold, L., 2011. Intergenerational Equipment Cost Escalation, DASA-DESA, Economic Working Paper, No 1. London: UK Ministry of Defence.

  • Doorstep statement by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, 16 April 2014. Available at: (accessed: 15 May 2014).

  • Durkalec, J., 2014. NATO Policy towards Russia after the Crimea Annexation: More Deterrence and Farewell to Partnership, Bulletin, 634(39). Warsaw: The Polish Institute for International Affairs.

  • Economist, 2013. NATO’s future: Bock to basics, Drawsku Pomorskie, Poland, 16 November, pp. 55 (also available online: (accessed 10 May 2014).

  • Economist, 2014a. Putin's gambit, 10 May, pp.19 (also available online: (accessed 18 May 2014).

  • Economist, 2014b. The decline of deterrence, 23 May, p.37 (also available online: (accessed 30 May 2014).

  • Economist, 2014c. What would America fight for? 3 May, pp.9 (also available online: (accessed 15 May 2014).

  • Glaser, C. L., 1997. Security dilemma revisited. World Politics, October: 171-201.

  • Grosser, A., 1980. The Western Alliance. European-American Relations since 1945. New York: The Continuum Publishing Corporation.

  • Gutlestad, J. R., 2013. US Rebalancing: A View from Europe. Washington DC: Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies.

  • Haass, Richard. N„ 2013. Foreign Policy Begins at Home. New York: Basic Books.

  • Hartley, K., 2012. White Elephants? The Political Economy of Multi-National Defense Projects. Brussels: Foundation for European Reform.

  • Jervis, R., 1978. Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2): 167-214.

  • JutarnjiLIST, 2014. Bjelorusi u strahu od Rusije, HINA, 22 April, (accessed 10 May 2014).

  • KarnjuS, I., 2013. Smart defense-Is it really something new for NATO? In: Cehulic Vukadinovic, L. ed. YEARBOOK 2012, 10(1): 29-44.

  • Kay, S., 1998. NATO and the Future of European Security. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

  • Kramer, F. D., 2012. Transatlantic Nations and Global Security: Pivoting and Partnerships. Washington DC: The Atlantic Council of the United States.

  • Kramer, F. D., 2013. NATO Global Partnerships: Strategic Opportunities and Imperatives in a Globalized World. Washington DC: The Atlantic Council of the United States.

  • Lynch, A. C., 2011. Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft. Washington DC: Potomac Books.

  • Mankoff, J., 2014. Russia's latest land grab. How Putin won Crimea and lost Ukraine. Foreign Affairs, 93(3), 60-68.

  • Mead, W.R., 2014.The return of geopolitics. The revenge of the revisionist powers. Foreign Affairs, 93(3): 69-79.

  • Mearsheimer, J., 1990. Back to the future, instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security, 15(1): 5-56.

  • Mowle, T. S. and Sacko, D.H., 2008. Global NATO: Bandwagoning in a Unipolar World. Contemporary Security Policy.

  • NIC, 2012. US National Intelligence Council in its Report Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, 2012, Washington. Available at (accessed 10 May 2014).

  • Nye, Jr., J. S., 2011. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.

  • O’ Reilly, P., 2014. Ten Ideas for Smarter NATO Missile Defense. Washington DC: Brent Scowcroft Center on International Relations.

  • Pavel, B. and Nordenman, M., 2013. Global Trends and the Future of NATO: Alliance Security in an Era of Global Competition. Washington DC: Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies.

  • Rynning, S., 2005. NATO Renewed: The Power and Purpose of Transatlantic Cooperation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Schweller, R. L., 1988. Deadly Imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler's Strategy of World Conquest. New York: Columbia, University Press.

  • Schweller, R. L., 1994. Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security, 19(1): 72-107.

  • SIPRI, 2013. Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2012, April 2013, SIPRI Fact Sheet. Available at: (accessed 5 May 2014).

  • Shevtsova, L., 2007. Russia Lost in Transition. The Yeltsin and Putin Legacies. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment.

  • Sloan, S. 2005., NATO, the European Union and the Atlantic Community: The Transatlantic Bargain Challenged. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

  • Snyder, G. H„ 1984. The security dilemma in alliance politics. World Politics, 36(4); 461^95.

  • Snyder, G. H„ 1990. Alliance theory: A neorealist first cut. Journal of International Affairs, 44(1): 103-123.

  • Snyder, G. H., 1997. Alliance Politics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

  • Speech by former American President George Bush Sr. Available at: (accessed 8 May 2014).

  • Sperling, J. and Papacosma, S.V., 2012. NATO after Sixty Years - A Stable Crisis. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press.

  • Sten, R., 2005. NATO Renewed: The Power and Purpose of Translation tic Cooperation. New York : Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Stent, A. E., 2014. The Limits of Partnership. US-Russia relations in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Strategic Concept 2010. Active Engagement, Modern Defence. Available at: (accessed 8 May 2014).

  • The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002. Available at: (accessed 8 May 2014).

  • Trenin, D., 2002. The End of Eurosia. Russia on the Border between Geopolitics and Globalization. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

  • Walt, S. M., 1985. Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security, 9(4): 3-43.

  • Walt, S. M., 1997. The Origin of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Walt, S. M., 2004. The imbalance of power - On the prospects for effective American-European relations, March-April 2004, Harvard Magazine. Available at: (accessed 10 May 2014).

  • Waltz, K. N., 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading MA: Addison- Wesley.

  • Waltz, K. N„ 1993. The emerging structure of international politics. International Security, 18(2): 44-79.

  • Waltz, K. N„ 2000. Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1): 5-41.

  • Weitz, R„ 2014. NATO on Edge, ISN - International Relations and Security Network, Zurich. Available at: (accessed 15 May 2014).

  • Yost, D„ 1999. NATO Transformed: The Alliance 'sNew Roles in International Security. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.


Journal + Issues