THE ARGUMENT:
The United States Should Remain Committed to the North Atlantic Defense Alliance.
The NATO Alliance in a Changing World
The United States’ commitment to NATO is on shaky ground with the new administration. NATO is the European and North Atlantic defense alliance created in 1949 after World War II. This post will illustrate that this alliance is still very much in the best interests of the U.S., if the U.S. is still committed to democracy and healthy market-based capitalism.
It will also show that the issue among most members of the NATO alliance, including and especially for the United States, is bearing the financial burden of defense and no longer relying on the U.S. as the primary defender.
The Key Questions
#1) Does the policy reason why the United States co-founded NATO in 1949 still hold true for the United States today? Does the U.S. still benefit from its membership in NATO?
#2) European nations clearly benefit from the NATO alliance. How much does each NATO-member European nation contribute to NATO’s defense against military invasion and/or aggression? Has that level changed over the past decade, in other words since Russia’s 2014 invasion of the Ukraine?
3#) What was and still is the threat against the collective beneficiaries of NATO, including the United States?
Facts about NATO’s history and evolution illustrate why the defense alliance is needed more than ever as a protector of democratic governments. As a former Senior Credit Officer at Moody’s Investors Service, I dug into NATO and World Bank data and built a spreadsheet. Each section below looks at an aspect of NATO members — the year they joined, their Gross National Product (national income), their GDP per person, their population, and their land mass.
[The fact sources: The defense spending percentages are NATO’s 2024 estimate. The NATO membership dates are also from the NATO site. The financial statistics for NATO members and other countries are from the World Bank. Its most recent financial data was from 2023. The geographic area statistics are 2022 numbers.]
Russia, Formerly Dominating the USSR, Is Still the Major Threat to Democracy and Markets
There still is a powerful aggressor against the pro-democracy, pro-markets world order that underpins NATO membership. While many voters share Donald Trump’s view that other members of NATO are not sufficiently contributing to European defense, the essential issue of governance is being ignored.
Many voters may not know enough history to understand how Russia has evolved in opposition to NATO — in other words, in opposition to democracy. If American voters could understand what Russia is under Putin (a “good czar” as one Russian called him), they might differentiate between insisting that NATO’s European countries contribute more to their own defense versus helping an autocratic ruler overcome a large neighboring country whose citizens want to join the pro-liberal-democracy world.
Russia was a founding member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union, in 1922. The Soviet Union arose out of the 1917 Russian Revolution against four centuries of czarist rule and then their subsequent civil war. The Soviet Union’s governance over its many republics was centralized in the Russian republic. A single communist party made all economic decisions for the whole union. The capital of the vast country of republics was Moscow. The USSR was the country with the longest border and shoreline in the world. The third most populous. While many economic improvements and accomplishments are part of Russia’s history, its domination over such a broad area and number of republics led to severe political repression, at times mass starvation, and limited economic growth.
When the USSR’s communist political system collapsed in 1989, a small number of individuals evolved a successor autocratic government that continues to siphon off Russian resources for the benefit of the few. While Russians may “vote,” Russia is a very “illiberal” democracy, as Fareed Zakaria describes nations with weak government institutions (in his book The Future of Freedom).
The term “liberal,” when describing a democracy, doesn’t refer to a political party or philosophy. It means a governing structure with institutions providing protection of individual civil rights — a strong judiciary, an effective legislature, freedom of expression through speech and media, mechanisms for the peaceful transfer of power. Zakaria’s book discusses in detail the challenges and needed steps to transition to a liberal democracy with genuine human rights. Voting does not guarantee a liberal democracy. He discusses how a minimum GDP threshold is essential.
Vladimir Putin weakened institutions like the judiciary and the legislature, engages in strong suppression of opposing views, and rules instead as the sole head of a very large nation. The per-capita income in Russia shows how limiting this top-down, autocratic approach to governing is for the Russian people. Gross Domestic Product per person was $13,817 in 2023, according to the World Bank data. The GDP per capita in the U.S. in the same year was $82,769. That differential alone is a major reason to explain why so many U.S. citizens are astounded at Trump’s relationship with and admiration of Putin. Is such a per-capita income figure an object of admiration in the “free world?”
In posturing the Trump/Putin comparison as purely personal between two huge, egotistical leaders of major superpowers, Americans should keep an eye on our own institutions. They may be in need of restructuring, but without strong institutions, the liberal democracy we’ve enjoyed and fought to protect for over two centuries may dissolve.
The United States is also blessed by the presence of large oceans on both sides. European countries face a vastly more complex history. They arose over centuries out of dukedoms, principalities, kingdoms, and a few empires with complex ethnic conflict. The shifting of sovereign boundaries was almost constant and continued even after World War II.
The ONE CLEAR GOAL in the creation of NATO among all the transatlantic and historical differences was PROTECTING THEIR SHARED VALUES, values that so obviously promoted economic success and well-being among the member nations. Values which the Ukrainian people have tried to share, are trying to protect, and are still hoping the NATO countries share with them.
That desire of the Ukrainian people is the main threat to Putin. The Ukraine is also a bread-basket of large land mass on the Russian border.
The USSR Collapse and the History of NATO Membership
The following chart shows the founding and successive members of NATO. [Click on the following LINK.]
NATO membership reflects the rebuilding of Europe after the war. NATO was founded in 1949 right after World War II by twelve countries: ten European nations and two North American countries, the U.S. and Canada. Both U.S. and Canadian troops had helped defend Europe against German-led aggressive expansion and conquest under Hitler.
The countries that joined NATO after 1989 — the fall of Soviet/Russian communism — valued democracy and market-based economies. Their Gross National Product Per Capita (per person) shows the improvement in individual welfare that democracy and market-based economies provide, compared to Russia’s per-person GDP. The chart above also notes which were part of the former USSR bloc.
These are the NATO countries that were directly on the USSR border: Czechia and Slovakia (the former Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Finland.
Each European country had a unique and still evolving history after World War I and the Russian Revolution. Some had become independent, but lost that status in World War II.
Poland experienced an even more complicated position in the drama during and after the second world war. Not only had Germany invaded the country, but also Stalin’s Russia, through a pact with Hitler. Nearly six million Poles lost their lives during the war, half of them Jews. Russia subsequently became an ally of the countries fighting against Hitler, who invaded Russia, too. A seething mess. Polish soldiers who were able to escape their invaded country fought alongside the Allies against Hitler. Then Poland was handed over to the USSR after the war. No wonder it is at the top of the defense spending rank of the NATO countries. Followed by Estonia, on the Russian border. Both spending more than the U.S. (The NATO defense spending ranking is in the next section.)
Events and post-war reconstruction allowed additional European countries to join NATO after 1949. For example, Germany joined in 1955 and Spain in 1982 after approving its new post-Franco constitution in 1978. In joining NATO they shared one goal — to be pro-democracy in political structure and to be pro-markets in their economies. In other words, to become part of “the West.”
This was the primary, shared value that the U.S. projected until now. Pro-democracy and pro-markets. This is what Russia fears — a challenge to its autocratic government.
Another view of the Russian threat is that Finland and Sweden joined NATO in 2023 and 2024. Take a look at the map of Europe. These two countries are very close to Russia. And while you’re looking, take a look at the NATO members which border Russia now, and at Poland. And at the location of the Ukraine.
Yes, pressure NATO members to pay for their defense, but the United States still should remain a member of this NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organization.
NATO and Defense Spending
The LINK to the data chart showing NATO defense spending ranked as a percentage of GDP follows. Two percent minimum was a threshold set by NATO in 2014, the year Russia invaded the Ukraine. Included for reference are the other columns showing the population, the size of the economy (GDP), how well the nation is doing for all its citizens (GDP per capita), and its geographic area.
This next LINK takes you to NATO’s website that has additional information on its members’ defense spending. One chart shows the increase in defense spending for each member from 2014 to 2024.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
NATO Countries and GDP
The next ranking shows the size of each member’s economy. In providing a NATO total, I also pulled out the U.S. and then the U.S. and Canada. Size of an economy affects the strength and flexibility of a country, reflecting how diverse its economy is, for example. And how easily a country might be bullied due to its size.
I also include the same data on other European countries, including Russia and its satellite Belarus. And Austria, Ireland, and Switzerland. And island nations large and small in the European orbit, like Greenland. Click on this next LINK.
NATO Other European GDP Ranking
NATO Countries and GDP Per Capita — How Well-Off Are Their Citizens?
The next LINK is the same data chart, ranked by GDP per person. Russia’s was $13,817. Most NATO members have higher GDPs (income) per person. Looking at the countries with a lower or similar level of welfare for their citizens, one can see that they are the most recent countries to join NATO. Many were prior members of the USSR, under Soviet/Russian domination. They weren’t in control of their own economies.
Russia had geographic and governmental stability (controlling their own fate as the primary republic in the USSR) since WWII and haven’t done better than $13,817 with that large population and huge land mass of resources.
NATO and Other European Nations, Ranked by Population
Here is the same data, ranked by population. LINK:
NATO Other European Population Ranking
NATO, Other European Nations, and Geographic Area
Here is the data chart, ranking the NATO members and then other European nations by their land mass size. LINK:
NATO Other European Ranked by Geographic Area