Without NATO, would Russia already be in Kyiv? Probably. | Opinion

Europe’s beauty hides a dark heart.

Over the past two millennia, countless wars have started in Europe. Often, they did not stay there. Although our nation has changed a lot in its nearly 250 years, at its core, the United States retains deep European ties. And, as much as it may want to, the U.S. can’t avoid involvement in European conflicts — it is compelled to respond by both the forces of history, demography, and self-interest.

After World War II, Europe was destroyed and divided. The Marshall Plan was the U.S. response, but it was an infrastructure redevelopment plan for civil society — not a security plan. Europe needed an architecture to guarantee security and stability for those parts still beyond the Iron Curtain, and something permanent was needed to replace the Allied forces arrangement used to defeat Nazi Germany.

To fill this role, the Washington Treaty of 1949 established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with an initial membership of 12 nations: the U.S., Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. Within a few years, Greece, Turkey, and West Germany joined. As treaties go, the Washington Treaty is a model of clarity and brevity — just 14 articles and a handful of pages. The most important is Article V, the statement of common defense — an attack on one is an attack on all. This guarantee of mutual defense has served as the stabilizing force in Europe for over 70 years and remains the backbone of Euro-Atlantic security.

» READ MORE: Ukrainian civilians train for war with cardboard guns: ‘We are scared but we are ready’ | Trudy Rubin

In addition to providing a security framework, NATO, now with 30 members, also serves to defend the shared values of liberal democracies. The U.S. allied with the USSR during World War II, not because they shared values, but because they shared an enemy. NATO is the inverse — a defensive alliance based on the shared values of Western liberal democracies, not on the transitory expediency of a common foe. NATO’s core shared values are democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.

The current tensions in Eastern Europe demonstrate the continued importance of NATO in helping the U.S. and Europe present a unified, coordinated response to threats. And, contrary to popular narrative, NATO saves the U.S. money. Mountains of money.

When critics claim NATO members are “behind in their payments,” they reveal a basic misunderstanding of how NATO funding works. Most operational NATO costs are paid by the nation that incurs them. NATO has a term of art for this: “costs lie where they fall.” There is a NATO common funding budget to fund the civil and military staff and to invest in common-use capabilities — think ports, airfields, pipelines, fuel, and munitions storage — not sexy, but very important. By providing the U.S. with a broad set of ready facilities to use in the event of conflict in Europe, NATO allows the U.S. to keep a relatively modest permanent footprint in Europe, saving the U.S. hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

The current situation in and around Ukraine is a vivid illustration of NATO’s enduring importance. Without NATO, would Russia already be in Kyiv? It seems likely. NATO is bolstering its defensive capabilities in member states that border Ukraine and at key NATO installations in Germany. NATO will not use allied combat capability to defend Ukraine, but if the regional stability of that part of Europe is threatened, all bets are off.

» READ MORE: Don’t let Putin fool the West while he tries to dismember Ukraine | Trudy Rubin

Recall that the 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia was a NATO operation — Allied Force. None of the countries involved in the civil war were NATO members, but the security of NATO members in the region was threatened by the humanitarian crisis the war caused. It does not take a lot of imagination to see a similar dynamic playing out along Ukraine’s borders with NATO members. This understanding may be checking Russian President Vladimir Putin for the time being.

Many have speculated about the possibility of Ukraine or other nations joining the alliance. One problem with NATO expansion is that it makes NATO difficult to manage. NATO is a consensus organization. All decisions must be unanimous. That was hard enough with 12 members. Now with 30 members — that’s a heavy lift. In practical terms, this means NATO rarely takes up anything difficult or controversial. With a 30-0 mandate as the threshold, only the most straightforward proposals are even attempted. One possible solution is to create a NATO version of the U.N. Security Council, where a smaller subset (perhaps eight or 10) of NATO’s primary contributing nations must agree on issues of alliance strategy and management, but key issues like invoking Article V remain at 30. However, this would require smaller nations to agree to reduce their own influence, so it’s unlikely to happen.

NATO is the most successful political/military alliance in history, and, while imperfect, remains relevant today because it defends liberal democratic values in defiance of illiberal autocracies. Those who think NATO is provocative or has outlived its usefulness might want to think more broadly about the alliance, European — and American — security.

Curtis Milam is a retired Air Force colonel who served in Belgium at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, the alliance’s highest military headquarters. @curtmilam