ABSTRACT
NATO’s longevity continues to be the object of countless academic studies. Theories of realism, constructivism, and institutionalism have been applied in the hope to find a satisfying answer to the question of why NATO, initially perceived as a temporary construct to help advance Western Europe’s recovery after the Second World War, outlasted most predictions. The structural changes in international security are profound, and the transatlantic community is only just beginning to absorb them. With its military intervention in Syria, Russia has also become part of the challenge at NATO’s southeastern borders. Russia’s use of hybrid tools in its assault on Ukraine in 2014 forced NATO to not only re-emphasise its core task of collective defence, but also examine responses to hybrid threats. NATO also needs to explore how to enhance flexibility in its decision-making and the implementation of collective decisions. On the strategic level, the consensus rule must remain, as it prevents a majority to steamroll a minority into submission.
