NATO's evolving strategy: progress, challenges, and the future of deterrence

Despite relative political unity and ambitious goals, resource constraints and political uncertainty remain persistent challenges within NATO. In a recent report FOI’s researchers analyse how well NATO’s adaptation efforts, strategic ends, operations plans, and force development align to achieve the core task of deterrence and defence.

NATO's strategy for deterrence and defence has evolved considerably between 2014 and 2024. The process began in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and was accelerated by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. These events have driven NATO to strengthen its cohesion, aligning member states around a shared threat assessment and unified rhetoric.

However, challenges remain in matching NATO’s ambitious goals with the appropriate resources. NATO’s strategy continues to be shaped by the need to balance political unity with military effectiveness, according to Eva Hagström Frisell, Deputy Research Director and Programme Manager for Northern European and Transatlantic Security.

“While NATO has raised its level of ambition and set clearer goals, the strategy in place must be supported by sufficient resources, personnel, and equipment. Our assessment reveals a mismatch between these objectives and the resources allocated so far to achieve them,” Hagström Frisell says.

Political unity over time

Another challenge ahead will be maintaining political unity as the war in Ukraine evolves and political leadership shifts in several member states. While NATO members currently share a common threat assessment, they differ on what is necessary to deter Russian aggression, and what a future relationship with Russia should look like, says Albin Aronsson, Deputy Programme Manager for Northern European and Transatlantic Security.

NATO’s eastern members, including the Baltics and Poland, argue that a rapid and significant increase in military presence is required. The same rhetoric is used in western member states such as Germany and France, but this rhetoric is not reflected in the distribution of resources in those countries. Even if it were, the gap will take a long time to close.

“Reaching the set strategic goals will require strong political will that stays the same over a long period of time. It’s worth remembering that the threat posed by Russia and how that will evolve in the coming decade is hugely uncertain.”

Previous experience suggests it takes between 10 and 15 years to rebuild military capabilities to meet the requirements outlined in the recent strategy.

One possible way forward for the Alliance is to adjust its goals and strategies to align more closely with available resources. Historically, NATO has been more adept at formulating and politically supporting strategies than in ensuring their practical implementation, Aronsson says.