As NATO convenes in The Hague for its 2025 Summit on June 24 and 25, the alliance stands at a defining juncture—expanding its remit while fragmenting in execution. Once a compact transatlantic bloc forged by Cold War imperatives, NATO has become a sprawling, multi-track security architecture shaped more by national groupings and divergent priorities than by a unified strategic vision.
Today’s NATO operates through concentric circles: core members investing heavily in collective defence, others hedging against overreach, and some offering political solidarity without meaningful operational commitments. Behind declarations of unity lies a complex and uneven reality—where geography, threat perception, and political will vary widely.
The Fragmentation of Purpose
The push for member states to meet—and now exceed—the 2% of GDP defence spending benchmark highlights both the urgency and incoherence of the alliance’s current path. An emerging consensus around a new informal 5% target underscores rising threat perceptions, from Russian aggression and Chinese assertiveness to grey zone operations and space-based vulnerabilities.
Yet without a clear strategic framework, such investment risks becoming economically unsustainable and strategically misaligned. Allies may duplicate or even triplicate capabilities in domains that may not reflect the actual future threat landscape. Some may overinvest in conventional forces, others in emerging technologies—all in the absence of a shared doctrine or agreed priorities.
Moreover, domestic political considerations and industrial interests further skew defence spending. As national budgets expand, so too does the pressure to generate domestic economic benefits—sometimes at the expense of interoperability, alliance cohesion, or long-term strategic utility.
The Risk of Tactical Drift
In the absence of a coherent grand strategy, NATO risks succumbing to tactical drift. Mini-lateral initiatives—such as the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force or Franco-German defence projects—have proliferated, often operating in parallel to NATO’s formal command structure. These groupings reflect a pragmatic response to NATO’s bureaucratic inertia, but they also expose doubts about the alliance’s ability to act with agility and coherence.
To be sure, differentiation is not inherently problematic. NATO has always functioned with varying levels of commitment. But when these variations unfold without strategic alignment, they erode the alliance’s greatest asset—its capacity to act in consensus.
Canada’s Revival and Renaissance
A notable development heading into the 2025 Summit is the revitalized role of Canada within NATO. Long viewed as a reliable but modest contributor, Canada is now undergoing what can best be described as a strategic renaissance. Under new leadership, Ottawa has recommitted to defence spending with a generational plan that finally moves the country toward its 2% GDP target—and beyond.
This revival is not merely fiscal. Canada is once again asserting itself diplomatically, intellectually, and industrially. Its growing leadership role in Arctic security, contribution to AI and cyber governance frameworks, and increased deployments in Central and Eastern Europe signal a broader shift in posture—from reactive participant to proactive architect.
More importantly, Canada’s renewed investment in defence innovation, space technology, and advanced research demonstrates a commitment to NATO’s long-term viability—not just its short-term crises. Canada’s defence industrial base, long overshadowed by its allies, is now being integrated more deeply into North American and transatlantic supply chains, offering both economic returns and enhanced strategic relevance.
As the alliance wrestles with issues of burden-sharing and strategic drift, Canada’s transformation stands as a case study in how mid-sized allies can reimagine their role—not by mimicking superpowers, but by identifying niches where they can lead with purpose and impact.
A Call for Grand Strategy
If NATO is to remain the foundation of Euro-Atlantic security over the next two decades, it must adopt a new grand strategy—one that articulates not just what the alliance is defending against, but what it seeks to become.
This strategy must answer four foundational questions:
- What kind of alliance should NATO be?
Is it a global democratic security provider, a Euro-Atlantic deterrent force, or a hybrid coalition managing cyber threats, disinformation, and climate insecurity?
- What are the strategic investment priorities?
Spending benchmarks must be tied to capability gaps—not GDP quotas. NATO should define core mission areas based on emerging threat vectors, such as cyber resilience, energy security, space, Arctic surveillance, and AI governance.
- How should burden-sharing evolve in a differentiated alliance?
Contributions should be based on comparative advantage. Some allies may lead in naval operations, others in cyber operations or strategic airlift. NATO must enable and coordinate this functional specialisation.
- How can consensus governance be modernized?
As geopolitical complexity increases, NATO needs mechanisms to preserve unity without succumbing to paralysis. This may involve reforms to decision-making structures or tiered approaches to engagement.
Charting the Next Horizon
The coming decades will stretch NATO’s adaptability as never before. From renewed great power competition to internal political turbulence, the alliance must move from reactive posture to proactive vision.
A formal NATO grand strategy—revised every decade but anchored in a 20-year horizon—would align political will with defence planning, fiscal realism with operational necessity, and national interests with collective purpose.
In an era of differentiated capabilities and diverging priorities, NATO’s true power will lie not in arbitrary spending thresholds, but in a shared understanding of purpose. Strategic clarity—not just budgetary commitments—will determine the alliance’s relevance in a multipolar world.
Now is the time to chart NATO’s next chapter.
