LEGAL NOTICE. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form—except brief excerpts for the purpose of review—without written consent from the publisher and authors. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication; however, the authors, Diplomatic Courier, and Medauras Global make no warranties, express or implied, in regards to the information and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions.
EDITORIAL. The content represents the views of their authors and do not reflect those of the editors and the publishers. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication, however, Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier make no warranties, express or implied in regards to the information, and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions.
CITATIONS & SOURCES. All articles in this special edition have already been or will be published on the Diplomatic Courier website, including relevant hyperlink citations.
PERMISSIONS. This publication cannot be reproduced without the permission of the authors and the publisher. For permissions please email: info@medauras.com with your written request.
ARTWORK. Cover photo of NATO Headquarters, via Adobe Stock. Artwork and design by Marc Garfield for Diplomatic Courier.
Shane Szarkowski Editor-in-Chief
NATO won’t remain relevant without a cohesive vision
My first adult “job” was as a machine gunner for the Marines, and eventually as security for U.S. diplomatic missions abroad—in Colombo, Sri Lanka during the September 11 attacks. Security, diplomacy, and when/why we intervene has always been fascinating to me and—at the core of that—NATO.
On September 11, NATO was at an inflection point—learning on the fly to pivot toward a geostrategic environment shaped by asymmetric warfare and terror tactics. But it’s not as though NATO had a particularly cohesive identity before that, as it was institutionally coming to terms with what sort of mission a post–Cold War NATO should be about. There arguably have been other inflection points, something around the Russian invasion of Ukraine, perhaps, or the shift toward soft power we saw as disinformation became a defining trait of the geostrategic theater.
This looks a lot like NATO is in the midst of a long–term identity crisis, reeling from shift after shift in the threat environment and made all the worse as the politics of core member states drift further apart. Instability is here to stay for the foreseeable future—the term “polycrisis” feels bombastic but it’s appropriate, and societal fragmentation on domestic fronts isn’t bringing a change for the better any closer.
NATO was created with a specific purpose in mind, oriented toward logics of the world post–World War II. As the world has changed post–Cold War, NATO’s mission has become less well–defined, but still an effective and important institution. But is it falling behind? The pressures on NATO now are great, both from diverging domestic politics among members and from rapidly evolving external threats. But those threats underscore just how much good NATO could do as the world becomes less stable.
In the leadup to the July summit this year, we asked our network of experts what the future of NATO looks like, and what a cohesive vision for a better future might entail.
For NATO to succeed at deterrence, counter cognitive warfare
By Sir Laurie Bristow
Image by Eden Moon from Pixabay
This year’s NATO Summit is about deterrence. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is in its fourth year and Putin’s goals have not changed, despite over a million casualties. A negotiated peace is not in sight. The war is not about real estate; it is about Putin’s idea of Russia and its place in the world. In this worldview, there is no place for an independent, democratic Ukraine. Putin sees Russia and the West as enemies. Like it or not, we will be facing a hostile Russia for years.
NATO’s Article 5 commitment means that an attack on one is an attack on all. Deterrence depends on having the capability and the will to defend against aggression— and on an adversary believing this to be so.
NATO is itself changing. This reflects a changing world. Rebalancing the Euro–Atlantic defense burden is necessary and urgent. Will it be done in a planned or a disorderly way? The latter can only benefit our adversaries.
The political messaging from the summit— to the public, between allies, and to adversaries—could scarcely be more important.
Conflicts are about what happens in people’s minds as well as on the battlefield or at the negotiating table.
Psychological warfare is as old as conflict. Cognitive warfare is a more recent concept. NATO defines it as “whole of society manipulation … designed to modify perceptions of reality” through “activities which affect attitudes and behaviours.” All countries use public narratives to achieve strategic goals. Cognitive warfare is about the distortion of facts to subvert an opponent. Orwell’s 1984 remains the best guide. His dystopia is built on the principle that “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
Russia has invested heavily in tools to distract, deflect, divide, and dismay opponents. The aim is to undermine the capacity and will to distinguish between facts and lies. It can be more effective to sow doubt
NATO IS EVOLVING IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGING WORLD, BUT DETERRENCE WILL REMAIN CORE TO ITS IDENTITY. TO SUCCEED IN THE FUTURE, NATO MUST PERFECT COUNTERING COGNITIVE WARFARE, WRITES SIR LAURIE BRISTOW.
and fear than to persuade people to believe something. Conspiracy theorists are especially valuable since they erode trust.
In the internet age, information moves quickly, at low cost, and with hardly any accountability. When falsehoods are propagated, the damage is done by the time the truth has caught up.
How do we defend against this? By exposing what is being done to us by our opponents, and by strengthening our public institutions. Cognitive warfare seeks to undermine trust in them. Trust is hard to build and all too easy to lose.
About the author: Sir Laurie Bristow is President of Hughes Hall at Cambridge University. Previously he was British Ambassador to Russia and to Azerbaijan.
Aesthetics matter in NATO’s soft power conundrum
By Thomas Plant
Photo by Dima Pechurin on Unsplash
Soft power can only succeed if it’s heard. NATO’s pivot toward counter-disinformation and democratic resilience is wise: today’s security threats—from at home and abroad—target social cohesion and institutional trust, not just military assets. The battle for social cohesion is fought through perception, which is shaped by who can capture attention in today’s information environment.
Adversaries often win by appearing more competent and relevant than institutions. Their messages often speak directly to people’s real problems (“your rent is too high,” or “your government doesn’t care”), making NATO sound bureaucratic and distant. The aesthetics of competence— of who seems to actually understand and deliver—creates the perception that can influence security outcomes.
This matters online. Algorithms and short–form content favor messages that cut deep, burying what is boring, vague, or unassuming. For NATO to be impossible to ignore and shore up unity in the face of information warfare, it can follow three strategies that together can break through the noise and actually engage audiences.
Use real voices. The best communicators— artists, leaders, etc.—win attention because they demonstrate cultural fluency. With the rise of AI–generated content, there’s a glut of content that sounds generically human but lacks the insider knowledge that signals authenticity. Someone who uses slang, references the right cultural touchstones, and understands unspoken rules is no outsider. NATO needs spokespeople who talk like insiders.
Speak directly to people’s actual issues. Cultural fluency doesn’t help if you’re not talking about things people care about. NATO can’t package irrelevant messages in trendy formats and expect success. The content must genuinely matter to the audience. The bridge between geopolitics and daily life isn’t obvious—abstract
THE AESTHETICS OF COMPETENCE—OF WHO SEEMS TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND AND DELIVER—CREATES THE PERCEPTION THAT CAN INFLUENCE SECURITY OUTCOMES, WRITES THOMAS PLANT.
security concepts feel distant compared to immediate concerns like economic uncertainty or community safety. NATO must make those connections explicit and compelling.
Give useful things and take credit. Speaking directly to people’s issues creates an obligation to actually solve them. They need to earn attention by giving the audience what they already want. High–impact efforts should have NATO’s name attached to them. When people can point to some material benefit and say, “NATO made this better,” the organization builds credibility that no amount of messaging can replace.
NATO’s counter–efforts must demonstrate that unity delivers real benefits. In the information environment, showing beats telling every time. But it’s even better when you can do both.
About the author: Thomas Plant is an Associate Product Manager at Accrete AI and co–founder of William & Mary’s DisinfoLab, the nation’s first undergraduate disinformation research lab.
NATO’s fight for democratic integrity in an age of hybrid war
By Dr. Marissa Quie
Image by Leonhard Niederwimmer from Pixabay
NATO today faces a paradox. Its greatest threat is no longer conventional warfare, but the erosion of the democratic values it was designed to protect. As the alliance needs to wield soft power through strategic partnerships to meet contemporary threats like cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns, its global legitimacy is being tested. Former U.S. National Security Adviser, Fiona Hill, frames this starkly: The West is locked in a “state of war” with Russia and other hostile nations, fought through cyberattacks, criminal proxies, and corrosive subversion of democratic culture. This hybrid strategy leverages societal divisions: radicalizing online spaces, co–opting criminal networks, and tainting public discourse.
NATO’s effectiveness depends on sustaining democratic legitimacy at home as well as abroad. Internal instability—such as the recent unrest in Ballymena, Northern Ireland—reflects broader patterns of marginalization and alienation that authoritarian actors exploit. As Peter Mair argued in Ruling the Void, when democracies are hollowed out by elite detachment and low participation, they become vulnerable to manipulation. In such contexts, hybrid warfare thrives by targeting institutions that retain democratic form but lack democratic substance.
The alliance invokes democratic values through its partnerships yet tolerates backsliding in members like Türkiye and Hungary. This gap fuels skepticism in the Global South. Meanwhile, China shrewdly promotes alternatives, through infrastructure investments and ‘non–interference’ rhetoric that resonates with post–colonial states wary of Western conditionality. NATO could counter China’s appeal by highlighting transparent and accountable investment, contrasting with Beijing’s opacity on surveillance and debt.
NATO’s soft power tools remain critical to its strategy. Its Gender Action Plan, Strategic Communications Centers, and Cyber Defense Center, reflect a shift to -
NATO’S GREATEST THREAT TODAY IS NO LONGER CONVENTIONAL WARFARE, BUT THE EROSION OF THE DEMOCRATIC VALUES IT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT. DEMOCRATIC EROSION AT HOME HARMS THE ALLIANCE’S ABILITY TO PROJECT
SOFT POWER, WRITES DR. MARISSA QUIE.
ward what Joseph Nye calls “smart power,” blending military deterrence with democratic appeal. In the Balkans and Eastern Europe, NATO’s Partnership for Peace programs have bolstered civic–military reforms, offering a countermodel to authoritarian influence. But these efforts falter when NATO members themselves undercut judicial independence or minority rights.
Credibility matters. NATO cannot project democratic values abroad while tolerating their decay at home. The U.S.—long seen as NATO’s democratic exemplar— is itself struggling with polarization and the failure of institutional checks and balances. Addressing this decay must be more than top–down reform, it requires bottom–up civic renewal through education, participation, and active pluralism. If NATO is to remain credible, it must defend more than borders, it must cultivate democracy as a lived, inclusive practice.
About the author: Dr. Marissa Quie is a Fellow and Director of Studies in HSPS at Lucy Cavendish College, who specializes in Migration, Peace, and Conflict Studies.
The next iteration of NATO and the forthcoming Hague summit
By Joshua C. Huminski
Image courtesy of Adobe Stock.
The NATO summit in the Hague at the end of June represents the beginning of the next iteration of the defensive alliance. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 began a process that the full–scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the (re) election of President Donald Trump accelerated, creating a foundation for NATO 4.0 (common parlance among NATO officials and observers referring to what’s next after the Cold War, post–Cold War, and current post–9/11 iterations), or indeed NATO 5.0.
In this iteration, the alliance and its members face three concurrent challenges: a changing relationship with its anchor partner—the United States, the return of hard power as a tool of statecraft, and geoeconomic competition from the People’s Republic of China. In isolation, each challenge is daunting enough, but all three concurrently are straining Brussels’ political capacity. What NATO 4.0 looks like will result from how the alliance manages these concurrent pressures.
Most immediately, the relationship with the U.S. has definitively changed. Even if a more trans–Atlantically oriented president returns to office in the next four years little is likely to change. The underlying factors will remain: European doubts about the future reliability of the U.S., but also Washington’s reorientation toward the Indo–Pacific and expectation that member states pay their fair share. The fantasy that America’s support for NATO was unconditional has ended.
Member states have belatedly recognized that hard power has returned to the continent as a tool of statecraft. At the Hague summit, member states are expected to commit to 5% of GDP spending—3.5% for core defense and 1.5% for other expenditures. Over time this will see a more capable NATO better able to achieve its Deterrence and Defense of the Euro–Atlantic Area (DDA) mission.
The answer to the People’s Republic of China is just as complex and inextricably
THIS YEAR’S NATO SUMMIT WILL LIKELY REPRESENT THE BEGINNING OF NATO’S NEXT ITERATION IN RESPONSE TO INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PRESSURES. WHILE WE CAN EXPECT DISRUPTION, THE FUTURE OF NATO COULD BE A STRONGER ALLIANCE, WITH A MORE EUROPEAN IDENTITY, WRITES JOSHUA HUMINSKI.
tied to member state economic interests. Beijing’s tacit (and explicit) support for Moscow’s ‘special military operation,’ and a conflict at the heart of the Alliance—is it European only, or does it have a greater mission–set beyond the continent—make this a much more definitively political question.
The near–term objective of the Hague summit is getting America’s continued buy–in—the so–called 5% for Article Five— but the longer–term trends are already in motion in response to Russia’s full–scale invasion and President Trump’s ‘America First’ orientation. Whilst there will be disruption now, the long–term prospects for NATO could well see a stronger alliance with a more European identity, both of which will be welcomed by Washington and concerning for Moscow.
About the author: Joshua C. Huminski is the Senior Vice President for National Security & Intelligence Programs and the Director of the Mike Rogers Center at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress.
NATO resilience and the exponential governance mindset
By Andrea Bonime–Blanc
Image by Marko Lovric from Pixabay
How does NATO meet emerging climate, geopolitical, and tech challenges? Just like a resilient, well–led company—but turbocharged given its extraordinary mandate.
NATO’s purpose—guaranteeing the security and freedom of its members— is achieved through both military and political means. Politically, NATO protects democratic values and supports cooperation among members, with the goal of building trust and preventing conflict. Militarily, NATO seeks peaceful resolutions to disputes but undertakes crisis–management operations when diplomacy fails, carried out under the collective defense clause. How does NATO carry out its extraordinary mission in this “polycrisis” (multiple, overlapping crises) “polyrisk” (multiple, multifaceted risks) world? How does NATO adapt to foreseeable and unforeseeable climate, geopolitical, and tech challenges?
The only way is to ensure organizational resilience. To achieve this, NATO political and military leadership must adopt an “exponential governance mindset.” NATO operates at the cutting of edge polycrisis challenges. Beyond having the necessary structures, practices, and policies set in place, NATO must have or adopt what I call the exponential governance mindset. This consists of:
Leadership. The entire NATO organization requires 360 tech governance. This allows leaders to connect the dots between what’s happening on the ground and headquarters, ensuring IT front liners work consistently on technology blessed by the top of the hierarchy.
Ethos. NATO should embed tech responsibility into the deployment of exponential and frontier technologies. This includes generative AI and autonomy especially given the lethal aspects of the mission ensuring there are ethicists involved at every step of policy formulation and execution.
TO ADAPT TO FORESEEABLE AND UNFORESEEABLE CLIMATE, GEOPOLITICAL, AND TECH CHALLENGES, NATO MUST BOLSTER ITS ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE.
DOING SO REQUIRES AN “EXPONENTIAL GOVERNANCE MINDSET,” WRITES ANDREA BONIME–BLANC.
Impact. Maximizing impact means key stakeholders are always in the loop. This is expressed in two senses: (1) consideration of impacted communities, employees, militaries and other vulnerable stakeholders are considered in policy-making and execution and (2) that kill switches are built into lethal tech like autonomous or semi–autonomous weapons.
Resilience. A resilient NATO knows that continuous overlapping risks and crises are and will be the norm for the time being. It responds by ensuring the whole of its scenario planning and contingencies are constantly updated and a deep and effective lessons learned culture pervades all incidents.
Foresight. NATO should prepare for disrupted futures with real time updating of a future–forward inclusive strategy that is fed new data and assessments continuously to ensure that all aspects of strategy and tactics are always at the ready.
About the author: Dr. Andrea Bonime–Blanc is the Founder and CEO of GEC Risk Advisory, a board advisor and director, and author of multiple books.
Hard power, soft power, and the code of deterrence
By Rui Duarte
Image via Adobe Stock.
As NATO marks its 75th anniversary in a world on edge, the old playbook is no longer enough. Europe is witnessing its sharpest rearmament since the Cold War—defense spending across NATO members surged by over 11% last year and 23 allies are now meeting the 2% GDP target for military investment. Yet the battles of tomorrow won’t just be fought on land, sea, or air—they will unfold in minds, networks, and ecosystems.
The war in Ukraine has forced a return to hard power fundamentals, but the true test of NATO’s future will be its ability to integrate soft power and digital defense. Disinformation campaigns now move faster than tanks. One Russian operation in 2023 flooded social media with over 150 million false narratives in just six months, according to EUvsDisinfo. The line between cyberattack and hybrid warfare has all but vanished: NATO registered over 2,500 significant cyber incidents targeting member states last year alone.
Europe’s move to strengthen its own defense industry signals a maturing partnership, but it also raises questions about interoperability and strategic autonomy. The alliance’s cohesion will depend less on hardware, more on trust and shared data alongside an adaptive doctrine.
NATO’s next chapter demands a “code of deterrence” as robust in confronting cyber–threats as it is at confronting the physical. That means not just patching vulnerabilities, but anticipating threats— using AI for real–time threat detection, building quantum–proof communications, and embedding climate risk into defense planning. With extreme weather events costing NATO countries over $100 billion annually, climate resilience is no longer a peripheral issue; it is core to security.
Ultimately, NATO’s mission must evolve from defending territory to defending the integrity of open societies—countering both tanks and trolls, both floods and firewalls. The power of the alliance will
THE RETURN OF ACTIVE WAR TO EUROPE HAS REFOCUSED ATTENTION ON HARD POWER FUNDAMENTALS. YET THE FUTURE OF NATO DEMANDS THE ALLIANCE STRATEGICALLY INTEGRATE SOFT POWER AND DIGITAL DEFENSE, WRITES RUI DUARTE.
be measured not just by force projection, but by its ability to engineer trust and resilience across every frontier: military, digital, and social.
About the author: Rui Duarte is an expert in political economy (LSE) with over a decade of leadership in public policy, global communications, and science PR.
NATO must evolve alongside nuclear, digital threats
By Camille Stewart Gloster
Image by Adobe Stock.
As nations and companies rush to stand up next–generation nuclear power facilities to fuel energy–hungry AI systems, the geopolitical stakes around nuclear infrastructure are rapidly evolving. These nuclear–AI intersections are reshaping the global threat landscape and NATO must step up with a forward–looking approach that recognizes three central pillars of collective defense: cybersecurity, sustainability, and inclusion.
NATO’s core mission is under new pressure from converged threats that blur the lines between digital, energy, and physical domains. Cyberattacks on nuclear facilities, malicious code embedded in AI supply chains, and energy coercion are no longer hypotheticals. They are strategic risks to democratic resilience and economic stability.
Cybersecurity must become nuclear security. As modular nuclear reactors and AI–optimized power grids come online, NATO must prioritize cybersecurity resilience for these emerging infrastructures. This includes investing in secure–by–design nuclear tech, embedding cyber threat detection in AI energy systems, and coordinating red–teaming exercises (simulated cyberattacks) among allies. A cyberattack at the nuclear–AI nexus could have cascading effects—from data center blackouts to international crises.
This nuclear–digital strategy must also be sustainable, aligning with global climate goals and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). NATO should promote responsible innovation that advances clean energy, avoids extractive development, and ensures long–term environmental and societal stability. That means working with member states and industry to balance strategic energy needs with climate commitments.
NATO also has a crucial role to play in bridging the gap with the Global Majority. Many non–member states are exploring nuclear power and AI adoption as a path to economic development and strategic relevance. Rather than leaving these nations to choose between authoritarian infrastructure and Western neglect, NATO should create part-
AS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTORS IMPLEMENT NEXT–GEN NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES AND FUEL–HUNGRY AI SYSTEMS, THE NUCLEAR–AI INTERSECTION WILL RESHAPE THE GLOBAL THREAT LANDSCAPE FOR NATO, WRITES CAMILLE STEWART GLOSTER.
nerships that share knowledge and build cyber capacity while promoting democratic tech governance.
To meet this moment, NATO must move beyond deterrence to direction—shaping a digital and energy future that reflects democratic values and enhances resilience.By expanding its vision of collective defense to recognize the urgency of converged threats with existential impact such as energy security, technological integrity, and sustainable development, NATO can lead with purpose in this new nuclear-AI era. It’s time for the Alliance to not just defend the past—but shape the future.
The next era of collective defense will be defined not just by military strength, but by how we secure our technologies, protect our infrastructure, and govern innovation.
About the author: Camille Stewart Gloster is the CEO and Principal for CAS Strategies, LLC, a cybersecurity and emerging tech advisory firm, and served as the first Deputy National Cyber Director, Technology & Ecosystem Security 2022 to 2024.
NATO must adapt to “soft security”
By Asha Castleberry–Hernandez
Image via NATO on Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
NATO needs to adapt to a modern global security environment that is increasingly shaped by soft security issues—from the digital realm to climate change and evolving diplomatic needs in the current geopolitical environment. This shift toward a focus on soft power is a common–sense approach and NATO has pursued it for some time. With current uncertainty about the future of NATO, however, the security organization’s continued prioritization of soft power is not a given.
The role of digital and cybersecurity operations became more of a reality when Russia used blockchain digital currency like bitcoin to fund cybersecurity operations during the 2016 U.S. election season. The spread of mis– and disinformation using various digital technologies further complicates the operational environment. In response, NATO needs robust strategic digital influence architecture that engages traditional and non–traditional domains. Non–traditional domains should include the youth or Generation Z audience. Generation Z is increasingly exposed to populist messaging, perceives NATO as mundane, and is less knowledgeable about NATO’s mission. NATO needs to boost its visibility with youth groups by engaging in areas of high media consumption and grow their young professional educational programs.
NATO should also invest in climate security cooperation initiatives. Climate change is rapidly reshaping the global security environment—such as the Arctic. Icemelt is creating new major commercial routes, giving Russia potential operational advantages. NATO should invest in modern climate change cooperation negotiations with key multilateral organizations like the Arctic Circle, the Paris Accord community, and other international groups on modern initiatives such as early warning systems, green–transition technology, and modern humanitarian and disaster relief programs.
Current geopolitical dynamics also present new challenges for NATO. A new alignment between Russia, China, North Korea, and
FROM THE DIGITAL REALM TO CLIMATE CHANGE TO EVOLVING APPROACHES TO DIPLOMACY IN A SHIFTING GEOPOLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, NATO’S MISSION WILL BE INCREASINGLY SHAPED BY SOFT SECURITY ISSUES, WRITES ASHA CASTLEBERRY–HERNANDEZ.
Iran illustrates why NATO needs to grow its diplomatic efforts, deepening relations with both governments and international institutions. This is especially true in the Global South, where this new alignment’s strategic interest is to grow support by undermining western democracy as weak and ineffective to traditional partners & allies. Recruiting prominent new non–NATO ally members like Kenya in the Global South can help counteract that influence, but should be done cautiously to avoid cultivating problematic new relationships, such as the NATO–Pakistan relationship. Engagement with Global South institutions such as the African Union and ASEAN, cultivating cooperation despite historical and political challenges.
About the author: Asha Castleberry is a national security and foreign policy expert, U.S. Army veteran, and former U.S. Congressional candidate.
NATO’s long–term success requires buy–in from younger generations
By Laura Kupe
Image by Car Lei via Unsplash.
Leaders arriving in The Hague for the 2025 NATO Summit face unprecedented challenges that demand a bold and strategic vision for the alliance’s future. Today’s security landscape has evolved in complex ways: Russia’s war in Ukraine, uneven NATO member spending, and the U.S.’s shift to a more transactional approach to foreign policy under President Trump. Emerging technologies are also transforming modern warfare, while geopolitical shifts have redirected the U.S.’s attention toward China, the Middle East, and homeland defense. Moreover, rising strategic autonomy across the Global South, evident in many nations’ refusal to join NATO–led sanctions against Russia, has further challenged notions of Western influence in the rest of the world.
The changing nature of security challenges today mean military might alone won’t sustain NATO’s existence for the next 75 years. Younger generations—millennials and Gen Z—lack Cold War memories and need clear reasons to support NATO’s priorities. NATO has successfully carried out its core missions for decades and been a force for global security, but must clearly connect these achievements to the concerns of younger generations to win their support. It’s a challenge, with younger people being largely preoccupied with economic instability, political polarization, and the disruptive impact of technology than with traditional military threats of the past.
NATO has begun addressing demographic shifts through youth initiatives like the NATO Young Leaders Summit. These efforts promote core NATO values—individual liberty, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law—and address topics like climate change and human security. This type of work must continue. Since 1965, the U.S.’s racial demographics have also transformed: European immigration declined while Latin American, Asian, and African immigration increased. Heritage alone no longer suffices to bind the U.S. and Europe. Similarly, post–war migration has reshaped the racial and ethnic landscapes of Allied countries like France, Germany, and the UK. Outreach
THE
CHANGING NATURE OF SECURITY CHALLENGES TODAY MEAN MILITARY MIGHT ALONE WON’T SUSTAIN NATO’S EXISTENCE FOR THE NEXT 75 YEARS. SUS-
TAINING NATO INTO THE FUTURE REQUIRES WINNING THE SUPPORT OF YOUNGER
GENERATIONS, WRITES LAURA KUPE.
across NATO countries, therefore, must continue emphasizing these shared values as a unifier among diverse publics.
NATO’s long–term success requires targeted communication reaching younger, more diverse audiences living beyond capitals across the Euro–Atlantic. The alliance must demonstrate how democratic values, human security, and collective defense interconnect in a new era of strategic competition. Only by convincing these publics that increased defense spending serves broader human flourishing can NATO secure the domestic support necessary for the longterm sustainability of one of the world’s most successful military alliances. Military preparedness and public legitimacy are not competing priorities—they are complementary imperatives for a military alliance determined to thrive in a multipolar world.
About the author: Laura Kupe is a Planetary Politics Senior Fellow at New America, focusing on geostrategic competition.
To secure the digital future, NATO should turn to youth
By Eileen Ackley and Elisabeth Nielsen
Image
Young adults are often the drivers of change, and are often best able to leverage digital technology. Exposed to these technologies from an early age—earning the moniker “digital natives”—young adults have more natural expertise in leveraging emerging technologies like AI. This makes them uniquely positioned to support NATO as it seeks to incorporate AI.
As NATO enters its 76th year, sentiment toward the alliance is declining. Young people hold more unfavorable opinions of NATO than previous generations, with millennials and Gen Z respondents generally did not recognize the benefits of NATO and transatlantic relations compared to older generations. Today, older generations make up most of NATO’s international staff, with 55% of NATO’s workforce older than 46. AI presents an avenue for the alliance to change young adults’ perception of the alliance and incorporate their viewpoints more readily into the alliance’s operations while strengthening the transatlantic alliance.
Having grown up with digital technology, younger generations possess the unique ability to harness AI, and integrate it more seamlessly into NATO to strengthen the alliance. In fact, studies have found that those who grew up with digital technology adapt to technological change, such as AI, more rapidly than previous generations.
Moreover, young adults have the generational understanding on how NATO can leverage this new technology to detect disinformation. If given the chance, young adults can lead NATO intelligence operations deciphering incoming disinformation from what many may believe is misinformation or presumed factual content by utilizing fact based systems that analyze context to interpret the intentions of incoming information. Allowing young professionals to take on these roles with increased autonomy in the alliance makes the alliance more flexible in responding to these threats.
Additionally, young adults can expand the role AI plays in promoting a common knowl-
NATO FACES TWO KEY CHALLENGES: ADOPTING AI AND REVERSING DECLINING PUBLIC SUPPORT. ENGAGING YOUNG PEOPLE CAN HELP TACKLE BOTH, WRITE EILEEN ACKLEY AND ELISABETH NIELSEN.
edge base. As young professionals, in and outside of NATO adapt to new technology more quickly than other generations, young leadership is necessary to adapt NATO as an organization to quickly adapt to and adopt new technology. This young leadership would promote shared organizational memory, allowing NATO to continue evolving with new technology, ensuring the alliance’s future relevancy.
Thus, prioritizing the creativity and skill sets of younger generations would enable NATO to bolster its ability to integrate AI into the alliance’s political and military structures. Using the expertise from younger generations to bolster the alliance’s resiliency will greatly assist the alliance adapt to issues of the contemporary global order into its 77th year and beyond.
About the authors:
Elisabeth Nielsen is a student at William & Mary studying International Relations and Public Policy. She was a delegate to the 2025 NATO Youth Summit.
Eileen Ackley is a senior at William & Mary studying government and organizational leadership and was the W&M student delegate at the 2024 NATO Youth Summit.
