How Alliances Survive: The Case Against Pessimism and the Path to a New Allied Order

Foreign Affairs  |  Kurt Campbell, Rush Doshi

Tensions across the Western alliance architecture have intensified as the second Trump administration threatens NATO withdrawal, imposes tariffs on partners, and proposes military action regarding Greenland. Despite widespread fatalism and declarations from leaders like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney that the traditional relationship is over, historical precedent demonstrates that American alliance systems consistently survive acute crises.

Similar structural strains occurred during the 1956 Suez Crisis, the 1966 French withdrawal from NATO's unified command, and the 1971 Nixon shock. Current strategic convergence against escalating military and technological threats from China and Russia continues to pull allied capitals toward economic and defense alignment. Rather than causing irreversible fragmentation, contemporary friction is accelerating burden-sharing, prompting Japanese defense budget increases and European defense initiatives. Ultimately, these structural pressures will transform traditional security dependencies into co-created capabilities through integrated technology sharing and deep industrial cooperation across the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific theaters.

Comment

The resilience of multilateral security arrangements during executive-led political ruptures finds a direct historical parallel in the 1966 French withdrawal from NATO’s Integrated Military Structure. While President Charles de Gaulle expelled foreign headquarters and forces from French territory, the underlying technical protocols under STANAG maintained operational continuity across European defense planners. That 1966 rift demonstrated how STANAG protocols preserved core military integration despite severe diplomatic friction between Paris and Washington.

Similarly, the 1971 Nixon shock disrupted multilateral monetary ties without dismantling the bilateral security architecture anchored by the US-Japan Security Treaty. Executive-level economic unilateralism created severe strain in Tokyo, yet bilateral maritime patrol coordination and joint logistics at Yokosuka Naval Base continued unimpeded. Consequently, contemporary tariff disputes are unlikely to sever the standardised operational channels governed by NATO’s Defense Planning Process.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If executive political friction between allied leadership intensifies, which mechanism plays a larger role in preserving operational readiness — institutionalised technical standards like STANAG or formal treaties such as the US-Japan Security Treaty?

Historical precedent suggests that technical standardization frameworks like STANAG provide a more resilient foundation for operational continuity than high-level diplomatic agreements. While political treaties remain vulnerable to executive transactionalism, low-level bureaucratic integration and shared military procedures maintain force interoperability beneath the political layer. Consequently, institutionalised operational protocols typically shield functional military capacity even during prolonged political crises between allied capitals.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here