NATO, burden-sharing and the changing nature of defence
I had the opportunity to discuss NATO’s future with Kevin McCarthy, former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, in a panel exchange.
We began with an important question: can NATO retain its cohesion and effectiveness as geopolitical tensions rise and attitudes towards security commitments evolve?
Speaker McCarthy was firmly of the opinion that, while the US remains committed to NATO, the alliance’s strength will depend upon fairer burden-sharing. Echoing a position emphasised on multiple occasions by the current US administration, he emphatically stated that European members must meet their commitments and accept greater responsibility for their own security. An alliance cannot remain sustainable if its obligations fall disproportionately upon one member.
The conversation then moved beyond expenditure to the changing nature and economics of warfare. Space, drones and artificial intelligence are lowering the barriers enabling middle powers, smaller states and even non-state actors to exert disproportionate influence. As Speaker McCarthy pointedly observed: “You can’t be spending $1,000,000 on a missile designed to shoot down a $10 drone.” Mass drone attacks can overwhelm defences and deplete costly interceptors that take years to replace.
A layered and sustainable response would combine low-cost interceptor drones, conventional systems and directed-energy weapons while reserving advanced missiles for complex threats. This will require far greater cooperation with technology companies and a fundamental reassessment of defence procurement and production.
No country can address these challenges alone. Speaker McCarthy emphasised that NATO’s future strength will depend critically upon technological modernisation and continuing close cooperation among nations committed to freedom.
How do you see NATO’s role developing in this increasingly complex environment?
