 When we step into the European sphere, it's hard to ignore the behemoth of an alliance that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is. With 57% of global military spending in 2020 coming from these 30 countries, the alliance has had a long history of collective defense, but also some speculation surrounding its motives for continuing in the 21st century. Today, I will explain in what ways NATO has fundamentally changed since its founding, and what the alliance really stands for. First, it is important to give some context. NATO was created in 1949, not long after the conclusion of World War II, and the partition of Europe, and for that rate the world, between the two extant superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. While the Soviets supported communist Eastern bloc would later form the Warsaw Pact, the states in the west of Europe, backed by the US, became NATO. As tensions built up and divided Germany during this time, the US wanted a stable bloc of major allies to defend against any possible Soviet attack, and to halt and prevent any growth of communist movements in Western Europe, so not only to prevent Soviet influence, but also to secure its own bloc of allies. NATO's members before the fall of the USSR were nearly completely composed of countries belonging generally to Western civilization, with the notable exception being Islamic Turkey, which was a country committed to separation of religion and state, and to implementing Western ideas. Through the fall of the Berlin Wall and even the USSR, NATO has persisted on. It has grown from 12 to 30 members, now encompassing nearly every nation in Western civilization. NATO today as a security alliance is truly in a league of its own, with 57% of the global military spending more than the rest of the world combined, and no other alliance of its kind matching its effectiveness, coordination, or size. However, with the Soviet Union gone and communism proving ineffective in competing with a globalized economy, what does NATO have left to fight for, and what are its true priorities? In reality, NATO and its uniquely powerful position on the global stage is a reflection on that of its commanding member, the US. Most of NATO's missions and activities today can be described as part of the Greater American Global Strategy, this isn't always the case as you'll soon learn, but in general it is truly the US that is the driving force behind this alliance. But what does the alliance say about itself? Article 1 of the treaty states that the goal of the alliance is to secure peace and justice among its members, and to resolve its territorial disputes in a non-violent manner, preferably. For this reason, we can see why NATO has such a problem with admitting nations like Ukraine and Georgia, which are locked in militarily involved border disputes. Article 2 states more goals for the alliance, including strengthening free institutions and promoting economic collaboration. However, there are some contradictions that have already been set into motion, especially to the second article as a result of some recent additions to the alliance. Let's take a case study of three out of the four most recent additions to NATO, Albania, Montenegro, and North Macedonia. All three countries have been characterized in one form or another as hybrid regimes, or countries that have elements of both democracy and autocracy. They could otherwise be described as anocracies, or semi-democracies. Though both Freedom House and the Democracy Index would place all three countries closer to the democratic side rather than the autocratic side, it does show that the standards for democratic ideals have been lowered a bit for new additions to the alliance. This has an obvious implication that actually has been practiced before in the alliance's history. As long as the country's strategic importance to the alliance is pressing enough, they will accept the country, even if its democratic institutions are not up to par with the main members. Consolidating the western Balkan region has been a target for NATO in recent years, to not only promote regional stability, but foremost to expel influence of countries like Russia and China from the region. NATO seeks to continue with the Balkan strategy with the potential addition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country with even weaker democratic institutions in the other countries I mentioned. However, the country's internal divisions are beginning to make a major setback in this process. Though not an original member, Turkey has been a principal member of NATO for nearly the alliance's whole history. What makes Turkey unique among NATO members is its predominantly Islamic orientation, weaker democratic institutions in respect to other members, and its unbelievably strategic location. I mean to bring Turkey up as to show an example of why strategy can often supersede other official criteria for joining the NATO alliance. When it joined in 1952, the country had a border with NATO's main rival, the USSR, and became a counter to Soviet influence in the Black Sea area. Also, Turkey sits in the Middle Eastern region, creating another strategic outlook for the alliance, especially today as wars in Syria and Iraq have broken out. Turkey has used its position more than once to push around its power, independent from and often against the will of the US. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, creating the de facto state of Northern Cyprus, and has done its own invasion of Syria as the civil war continues there. Turkey also pulls its weight around by placing its troops in the NATO ally Albania, but also in other non-NATO allies, like Azerbaijan, Qatar, and Northern Cyprus. They have also been militarily involved in Libya and Somalia, and hold huge geopolitical leverage over Iraq, effectively controlling their water supply by owning the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Internally, Turkey has seen waves of both democratic and anti-democratic ideas, with the country usually being described as a hybrid regime and sometimes authoritarian. The most recent Erdogan government has put less emphasis on the secular aspect of the Republic, but rather the country's Islamic roots. Yet, with all these contradictions to the stated goals of NATO, it is still important for the alliance to maintain its strong partnership with Turkey. As the second most powerful member of the alliance, Turkey can both pursue its own goals in the Middle East, and at the same time work in tandem with the broader geopolitical goals of NATO, including maximizing political stability in its region. The US and the West in general would rather see Turkey be the dominant power in the Middle East than any other country, due to its relative stability, industrialized and open economy, and by comparison to its neighbors, shared values. The US would also much rather have a local power handle Middle Eastern affairs rather than doing it themselves. Keeping the country in the alliance would also give the US the leverage it needs over Turkey to not let it run completely loose and attack other NATO allies, like Greece, which finds itself at great odds with Turkey. Article 10 of the treaty states that new additions to NATO should come from any European country the alliance wants to invite. Frankly, this doesn't give NATO much room to expand. Not like it really needs to, but still, most countries that it could add to the alliance are either declared neutral, caught in territorial conflicts, allied with Russia, or are Russia itself, and as many still falsely assume Russia is the main threat to NATO security, it is not a viable option for expansion. Finland and Sweden are possible contenders, but that's a video of its own. So should NATO expand outside of the European sphere? Well, I don't think that there is really a practical element to it. Though adding countries like Uzbekistan, for example, would be extremely strategic, as the country's addition would be perfect in countering the influence of Russia, China, and Islamist groups in Central Asia, it is simply too far from the main focal region of the alliance. Even as we see with Turkey, the country is starting to create its own gravity, and countries are getting sucked into its orbit, independent of US intervention. The center of the alliance was originally and always has been, in Western Europe. Though that center region has expanded to include Central Europe also, NATO has always been an alliance of states part of the core Western civilization. Though regions like the Balkans, right on the doorstep of the west, are important to have in their back pockets, as to prevent a soft underbelly for the alliance, one of the main points of the alliance has been to protect the integrity of the western nations, and American presence in these nations. Going forward, NATO has no real reason to expand too greatly, as it already encompasses most of Western civilization, the part of the world the alliance is most concerned about. Yet, keeping countries like Turkey and the alliance will ensure that their interests are met in parts of the world which they do not necessarily share values or common interests with. So, does NATO really stand for security, democracy, and freedom? Well, when it needs to. As long as the western states can maintain these aspects, the alliance can admit members on the periphery that don't necessarily adhere to these values, but will work together with the west for mutual security and advancement. Thank you all for watching, be sure to like, subscribe, and share this content with everyone you know. Let's try and get to 5,000 subscribers by the end of this year. Check out my Patreon and Discord server and my Instagram and I'll see you guys next time.