NATO was not born out of Europe’s strength but out of its exhaustion. The continent emerged from World War II physically shattered, morally traumatised, and economically ruined. Into this vacuum stepped the United States, not merely as a benefactor but as a manager of Europe’s post-war order. NATO, established in 1949, became the central mechanism through which this management was enforced. It was presented as collective defence, but its deeper function was to ensure that Europe would never again act as an independent political force outside American strategic priorities.
The Marshall Plan is often remembered as an act of generosity. In reality, it was the economic precondition for political alignment. Aid came with strings—liberalisation, market access for American capital, and ideological conformity. European recovery was permitted, but only within a framework that tethered it firmly to Washington. NATO completed this architecture by militarising dependence. Economic rebuilding without military autonomy ensured that Europe’s revival would never translate into strategic independence.
From the launch, NATO was asymmetrical. The United States commanded; Europe complied. Supreme Allied Commanders were always American. Nuclear weapons deployed on European soil remained under US control. Military bases proliferated across Germany, Italy, Belgium, and beyond, embedding American power directly into Europe’s geography. European publics were rarely consulted. Sovereignty was quietly hollowed out in the name of security.
This was not inevitable. In the early post-war decades, there were European leaders who imagined a different future. Charles de Gaulle, despite his conservatism, insisted that France could not be sovereign while subordinated to foreign command, leading to France’s withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military structure in 1966. Willy Brandt pursued Ostpolitik, recognising that peace could not be built on permanent confrontation but on dialogue and mutual security. Olof Palme of Sweden articulated a vision of non-alignment rooted in international law, opposing both American war in Vietnam and Soviet repression with equal moral clarity. These were not radicals; they were democrats who understood that peace requires autonomy.
Yet such visions were marginalised. NATO hardened the Cold War into a permanent condition. Europe’s role was not to shape peace but to host confrontation. The Iron Curtain was mirrored by an ideological one within Western Europe itself, where any attempt at independent foreign policy was branded naïve or dangerous. European integration was encouraged economically but contained politically. The European Community could harmonise trade, but questions of war and peace remained firmly under NATO’s remit.
The end of the Cold War should have marked NATO’s end. The Warsaw Pact dissolved. The Soviet Union collapsed. Europe stood at a historic crossroads. It could have built a collective security architecture rooted in the UN Charter, inclusive rather than confrontational. Instead, NATO expanded. Eastward enlargement was justified as stabilisation, but its effect was the opposite. It carried the alliance to Russia’s borders, transformed former buffer states into frontline territories, and reignited a logic of bloc confrontation that history had already discredited.
This expansion was not driven by European popular demand but by strategic calculation in Washington. It ensured continued relevance for NATO and preserved American leadership over Europe’s security. For Eastern European states, NATO membership promised protection; for Western Europe, it deepened dependency. Security became something guaranteed from outside, rather than constructed collectively.
NATO’s post-Cold War wars revealed its true nature. Yugoslavia was bombed without UN authorisation, fracturing a multinational state under the guise of humanitarianism. Libya was reduced to chaos after a NATO intervention that far exceeded its mandate, unleashing instability across North Africa. Afghanistan exposed the hollowness of alliance rhetoric as European states followed the US into a twenty-year war that ended in failure and humiliation. In each case, Europe sacrificed legal principle and political judgment to alliance loyalty.
The Ukraine war has brought this contradiction into stark relief. Europe has borne the brunt of the conflict’s economic consequences: soaring energy prices, industrial slowdown, social unrest. The United States, geographically distant, has emerged as the principal beneficiary—selling arms, exporting liquefied gas, and consolidating influence over European policy. Decisions about escalation, negotiation, and risk are made in Washington, while European leaders frame obedience as solidarity.
This is not collective defence; it is strategic outsourcing. Europe has become a forward operating base rather than a political actor. Its diplomacy is reactive, its language scripted, its room for manoeuvre shrinking. Calls for ceasefire or negotiation are dismissed as weakness, even when articulated by figures rooted in Europe’s own peace traditions. The legacy of leaders like Brandt and Palme is treated as an embarrassment rather than a guide.
NATO has also distorted Europe’s moral compass. International law is invoked selectively. Invasions are condemned or excused depending on the perpetrator. Civilian deaths are tragedies when committed by adversaries and collateral damage when caused by allies. This double standard corrodes the very values Europe claims to defend. A continent that once spoke of “never again” now normalises permanent war readiness.
The deeper cost is democratic. NATO decisions are insulated from public accountability. Parliaments rubber-stamp military spending increases demanded by alliance commitments. Social priorities—health, education, climate—are subordinated to rearmament. Fear is mobilised to silence dissent. Those who question NATO are accused of disloyalty, echoing the very authoritarian reflexes Europe claims to oppose.
Europe today faces a paradox. It speaks of multipolarity but acts as if bipolarity never ended. It condemns imperialism while participating in its enforcement. NATO has locked Europe into a subordinate role at the very moment when global power is shifting and independent diplomacy is most needed.
To criticise NATO is not to deny security concerns. It is to insist that security without sovereignty is illusion. True safety cannot rest on permanent militarisation or outsourced decision-making. It must be built on diplomacy, international law, regional autonomy, and democratic consent.
Europe once produced political traditions that understood this. From the non-aligned vision of Scandinavia to the reconciliation politics of post-war Germany, there were paths not taken. NATO ensured those paths remained marginal.
The tragedy is not that Europe lost a war in 1945. It is that it surrendered the peace. NATO transformed liberation into long-term tutelage. Until Europe confronts this reality—until it reclaims the right to think, negotiate, and act independently—it will remain what it has become: a proxy continent, heavily armed, morally compromised, and strategically diminished in a world moving beyond American dominance.
____________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
