Knocking on NATO: Strategic and institutional challenges risk the future of Europe’s seven-decade long cold peace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Despite its strong role in providing the public good of European stability by the provision of collective defence and security via an exclusive club, NATO faces challenges as it enters its next decade of survival. NATO’s unique institutional structure permits a variety of cooperative schemes to produce the club’s goods depending on how individual contributions aggregate to provide the good as well as the qualities associated with the publicness of the good (i.e. rivalry and excludability). NATO partners use both threshold and joint product structures to manage partner heterogeneities regarding capacity and willingness. NATO continues to face strategic challenges from Russia in a variety of domains (defence, economic, political) requiring continued partner collaboration to address threats ranging from cybersecurity and media manipulation to both overt and covert military pressures. Managing the insecurities from Russia require complex interdependence and partners in its limitroph regions sought reassurance through troop deployments both sinking costs and tying hands for partners. The U.S. under a Trump administration has sent increasingly noisy signals of the credibility of its commitment to Article V leading to institutional uncertainty compounded by the unknown effects of Brexit on political aspects and defence burden-sharing. Given the conjunction of strategic insecurities and institutional uncertainties, it is convenient to knock on NATO but rational institutionalist theory offers more optimism about its future. Data indicate enlargement permitted several partners, particularly Germany and the U.K., to shift the burden of supporting NATO to both new partners and existing partners such as Turkey, Spain, France, and Canada. Moreover, any alternative to NATO is more costly for less endowed partners facing defence pressures increasing their willingness to accept the burden to tune of doubling down the commitments made by the Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic since joining. Canada’s role as a broker of compromise and its willingness to make credible its defence commitments will place it in the middle of future missions regardless of domestic politics. Canada’s leadership in reassuring and socialising new partners in the Baltics deployment offers another opportunity to retain its objective and subjective position as a key partner and ally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".