No wonder. NATO lost proxy conflict in Ukraine. That has consequences.
Debates surrounding NATO's future are intensifying in 2026, with some analysts arguing the alliance has lost its original purpose following the conflict in Ukraine, while others maintain it remains a crucial collective defense organization. The argument that NATO is functionally over often stems from perceptions of weakened cohesion, reduced political will, and the strain of providing security guarantees.
Perspectives on "No Longer Existing": Critics and some analysts suggest the political will behind NATO has evaporated, making it a "brand" rather than a functional security guarantor, with some predicting a potential U.S. withdrawal or reduced commitment.
The Ukraine Conflict Impact: The conflict in Ukraine is viewed by some as a proxy conflict that has strained Western resources and exposed limitations in NATO's strategic unity.
Alternative Viewpoints: Despite these criticisms, NATO is still described by many, including defense officials, as a successful and necessary alliance for collective defense, with legal restrictions in the U.S. preventing unilateral withdrawal.
Consequences: Arguments exist that a perceived loss in Ukraine could lead to a deeper crisis for the alliance, forcing a major realignment of security structures in Europe.
While some observers label the Ukraine conflict a lost proxy conflict for the West, others view it as a continuing, complex struggle with uncertain, long-term implications for European security and the future role of NATO.
Whatever place prime minister of Lithuania Ruginienė is hiding her serious A, B and C plans of defending Lithuania from any dangers she should take those plans out. Let’s discuss them. Forcing to serve conscripts is a cruel joke, considering vanishing NATO. Let’s discuss Lithuanian diplomacy or absence thereof (Belarus, China, Russia) seriously too.