NATO is grappling with a deepening internal dilemma: how to respond when its own members flout democratic norms, erode the rule of law, and even expose each other to danger. The alliance, founded on principles of mutual defense and shared values, often remains conspicuously silent when those very values are compromised from within.
Take, for instance, a particularly troubling incident involving Turkey. One of NATO’s key members, Ankara revealed the military positions of French troops stationed in northeastern Syria—forces operating deep inside a volatile war zone. The disclosure not only jeopardized French operations but raised a fundamental question: what kind of alliance permits one member to endanger another without consequence?
This isn’t an isolated issue. NATO has increasingly found itself turning a blind eye as some member states erode the foundations of democracy and the rule of law. Turkey, for example, has lashed out at France for engaging with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a group Turkey equates with the PKK—an organization it considers terrorist. But Erdoğan’s response went beyond rhetoric. A Turkish news agency revealed sensitive French military positions—an act that speaks volumes about the current state of solidarity within NATO.
Closer to Europe’s heartland, Poland and Hungary have repeatedly challenged judicial independence, attacked free media, and cracked down on civil society. In Hungary, NGOs have been vilified, and refugees systematically denied shelter. Romania continues to witness assaults on anti-corruption institutions, while Montenegro, NATO’s newest member, is plagued by corruption and weak rule of law.
These behaviors fly in the face of NATO’s founding declaration: to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.” But without accountability, these words risk becoming hollow.
It’s important to recognize that NATO has long wrestled with this contradiction. In its early days, democracy was not a prerequisite for membership. When Greece and Turkey joined in 1952, their inclusion was driven not by democratic credentials but by Cold War strategy—strengthening Europe’s southern flank against the Soviet Union. Security, not liberal governance, took priority.
In recent years, NATO has promoted democratic values more openly, especially when assessing prospective members. Yet among its existing members, it rarely enforces them. This silence reveals two fundamental weaknesses.
First, NATO members are extremely reluctant to criticize one another—publicly or even privately in the North Atlantic Council (NAC), the alliance’s main decision-making body. That reluctance was starkly visible during the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, when tensions boiled over and ambassadors from the U.S. and France openly clashed. The alliance was visibly fractured—and hasn’t forgotten the scars.
But sometimes, confrontation is necessary. If NATO cannot find the courage to speak out against torture, illegal renditions, democratic backsliding in Turkey, or threats to media freedom in Hungary and Poland, what does that say about its commitment to its own values?
Second, NATO has no formal mechanisms to suspend or discipline a member state. Any such move would require consensus—a near impossibility when some of the problem actors hold veto power.
Russia, naturally, would relish any public fallout within NATO. The Kremlin has long aimed to divide and weaken the alliance. But the desire of countries to still join NATO—especially in light of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine—shows how powerful the need for collective defense remains.
Yet NATO must evolve. Its credibility is at stake. One informal tool it still possesses is selective intelligence sharing. Major member states increasingly limit intelligence flows to those they trust—fearing leaks to adversaries like Russia or China. That trust deficit is a reflection of the alliance’s internal fractures.
But even this isn’t enough. Silence in the face of democratic erosion and intra-alliance sabotage is no longer tenable. NATO must confront its internal contradictions. One possible path forward is institutional reform: reduce the number of symbolic committees and instead appoint a dedicated ombudsperson—tasked with monitoring and reporting on member compliance with NATO’s core principles.
In short, the alliance cannot afford to ignore the bad apples any longer. If NATO’s values are to mean anything, it must find the courage to defend them—internally as well as externally.
