When evaluated with many ongoing theoretical debates on decreasing convergence within the international system, many recent developments—such as the termination of the INF Treaty, the US decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies, and controversies regarding the future of New START—directly interact with the future of NATO-Russia arms control. This research intends to touch upon the post-INF Treaty arms race, revisiting the two-track approach and a wider arsenal of interaction and norm-building. In the past, consistent interactions with external and internal stakeholders, effective transparency/validation mechanisms, and putting emphasis on shared values worked well for building the Alliance’s normative power. Yet today, an analysis of a post-INF Treaty arms control framework between the Alliance and Russia could not ignore two unprecedented challenges: 1) proliferation of newly developing strategic arms technologies; 2) moving beyond the hard bipolarity of the past, considering international, national, as well as private/civil society actors in the equilibrium. A new dual-track approach is indeed difficult to grasp with all the ambiguities these newly developing capabilities and players bring to the international legal and security landscapes. But for the very same reason, it is essential to discuss "dialogue" once again as a second track along with "deterrence”. With the rapid emergence and increasing availability of weapons technologies, neither NATO nor Russia would gain definitive advantage in strategic competition in the short to medium term. Therefore, it is necessary to ask if guarding the rules of the game, mutually perceiving emerging concepts, and enhancing dialogue and norm-building efforts would ameliorate NATO’s persistence and deterrence.

NATO’s Baltic Air-Policing mission was launched in 2004, since then, countless Russian military aircraft have been recorded breaching Baltic airspace. The Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian governments have condemned the reoccurring overflights, yet this has not limited the number of regular Russian airspace breaches. In 2019, NATO air-policing fighter jets had to scramble 200 times, showing the need for NATO’s presence in the region to ensure that the independence of the three Baltic states is not threatened. This article argues that the regular breach of Baltic airspace is a tool used by Russia to exert pressure on the Baltic states and NATO. This is only one of many weapons at Russia’s disposal, used alongside political pressure, propaganda, and economic dependence. Whether or not this form of Russian aggression can be considered as hybrid warfare, is of utmost importance for the sovereignty of the Baltic states to limit the number of airspace breaches. The aim of this article is to discuss possible remedies for this situation, offering means for how to deal with the problem in both conventional and non-conventional manners.

Constructivism argues that identities are “collective meanings” that determine state interests and actions. This perspective holds the idea that “institutionalism is a cognitive process” of internalizing state identities and interests. As these identities and interests may trigger conflict in the international arena, shared values may, most likely, motivate states to act together. Within this context, the Partnership for Peace Program initiated in 1994 gave new impetus to NATO processes by providing a partnership scheme partly independent of the membership context. In this way, NATO has aimed to accelerate the international peacekeeping process without obliging or presenting membership as a precondition of the partnership.

The Partnership for Peace Program strives to fill the power vacuums formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union by assembling states around shared values such as freedom, justice, and peace through democracy. Based on this NATO may transform partner states’ identities and interests through socialization. According to this policy, which also overlaps with democratic peace theory, it is thought that sharing the same values will appease the mistrust between states that may arise from discrepancies. Accordingly, the Peace for Partnership Program is likely to prove that “democracies do not wage war against each other.”

Within this frame, NATO’s partnership policy will be analyzed as an essential motive of overcoming the bias that NATO is based on deterrence. Partnership is integrative and consolidative in form, away from exclusionist ontology.

NATO, as a political and military organisation, focuses on security-related issues and helps build a secure environment within the Western Balkans. Within the Kosovo Force (KFOR) mission, for example, NATO built and trained a national security component, known as the Kosovo Security Force (KSF). While NATO and KFOR promote certain values, the main issues related to terrorism are rooted in the social environment. Despite states’ efforts to enforce the rule of law, violent extremism and organised crime continue to proliferate in the Western Balkans. This paper argues that while NATO, operating at the regional level, and KFOR, operating at the national level, are crucial elements of security in the Western Balkans, tackling the threats of extremism and terrorism requires a societal approach. The spread of violent extremism and transnational organised crime benefiting international terrorism are issues linked to the political, economic, and social environments for which NATO lacks the tools to handle. Those societal obstacles continue to have a negative impact on the creation of a positive social environment in Kosovo. Due to the societal components of the security challenge of terrorism, NATO and KFOR have to be part of stabilising the region but also rely on other supranational and national actors better suited for this task.

NATO’s presence in Kosovo in the form of Kosvo Force (KFOR) has undoubtedly served as an integral force for peaceful cohabitation and stability in the region. We have seen that this presence has taken on a multitude of roles, from riot control, to explosion defusion, to working on the ground with locals in order to gain an understanding of overwhelmingly complex social issues. However, despite these incremental achievements, to celebrate the efforts of NATO in the region too early would almost certainly be naive and counter-productive. This paper provides insight into the emergence of conflict in Kosovo, NATO’s successes in the country, the social dynamics in the region today, and the challenges that lie ahead for a peaceful and secure Kosovo. This paper argues that it is vital to cautiously anticipate the events of the next two decades in Kosovo, giving consideration to the existing cultural, economic, and political tensions that overwhelmingly remain.

Is it correct to talk about “NATO commitment to the Balkans” without considering both sides of the relationship? This paper reconstructs the highlights of the relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and the Western Balkans with the aim to demystify the narrative of the Balkans as passive recipients of NATO politics. It underlines instead how the countries in the region were active partners for the defence of Europe in the past and their potential for security and economic development today. It attempts to suggest the best course of action that would lead to a broader and deeper integration of the Balkan countries into the Euro-Atlantic framework, trying to overcome the perception issues that have hindered the process of deepening a truly meaningful partnership and political convergence.

The security and stability of the Western Balkans is still not fully settled. Undoubtedly, the focal point of this instability is Kosovo. Although it is no longer configured as a multi-ethnic state fractured by apartheid and humanitarian crisis, as in 1999, Kosovo still needs NATO’s presence: twenty-one years after the launch of the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) operation, the latter continues to ensure a safe environment for all Kosovar communities. Nevertheless, it can be said that even after the close of the decade of Balkan wars, the Kosovar conflict has significantly contributed to the evolution of the Alliance. One of the most relevant lessons learned within this framework is the importance of “winning hearts and minds” in order to achieve the mission mandate. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to present the developments in Kosovo and its journey towards peace-building, focusing on the crucial role of NATO Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC). Properly analysed, the case of NATO CIMIC in Kosovo can constitute a success story, and it can be used as a model for similar cases.

Following the end of the Cold War, NATO-Ukraine cooperation began with Ukraine’s contributions to NATO operations and NATO’s aim to improve Ukraine’s security and defence. While Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it has numerous partnerships with NATO such as the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and the Partnership for Peace Program. As a state bordering Russia, Ukraine is of geopolitical importance for NATO.

Starting in late 2013, Ukraine was destabilized in the wake of mass protests aimed against pro-Russian President Yanukovych. Shortly after the removal of Yanukovych, the Russian parliament enabled Putin to intervene in Eastern Ukraine. While the primary goal of the NATO-Ukraine relationship has been to stabilize the region and provide security for both Ukraine and NATO, the Kremlin has perceived NATO’s influence in a Russian border state as a threat.

Even though Russia defends its actions in Eastern Ukraine, its actions in Crimea cannot be defended. Since the Ukraine crisis came into existence, NATO has increased its support for Ukraine. The Allies condemned the illegal interference in a sovereign state and have supported Ukraine through the Comprehensive Assistance Package. This article will discuss the Ukraine crisis, the reasons behind it, and its implications as well as Ukraine’s relations with NATO.

Achieving all NATO membership criteria and establishing relevant standards and principles has been the strategic national path of all national governments appointed since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine. However, do these efforts promise Ukraine’s ultimate membership in NATO? This paper provides the author’s personal opinions regarding the topic, which are enriched by first-hand knowledge of new policy developments in Ukraine’s security and defense sector, national narratives, and sociological studies. This paper will try to open the door for understanding how specific sectoral reforms are set in the national context and how Ukrainians see themselves on their path toward prospective NATO membership