This is not to say defence and security spending need not be discussed; it is extremely important. But to what effect newly procured tools or formations are interoperable and capable is more relevant than basic brigade or ship statistics. Delegations need to bring both topics to the forefront of discussions for leaders to consider. The scenarios that drive Allied nations’ military formations and size targets need a significant refresh, and this will lead to a better direction to nations in terms of what they should invest in over the next two decades. 

As NATO’s undeclared leader and enabler, the American president has a significant opportunity to guide the alliance’s adaptation and evolution. He must remember that a weakened or fractured NATO only serves other nations and actors who seek to feed off of an unhinged alliance. A strong NATO is squarely in the United States’ self-interest, just as it is in every member’s self-interest. Competitors will relentlessly challenge the rules-based international order in the century ahead. Natural and manmade shifts will occur. NATO solidarity, underpinned by seventy-one years of collaborative muscle-memory and enabled by resilient nations and adaptive forces, has never been more important. 

LeAnne Howard has served in strategy and policy positions with the U.S. military, NATO, and special operations for nearly two decades, to include nine years overseas in support of alliances and coalitions. She is also a non-resident fellow with Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.