What is its 21st-century value?
It’s interesting to note that he doesn’t talk about the current mess with Turkey. I think it was a mistake to admit it.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of Turkey, Erdogan seems to be losing popular support (which is a little surprising, considering the power grabs he’s been making).
NATO’s value in the 21st century is pretty much the same as its value in the 20th, namely, keeping Russia out of the rest of Europe.
When NATO was first formed, it was a bit like The Wall in Game of Thrones – it looked as though NATO would be necessary indefinitely as the Soviet Union was almost universally considered a permanent part of the geopolitical landscape – something that was still true right up until very near its end.
Times change. NATO has worked pretty well for 70 years and now, with demographic and economic trends in Russia all pointing to that nation fading into substantial irrelevance by the early 22nd century – if not sooner – NATO no longer even has to be looked at in the same terms as, say, safeguarding high-level nuclear waste. It is not a millennia-long responsibility.
If we can get another 70 years out of NATO as Russia crumbles and China gobbles up Siberia, that may well be enough. If Sweden and Finland can be persuaded to join, all the better. Unlike its erstwhile Soviet ancestor, Russia is no longer credibly scary enough to keep “neutrals” out of NATO by sheer force of its withering glance.
Russia is a menace and is likely to remain one for the rest of its consequential existence. But said existence no longer seems anything remotely resembling open-ended. Russia needs to be fenced off, to the greatest feasible extent, and allowed to expire of its own accumulated rottenness without causing external mischief as it fades into the sunset.