Introduction

It is widely believed that military alliances are created in response to a hostile party. Because of that, many of them might not last longer than a decade. There is however one successful example that has survived for 70 years. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been created during the Cold War with a clear objective to safeguard the Euro-Atlantic area from any potential adversary or aggression. As such its role has never expired, but on the contrary become more intense against the new challenges that became more prominent in the 21st century. From historical stand point, it can be said that the organisation, (up until last two decades) was predominantly under the US leadership. And despite the fact that many of the leading European countries today play major role in NATO, it can be said that America still presents the main pillar. As such this is no surprise that the US decisions play very crucial role in the NATO operations. Naturally, however, there have been several disagreements or different views on certain issues between the US and European allies. Some thinkers argue that the current timeline showcases that divide in stronger colours, ever since Donald Trump became the president of the United States.

Because of that, the paper shall primarily focus on the US-NATO relations in the 21st century, to see how different American and European relations under NATO framework were, during the periods of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The essay shall look into several key aspects in US-NATO relations, specifically: 1.Burden-sharing; 2. Enlargement policy; 3. Threat assessment/response; and 4. Relations with Russia.

George W. Bush Presidency

The first period to look into, is that of President George Bush for he was the first US president of the 21st century. It was during his presidency that NATO enacted Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first and only time. As the treaty declares, "…an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all" , and as such in accordance with the Article 51 of United Nations, would be followed by the collective response from the alliance. The intricate part, however, is that the one that attacked United States and caused activation of NATO Article 5 was a non-state actor, a terrorist organisation. Therefore the 9/11 tragedy also pushed the alliance to become one of the major forces in combating terrorism around the world. The event made clear that geographical boundaries were no longer a natural deterrent, that terrorism was a global, not a local issue. The incident led to the NATO intervention to Afghanistan. And while the military campaign is considered controversial, it did not create a discord between the America and European countries, as it was the case with Iraq war. Despite the fact that 9/11 attacks resulted in Bush's administration declaring the "War on Terror", USA decided to take the matter of intervention to Iraq upon itself. One of the reasons for that was the obvious fact that George W. Bush's decision to go to Iraq alone and to pursue Saddam Hussein, was because the act was not approved by the United Nations, as such it is considered illegal. This was one of the reasons as to why NATO alliance together did not intervene to Iraq. As mentioned before the Article 5 of the Washington treaty has to correspond to the UN Chapter 51, to be considered legal. Therefore Bush could not persuade alliance to carry out a united intervention and instead, had to do it without support from the Alliance. However, this action caused a serious division amongst the US and European allies. The US intervention to Iraq would remain as one of the most hurtful thorns of discord that would continuously challenge the NATO unity, marking itself as a serious reason for Europeans to sceptically view the US intentions.

Despite Iraq incident, the partnership between the Europe and US continued under the framework of NATO in many other operations. For 11 years NATO has been participating in the ISAF missions in Afghanistan, a series of missions that were tasked with supporting the Afghan government in fight against terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Apart from usual peace-keeping and peace-enforcing aspects, the mission also had to ensure the following peace-building process. "ISAF was one of the largest international crisis management operations ever, bringing together contributions from up to 51 different countries". As a result in 2015 once ISAF operations came to its conclusion, they were replaced with the follow-up non-combat mission, "Resolute Support" , which transferred the authority from NATO forces to the Afghan army. Nevertheless, the NATO officers continue supporting Afghan security forces by providing them with necessary training, advising and assist.

Apart from Middle Eastern region, the Alliance has been focusing on securing peace in Balkan and Mediterranean regions. While the controversial Kosovo War took place before presidency of George W. Bush, the NATO troops have continued their presence in the region, especially following Kosovo's declaration of independence in February 2008 when NATO agreed it would continue to maintain its presence on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The Alliance helped to create the multi-ethnic forces of Kosovo, nevertheless even by today's situation Kosovo's army without NATO forces is not enough to ensure safety. This case is especially interesting as it is one of the prominent instances where NATO and EU have been cooperating in ensuring peace talks between the Kosovo and Serbian side, as the stability in Balkans in highly important for Europe therefore it automatically is the agenda for both NATO and EU.

President Bush's administration was quite supportive of the NATO further enlargement. In fact it was due to US administration's push that the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration recognized the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of several European countries. Majority of these countries, were given the specific guidelines, or so called "Membership Action Plan" ("MAP"). This is essentially a "programme of advice, assistance and practical support tailored to the individual needs of countries wishing to join the Alliance" , which comes in several criteria, such as having completed or in process of conducting specific reforms in the sphere of: politics, defence, economy and justice. This process led to the Alliance membership of many Central and East European countries into alliance. However, not every NATO member-state shared US enthusiasm of enlargement. The Bucharest summit declaration states that NATO has also shown support to aspirant countries such as Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. The idea of membership of Georgia and Ukraine was received with concern by several NATO members such as Germany. The major reason to that was the factor of Russia, which to this day views NATO enlargement close to its 'area of influence' as a clear threat. The situation worsened especially after 2008 Russian aggression in Georgia. The incident created another gap between the Euro-Atlantic allies some of which thought that NATO has breached Russian interests, while others (especially US) viewed this conflict as a despicable act of violence. As such up until 2009, NATO had officially suspended all the official cooperation with the Russian state. Nevertheless, President Bush's administration remained committed to the idea that the countries wishing to join the alliance had the right to do. As a result, US's constant support for NATO enlargement eventually led to the membership of Montenegro, helped Northern Macedonia (as of 2018) to come very close to membership, as well as showed continued support to Eastern European countries such as Georgia for continuous progress and resolve in the form of participation in NATO missions, and conducting reforms.

In summary, one could argue that NATO has never been as active together, as during the period of Bush. Not only did his presidency witness the biggest NATO enlargement in history, but also served as a catalyst for many peacekeeping missions and global fight against terrorism. Even though Iraq intervention created a visible crack in NATO, the strong US leadership served as a main core for NATO's might. At the same time one could argue that it was during Bush, that the Europe has become very dependent on US and defence spending issues started to form. And while relations with Russia in 21st century started on a good note, be it anti-terrorist missions or cooperation in Balkans , at the end of Bush's term it became clear that Kremlin was not thinking about abandoning its expansionist ambitions.

Barack Obama Presidency

The situation did change considerably during the administration of Barack Obama. If one was to briefly summarise his presidency, it would be the fact that US, under his leadership gave more power to European allies in NATO decision-making. As a president that succeeded George W. Bush, Obama managed to significantly weaken Al-Qaeda forces, by finalising the vital military operation that resulted in elimination of Osama bin-Laden. In military operations, this translated to Obama 'stepping aside' from the NATO military operations leadership and instead give more power to its European allies. The most evident case of such precedent was the NATO intervention to Libya, where the US decided to play a more supportive role. From one's perspective, such an act could be described as a 'balanced' burden-sharing process amongst the NATO allies. For one, such decision did paint USA's image amongst its European allies in a more positive/cooperative way. In fact the leadership of this operation was given specifically to the British and the French. Naturally because of that there was no harsh criticism from Europe towards US. Additionally, Unlike Iraq of 2003, the US (now under NATO framework) participated in this humanitarian intervention, only after it was approved by the UN Security Council. This kind of move can also understood from the overall strategy of the US during the Obama administration. It was more focused on the idea of multilateralism and long-term cooperation that are the key pillars of Neo-Liberal thinking.

While giving mission leadership to European countries did improve US image on the other side of the Atlantic, there were, nevertheless issues raised. First of all the case of Libya not only showed the errors in European leadership, but also severe lack of motivation to participate in this military operation. Further, the duration of the mission without the proper after-war peace-building process created serious problems that could have been avoided. After all participating and prevailing in the conflict is just the half of the process, while repairing the damage and rebuilding peace is proven to be considerably more challenging. Also, one has to take into account that the actual issue of defence spending by the European allies compared to US is not balanced, with some counties not being able to even reach the agreed 2% of burden-sharing. Therefore for US to lead operations from behind, it requires NATO member states military capabilities to be up to date and enough in quantity to support a long-term operation. Because of that, one would argue that such a move by the Obama administration while being presented well in theory, failed to manifest in practice. It can also be argued that the European forces were not ready for such transfer of command in peace-keeping operations, as mainly US has been seen as the main leader and flagman in humanitarian missions. With Libyan crisis it became apparent that European states were too much dependant on the US, to the point that several concerns were voiced whether or not Europe would be even able to defend itself without the US help. This issue would soon enough showcase another fragile side of the alliance. While US was focused more on the China-Pacific region , the majority of the Alliance forgot about another enemy, that was honing its skills.

One of the first things Obama tried was finding a common ground with his Russian colleague. While many thought there was a hope for improving relations, this move resulted into one of Obama Administration's most naive decisions. In the early 2009, the US opted to 'reset' the tensions with Russia and instead resume cooperation from the 'new page'. The idea behind this move was to loosen condemnation on the 2008 Russian occupation of Georgia's territories, while looking for cooperation with Russia against terrorism, nuclear disarmament and looking into ways to sanction North Korea, essentially bringing both countries to the win-win outcome. This move also indirectly influenced the relations renewal between the NATO and Russia, especially when it came to their support in Afghanistan. Up until around May of 2012 (when Dmitry Medvedev's Presidency ended in Russia), the relations between US and Russia seemed to some to have returned to the 'business' as usual state. Unfortunately for the West, this sense of optimism turned out to be flawed once Vladimir Putin returned as a president of Russia and accused US in supporting his opposition. The final nail to the coffin, however, was the 2014 Russian aggression in Eastern part of Ukraine and the Crimean annexation. This incident showed the West that Russia was not to be trusted. Additionally, unlike 2008 Russian-Georgian War, Ukraine (during 2010-2014) was no longer aspiring the NATO membership. As a result the relations between the Obama administration and Russia have been turned into hostilities. Naturally, that also resulted in NATO cutting ties with Russian Federation and even officially declaring their acts of expansionism in Eastern Europe as clear threats to Alliance. This has been repeatedly stated in all NATO declarations since Wales Summit. Moreover the following Warsaw Declaration of 2016 not only condemns Russia's continuous aggression in Georgia and Ukraine, but clearly and vocally recognizes Russian State (not only their actions) as an adversary to the Alliance. This was also a period when the West started to notice Russia utilizing different forms of Hybrid Warfare, with countries such as Lithuania and Estonia being constant targets of cyber-attacks, while Central and East European countries of the NATO being plagued by the Russian disinformation. One of the most damaging effects upon the West was the constant Russian attempts at not only undermining Western values in European countries, but also planting seeds of scepticism and distrust towards the alliance itself, by constantly showcasing NATO countries as 'dishonest' expansionists that create chaos and instability in the world, usually by presenting the modified version of history about the NATO's controversial operations such in Kosovo , Iraq and Libya. To make matters worse, over the last decade, Russia has been intervening in the domestic elections of various Western countries, where they usually support right-wing political parties that openly oppose the Western Liberal values, or even are vocal about their hatred towards EU and NATO. One of the most important cases of Russian meddling was during the 2016 US presidential elections, to which Obama's administration was not prepared.

In comparison with previous president, Barack Obama was not favouring neo-realistic vision and therefore greatly emphasized on the transatlantic cooperation, idea of multilateralism and dialogue. Because of his predecessor's actions in Iraq, Obama had to work hard on improving America's image in the eyes of European colleagues, to the point that he would give more authority to NATO as an organization and take a step back from being frontman in humanitarian missions, allowing European countries to have the leadership. At the same time, it can be argued that some of his actions were a bit naïve, such as his trust in cooperation with Russia, which turned out to be disastrous as history proved once again that the deal with Kremlin usually has the same value as the paper it was written on. Despite that, Obama also managed to improve and even continue some of the processes that started during Bush. The obvious examples here are the successful liquidation of Osama bin-Laden and supporting (eventually) further NATO enlargement. While only 2 countries managed to become NATO members during his presidency, US efforts also laid groundwork for the eventual membership of Montenegro. The major error of the NATO alliance as a whole, during Obama's administration was neglecting Russian occupation of Georgian territories, and not paying attention to Kremlin improving its hybrid warfare technology each year. As such the west was caught off-guard by the Crimean Annexation of 2014, as well as Russian meddling in Western elections that took place in only couple of years later. Finally the period of Obama presidency showed how vulnerable Europe is without the US and that it would be challenging for Europe to increase its own defensive capabilities.

Donal Trump Presidency

Different from the previous presidents' governance was that of Donald Trump. The first obvious issue is the fact that Trump tends to view international relations from a more business dealing perspective, rather than International Relations theories. Unlike Bush or Obama periods, where America was claiming itself to be the beacon of democracy and international stability, Trump openly states that his main goal is to ensure the interests of US first, and international commitments after. It would seem that by "America first" trump actually means the withdrawal of US from various multilateral unions or organisations that he might seem as 'no beneficial' for his country, even threatening to leave NATO. Secondly from the tone of his speeches the views authoritarian non-democratic regimes as possible partners, something that his European allies do not appreciate. From international relations perspective those sort of actions actually hard United States foreign image and create a serious divide with European leaders.

When it comes to humanitarian interventions, it could be argued that Trumps follows purely materialistic cost-benefit logic when he decides to call back American troops from countries such as Syria, where not only do serious perils remain unresolved, but also where presence of American troops in absolutely necessary to prevent mayhem. This not only raises concerns from European allies, but also those local military forces that fight beside the Americans. The most noticeable case is Trump's decision to withdraw forces from Syria, while one of the main causes of conflict (Assad's regime) remains in power, while American soldiers are forced to leave their allied Kurdish militias in the hands of country such as Turkey that views them as terrorists

When it comes to the issue of burden-sharing, Donald Trump was the one that made most  vocal complaints about the alliance's inability to fulfil the agreed among allies 2% GDP spending in development of defensive capabilities. This was the case during the 2018 NATO Brussels Summit, where solving this issue was raised by US as a top priority. From the moment Trump assumed the presidency at the White House, he made clear statements that US was practically 'carrying' NATO on its back and paying for Europe's defence, while alliance itself was treating USA "unfairly" throughout the decades. "In fact, it was mentioned that from all the 29 members of the NATO, only 4-5 members were even meeting the 2% GDP spending criteria". This sort of confrontative tone was evident through the morning dialogue between President Trump and NATO General Secretary Stoltenberg. Despite the fact that Jens Stoltenberg overall agreeing with the fact that the alliance members had to reach the necessary threshold of afore mentioned 2%, though there was a clear disagreement over the deadlines. While the Alliance was promising to reach the required threshold by 2028, Trump made it clear that the required minimum must have been reached in even less time

In the framework of Summit, Donald Trump specifically stated his confusion regarding the issue of Germany: while Europe required the support of America to be safeguarded from Russia, paradoxically, those very countries (most noticeable Germany) are heavily dependent on the Russian energy, specifically the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. "Those pipelines are spreading from the Western part of Russia, through the Baltic Sea, into Germany, from where the said gas is distributed into different European countries." As such, Trump argued that the money that countries such as Germany pay for the Russian gas, could have been instead invested into the country's defence. "To support his argument, the US president mentioned that countries such as Poland, who even though have less GDP than Germany, not only meet the defence spending criteria, but also refuse to be dependent on the Russian energy." Despite the fact how much controversial Trumps criticism towards his European allies was, it ended up delivering the message. As a result, not only did the NATO member states significantly increased the amount spent in defence sphere (according to Stoltenberg), but also alliance carried out several serious training exercises, one of them being in the Black Sea region.

The rest of developments can be understood from the Brussels Declaration itself. The first thing that is noticeable, is the fact that unlike the Warsaw Summit Communique, the overall NATO tone looks 'less confrontative'. The obvious hint from such tone is the fact that the NATO tries not to sound provocative to the Russian side, instead mentioning that they remain open to dialogue with their Russian colleagues. At the same time, however, the alliance highlight is condemnation of Russia's hostile policy towards neighbouring Georgia and Ukraine. However, unlike the previous NATO documents, in the Brussels Summit's Declaration, "it is noticeable how the NATO views Russian actions and not Russia itself as an enemy" .  This rhetoric is present especially in paragraphs where the NATO talks mentions their defensive capabilities, specifically – nuclear weapons. According to the official document, NATO BMD (Ballistic Missile Defence) "in their possession is for defence only, and only in case of self-defence would be used against an enemy". The next sentence even literally claims that NATO will never use those weapons against the Russian Federation. "NATO BMD is intended to defend against potential threats emanating from outside the Euro-Atlantic area" , this sentence ironically raises a question as to against whom exactly the Ballistic Missile Defence system shall be used, and who, if not Russia, is as threatening to use nuclear weapons. Aside from the issue of Russia, in the document the North Atlantic Alliance clearly welcomed Montenegro's ascension to membership and hopes to see North Macedonia becoming the newest member (which as of today is not that far away). At the same time, they emphasized the series of important steps and reform carried out several NATO aspiring countries, with Georgia specifically showing the best results amongst the others.

Regarding the future of the missions itself, it was elaborated that there would be three main spheres of peace-keeping missions. The first issue area, according to the General Secretary would be focused on the Alliance's defence and deterrence policy. The mission would raise the mobility and deployment of the NATO troops in various location of Euro-Atlantic region. During the Summit, NATO General-Secretary announced a new plan for the Alliance, titled "four 30s". The mentioned initiative does not focus on the increase of armed forces, but the increase in the readiness of already existing military capabilities. The second problem area to be mentioned was terrorism. "According to the request by the Iraqi government, Jean Stoltenberg stated that there will be the new NATO training missions taking place in Iraq and led by Canada." This move would provide the local militaries with creating specific professional military academies. The last area was focusing around Afghanistan. In this sphere, NATO's role is going to shift from conducting missions itself, to a more advisory and training procedure, where the local Afghan army would gain enough knowledge and experience to be able to independently conduct military peace operations.

From the framework of Brussels Summit, some might have had the feeling, that Trump had become more committed to the NATO cause, after reaching an agreement regarding the defence spending with other European allies. However, the following Helsinki Summit, where Trump met Russian President Putin, made it evident that the NATO alliance was not united. Not only did Trump once again avoid accusing Vladimir Putin in meddling of 2016 US presidential elections (something that has been proven by the US security services), but also during the press conference, he called his Russian colleague a "competitor" in business, while clearly calling EU a main "foe" in trade.

Conclusion

By comparing at the Trump's administration to those of Bush and Obama, it becomes evident that the current US leadership follows their own unique path, drastically different from previous administrations period. Be it republican or democrat president, the image of US as the flagman of Liberal Ideas such as freedom of speech, human rights and democracy, was always viewed proudly by previous presidents. At least any former US president would want his country to be seen appealing to their allies. President Trumps decisions, however, not only 'teach' Europe how to live without the clear US leadership, bur also portrays country as being not that different from Russia: both disregarding international agreements, both seeing human rights as secondary or not important issue, both being major powers with histories of interventions in other sovereign countries. While NATO did take serious steps during the Trump administration, they were not caused because of his leadership, on the contrary one would argue that the Alliance of today is facing a serious crisis of disunity. This is further expanded into fact that Trump does not view European countries and EU as a strategic partner, but more as of a political and economic competitor, something that seriously damages the US-European relations. Moreover, Bush and Obama administrations eventually ended up confronting Russian Federation, while Trump not only showcases friendlier tone with authoritarian leaders, but also views them as potential partners to "cut deals with". And while it seems that all of Trumps decisions follow the zero-sum logic and logic of consequences from purely materialistic point of view, they did bring some positive outcome for the Alliance. Firstly Trump's constant ultimatums towards European allies turned out fruitful and they began taking defence spending issue seriously. The fact that many countries will reach the 2% spending benefits the alliance as a whole, but mostly the member-states themselves. And even though so far only Montenegro became the latest Alliance member, the ceaseless US efforts have brought Macedonia very close to entering the NATO "open door". The latest NATO declarations also reflected on increased NATO support towards several Eastern European NATO candidate countries, many of which were nearly taken off the NATO agenda table during Obama's "Russian reset" policy. At the end, it can be said that Trump's choices will shape a different future for the alliance, possible one where the Europe might become more active and perceptive towards the danger, while at the same time lacking America's strong leadership. It could reduce NATO's direct involvement in conflict areas, but at the same time, encourage it to increase and even reform the defensive capabilities

Bibliography:

Avlon, John "Osama Bin Laden's Death One Year Ago Is Just One of Barack Obama's Achievements Against Al-Qaeda". The Telegraph. April 28, 2012. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9233481/Osama-bin-Ladens-death-one-year-ago-is-just-one-of-Barack-Obamas-achievements-against-al-Qaeda.html

Carey, Henry. "Russian Reset Remains Lost in Translation". World Policy. November 22, 2011. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://worldpolicy.org/2011/11/22/russian-reset-remains-lost-in-translation/

Čižik, Tomáš. "Russian Information Warfare in Central Europe". Information Warfare–New Security Challenge for Europe (2017): 8-32

Davis, Julie Hirschfeld, and Katie Rogers. "Trump, on Eve of Putin Meeting, Calls E.U. a Trade 'Foe' ". The New York Times. July 15, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/europe/trump-putin-summit-meeting.html

Erlanger, Steven, and Steven Lee Myers. "NATO Allies Oppose Bush on Georgia and Ukraine". The New York Times. April 03, 2008. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html

Hallams, Ellen, and Benjamin Schreer. "Towards a 'Post-American' Alliance? NATO Burden-sharing after Libya". International affairs 88, no. 2 (2012): 313-327.

Hill, Fiona. "Putin and Bush in Common Cause? Russia's View of the Terrorist Threat After September 11". Brookings. July 28, 2016. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/putin-and-bush-in-common-cause-russias-view-of-the-terrorist-threat-after-september-11/

Kaufman, Joyce P. "The US Perspective on NATO under Trump: Lessons of the Past and Prospects for the Future". International Affairs 93, no. 2 (2017): 251-266.

Margon, Sarah. "Giving Up the High Ground". Foreign Affairs. March 27, 2019. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-02-13/giving-high-ground

Piccone, Ted. "Tillerson Says Goodbye to Human Rights Diplomacy". Brookings. May 05, 2017. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/05/tillerson-says-goodbye-to-human-rights-diplomacy/

Pkhaladze, Nodar. "A Look Back on the 2018 NATO Brussels Summit". Institute for Politics and Society. August 15, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.politikaspolecnost.cz/en/analyzy/a-look-back-on-the-2018-nato-brussels-summit-2/

Rohde, David. "Does Donald Trump Think That the War on Terror Is Over?". The New Yorker. December 23, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/does-donald-trump-think-that-the-war-on-terror-is-over

Speck, Ulrich. "Russia Reset". RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. March 05, 2009. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.rferl.org/a/NATO_Resumes_Formal_Ties_With_Russia/1504946.html

Šukyté, Dovilé. "Russian Information Warfare in the Baltic States and Possibilities to Resist". Information warfare–New Security Challenge for Europe. Bratislava: Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs (2017): 116-138.

Sullivan, Jake. "The Putin Files: The U.S.-Russian Reset". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. October 25, 2017. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/10/25/putin-files-u.s.-russian-reset-pub-73555

"Brussels Summit Declaration". NATO. July 11, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_156624.htm

"Bucharest Summit Declaration - Issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008". NATO. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/us/natohq/official_texts_8443.htm

"Countering Terrorism". NATO. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77646.htm

"Enlargement". NATO. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

"Membership Action Plan (MAP)". NATO. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37356.htm

"NATO-Georgia Commission Declaration at the Brussels Summit". NATO. July 12, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_156627.htm?selectedLocale=en

"Operations and Missions: Past and Present". NATO. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm

"Relations with Russia". NATO. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50090.htm

"Relations with Ukraine." NATO. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm#

"Speech And the Following Discussion At the Munich Conference On Security Policy". President Of Russia. February 10, 2007. Accessed May 15, 2019. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034

"The North Atlantic Treaty". NATO. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

"Trump Doesn't Rule Out Recognizing Russia's Annexation Of Crimea". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. June 30, 2018. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-doesnt-rule-out-recognizing-russian-annexation-ukraine-crimean-peninsula/29328403.html

"US Accuses Russia of Cyber Attacks". BBC. October 07, 2016. Accessed January 22, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37592684

"Wales Summit Declaration Issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales". NATO. September 5, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm