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

Atlantica sat down with Ambassador Baiba Braze, via Skype, to discuss her career as a female ambassador representing Latvia for over two and half decades. Currently, Ambassador Braze is Latvia’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom. In May 2020, she will take up the role of NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy.

In 2019, North Macedonia finally succeeded in beginning its accession to NATO. This year, marking the 70th anniversary of the Alliance, was the year that this small country in the Balkans achieved an invitation for which it eagerly worked for many years. Reaching an important and vital compromise with Greece, resolving an almost 30-year name dispute, North Macedonia entered a new era in its history. In this era, the country will have an opportunity to prosper and develop as part of the NATO family.

The mission of the Alliance, which is to assure the security of its member states, has been successfully carried out for 70 years. This fact creates a promising precedent for North Macedonia in guaranteeing its security and stability for the foreseeable future. Being a country that peacefully left former Yugoslavia was assurance for the West that Northern Macedonia would work toward a peaceful future, too. Although the country has never faced external military threats since its independence, it has had to deal with many internal issues as well as outside interference from Russia. Firstly, its two major population groups have violently clashed in the past. Second, similar to all Western countries, North Macedonia is a target of misinformation and disinformation campaigns that threaten to destabilise the country. Finally, North Macedonia’s democratic processes and institutions have been put under stress and were tested by corruption and civil unrest.

There are many opportunities for North Macedonia in NATO. Initially, the Alliance can support its security institutions, giving them the knowledge, the motives, and the capacity to reform in order to work more effectively. By building the resilience of government structures, the resilience of the population will also increase, leaving North Macedonia less vulnerable to manipulation.