ATO today faces a paradox. Its greatest threat is no longer conventional warfare, but the erosion of the democratic values it was designed to protect. As the alliance needs to wield soft power through strategic partnerships to meet contemporary threats like cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns, its global legitimacy is being tested. Former U.S. National Security Adviser, Fiona Hill, frames this starkly: The West is locked in a "state of war" with Russia and other hostile nations, fought through cyberattacks, criminal proxies, and corrosive subversion of democratic culture. This hybrid strategy leverages societal divisions: radicalizing online spaces, co–opting criminal networks, and tainting public discourse.
NATO’s effectiveness depends on sustaining democratic legitimacy at home as well as abroad. Internal instability—such as the recent unrest in Ballymena, Northern Ireland—reflects broader patterns of marginalization and alienation that authoritarian actors exploit. As Peter Mair argued in Ruling the Void, when democracies are hollowed out by elite detachment and low participation, they become vulnerable to manipulation. In such contexts, hybrid warfare thrives by targeting institutions that retain democratic form but lack democratic substance.
The alliance invokes democratic values through its partnerships yet tolerates backsliding in members like Türkiye and Hungary. This gap fuels skepticism in the Global South. Meanwhile, China shrewdly promotes alternatives, through infrastructure investments and ‘non–interference’ rhetoric that resonates with post–colonial states wary of Western conditionality. NATO could counter China’s appeal by highlighting transparent and accountable investment, contrasting with Beijing’s opacity on surveillance and debt.
NATO’s soft power tools remain critical to its strategy. Its Gender Action Plan, Strategic Communications Centers, and Cyber Defense Center, reflect a shift toward what Joseph Nye calls “smart power,” blending military deterrence with democratic appeal. In the Balkans and Eastern Europe, NATO’s Partnership for Peace programs have bolstered civic–military reforms, offering a countermodel to authoritarian influence. But these efforts falter when NATO members themselves undercut judicial independence or minority rights.
Credibility matters. NATO cannot project democratic values abroad while tolerating their decay at home. The U.S.—long seen as NATO’s democratic exemplar—is itself struggling with polarization and the failure of institutional checks and balances. Addressing this decay must be more than top–down reform, it requires bottom–up civic renewal through education, participation, and active pluralism. If NATO is to remain credible, it must defend more than borders, it must cultivate democracy as a lived, inclusive practice.
a global affairs media network
NATO’s fight for democratic integrity in an age of hybrid war
Image by Leonhard Niederwimmer from Pixabay
June 23, 2025
NATO’s greatest threat today is no longer conventional warfare, but the erosion of the democratic values it was designed to protect. Democratic erosion at home harms the alliance’s ability to project soft power, writes Dr. Marissa Quie.
N
ATO today faces a paradox. Its greatest threat is no longer conventional warfare, but the erosion of the democratic values it was designed to protect. As the alliance needs to wield soft power through strategic partnerships to meet contemporary threats like cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns, its global legitimacy is being tested. Former U.S. National Security Adviser, Fiona Hill, frames this starkly: The West is locked in a "state of war" with Russia and other hostile nations, fought through cyberattacks, criminal proxies, and corrosive subversion of democratic culture. This hybrid strategy leverages societal divisions: radicalizing online spaces, co–opting criminal networks, and tainting public discourse.
NATO’s effectiveness depends on sustaining democratic legitimacy at home as well as abroad. Internal instability—such as the recent unrest in Ballymena, Northern Ireland—reflects broader patterns of marginalization and alienation that authoritarian actors exploit. As Peter Mair argued in Ruling the Void, when democracies are hollowed out by elite detachment and low participation, they become vulnerable to manipulation. In such contexts, hybrid warfare thrives by targeting institutions that retain democratic form but lack democratic substance.
The alliance invokes democratic values through its partnerships yet tolerates backsliding in members like Türkiye and Hungary. This gap fuels skepticism in the Global South. Meanwhile, China shrewdly promotes alternatives, through infrastructure investments and ‘non–interference’ rhetoric that resonates with post–colonial states wary of Western conditionality. NATO could counter China’s appeal by highlighting transparent and accountable investment, contrasting with Beijing’s opacity on surveillance and debt.
NATO’s soft power tools remain critical to its strategy. Its Gender Action Plan, Strategic Communications Centers, and Cyber Defense Center, reflect a shift toward what Joseph Nye calls “smart power,” blending military deterrence with democratic appeal. In the Balkans and Eastern Europe, NATO’s Partnership for Peace programs have bolstered civic–military reforms, offering a countermodel to authoritarian influence. But these efforts falter when NATO members themselves undercut judicial independence or minority rights.
Credibility matters. NATO cannot project democratic values abroad while tolerating their decay at home. The U.S.—long seen as NATO’s democratic exemplar—is itself struggling with polarization and the failure of institutional checks and balances. Addressing this decay must be more than top–down reform, it requires bottom–up civic renewal through education, participation, and active pluralism. If NATO is to remain credible, it must defend more than borders, it must cultivate democracy as a lived, inclusive practice.
