Ms. Fiona Hill, Center on US and Europe at Brookings introduced the gathering along with Charles Grant, Center for European Reform. The proceedings then featured a panel discussion of the Moderator, Ms. Constance Stelzermueller, Center on US and Europe; Sophia Besch, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Luigi Scazzieri, Center for European Reform. The meeting was held on March 12, 2024, online format, from 9:30 AM to 10:30.
NATO is conceived as a transatlantic partnership; headed by a Commission. It assumes a defensive posture, which means, I take it: if a member country is threatened or attacked, the response would be a unified defense to deter the entity from proceeding upon an aggressive hostility against that country.
Defense spending remains the province of each member state; and it is understood that the defense industry must work with these governments as well as the Commission.
The value of having a unified response to aggressive hostility is just that: there's a unified effort, a coordination of resources and manpower to protect the member state(s).
Further, the organization permits supporting a country whose sovereignty is existentially being attacked by soliciting from its member states assistance in the form of contributions of military might to augment the country's defensive posture to survive as an independent state, e.g., Ukrainian's solicitation.
In my estimation, NATO has had marvelous beneficial results in presenting a united protective front to prevent take-over by aggressive acts against its existence. Is it worthy of emulation elsewhere in the world, I believe. This discussion only further convinced me of its time-honored worthiness.