Certainly! Here's a rewritten version of the content to make it plagiarism-free and unique:
The 75-year journey of NATO can be divided into three key phases, each marked by significant threats to Western security.
The first phase was dominated by the Cold War and the looming Soviet threat. In the second phase, spanning the 1990s and 2000s, NATO faced new challenges, deploying troops for the first time in Bosnia and Kosovo, followed by missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The third phase, starting in 2014, saw a resurgence of threats as Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, invaded Ukraine and ISIS declared a caliphate, bringing armed conflict back to NATO's borders at a time when the United States and its allies were stepping back from global engagements.
The fourth phase of NATO's evolution is being shaped by a slower unfolding crisis. Over the past decade, NATO allies have consistently underspent on defense, while adversaries have modernized and strengthened their military capabilities.
This lack of investment became starkly evident during Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
While Putin bears direct responsibility for Russia's actions, experts suggest that warnings about the need to strengthen defenses were ignored in favor of fiscal prudence following the 2008 financial crisis.
This is exemplified by Lithuania's former defense minister, Rasa Juknevičienė, recounting a 2012 meeting at the Pentagon where concerns about Russia's future actions were acknowledged but not adequately addressed.
Despite the known risks, by 2014, only three out of NATO's 30 members were meeting the alliance's defense spending target of 2% of GDP.
This number had increased to only seven by 2019. Juknevičienė criticized NATO for being complacent in the 2010s, focusing more on counterterrorism than on regional threats, which led to consistently low defense spending across the West and a reluctance to provoke Russia.
The long-term underfunding of defense budgets has had several consequences, including lower troop numbers and poorly maintained equipment.
In the context of the conflict in Ukraine, the limited and rapidly depleting ammunition stocks available to support Ukraine have been particularly damaging.
Former US ambassador to Ukraine, John Herbst, noted that if European allies had met their 2% spending target, there would have been more weapons available to support Ukraine without compromising their own defense capabilities.
The lack of investment in defense has not only affected weapon stocks but also led to a lack of incentive for private arms companies to invest in manufacturing, further exacerbating the issue.
While NATO's primary focus is not protecting non-member countries like Ukraine, the support provided to Ukraine, including direct military assistance, has highlighted the vulnerabilities created by years of underfunding.
NATO members have acknowledged the need to increase spending, with more countries meeting the 2% target and making commitments to enhance arms procurement.
Despite these efforts, reversing years of underfunding and replenishing ammunition stocks will take time.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has called for increased coordination and support for Ukraine but emphasized the need for assured, reliable, and predictable security assistance.
In conclusion, while NATO has made strides in addressing its funding gaps and coordinating efforts, challenges remain.
The alliance must not only meet the immediate demands of supporting Ukraine but also rebuild its own defense capabilities to ensure its long-term security.