By Lydia Chatzopoulou,
When it comes to the world’s biggest legacies –and specifically the history of the strategic, politically shaped stages of our world– alliances have always been the number one factor when it comes to designing and building long-term empires, relationships and movements that have changed the political landscape. The undeniable truth is that behind every handshake and undercover lie lies an alliance that has just started forming. In the latest analysis we observe partnerships that are falling apart, shifting political ambitions and alliances while also trying to navigate global pressures. From the Treaty of Versailles to NATO’s current strain over Ukraine, alliances have always shifted under the weight of ambition, distrust, and global pressure. This dramatic change is neither sudden nor unexpected. It is crucial to understand that public appearances are often marked by broken promises, unrealistic visions and distrust. Our main questions are the following: Why do alliances form? How do they fail? How can we stabilize them by fixing the broken? Is it too late?
Initially, we should stress that cultural differences play a major role in determining whether strategic alliances thrive or collapse. When organizations and businesses from a vastly different cultural environment come together, it becomes vital to manage and navigate these differences. Ignoring cultural differences and divergent political norms can lead to lack of communication in strategic, diplomatic and operational aspects, gaps in understanding opposing political opinions and jeopardy of potential success. Clear communication can form the foundation of many successful collaborations. However, we must keep in mind the cultural barriers that can slow this process (such as ideas, expectations, and instructions).
As expected, costly errors or operational delays can likely occur. It is important to keep in mind that imbalances in cultural values and even behaviors can create significant obstacles. Organizations from different backgrounds often tackle leadership and operational management in dissimilar ways. If these differences are not carefully managed, tensions can develop, eventually damaging trust and weakening the spirit of cooperation between partners. Even within alliances like the EU, cultural fault lines over governance models and national identity have strained unity, as seen in EU countries’ legal reforms clashing at times with Brussels’ democratic standards.
A deeper and more insidious threat is the erosion of trust (e.g. surveillance or espionage between allies). It plays a critical role in the success of strategic alliances, influencing communication, feedback, and mutual understanding. When trust is lacking, communication can “break down”, as partners may hesitate to share information, leading to misaligned goals, in the form of strategic drifts or competing national interests.The absence of trust also discourages open feedback, which is vital for continuous improvement. Indeed, without formal agreements to clearly define roles and expectations, differing interpretations can cause conflict. Even inconsistencies between words and actions can further erode trust, casting doubt on a partner’s reliability and commitment.
There are also other types of risks that can emerge even from within a single member of an alliance itself. History and contemporary examples show that alliances can be destabilized when some members pursue conflicting agendas. Countries like Turkey or Hungary have been criticized for maintaining close ties with Russia. This, from another point of view, can be offensive and even considered a “double game”, especially since it weakens the effectiveness and unity of an alliance. These internal divisions’ slow decision-making and give external powers leverage and also test the credibility of collective defense (Article 5 of NATO). Adding to this, is the financial burden of alliance politics involved in sustaining them. Alliances can be costly, particularly when it comes to military commitments from their members. In organizations like NATO, where discussions around “burden-sharing” have become especially intense, there are several factors that contribute to the overall expense. On top of that when a powerful state provides military protection, it often gains political and strategic benefits in a region it considers important. This support is not an act of generosity or goodwill, but rather a deliberate move based on political and military interests.
Therefore, how can these matters be tackled? Is there any room for improvement? The success of military alliances can be measured using a range of indicators that highlight their effectiveness in managing and resolving conflicts. These indicators include the level of military preparedness, diplomatic collaboration, and the ability to prevent hostilities between member countries.Of course, it’s more than natural for members of different countries to disagree on certain issues and have contrasting points of view. But politically, alliances have the obligation to find their common ground. Alliances, after all, need a stable environment. Alliances play a significant role in promoting regional peace and ensuring mutual defense. Numerical data, such as decreases in violent conflicts due to alliance-led initiatives— like peacekeeping operations or coordinated military training —also provide valuable insight. Additionally, the economic well-being of participating nations after alliance activities is a key factor, as financial stability often goes together with security.
Looking ahead, the changing global environment will demand that military alliances become more agile and responsive. Addressing future threats will require adaptable frameworks and rapid-response capabilities to strengthen deterrence and diplomacy. On top of that, we must address the balance between peacekeeping and power projection of alliances, which will often be judged by how they prevent conflicts rather than win wars. At the same time, advances in technology are fundamentally transforming how these alliances operate and coordinate in both strategy and execution. Matters right now can be challenging and alliances may resemble a fragmented landscape. Yet, there is still time to improve the current political stage. After all, without alliances no communication exists, no sympathy, no help. Is it really that late?
References
- What Are the Common Reasons for the Failure of Strategic Alliances? Strategic Leaders Consulting. Available here
- The Role of Military Alliances in Effective Conflict Resolution. Total Military Insight. Available here
- The Role of Alliances in Enhancing Global Stability Today. Total Military Insight. Available here
- Collective Defense And Article 5. NATO. Available here
