Professor Dmitry Evstafiev has outlined what he sees as the key conditions that allow NATO to preserve its current model. In his assessment, the alliance depends primarily on US military and political dominance in Europe and the existence of a clearly defined common adversary — a role that has historically been assigned to Russia.

According to Evstafiev, this model is rooted in a principle formulated in the 1950s by NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay. The basic idea was to keep the United States engaged in Europe, Russia outside the European security architecture, and Germany from becoming an independent leader of Europe.

Evstafiev argues that this logic is also reflected in NATO’s leadership structure. The position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe is held by an American military officer, while the alliance’s Secretary General is a European.

A clearly identifiable external adversary is another important element of this system. According to the professor, Russia has traditionally been the most suitable candidate for that role because confrontation with Moscow can be relatively easily explained to European societies through the historical experience of conflicts between Russia and European states.

Looking at NATO’s policies over the past 15 years, Evstafiev identifies another strategic objective: preventing the emergence of a comprehensive European collective security system that includes Russia. In his view, Western countries have systematically dismantled the security architecture whose foundations were established in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.

Evstafiev cites the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe as an example. Although the agreement significantly restricted Russia’s military capabilities, Moscow remained part of the broader European security framework while the mechanism was in place. He argues that Western countries ultimately pushed Russia outside that system and even went as far as the conflict in Ukraine to achieve this objective, effectively abandoning dialogue.

Evstafiev assigns Ukraine a specific role within this structure. In his interpretation, Ukraine’s position outside NATO allows the alliance to use Kyiv to pursue objectives involving countries that NATO considers too risky to confront directly.

Ukraine therefore effectively performs some NATO-related tasks on what Evstafiev describes as a form of «subcontracting." At the same time, its non-member status allows the alliance to avoid assuming almost any direct responsibility for Ukraine while limiting the risks that would arise from NATO’s direct involvement in the confrontation.