Top 10 strongest NATO countries
NATO is more than just a military alliance; it provides an important framework for international cooperation, strategic coordination, and collective defense. While unity is its guiding concept, the balance of power within NATO is unequal.
Business Insider Africa presents the top 10 strongest NATO countries.
This list is courtesy of Global Firepower.
The United States ranks number 1 on the list.
Larger states, particularly the United States, hold tremendous power, yet smaller nations contribute in unique but valuable ways.
NATO was founded in 1949 as a response to Europe's security deficit following World War II and the mounting prospect of Soviet expansion.
The alliance began with twelve founding members, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, who saw collaboration as critical to preserving peace in a divided globe.
NATO has emphasized the notion of mutual defense since its inception, with Article 5 stating that an assault on one ally is considered an attack on all.
However, the level of influence amongst members varies. While all countries sit at the same table, their military capabilities, financial contributions, and geopolitical weight vary greatly.
For example, the United States contributes the majority of NATO's military resources and strategic leadership, giving it significant influence over alliance choices.
Despite these inequalities, NATO promotes critical defense coordination and interoperability, allowing troops from many states to work together effortlessly in joint missions.
It also acts as a diplomatic platform where smaller members can express their concerns and help shape security policies.
NATO also invests in cybersecurity, innovation, and information sharing, giving member countries, particularly those with limited resources, access to essential capabilities.
Importantly, membership in NATO raises a country's international profile. While nations like Germany and France wield considerable power, smaller members like Latvia and Albania benefit from increased security and a say in regional stability efforts.
In essence, NATO combines unequal power with shared accountability, guaranteeing that some countries lead while others are protected.
Its sustained significance stems from its ability to adapt, unite, and respond collectively to global dangers.
With that said, here are the 10 strongest NATO countries, according to data from Global Firepower.
Top 10 strongest NATO countries
Rank Country Power index
1. United States 0.0744
2. United Kingdom 0.1785
3. France 0.1878
4. Turkey 0.1902
5. Italy 0.2164
6. Germany 0.2601
7. Spain 0.3242
8. Poland 0.3776
9. Sweden 0.4835
10. Canada 0.5179
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
36 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Trump defense chief to rename Navy ship — is that common? Historians weigh in
President Donald Trump's administration is planning to rename a U.S. Navy ship. Is this a common practice? Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is set to rebrand the USNS Harvey Milk, a fleet replenishment oiler named after the California politician and Navy veteran, according to CBS News. Other news outlets have confirmed this report. Milk served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors — becoming one of the first openly gay elected officials in the country — before his assassination in 1978. When asked to comment on the report, a Pentagon spokesperson told CBS News that Hegseth 'is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.' The defense secretary, a former Fox News anchor, has made some negative remarks about LGBTQ people in the past. In his 2024 book, he wrote that policies permitting gay individuals to serve in the military are 'part of a 'Marxist' agenda,' according to The Guardian. Hegseth is also no stranger to rebranding military assets. He previously ordered the renaming of North Carolina's Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg and Georgia's Fort Moore to Fort Benning — restoring their original names, which were associated with the Confederate generals Braxton Bragg and Henry Benning. But, defense officials noted that the restored names now honor World War II solider Roland Bragg and World War I solider Fred Benning. Naval historians told McClatchy News that the U.S. Navy has a fairly long history of rebranding existing vessels — particularly in the distant past — but they stressed that renaming ships explicitly for ideological reasons has little precedent. Long history of renaming ships 'Historically, renaming U.S. warships has been very common,' John Beeler, a history professor at the University of Alabama, who researches military and naval history, told McClatchy News. He cited the example of the USS New York, an armored cruiser built in 1893, which was rebranded to the USS Rochester in 1917, the year the U.S. entered World War I. There were a number of reasons why existing vessels might have had their names switched. For one, they could have been renamed after their role in the Navy changed, or after their capture during wartime, Jason Smith, a history professor at Southern Connecticut State University, who researches maritime history, told McClatchy News. 'At other times, naval vessels have been renamed when a newly commissioned ship was slated to be given the preexisting name, which necessitated renaming the older vessel,' Smith said. David Winkler, a professor at the Naval War College, echoed this view. 'At the turn of the century the Navy named a bunch of armored cruisers for states,' Winkler told McClatchy News. 'When we started building battleships, such as the Pennsylvania, California, and Washington, the cruisers having those names became the Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Seattle.' Further, during the second world war, the escort carrier Midway was restyled as the St. Lo in 1994, allowing a larger battle carrier to take the name Midway. Winkler noted that, 'lore has it that getting your ship name changed is a sign of bad luck,' as the 'St. Lo would be sunk at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.' And, in recent decades, ship renamings have become more rare, he said. A spokesperson for the Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment from McClatchy News. The Navy enters 'the culture wars' But, despite the Navy's history of rebranding commissioned vessels, the Trump administration appears to be venturing into somewhat uncharted waters, historians said. 'What is not common is renaming ships for overtly ideological reasons,' Beeler said. Smith reinforced this view, saying that 'renaming ships for political reasons has been virtually unheard of until recently…' He noted that the sole precedent is the renaming of the the USS Chancelorville and USNS Maury — both styled after Confederate figures — which occurred in 2023, during former President Joe Biden's tenure. These renamings came at the recommendation of a congressional commission established in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. One vessel was renamed the USS Robert Smalls after a former slave who aided the Union in the Civil War, and the other was restyled the USNS Marie Tharp in honor of a ground-breaking oceanographic cartographer, according to the New York Times. Now, the renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk could further cement this new practice of recasting vessels for political reasons, experts said. And, the Milk may only be the beginning. CBS News reported that numerous other ships could see their names changed. Among those on a 'recommended list' are the USNS Harriet Tubman, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USNS Cesar Chavez and USNS Thurgood Marshall. 'The Navy and its ships have entered—somewhat begrudgingly, I think—into the culture wars along with so many aspects of American public life today,' Smith said.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Key GOP senator says Russia must be ejected from Syria
The Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday said Russia must be ejected from Syria, warning that if Moscow maintains a presence in the country it will allow for Iran's eventual reentry. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), speaking during a panel at the Hudson Institute, called for remaining Russian forces in Syria to be kicked out of the country, going further than conditions laid out by the Trump administration for engagement with the government of Ahmed al Sharaa, who deposed long-time dictator Bashar al Assad in December. 'The region cannot tolerate Moscow having access to the Mediterranean, to threaten the United States, NATO or other allies, Russia and Iran were complicit in Assad's atrocities,' Risch said in a speech at the conservative think tank. 'If we allow Russia to remain in Syria, it's only a matter of time until it becomes a back door for Iran to return again.' President Trump announced last month that he was lifting U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move came following the administration presenting the new Syrian authorities with a list of conditions to trigger sanctions relief, such as eliminating Assad's chemical weapons stockpile, cooperating with the U.S. on counterterrorism, working to identify, find and return Americans disappeared in the country, among other priorities. But not included in that list was kicking Russia out of the country. While Russia has scaled down its presence in Syria since Assad's ousting, the Kremlin is working to maintain its military bases in the country. Risch said the U.S. needs to proceed with caution with the new the al-Sharaa government in Syria. Syria's new president is a U.S.-designated terrorist who had ties with Al Qaeda and ISIS, although he has since disavowed those terrorist groups. 'I see tremendous opportunity for Syria. Syria was historically and can again be a great and respected country. However, we need to ensure that with increased cooperation comes greater security for the American people,' Risch said.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Drone attacks are the new front in war. NATO is trying to catch up.
'This is more than an isolated incident — it's a glimpse into the character of future conflict, where war won't be confined to neatly drawn front lines,' said James Patton Rogers, a drone warfare expert at Cornell University. He said the urgent question for NATO, after 'an impressive attack by Ukraine,' is to determine the vulnerabilities of its own air bases, bombers, and critical infrastructure. Before the Ukrainian barrage, Russia had intensified a near-daily deluge of long-range drones to attack military and civilian targets across Ukraine, demonstrating an ability to launch thousands of uncrewed aircraft as quickly as they are built, experts said. By comparison, defense manufacturers in the United States and Europe have struggled for more than three years to ramp up weapons production. Advertisement NATO knows it has much to learn. This year, NATO opened a joint training center with Ukrainian forces in Poland to share lessons from Russia's invasion. Ukraine's military is the largest (aside from Russia's) and most battled-tested in Europe, even if it is struggling to maintain territory in its border region. Advertisement At the same time, much of the military alliance is still focused on warfare of the past and unable to keep up with an unending stream of cyberattacks and other hybrid activity that threatens energy infrastructure, financial institutions, and government databases lying far beyond traditional front lines. China protects its aircraft with more than 3,000 hardened shelters, while the United States has exposed tarmacs 'and assumptions,' Simone Ledeen, a top Pentagon policy official during President Trump's first term, wrote on social media after Ukraine's broad drone attack. 'A well-timed swarm could blind us before we're airborne,' Ledeen wrote. The US military reported 350 drone sightings across about 100 military installations last year, General Gregory Guillot, the head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, told lawmakers in February. A new government review of Britain's defense capabilities, released this week, made clear that other alliance members are also aware of their vulnerabilities. If forced to fight in the next few years, the review said, Britain and its allies could find themselves battling adversaries with newer weapons and technology. It called for heavy investment in air and land drones, including stockpiling one-way attack drones — those that kill by smashing into their targets and exploding. 'Whoever gets new technology into the hands of their armed forces the quickest will win,' the review noted. Both Russia and Ukraine have spent billions of dollars to build their respective drone fleets since the war began. Two years ago, Ukraine produced about 800,000 drones; this year it is projected to churn out more than 5 million, said Kateryna Bondar, a former adviser to Ukraine's government who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies research group in Washington. Among them are weapons known as 'missile drones' because they can purportedly fly as far as 1,800 miles. Advertisement Just last weekend, before the surprise attack on Russia, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine told allies he hoped to scale up his military's drone program with additional financial backing. 'Our operations show the impact that investment can have, especially in drones,' he said. Britain agreed, pledging Wednesday to help Ukraine procure 100,000 drones this year — 10 times more than initially planned. Russia, which is projected to spend more than 7 percent of its gross domestic product on defense this year, has saturated Ukraine's skies and overwhelmed its air defenses with more than 1,000 drones each week since March, experts say. Most of them are Geran-series drones — Russia's homegrown version of the Iranian-designed long-range Shahed attack aircraft — some of which cost as little as $20,000 to build. While far cheaper than, for example, a $1 million long-range Storm Shadow missile, the Geran drones are still likely costing Russia several millions of dollars each day. 'If they can launch hundreds of these a day, that means they have to manufacture hundreds of these a day as well,' said Samuel Bendett, an expert on Russian drones and other weapons at the Center for Naval Analysis. The uptick has coincided with cease-fire talks Trump is pushing as Russia seeks to seize more territory in Ukraine before any settlement is reached. It also aims to remind the world of Russia's enduring might — even if it still suffers setbacks like Ukraine's weekend strikes. Advertisement 'No one, really, in Europe is prepared to adequately handle this type of threat,' Bendett said. This article originally appeared in
