Yes, Because, International Organisations are not only provider of material interest but also provider of socialization which reduce threats perception from the information asymmetry.

I don't have a quick, clear answer myself, but I recommend that you read the theory-informed political science literature on alliance formation. A seminal book is Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1987). Its focus is understanding the conditions under which alliances form, and it considers possible alternative explanations in the analysis. He concludes that his "balance of threat theory" best explains observations. There are implications that could be deduced for what it takes for an alliance to endure, as well as to decline. Walt has written a lot about NATO and foreign affairs over the years; you might check for titles of his articles that touch on NATO.

Walt and his fellow UC Berkeley PhD graduate Barry Posen both also consider big issues of grand strategy, the choices America has faced since the end of the cold war, and their preference (off-shore balancing). A recent op ed piece by Barry Posen appeared in the NY Times on 11 March 2019, "What's the U.S. Role in NATO?", p. A21.

Two questions arise. First, what is the predicted path for NATO's future? Second, what is the best (or least worst) grand strategy for a NATO member or potential member, and what does the answer imply for the country's relationship to NATO and the sort of missions NATO should or should not take on? You might think about what are possible answers for each question, and how you could go about learning which answers are best supported by evidence.

Good luck,

Bill Rose

I recommend you take a look at https://www.eucom.mil/ the US European Command home page. Under its Mission it says:

Mission

"EUCOM's mission is to prepare ready forces, ensure strategic access, deter conflict, enable the NATO Alliance, strengthen partnerships, and counter transnational threats in order to protect and defend the United States."

These are the main areas of focus for EUCOM activities, with an overview of the Command's Area of Responsibility, and a brief history and background of the U.S. military presence here in Europe.

📷Commander's Priorities Deter Russia Ensure Postured and Ready Forces Strengthen Strategic Partnerships Adapt to a Complex and Dynamic Strategic Environment Develop Resilient Servicemembers, Civilians, and Families

NATO yes is still reliable deterrent organisation for all member states but, it should be remembered that an effect and strength of any military alliance depend on the member states vision if some members dont share the common vision and threat perception and if accept the bandwagoning and bacpassing policy as a free rider member, it wil reduce the deterrent capacity of the alliance

Since the formation of NATO, it has not entered in to major conflict except cold war, which can't be interpreted as world war3. Recently NATO participated in Afghan war as US allies. Unfortunately, NATO didn't operate as single entity and unified force under single command. Most NATO countries' militaries were assigned comparatively easier theaters as they refused to conduct operation because their countries political system didn't authorize that. Furthermore, militaries of mostly NATO countries participated in building and road constructions tasks or tasks related to self defense. Most militaries operated under their respective law and authorization of legislature. American military commanders termed Militaries of NATO / EU countries as drag rather than support. Keeping in view experience of NATO in Afghanistan, it does qualify to be a RELIABLE PARTNER rather just a symbolic alliance.

NATO is still relevant against any regular military operation. But against Hybrid warfare or irregular warfare, the impact & its relevance is questionable.