Intervention or Non- Intervention: Explaining NATO Strategy in Crisis Managements in Ukraine crises

When crises take place anywhere in the word, different actors take action to manage them. Actors such as organizations that most important of them is the security council as main responsibility of peacekeeping and international security. In addition to the Security Council, some organization have essential mechanisms. So they, based on the chapter 8 of UN Charter, play role in crisis management. One of these organizations is North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO after the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union faced with identity crisis, try to use various mechanism to expand itself mission and strength itself position. One of these mechanism was taking over tasks in the field of crisis management. So that NATO has played role in various crisis such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. But in crises that have occurred in recent years such as Ukraine crisis hasn’t played active role. This situation raised the question what factors affect the role of this organization. To answer this question, this hypothesis is raised that nature of the crisis, past experience and achievements and the policies of the great powers affect NATO’s role. Research finding indicates that new policies, insignificant achievements and abundant costs of pervious interventions and the requirement to obtain a permit from the security council for intervention while Russia is the main actor of crisis led NATO didn’t play an active role in Ukraine crisis.