Three students from the School of Politics and International Relations were selected to attend the seventh annual British International Studies Association (BISA) Model NATO summit, hosted at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). They were joined by over 100 participants from 32 universities across the UK, Canada and France.
Third year Students Eve Jones, Heather Maltman and Oscar McKevitt-Flack were accompanied by Dr Louise Kettle and Dr Natalie Martin to the event in London.
Read their reflections of the day:
Eve Jones
On Wednesday, I had the privilege of being part of the 2026 Model NATO, which was held at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. This experience offered me a rare opportunity to apply international relations theory to a fast-paced, real-world policy simulation. It was an extremely busy day, slightly chaotic, and ridiculously fun in the best possible way! Full of negotiation, patience, and compromise.
I represented Slovenia alongside Oscar and Heather, also students from the University of Nottingham, diving headfirst into the realities of alliance politics. Model NATO recreates the debate, crisis management, and consensus‑building that define the real alliance, and it turns out those processes are just as intense when you’re role-playing them!
As the delegate for Slovenia on the North Atlantic Council, I quickly learned that being a smaller state doesn’t mean sitting quietly in the corner. Quite the opposite. To have real influence, you have to actively shape negotiations, speak up, and make sure your voice is heard.
The day unfolded in the historic Locarno Suite in the FCDO, where we drafted and debated a joint statement under intense, realistic conditions. While the original statement was only short every word mattered, and every phrase was scrutinised. Several amendments were made, and sentences were added in so every member state could get their voice heard and their needs represented. Reaching an agreement required careful listening, strategic concessions, and for myself ensuring Slovenia’s core interests were known. After thorough discussion and debate over minute details and phrasing of the text, we eventually reached consensus, in which all member states felt represented. It was exhausting, satisfying, but equally as exhilarating.
The experience reinforced a key takeaway: consensus‑based decision‑making does not guarantee equal influence. Smaller states, such as Slovenia, need to shout a little louder to assert their perspectives and steer outcomes, but that’s exactly what makes the process so engaging. However, more importantly, I learnt that negotiating is actually really fun!
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to work in such a historic setting and to engage with like-minded peers in such a collaborative environment. This experience not only deepened my understanding of NATO’s inner workings but also highlighted the vital role of proactive diplomacy for smaller states. A huge thank you goes to the British International Studies Association (BISA) for coordinating such a brilliant event. I’d do it all again and If you get the chance to take part in a policy simulation like this, take it!
Heather Maltman
As conflict and uncertainty continue to dominate global headlines, one question feels increasingly urgent: why is collective security so difficult to sustain? Last week, at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in London, I began to grasp part of the answer firsthand. Representing the University of Nottingham as Slovenia at the BISA/London Model NATO simulation, I assumed the role of a delegate on NATO’s Military Committee. Held in the historic Locarno Suite, the setting itself carried a quiet symbolism: diplomacy here was not abstract, but embedded in institutional memory and political responsibility.
Our task appeared deceptively straightforward. As members of the Military Committee, we were required to agree a public statement outlining the scope and scale of Exercise Steadfast Defender 2027 (STED27), a successor to Steadfast Defender 2024. The exercise was designed to simulate large-scale reinforcement of Europe in the event of an armed attack, demonstrating NATO’s readiness and resolve. Yet the day quickly revealed that consensus, particularly within an alliance of sovereign states, is never procedural routine. It is negotiated, clause by clause.
One of the most striking lessons was the discipline required to balance national priorities with collective purpose. Acting in role meant articulating Slovenia’s security concerns while remaining attentive to alliance cohesion. Each delegation quite rightly sought to ensure its own strategic anxieties were reflected in the draft text. But multilateralism demands more than assertion; it requires calibration.
Representing Slovenia, I emphasised that Russia remains a central and evolving threat, manifesting not only through conventional force but through grey-zone tactics: disinformation, espionage, and the destabilisation of the Western Balkans. For smaller allies situated along critical geographic corridors, deterrence is immediate and multidimensional. A successful exercise, therefore, was not simply a logistical undertaking; it was a performative demonstration of unity. The language we crafted mattered because public messaging is itself part of deterrence.
Equally instructive were the procedural mechanics. Moving from general debate to amendments, moderated caucuses, informal negotiations and eventual voting by consensus underscored how agreement is actively engineered. .Draft text evolved incrementally, shaped by strategic compromise and careful phrasing. Observing how objections reopened debate until accommodated through amendment offered a practical insight into NATO’s culture of consensus.
At moments, frustration surfaced when discussion drifted from the exercise’s operational focus toward broader geopolitical grievances. Yet this too was revealing. The challenge of alliance politics lies not in disagreement per se, but in reconciling divergent strategic geographies within a shared framework of collective defence.
Leaving the simulation, I was struck by how misleading narratives of NATO’s decline can be. What I witnessed instead was adaptability: a forum where debate is robust, interests are defended, and compromise is painstakingly constructed. The experience reminded me that peace is difficult not because cooperation is absent, but because it requires constant negotiation. In that negotiation, language, patience and political imagination are as vital as military capability.
Oscar McKevitt-Flack
I had the privilege of representing Slovenia at the Foreign Office, where we were located in the historic Locarno Suite – a room and a setting that powerfully underscored the weight of diplomatic history. Before the simulation, we had a briefing with all the other alliance members where our task was explained to us. The task appeared deceptively straightforward: reach consensus on a statement outlining a NATO military exercise, specifically agreeing on troop numbers, their origins, and the exercise’s (STED27) timeline. However, what in principle seemed simple, quickly revealed itself to be layered with complexity. NATO requires consensus and so did our simulation. Whilst all alliance members publicly commit to the principle of collective defence – “an attack on one is an attack on all” – each delegation had to represent their state’s national interests and so brought certain ‘red lines’ to the table as well. Reconciling these competing interests required patience, pragmatism, and, above all, respect.
One of my first reflections from the event was that diplomacy, even in a simulation, is a genuinely enjoyable experience. The delegates embodied their assigned countries with remarkable commitment, which heightened the realism of the whole event. Their enthusiasm created an atmosphere that was intense yet collaborative, competitive yet constructive. The passion that all the delegates brought with them ultimately made the event what is was: an exceptional insight into the role and functioning of NATO.
I was one of three students representing Slovenia and one of two delegates that formed the Military Committee. Representing Slovenia, a smaller NATO member state, was both challenging and rewarding. I came to realise that influence within multilateral organisations is not dictated solely by a country’s geography or military capacity. Smaller states, such as Slovenia and various Balkan states that we negotiated with, often occupied pivotal positions, especially given the importance of consensus. The neutral or hesitant delegations frequently determined whether an amendment or motion passed. As a result, I quickly learned that persuasion came not from grandstanding but required listening carefully, building coalitions, and identifying shared interests. Model NATO reshaped my understanding of power: subtle influence and strategic positioning are just as, if not more, consequential than overt displays of strength.
In a room characterised by shifting alliances and rapid negotiations, precise and purposeful language was a necessity to move the discussion forward. Despite careful and detailed preparation, I was taken aback by the speed and unpredictability of events, which required the delegates to adapt quickly. Ultimately, this experience has deepened my appreciation for the role of NATO and transformed my academic interest into practical understanding – an opportunity I will not soon forget.
Posted on Tuesday 10th March 2026