"In Service of Peace and Freedom," says the inscription on the NATO medal now worn by thousands of Australians. Since 2003 the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has commanded the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. NATO's war was also Australia's.

That Australians who fought in this South Asia conflict wear a campaign medal awarded by an organisation that was initially tasked with defending Western Europe, is indicative of just how far NATO has evolved from its original role.

Australians have also served on NATO-led missions in Bosnia, and with NATO's counter-piracy task force patrolling off the coast of Somalia.

Today NATO has 28 member nations and Australia is one of the organisation's 41 "partner" countries.

It's a long way from the shores of Canberra's Lake Burley Griffin to the North Atlantic, but there has been strong support from both sides of Australian politics to strengthen diplomatic and military ties with the alliance.

Labor prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard both attended NATO summits. In 2012 former Coalition defence minister Brendan Nelson was appointed by Labor to be Australia's first ambassador to NATO.

Even before this week's summit in Wales, Canberra already had a formal intelligence-sharing agreement with NATO.

At the luxury Celtic Manor Resort in Cardiff Bay, Australia is in the process of receiving an upgrade to "enhanced Partnership" status, giving greater diplomatic and military access to NATO operations.

Australia is represented by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Defence Minister David Johnston, who have Russian president Vladimir Putin firmly in their sights.

Ministers Bishop and Johnston had earlier announced their intention to lobby NATO nations to ban Mr Putin from attending the G20 leaders' summit in Brisbane later this year.

But with a peace deal in Ukraine now on the table, Ms Bishop said there was still a chance Mr Putin would be welcomed.

"His actions will be judged. Words are one thing, but actions are another, and unless there is a complete resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, I fear that it will escalate," she said.

"That's why it is the subject of considerable discussion here, and I expect that we will see more steps towards trying to contain Russia's aggression through the imposition of sanctions.

"I believe that's under active consideration."

Meanwhile, the Defence Force is considering allowing some members of Ukraine's military to attend an ADF training college in Canberra.

The Government this week announced it was opening an embassy in Kiev and would provide supplies to Ukraine's military as it battled separatists.

Australia's Chief of Defence, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, told News Corp those supplies would include jackets, thermals and boots to help the Ukrainians survive winter.

He said there was also a proposal for a small number of Ukrainians to attend the ADF's Command and Staff College for professional training.

The global policeman

NATO has morphed into a 21st century, heavily-armed global policeman: imposing a no-fly zone over Libya 2011 that was instrumental in the downfall of Colonel Moamar Gaddafi's regime, but unable to influence the chaos that’s followed; deploying peacekeepers on the ground in Kosovo; sending training teams into Iraq; and running anti-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa.

Helped by NATO airstrikes: A Libyan fighter carried a gold-plated gun said to belong to Moamar Gaddafi after the dictator's death ( AFP: Philippe Desmazes )

But the economic strain of global policing has been showing.

A US Congressional study released last week reported that in 2013 only four NATO members - Estonia, Greece, the UK, and the United States - met a NATO commitment to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence. The report noted that the US was bearing a greater share of NATO's financial burden, increasing from 63 per cent in 2001 to 72 per cent last year.

The Americans are reportedly keen on getting their European allies to pay more of the military bills.

Within NATO ranks there has also been a growing weariness with mission creep.

The Wales summit was initially intended as a relatively low-key affair to mark the end of NATO's 12 years commanding forces in Afghanistan – the organisation's largest ever combat operation. A smaller NATO-led training team remains in place.

In 2013 NATO deputy assistant secretary for emerging security challenges, Jamie Shea, acknowledged there was a growing reluctance to send more European soldiers to war on the other side of the world.

"It's also raised the debate in NATO about whether these expeditionary missions might undermine our core function of ... defence of the territory of our member states," he said.

"In other words, is the threat from Afghanistan so great that it justifies the diversion of resources from homeland defence?"

Mr Shea answered yes. But with NATO now withdrawing from the messy and inconclusive Afghanistan conflict, the "what next?" question about the organisation's future was being asked in Europe's capitals.

But in crisis lies opportunity.

With the Russians annexing Crimea, arming separatist militants, and now sending tanks into eastern Ukraine, NATO may once more become an alliance with a cause.

The UK Guardian has declared that Vladimir Putin and the Ukraine crisis will force a moribund NATO to reinvent itself.

The worsening security crisis in Iraq and Syria is also on the agenda, but NATO involvement in that cross-border conflagration is unlikely to extend beyond conversation and communiqués.

A Ukrainian soldier guards a checkpoint outside Donetsk ( Reuters: Valentyn Ogirenko )

The Economist argued that this could be the most important NATO summit since the end of the Cold War.

And with the leaders of 60 nations gathered in Wales, is the world a step closer to the emergence of the concept of a "Global NATO", detailed in a 2006 Foreign Affairs essay co-authored by former US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder and foreign policy academic James Goldgeier.

The essay made the case for an alliance redefined by "...deepening relations with countries beyond the transatlantic community, starting with partners such as Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. A key part of this effort is the proposal by the United States and the United Kingdom to forge a "global partnership".

"NATO's next move must be to open its membership to any democratic state in the world that is willing and able to contribute to the fulfilment of NATO's new responsibilities. Only a truly global alliance can address the global challenges of the day."

It's a heady ambition for an organisation that has also suffered from tragic failures and political paralysis triggered by the competing national interests of member states.

If the current membership can't agree on a course of action, how would a "Global NATO" function?

Russia already has NATO on its borders. The Baltic states are now all members, as is Poland, and NATO intends conducting "exercises" in an increasingly volatile Ukraine.

Russia is not the only major power unenthused by the concept of an expanded "Global NATO". In 2010 The Diplomat noted China's lingering distrust of potential NATO expansion.

"The reality is that many Asian governments see the United Nations as uniquely capable of conferring legitimacy on collective military action and they oppose efforts by regional security organisations to try to displace the world body."

While the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan had UN backing, other military expeditions by NATO, or NATO members did not.

"Specifically, critics in Russia and China have indicated that they want to avoid any more episodes like the 1999 Kosovo War or the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when NATO countries waged war at their own discretion after failing to gain explicit Security Council authorisation."

"In Service of Peace and Freedom," is the motto on the NATO campaign medal, but it is not clear that Beijing – or Moscow – will share this sentiment as Australia signs up for NATO's Enhanced Partnership status.