In January, Julianne Smith became U.S. ambassador to NATO. She represents one of 30 allied nations, compared to the original 12 that signed the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Whether NATO enlargement was successful in its aim of consolidating peace and democracy after the Cold War, or a “policy error of historic proportions” as George Kennan claimed, is especially relevant as the alliance confronts both a massive Russian military buildup against Ukraine, as well as Moscow’s security demands that Ukraine never join NATO and the alliance diminish its military presence in Eastern Europe.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic lobbied to join NATO, which they did in 1999. Seven other once communist states joined NATO in 2004. The motive for enlargement was threefold. First, it aimed to promote a Europe “whole and free.” Second, enlargement enabled Washington’s deep engagement with Europe to continue. Finally, it averted a political vacuum in Eastern Europe, guarding the region against resurgent Russian aggression. Given that many post-Soviet states outside NATO have succumbed to autocracy, suffered Russian invasion, or endured both, the peaceful and democratic experience of NATO members testifies to the benefits of enlargement.
To critics, NATO enlargement provokes Russian aggression and instability in Europe. They further argue that having come threateningly close to Russia’s borders, enlargement squandered an opportunity to end Europe’s historic pattern of military rivalries. Defenders of NATO enlargement counter that the Kremlin’s aggression abroad is influenced by its authoritarian interests at home, namely in exciting nationalism and deflecting frustration over corruption and repression. Russian President Vladimir Putin also dreams of restoring Russia’s dominance in Eastern Europe, an ambition distinct from his fears of Western influence. At this dangerous moment, whether NATO enlargement was an act of wisdom or folly depends on the alliance’s solidarity against external disruption.
Questions and Background
- Did NATO enlargement contribute to the stability of Europe and its new members? What would be the security situation in Easter Europe if NATO had not enlarged?
- Are better relations with Russia worth giving it a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe?
- Should NATO remain open to new members like Ukraine and Georgia who wish to join the alliance? What are the benefits and costs of closing NATO’s doors?
- Can NATO members effectively coordinate against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe despite their differences?
- Why do NATO countries continue to ask for more leadership from Washington?
Keep NATO’s Door Open to Ukraine
Eric Edelman and David Kramer. Foreign Affairs. January 31, 2022.
The U.S. Can’t Afford to Leave Ukraine and Europe at Putin’s Mercy
Max Boot. The Washington Post. January 25, 2022.
Anatomy of a Blunder: NATO Expansion Redivided Europe
Michael Mandelbaum. American Purpose. January 24, 2022.
From Containment to Enlargement
Anthony Lake, Remarks of Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs at Johns Hopkins SAIS, September 21, 1993