Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thank goodness for NATO enlargement

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What have been the consequences of NATO enlargement for European security? To the vindication of its critics, the consequences appear disastrous. Insecurity pervades Europe while NATO is in crisis with a Russia justifiably aggrieved by broken promises and the overreach of liberal hegemony. This insecurity is especially troubling because NATO’s newer commitments are indefensible. In this essay, I evaluate these criticisms of NATO enlargement and advance three claims. First, intentionally or not, NATO enlargement has fulfilled a reasonable need to hedge against Russian resurgence. Critics of NATO enlargement themselves conceded that Russia could become revisionist once it reconstitutes itself. Second, NATO enlargement still allows for mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia. It has not been responsible for Russia’s internal political development and aggressive foreign policy choices. Finally, NATO enlargement does not necessitate expensive deterrence measures to secure its most vulnerable members. NATO enlargement thus has hugely benefited European security.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On counterfactual analysis and NATO enlargement, see Marten (2018).

  2. To be fair, Mearsheimer (1993, 57) cautioned that ‘extending NATO’s security umbrella into the heart [sic] of the Old Soviet Union is unwise’ given that ‘[i]t is sure to enrage the Russians and cause them to act belligerently.’ But NATO members never offered to do this for Ukraine in 2013 and 2014. They still have not as of early 2020.

  3. Tellingly, Masha Gessen’s (2017, 198–199, 280) recent book about how Putin restored authoritarian rule in Russia mentions NATO only six times and exclusively in the context of the 1999 Kosovo bombing campaign. No mention of NATO appears in more academic texts on Russian authoritarianism (see, e.g., Gel’man 2015).

  4. As Götz (2017) demonstrates, every model of Russian behavior—whether it emphasizes individual decision-makers, domestic politics, ideas and identities, or geopolitics—has empirical shortcomings. Indeed, though many opponents of NATO enlargement are self-described realists, constructivists have also offered critiques. See, for example, Tsygankov (2018).

References

  • Allison, G.T., O.R. Coté Jr., R.A. Falkenrath, and S.E. Miller. 1996. Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbatov, A. 2016. Saving Nuclear Arms Control. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 72(3): 165–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asmus, R.D., R.L. Kugler, and F.S. Larrabee. 1995. NATO Expansion: The Next Steps. Survival 37(1): 7–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asmus, R.D., and R.C. Nurick. 1996. NATO Enlargement and the Baltic States. Survival 38(2): 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benczes, I. 2016. From Goulash Communism to Goulash Populism: The Unwanted Legacy of Hungarian Reform Socialism. Post-Communist Economies 28(2): 146–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boix, C. 2011. Democracy, Development, and the International System. American Political Science Review 105(4): 809–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslauer, G.W. 2009. Observations on Russia’s Foreign Relations Under Putin. Post-Soviet Affairs 25(4): 370–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M.E. 1995. The Flawed Logic of NATO Expansion. Survival 37(1): 34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carment, D., and P. James. 2000. Explaining Third-Party Intervention in Ethnic Conflict: Theory and Evidence. Nations and Nationalism 6(2): 173–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, L., and Beehner, L. 2019. ‘Baltic States’ Militaries Buttressed by Volunteers’. Army Magazine. https://www.ausa.org/articles/baltic-states%E2%80%99-militaries-buttressed-volunteers. Accessed 21 March 2019.

  • Colton, T.J., and H.E. Hale. 2009. The Putin Vote: Presidential Electorates in a Hybrid Regime. Slavic Review 68(3): 473–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, M. 2014. Soft Security Threats and Small States: The Case of Estonia. Defence Studies 14(1): 30–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalsjö, R., Berglund, C., and Jonsson, M. 2019. ‘Bursting the Bubble: Russian A2/AD in the Baltic Sea Region: Capabilities, Countermeasures, and Implications’. Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency FOI-R-4651-SE.

  • Elak, L., and Z. Śliwa. 2016. The Suwalki Gap: NATO’s Fragile Hot Spot. Zeszyty Naukowe AON 103(2): 24–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazal, T.M. 2011. State Death: The Politics and Geography of Conquest, Occupation, and Annexation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fish, M.S., and R.S. Brooks. 2004. Does Diversity Hurt Democracy? Journal of Democracy 15(1): 154–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, Freedom. 2019. Freedom in the World 2019. Washington, DC: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, J.L. 1998. History, Grand Strategy, and NATO Enlargement. Survival 40(1): 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, R.M. 2014. Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gel’man, V. 2015. Authoritarian Russia: Analyzing Post-Soviet Regime Changes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gessen, M. 2017. The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldgeier, J.M. 1998. NATO Expansion: Anatomy of a Decision. Washington Quarterly 21(1): 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldgeier, J.M. 1999. Not Whether but When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorska, J. 2010. Dealing with a Juggernaut: Analyzing Poland’s Policy toward Russia, 1989–2009. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Götz, E. 2017. Putin, the State, and War: The Causes of Russia’s Near Abroad Assertion Revisited. International Studies Review 19(2): 228–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould-Davies, N., and N. Woods. 1999. Russia and the IMF. International Affairs 75(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermalavicius, T., et al. 2018. NATO’s Northeast Quartet: Prospects and Opportunities for Baltic-Polish Defence Cooperation. Tallinn: International Centre for Defence and Security.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallas, K. 2016. Claiming the Diaspora: Russia’s Compatriot Policy and its Reception by Estonian-Russian Population. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 15(3): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, S. 2005. What Went Wrong with NATO? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 18(1): 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennan, G.F. 1997. A Fateful Error. New York Times, 5 May: A19.

  • Kessler, Glenn. 2004. NATO Seeks to Soothe Russia. Washington Post, 3 April.

  • Kim, T. 2011. Why Alliances Entangle but Seldom Entrap States. Security Studies 20(3): 350–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korolev, A. 2018. On the Verge of an Alliance: Contemporary China-Russia Military Cooperation. Asian Security 15(3): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortunov, A. 1996. NATO Enlargement and Russia. In Search of an Adequate Responses. In Will NATO Go East? The Debate over Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance, ed. D.G. Haglund, 71–82. Kingston: Queen’s University Centre for International Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, M. 2009. The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia. Washington Quarterly 32(2): 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanoszka, A. 2016. Russian Hybrid Warfare and Extended Deterrence in Eastern Europe. International Affairs 92(1): 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanoszka, A. 2018. Tangled Up in Rose? Theories of Alliance Entrapment and the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Contemporary Security Policy 39(2): 234–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanoszka, A. 2019. Disinformation in International Politics. European Journal of International Security 4(2): 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanoszka, A., and M.A. Hunzeker. 2019. Conventional Deterrence and Landpower in Northeastern Europe. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laruelle, M. 2018. Russian Nationalism: Imaginaries, Doctrines, and Political Battlefields. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. 2005. The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy to the Present. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D.H., and B. Miller. 2011. Why Great Powers Expand in Their Own Neighborhood: Explaining the Territorial Expansion of the United States 1819–1848. International Interactions 37(3): 229–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M., and M. McFaul. 2001. “Managed Democracy” in Russia: Putin and the Press. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 6(3): 116–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marten, K. 2018. Reconsidering NATO Expansion: A Counterfactual Analysis of Russia and the West in the 1990s. European Journal of International Security 3(2): 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 1990. Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security 15(1): 5–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 1993. The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent. Foreign Affairs 72(3): 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 2014. Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs 93(5): 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin, J., G. Toal, and V. Kolosov. 2016. Who Identifies with the “Russian World”? Geopolitical Attitudes in Southeastern Ukraine, Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Eurasian Geography and Economics 57(6): 745–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orenstein, M. 1998. Lawlessness from Above and Below: Economic Radicalism and Political Institutions. SAIS Review 18(1): 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pevehouse, J.C. 2002. Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization. International Organization 56(3): 515–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilloni, J.R. 2000. Burning Corpses in the Streets: Russia’s Doctrinal Flaws in the 1995 Fight for Grozny. Journal of Slavic Military Studies 13(2): 39–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B.R. 1993. The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict. Survival 35(1): 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B.R. 2013. Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posen, B.R. 2019. Trump Aside, What’s the U.S. Role in NATO? New York Times, 10 March: A21.

  • Preble, C.A. 2009. Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pushkov, A.K. 1997. Don’t Isolate Us: A Russian View of NATO Expansion. The National Interest 47: 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, D. 2001. Why NATO Enlargement Does Not Spread Democracy. International Security 25(4): 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renz, B. 2016. Why Russia Is Reviving Its Conventional Military Power. Parameters 46(2): 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renz, B. 2019. Russian Responses to the Changing Character of War. International Affairs 95(4): 817–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B., and A.C. Stam. 1998. Courting Disaster: An Expanded NATO vs. Russia and China. Political Science Quarterly 113(3): 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saideman, S.M., and D.P. Auerswald. 2012. Comparing Caveats: Understanding the Sources of National Restrictions upon NATO’s Mission in Afghanistan. International Studies Quarterly 56(1): 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarotte, M.E. 2010. Perpetuating U.S. Preeminence: The 1990 Deals to “Bribe the Soviets Out” and Move NATO In. International Security 35(1): 110–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaub Jr., G., M. Murphy, and F.G. Hoffman. 2017. Hybrid Maritime Warfare. RUSI Journal 162(1): 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, O. 2019. How to Challenge an International Order: Russian Diplomatic Practices in Multilateral Security Organisations. European Journal of International Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119886024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shifrinson, J.R.I. 2016. Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion. International Security 40(4): 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shifrinson, J.R.I. 2017. Time to Consolidate NATO? Washington Quarterly 40(1): 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shlapak, D.A., and M.W. Johnson. 2016. Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shupov, A.K. 1997. Don’t Isolate Us: A Russian View of NATO Expansion. National Interest 47(1): 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simón, L. 2015. Europe, the Rise of Asia and the Future of the Transatlantic Relationship. International Affairs 91(5): 969–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snegovaya, M. 2020. What Factors Contribute to the Aggressive Foreign Policy of Russian Leaders? Problems of Post-Communism 67(1): 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, G.H. 1984. The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics. World Politics 36(4): 461–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley-Lockman, Z., and K. Wolf. 2016. European Defence Spending 2015: The Force Awakens. Brief 10. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, K., and M. McFaul. 2015. Who Lost Russia (This Time)? Vladimir Putin. Washington Quarterly 38(2): 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D.T. 1996. Symbol and (Very Little) Substance in the US Debate over NATO Enlargement. In Will NATO Go East? The Debate over Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance, ed. D.G. Haglund, 117–145. Kingston: Queen’s University Centre for International Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treverton, G.F. 1991. The New Europe. Foreign Affairs 7(1): 94–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trimbach, D.J., and S. O’Lear. 2015. Russians in Estonia: Is Narva the Next Crimea? Eurasian Geography and Economics 56(5): 493–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsygankov, A.P. 2018. The Sources of Russia’s Fear of NATO. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 51(2): 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Evera, S. 1994. Hypotheses on Nationalism and War. International Security 18(4): 5–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallander, C.A. 2002. NATO’s Price: Shape Up or Ship Out. Foreign Affairs 81(6): 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallander, C.A. 2018. NATO’s Enemies Within: How Democratic Decline Could Destroy the Alliance. Foreign Affairs 97(4): 70–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K.N. 2000. NATO Expansion: A Realist’s View. Contemporary Security Policy 21(2): 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wawro, G. 2014. A Mad Catastrophe: The Outbreak of World War I and the Collapse of the Habsburg Empire. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P., and P.N. Woessner. 1996. The Real Threat of Nuclear Smuggling. Scientific American 274(1): 40–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, R. 1996. The Doubtful Mover: Germany and NATO Expansion. In Will NATO Go East? The Debate over Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance, ed. D.G. Haglund, 197–224. Kingston: Queen’s University Centre for International Relations.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank James Goldgeier and Joshua Shifrinson for involving me in this special issue as well as the important feedback they provided on previous versions of this article. I also thank William James, participants in the Pardee School of Global Studies’ workshop, Mauro Gilli, Andrea Gilli, and the anonymous reviewers at International Politics for their helpful comments. All errors are my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Hagey Hall, room 315, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Alexander Lanoszka

Authors
  1. Alexander Lanoszka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Lanoszka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lanoszka, A. Thank goodness for NATO enlargement. Int Polit 57, 451–470 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00234-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00234-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation