Cameron’s Journal #2: Exploring Nato’s Expansion and It’s impact today.

Entry #2 - 6/25/2025

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization or “NATO” for short was created in 1949 as  protection against the Soviet Union. NATO was created during the era of the Cold War. Since then, I have reason to believe it has become means to limit and target Russia, and China. Whether its by tariffs, border drawings, political or military tactics, the moves made by NATO in terms of expansion are pointing towards aggression and limiting the power of Russia. Perhaps NATO fears Russia and their potential power. Perhaps NATO simply wants to be a world dominating power and therefore must limit opposing world powers. I believe the answer is found in the history of their expansion, and will spend time dissecting the history behind NATO, their origin, and why they continue to act hostile towards it’s enemies.

As previously mentioned, NATO began shortly after the Soviet Union was created in order to combat the aggression and limitations made by the Soviet Union. However, if we wish to understand why NATO was so concerned with the Soviet Union we must first understand the origins of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was formed in December of 1922, it included Russia, Byelorussia, the Transcaucasian republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia as well as what is considered Ukraine today. In short the Soviet Union was originally made as way to lead people to communism and quote “lead people to a new way of life” (History 1). However, it simply does not take a historian to tell you the political advantages of having the Soviet Union.

Firstly, Russia was already the biggest country in the world, adding more land to it was advantageous to the Soviets at the time due to the recent end of World War 1. The tensions may have settled down, but the primary focus of everyone’s government at the time was progress and domination. How can we create the world’s dominating power? Forming the Soviet Union was believed to be that. With more land, came more resources, more resources equal more revenue. Which is what ultimately lead the west (U.S as well as some countries in Europe) to create NATO shortly after World War 2.

NATO’s role in post-World War 2 was simply to expand in western counties in Europe to form alliances, and build trade. However, a line they would begin to cross over was the expansion towards Russia. Back in 1990 there was a mutual agreement between NATO and Russia for NATO not to expand beyond East Germany. The reason for Russia wanting that is due to the fact that they still had active agreements and deals with others at the time, “The Soviet Union still existed, and the countries of Eastern Europe were still part of the Soviet structures – like the Warsaw Pact – which was not officially dissolved until July 1991” (SAUVAGE 1). So, if NATO were to expand towards the Soviet Union, it would essentially act as war threats. Through hard work and talks, a deal was struck to keep the peace – a deal NATO would only honor temporarily.

Enter post-Soviet Union NATO. The Soviet Union disbanded on December 25th, 1991, just a few months after the deal between NATO and the Soviets. In the year 1999, NATO would prove their word meant nothing and their only focus was to expand upon alliance. Reason for expansion is similar to the originally Soviet Union – more land, resources, and power. However, a crucial mistake by Russian ambassadors proved to be a moment that ultimately is responsible for the war in Ukraine today. There is no way Russia could have known that NATO would go back on their word and expand regardless of their agreement, but the key issue with that it was not a treaty. The agreement for NATO not to expand beyond Eastern Germany was nothing more than a verbal agreement, "In addition, these promises were made orally and were never recorded in a treaty” (SAUVAGE 1). So, did NATO betray Russia and go back on their word? Yes. Was this a crucial error on the side of Russian ambassadors, also yes.

As mentioned previously above, the year 1999 would prove to be a bad year for Russia. Not only did NATO expand past the agreed lines, countries today that were a part of Russia historically would begin to declare independence from Russia as well. Countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Republic of Czech would join NATO. While countries such as Ukraine would begin to move away from Russia all together. Today, NATO is right on Russia’s borders with NATO allies like Finland, and more. This timeline brings us to the first major question of this essay. What political theories are used to explain NATO expansion beyond WWII agreements?

There are a couple of different reasons. It should be no surprise that politicians lie, and this expansion by NATO is further proof of that. Regardless, that simply does not explain NATO’s blunted betrayal of their agreement to Russia. A reason that could be used to explain, is that NATO truly fears Russia and feels it is a must to limit them for the greater good of society. This idea makes sense because Russia does not fear NATO. Putin has made it clear with his words and actions he does not like NATO expansion, but it is not a threat to Russia, “Putin may dislike NATO expansion, but he is not genuinely frightened by it. Russia has the largest army in Europe, engorged by two decades of lavish spending” (Pearson 19). So, if NATO fears Russia why would it edge closer and closer to its border and playing a role in the kick start to this war? If they fear Russia, why not leave Russia alone.

Well, if NATO did fear Russia, limiting their needs is a good way to ensure they weaken. Russia needs access to ports and seas to do trade, currently those ports Russia would like to go through are mostly covered by NATO allies – making it challenging finically for Russia to succeed. Additionally, it is a smart military and financial tactic to expand one’s organization. NATO has been expanding since its creation, and if NATO – like the old Soviet Union, wants to be a world dominating power, any of your potential enemies can under no circumstances surpass you. Adding perhaps another reason as to why NATO would expand beyond WWII agreements. I think by far this is the most likely reason, and the reason being, is due to what I have found in my research.

 

While looking for reasons as to why NATO would expand, I read an article on NATO’s own website pinning all of the blame on Russia – claiming they never agreed not to expand saying “Russia wants to establish spheres of influence and control other countries through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation… The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine” (NATO Homepage 1).

It is very simple and easy to understand and or see based off how NATO themselves writes about this issue. If NATO did not want to be considered a world dominating power, and if they did not fear Russia, they would not expand the way they have been for years. It also has to be said once more, as stated in the timeline and history of this topic above – there was indeed a verbal agreement between NATO and Russia not to expand. Unfortunately, a lot of articles that cover this topic are very U.S centric and are not unbiased in the slightest when it comes to the U.S’ biggest threat. Regardless, reading into these articles does highlight NATO’s fear of Russia has shown above. Now that we have an understanding and idea about why NATO has expanded, we must explore the second question on this topic: How did political behavior, individual leaders, and international interests affect NATO expansion.  

NATO’s expansion is often cited one of the biggest contributing factors to the U.S’ and Russia’s fall out as well as their continued failure at healthy relations. The expansion meant a lot of trouble for Russia, but it benefited no one more than the U.S. The United States before the cold war came off a decisive victory against Japan in WWII and established themselves as the world’s hegemon. Russia has been a close second or third for a while is a big enough threat to take away that hegemon status for themselves, which is why NATO expansion is advantageous to the U.S. The downfall of relations between the U.S and Russia is cited to have started around 1991, the peak of NATO’s expansion. On the outside this appears to verify the claim that NATO tanked the U.S’ relations with Russia, but this is nothing more than a smoke screen.

Let me be clear, the U.S and Russia did not get along before or after WWII. It may have benefited them to do trade, but they were never friends or allies. The U.S wanted too, and still does want to maintain their status as the number one country in the world – while Russia wants to take that title for themselves. It is not that NATO’s expansion was the downfall of the relationship, the relationship was already sinking and therefore expansion (being that it benefits the U.S) was the only natural next step. It is not about sovereignty, it is not about the people of Ukraine or other countries NATO protects, it is about power. The political behavior that explains the expansion the best, is the history behind Russia and the U.S’ rivalry. NATO needs the U.S, it is vital they remain, so it is in NATO’s best interests to seek the U.S’ interests.

The western side of Europe also benefits from Russia not being the top power in the world. The countries that are aligned with NATO benefit from their allies (the U.S) being top of the food chain so to speak. In an article written by Justin Logan – a journalist for CATO Institute which is a self-described “libertarian think tank” whose goal is to aim for peaceful international relations, we get a brilliant quote to demonstrate the politics involved with NATO and the U.S “Given NATO’s origins as a military alliance aimed at deterring Soviet aggression, we should ask ourselves: With the Soviets out and the Germans down, why did the United States struggle so mightily to stay in after the Cold War? The answer is simple: NATO is, and always has been, a vehicle for maintaining the United States as the dominant security player in Europe” (Logan 1). Now that we can establish the U.S’ interest in expanding NATO, the question becomes is there really any sort of international interest in NATO’s expansion.

Well, as we laid out and mentioned previously, regardless of if everyone that is a part of NATO agrees – it is ultimately in the best interest of the organization that the U.S remains part of it – even if that spells out war with Russia. The NATO allies in the western half of Europe genuinely have a high chance of losing a war with Russia. However, if a war were to take place, and they had the U.S on their side, they would know with certainty they can and will come out on top. That was the attitude, and the idea back then, and it has not changed since. Now, we have an understanding as to why NATO expanded, who it benefits and who is interested in it and why – finally however we have reached our third and final question: What lessons can be learned from NATO expansion that could help drive future political decisions relative to more global peace and stability.

From an outside perspective looking in – for starters in terms of international agreements and peace; it would be ideal for people to keep their word, but I think it is clear these things must be documented and legalized, not a gentleman’s agreement.  Additionally, moving forward I believe international alliances should be used more so for the benefit of all involved, not just the one leading the charge regardless of their power or place in the organization. Throughout my research I have found that NATO’s biggest struggle, is the fact they are in no position to say no the U.S. That leaves the organization powerless in big decisions, peace talks, and leaves out the many other countries a part of the organization fighting to achieve the same common yet what appears to be an unattainable goal; peace.

NATO’s expansion shows the many struggles one can face when running an organization that is built off the hope of global domination. Let us not kid ourselves and pretend NATO does not seek nor benefit one bit from the expansion they have made and still are in pursuit of making. It is nothing more than a silly gimmicky political smoke screen when NATO and allies try to convince their population they want peace, and according to NATO’s own website “NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia” (NATO Homepage 1). NATO enjoys and embraces every bit of expansion they take; regardless how aggressive it is to Russia – even if means NATO themselves are on the border. NATO was made in response to the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union has disbanded, and NATO is doing everything they possibly can to capitalize on the opportunity before another group with other, stronger dominating world powers come along to contest NATO.

In closing, it is clear to see the motive and political theories behind NATO’s expansion. Power, money, resources and land are required to make a dominating power in this timeline we exist in. In order to make that happen, not only do you need more land, but also to limit the land of your enemies. Additionally, it is also clear to see the political behavior that affected NATO’s expansion. The U.S – the world dominating power made it clear to NATO that Russia must be limited by any means. By ignoring the agreement, pinning the blame onto Russia, and distancing ourselves from the war in Ukraine – our politicians and governments are doing everything they can retain their status.

Finally, there is a lot to be said and learned by NATO’s aggressive expansion, but in short it is important there is a fair balance of say in international relations and polices. It does not help any party involved if there is one party calling the shots, which is what has led to the demise of NATO and their involvement in this war and potentially future wars to come. I am quite frankly discouraged by the U.S’ involvement in this mess, but I understand why we continue to fight and limit Russia to ensure our status as the world dominating power, even if that means we use NATO as a vessel to accomplish such a goal. I am hopeful for a brighter future and peace, but only time will tell where the U.S and NATO will land in the history books during WWIII.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                        Works Cited

 

Sauvage, Grégoire. “Did NATO “Betray” Russia by Expanding to the East?” France 24, 30 Jan. 2022, www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east.

 

History.com Editors. “Soviet Union.” History, A&E Television Networks, 1 Sept. 2017, www.history.com/topics/european-history/history-of-the-soviet-union.

 

Person, Robert, and Michael McFaul. “What Putin Fears Most.” Journal of Democracy, Apr. 2022, www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears-most/.

 

NATO. “De-Bunking Russian Disinformation on NATO.” NATO, 2024, www.nato.int/cps/ra/natohq/115204.htm.

 

U.S. Department of State. “U.S. Relations with Russia - United States Department of State.” United States Department of State, 3 Sept. 2021, www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-russia/.