Tom Switzer on why NATO Expansion Explains Russia’s Actions in Ukraine

[Ajay0]

Australian political writer, commentator and policy analyst Tom Switzer on why NATO expansion explains Russia's actions ..

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/why-nato-expansion-explains-russias-actions-in-ukraine/

Quote

 

The list of opponents to NATO enlargement from three decades ago reads like a who’s who of that generation’s wise men. It included architects of the Cold War containment doctrine, senior defence and intelligence officials from the Nixon-Carter-Reagan eras, former ambassadors and senior diplomats to Moscow (Arthur Hartman, Jack F. Matlock, and Robert Bowie) former Australian prime ministers Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating, leading political scientists such as a Ronald Steel, prominent magazine editors (Owen Harries, Charles Maynes) and, not least, distinguished historians such as Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes, John Lewis Gaddis, and Britain’s foremost military intellectual Sir Michael Howard.

Officials in the state and defence departments also rejected NATO plans to expand eastwards, including the Polish-born chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili and US Defense Secretary Les Aspin, as well as his successor William Perry, who considered resignation in late 1994 when the policy proposal moved forward. Former defense secretaries Robert McNamara and James Schlesinger aired their concerns that NATO enlargement would decrease allied security and unsettle European stability.

In the lead up to the Senate’s ratification in 1998, the New York Times editorial board warned: “The most important foreign policy decision America has faced since the end of the Cold War… could prove to be a mistake of historic proportions.” And this: “It is delusional to believe that NATO expansion is not at its core an act that Russia will regard as hostile.”

George Kennan—intellectual architect of the Cold War containment doctrine, a former ambassador to the USSR, and one of America’s wisest students of Russian affairs—spoke for the many dissenters in 1997 when he warned that NATO expansion “would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

It would weaken Russian reformers, embolden hard-liners, undermine strategic arms agreements, and escalate East-West tensions when Russia got back on its feet and began acting like a great power.

 

 

[Basman]

NATO expansion being the cause of Russian territorial aggression is part of Russian disinformation. Countries join NATO because of Russian escalation. The notion of "expansion" is itself a myth as individual countries have to ask to join in order to become part of NATO (it's an open door policy). It's a wilful process.

For Russia this is an ideological war is about maintaining that idea of greatness and a sphere of influence where they can project power unto the global stage as opposed to being a mere regional power.

 

Edited May 27 by Basman

[raiden]

This war has been inevitable since the fall of the USSR. With inevitable demographic collapse and a lack of natural borders, Russia was always going to fight and they’re not going to stop. They paid the price for a big war. NATO’s actions over the past 30 years haven’t helped, but this war is on the Kremlin 

[Ajay0]

Western intellectuals and scholars like Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hedges and Jeffrey Sachs have also expressed similar viewpoints on Nato.

 

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/79420-noam-chomsky-on-nato/#comment-1112149

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/99343-christopher-hedges-on-nato/#comment-1429128

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/105640-jeffrey-sachs-on-nato/#comment-1559969

[PurpleTree]

With this attack on Ukraine, Russia put a battery in the back of NATO though.

Countries like Germany and Poland are massively upping their defence capabilities.

I honestly didn’t like NATO before the war now i‘m still not a fan but i think it’s necessary.

[Lyubov]

I don’t know why people act like it’s unknown why Russia invaded Ukraine, or why it needs to be constantly reanalyzed. It’s not a secret nor even clouded in mystery and every reason still doesn’t justify their invasion. Yes, there is a “make Russia great again” element to it as well as security concerns about NATO. Russia is an insecure former empire so they definitely didn’t like being poked and they have never really fallen in line with the rules set by the USA, they have seen the USA as hypocritical and wanted to make themselves a more formidable force on the world stage. They see Ukraine as theirs and they don’t see what they are doing as anything different than what the USA would do if it were in a similar situation. Putin also brain rotted himself during Covid through isolation. He basically did what half the world is doing now, rotted their mind out with lies and insecurities. He miscalculated how easy it would be to take Ukraine and probably went through various stages of regret and now he’s probably feeling pretty good after going all in. He said “fuck it” and just went all in as soon as he realized it wasn’t going to be easy and now he’s just riding it out cause he’s recalculated and can get some concessions. No one really wins here in the short term but he’s hoping he can set Russia up for the long term to be stronger. No one really knows how this will play out over our life times. 

Edited May 28 by Lyubov

[Breakingthewall]

Squeezing Russia by aligning Ukraine, a country historically linked to Russia and with around 35% Russian speakers, in NATO, is in itself an act of war. Anyone who doesn't understand this is completely dumb, and it's incredible that it seems incomprehensible to many. 

Especially when Putin repeatedly raised Russia's entry into NATO and was rejected. NATO seeks to divide and weaken Russia; it acts as an enemy.

Edited May 29 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

Anyway, it's normal that NATO would reject Russia's entry, since Russia wouldn't enter as a subordinate of the US, but as an equal. This is absurd when NATO is really a tool of the US to dominate and control, and to weaken its adversaries, among which is Russia. But people here will say: Putin is a bad dictator; the US is a good democrat. I can go to bathroom alone. 

[zazen]

On 5/27/2025 at 10:27 PM, Basman said:

Countries join NATO because of Russian escalation. The notion of "expansion" is itself a myth as individual countries have to ask to join in order to become part of NATO (it's an open door policy). It's a wilful process.

For Russia this is an ideological war is about maintaining that idea of greatness and a sphere of influence where they can project power unto the global stage as opposed to being a mere regional power.

Great powers don’t just react to what other nations choose - they react to what those choices imply. Saying NATO expansion isn’t a cause because it’s voluntary is like saying someone who steps into traffic can’t be hit - because they weren’t pushed.

But its true that this can become a negative feedback loop. NATO grows because Russia is a threat = Russia sees NATO growth and feels more threatened = Russia responds militarily, which justifies further NATO growth.

The Western narrative though only see it as the West reacting and Russia always aggressing. Its not like NATO is a kids club that is being joined, its a ''defensive'' pact that isn't always defensive, and who's main leader the US definitely doesn't only ever act in defense but acts to dominate. And this cute club wants to sit at your border - no sensible nation will allow that. NATO expanded eastward despite Russian protesting it since the 1990s.

International law is an abstraction designed for peace, but national security is a reality shaped by fear.

The problem is that Russia broke international law, yes - but in response to a provocation that international law refuses to recognize. And survival always overrides legality.

I discussed this tension with Chat GPT and it came to conclude that international law needs to evolve to:

- Include a doctrine of “preventive existential defense” with strict thresholds

- Create mechanisms for international adjudication before escalation

- Acknowledge that survival is not optional, and law that ignores this will always be broken

A law that cannot incorporate survival will always be subordinate to it.
If international law refuses to recognize existential threats as valid motives, it will remain moral in theory, but irrelevant in practice.''

I was confused myself about this because I argue that Israel is clearly against international law and that Palestinians have a right to self-determination - but then I understand Russia's point of view and action - though it goes against international law. So I was conflicted with that contradiction and that's how I gained some clarity on it.

Interesting food for thought.

Also just a side point about the fear and motivation of Russia wanting to expand and take Europe - its very rare for a empire or country to expand when it is demographically weak and in decline. Usually empires only do so when they have a large number of young men to do so with - so that fear is unfounded. And if Putin was planning to take all of Europe then he's a mad man lol

Edited May 29 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

48 minutes ago, zazen said:

NATO grows because Russia is a threat

This is a falsehood and everyone in NATO knew it. Russia had enough problems with Russia. 

Putting a stick in Ukraine's hornet's nest for a decade is an action whose sole purpose is to weaken an already weak Russia and promote its fragmentation, which would translate into internal wars and lucrative business deals.

Regarding the international law you mention, it doesn't prohibit the installation of nuclear missile bases on your border, but that doesn't mean you're going to tolerate being cornered in that way.

[Basman]

@zazen

It's not an expansion. It's a defense pact. This is a fact. And it is appropriate to take those measures since appeasing Putin only leads to escalation. Russia has to be stonewalled militarily in order to maintain security. Europe is in fact very slow to act on Russian aggression. They hope that it all will just blow over if anything and go back to business as usual, something that gives Putin the confidence that there won't be a significant European response.

Your not acknowledging that Russian aggression is largely ideologically motivated. It's not about security for Russia but the freedom to set terms on the global stage and be a "great power". Being at war is actually beneficial for Russia because the world pays attention to them. When the war is resolved they go back to being a regional power. Russia also seeks to destabilize democracies since democratic institution undermine Russian authority, which is why you see them engaging in so much disinformation, like with Brexit.

13 hours ago, Lyubov said:

I don’t know why people act like it’s unknown why Russia invaded Ukraine, or why it needs to be constantly reanalyzed. It’s not a secret nor even clouded in mystery and every reason still doesn’t justify their invasion. 

People have an ideological interest in ambiguity about the war. I find that most people who support the Russian invasion are predominately anti-west and/or think Russia represents some kind of alternative to western capitalism. I don't find these views to be grounded because Russia is a corrupt capitalist oligarchy. It's more libertarian than the US.

[Ajay0]

The former Pope Francis had similarly criticized the NATO expansion for the ukraine war for the last two years.
 

https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-nato-cause-ukraine-invasion-russia/

Quote

 

 Pope Francis said that NATO “barking” at Russia’s door may have led to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine — and said he has offered to meet the Russian president in Moscow.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Francis reflected on Russia’s lethal aggression toward its neighbor and said while he might not go as far as saying NATO’s presence in nearby countries “provoked” Moscow, it “perhaps facilitated” the invasion.

 

The new American pope however has refused to condemn nato expansion and had blamed Russia alone for the invasion.

 

https://tvpworld.com/86810241/pope-leo-opens-papacy-with-break-from-francis-on-ukraine-war

Quote

The contrast with his predecessor was clear. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, Pope Francis met with the Russian ambassador before even calling Kyiv. He later suggested that NATO’s “barking” had provoked Moscow and refused for months to name Putin as the aggressor.

Leo has done the opposite, placing Ukraine at the heart of his first week and pointing clearly to Russia as the source of its suffering. He has made no mention of Western responsibility for the start of the war and he has echoed the Ukrainian line on the need for a “just” peace, not simply a negotiated one.

 

[Ajay0]

An another article by Tom Switzer on nato ...
 

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/opinion/the-wests-bid-to-expand-nato-eastwards-was-a-mistake/

Quote

So it was hardly surprising that when the Americans began pushing NATO enlargement in the 1990s, Russian leaders across the board — to include Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin — made it very clear this would be unacceptable.

When American leaders dismissed the Kremlin’s loud and persistent complaints, Russian leaders pointed out that US leaders would not tolerate Moscow forming a military alliance with Cuba and Mexico and then planting Russian missiles in those countries. So, why should Russia accept the US doing the equivalent in Ukraine? In effect, the spectre of October 1962 was haunting the Russians, although the roles of the two powers were reversed.

The point was not lost on William Burns, the present CIA director, who was the US ambassador to Russia at the time of the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit, when the alliance announced that Ukraine would become a member. Back then, he wrote a memo to secretary of state Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin”.

 

[PurpleTree]

You can also make the case for the Nazis and so on.

[Ajay0]

31 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

You can also make the case for the Nazis and so on.

The Nazis and european allies, while moving on to Russia, was in a kiling spree wiping out millions of Ukrainians and Slavs so as to create living space (lebensraum) for future european communities in the fertile region. They also wiped out the Jews over there as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

The stunning Russian counter-attack starting from Stanlingrad and ending in Berlin however put an end to the nazi plans of eliminating the Slavs and Jews.

The Ukrainians and Jews thus survived and lived to see an another day, jeering at the Nazis.

Edited Friday at 08:19 AM by Ajay0

[zazen]

Was supposed to be one comment but added the below tweet separately by mistake*

People will still say other people are unfairly harsh when criticising the US and why don’t they criticise other bad things in the world lol something called priority and being efficient with your time by honing in on the worlds largest imperial offender and sower of chaos.

Edited Friday at 09:32 AM by zazen

[zazen]

[Daniel Balan]

On 29/05/2025 at 2:54 PM, zazen said:

Great powers don’t just react to what other nations choose - they react to what those choices imply. Saying NATO expansion isn’t a cause because it’s voluntary is like saying someone who steps into traffic can’t be hit - because they weren’t pushed.

But its true that this can become a negative feedback loop. NATO grows because Russia is a threat = Russia sees NATO growth and feels more threatened = Russia responds militarily, which justifies further NATO growth.

The Western narrative though only see it as the West reacting and Russia always aggressing. Its not like NATO is a kids club that is being joined, its a ''defensive'' pact that isn't always defensive, and who's main leader the US definitely doesn't only ever act in defense but acts to dominate. And this cute club wants to sit at your border - no sensible nation will allow that. NATO expanded eastward despite Russian protesting it since the 1990s.

International law is an abstraction designed for peace, but national security is a reality shaped by fear.

The problem is that Russia broke international law, yes - but in response to a provocation that international law refuses to recognize. And survival always overrides legality.

I discussed this tension with Chat GPT and it came to conclude that international law needs to evolve to:

- Include a doctrine of “preventive existential defense” with strict thresholds

- Create mechanisms for international adjudication before escalation

- Acknowledge that survival is not optional, and law that ignores this will always be broken

A law that cannot incorporate survival will always be subordinate to it.
If international law refuses to recognize existential threats as valid motives, it will remain moral in theory, but irrelevant in practice.''

I was confused myself about this because I argue that Israel is clearly against international law and that Palestinians have a right to self-determination - but then I understand Russia's point of view and action - though it goes against international law. So I was conflicted with that contradiction and that's how I gained some clarity on it.

Interesting food for thought.

Also just a side point about the fear and motivation of Russia wanting to expand and take Europe - its very rare for a empire or country to expand when it is demographically weak and in decline. Usually empires only do so when they have a large number of young men to do so with - so that fear is unfounded. And if Putin was planning to take all of Europe then he's a mad man lol

Dugin is that you? From now on anything you say I will regard it as Russian propaganda! I love you skeptics! I just love it! How come all your skepticism is directed against NATO while you fully swallow anything that serves the russian narrative? 

Bro, a country like Romania was invaded by Russia 12 times since 1700!!! 12! All they brought here was famine, poverty, violence, vandalism, corruption, backwardness, loss of private property, dictatorship, commuism and as of 2025 they are trying to export their 4th way fascism here! The Polish state was dismantled 4 times by the Russians in collaboration with other empires! Bro, with all due respect! You are spitting Russian propaganda day and night! Fuck what Russia thinks, we want nothing to do with them! We just want to be protected by NATO and the west, regardless if the Russians like it or not! As of now I will never ever take you seriously ever again! 

Edited Friday at 11:03 AM by Daniel Balan

[Kid A]

People who are pro-Palestine really aren’t doing themselves or the Palestinians any favors by defending Russia…

[zazen]

5 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Dugin is that you? From now on anything you say I will regard it as Russian propaganda! I love you skeptics! I just love it! How come all your skepticism is directed against NATO while you fully swallow anything that serves the russian narrative? 

Bro, a country like Romania was invaded by Russia 12 times since 1700!!! 12! All they brought here was famine, poverty, violence, vandalism, corruption, backwardness, loss of private property, dictatorship, commuism and as of 2025 they are trying to export their 4th way fascism here! The Polish state was dismantled 4 times by the Russians in collaboration with other empires! Bro, with all due respect! You are spitting Russian propaganda day and night! Fuck what Russia thinks, we want nothing to do with them! We just want to be protected by NATO and the west, regardless if the Russians like it or not! As of now I will never ever take you seriously ever again! 

you’re pulling from 300 years of history to justify eternal fear and hostility toward modern day Russia. Back then was the era of empires where conquest and constantly shifting borders was the norm, and the norms of modern day borders and international law didn’t exist. Romania happens to be caught between a few of empires (Ottoman, Hapsburg, Russian) due to its location and flat land terrain making it easier to penetrate.  But we're not in that century any more and now have international law, nuclear deterrence, global institutions, and much more rigid borders. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union trying to conquer Europe.

If past invasions justify eternal distrust of Russia, then shouldn’t the rest of the world be just as eternally distrustful of the West who colonized the planet? Ireland was invaded 8 times by Britain - should Ireland always paint Britain as a boogeyman and treat it as if its like the British empire from the old days? Or does it relate to it as it exists in the modern day which isn't an empire or trying to be one? If you're going to use those 300 years of history to define Russia now, then by the same logic, we should live in eternal fear of the West. We don’t do that because we judge a situation based on context and present day reality which is that Russia today isn’t an expanding empire with a demographic surplus - it’s a stagnant/declining power reacting to what it sees as a threat on its doorstep - just like how the Cuban missile crisis was reacted to by the US.

It;s not about defending Russia. You can’t apply 300 years of fear selectively. Either we all live in the past, or we try to deal with the world as it actually is. You're too emotional for geopolitics.