Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Two scholars debate the wisdom of enlarging NATO after the Cold War, the extent to which Western policy played a role in bringing about Russia’s war in Ukraine, and how the United States should pursue its interests in Europe going forward.
As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, the United States is grappling with how to sustain Kyiv and eventually re-establish security in Europe. Should Ukraine join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)? To what extent has enlarging NATO promoted or damaged U.S. interests since the Cold War ended? Should the United States double down on its commitment to European security and provide more forces to face down a hostile and aggressive Russia? Or should it instead seek ways to bring the temperature down while shifting European defense burdens to its allies?
MOREUkrainian membership in the security alliance is the only basis for a more stable relationship with Russia.
Members’ interests don’t outweigh the risks.
But Russian aggression was the impetus for the new membership bids.
Advocating for Kyiv’s membership doesn’t make sense without addressing Article V guarantee credibility.
But if Ukraine joins the alliance, NATO will have to engage in serious military planning in ways it did not for the Baltic states.
The United States engaged Russia on secondary matters while antagonizing it on vital issues.
So long as imperialism guides Kremlin policy, the West’s response has to be some version of containment.
This vital question looms large in Washington partly because it was not squarely debated during NATO’s enlargement.