NATO Expansion A Recipe For Peace, Since Allies Do Not Attack Each Other; Kremlin Opposition Implies Putin Regime Harboring Dreams of Further Russian Aggression, Chafing Against Deterrence By A Defensive Alliance

At the risk of stating the obvious, NATO expansion is a recipe for peace, because allies do not attack each other.

Especially given that NATO missions have been defensive and humanitarian, Russian opposition to NATO expansion translates into Kremlin opposition to a widening circle of European peace and stability.

Even more concerning, the Kremlin's stance suggests a desire to hang onto Kremlin aspirations for further Russian aggression or Kremlin attempts the sow conflict among European neighbors.

There are parallels to Kremlin opposition to the use of completely defensive weapons, such as Kremlin opposition to NATO missile defense, particularly deployments in Eastern Europe. Since missile defense is purely defensive, Kremlin opposition to, or complaints about, elements of NATO missile defense has implied that the Kremlin would like to retain a greater ability to carry out nuclear attacks or nuclear intimidation. It would be akin to a bank robber publicly opposing bullet-proof vests for bank guards.

The broader that NATO membership becomes, the broader the list of countries likely to regard each other as peaceful neighbors and not potential enemies.

Indeed, now that the former Soviet Union has been reduced to a defunct nightmarish historical relic, entities liberated from the oppressive Soviet sphere of influence are now peaceful allies with neighbors they previously might have been ordered to fight.

For example, at one time, the USSR potentially could have tried to force former Warsaw Pact victim state Poland to fight against France or West Germany. Instead, a free Poland is now not simply a friend, but an ally of France and a unified Germany. In another example, the oppressive Soviets might have used a brutal puppet, or collaborator, regime in Romania to try to force Romania to fight against Italy. Instead, Romania now is an ally of Italy.

It would be foolish to suggest that Poland or Bulgaria might start a war against, France, Germany or Italy today. The fact that they have bolstered international friendship by becoming allies within a defensive alliance adds to European peace and stability.

So NATO expansion is about a widening circle of friends who, as allies, are unlikely to go to war against each other and, indeed, add to peace and stability by deterring potential attacks against them by third-party aggressors.

As a result, Russian opposition to NATO expansion seems an odd admission that the Kremlin does not wish to see a widening of European peace and stability, that the Russian regime is opposed to European peace stability.

The stance also raises the troubling question of whether the Kremlin does not wish to give up dreams of Russian aggression or warmaking, and that the Russian regime wishes to retain a greater potential to sow destablizing conflict between Russian neighbors and the rest of Europe.

Given that NATO expansion is a recipe for peace, and enhances European peace a stability, the Kremlin's opposition should heighten awareness of the pressing need for peacebuilding through NATO expansion.

NATO missions have tended to be defensive in nature, such as the NATO mission in Afghanistan in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Indeed, interestingly enough, one current NATO mission has been to to deter, or intercept and repel, aggressive Russian incursions into other countries' airspace.

That the Kremlin would couple its opposition to NATO expansion with Russian aggression against Ukraine is particularly cynical.

Ukraine gave up one of the world's biggest nuclear arsenals, inherited from the Soviet Union, in exchange for promises that no one would violate their territory. Russia itself explictly signed on that that agreement, the Budapest Agreement. Yet, even now, Russia already not has invaded Ukraine, they have occupied Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula and declared that Ukrainian territory in Crimea is now part of Russia.

The Russian regime reputedly has further violated Russia's international obligations, and proved devious and dishonest, by involving itself in war against Ukraine in the Donbas, the eastern portion of Ukraine.

And now, like a bank robber wanting to roll back security features on a bank, Russia seeks to protest against NATO peacebuilding, by attempt to blackmail the alliance against widening its circle of peace and stability. More importantly, the Russian regime seems bent on rolling back any NATO deterrent against Kremlin aggression and imperialism.

Additional Resources:

Operations and missions: past and present - NATO 9.10.21

 

[please be sure to consider clicking the support button, to support this web project and related efforts]

Key Words: Russia, NATO, NATO Expansion, Russian Aggression

NATO Map, adapted from image at defense.gov