Montenegro and the Folly of NATO Expansion

Brad Stapleton

geopolitics, Europe

NATO expansion should be based upon careful examination of both costs and benefits.

On Wednesday, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) formally invited Montenegro to join the U.S.-led Western military alliance.  Montenegro is consequently on track to become the thirteenth country from the former Eastern bloc to join NATO since the end of the Cold War.  In the midst of ongoing Russo-American tension over Ukraine and Syria, however, further NATO expansion is a huge mistake.

The invitation to Montenegro has already prompted the Kremlin to warn of “retaliatory actions from the East.”  That response should come as no surprise.  Moscow has made it quite clear that it views NATO expansion into Eastern Europe as part of a campaign to isolate and encircle Russia.  Moreover, many Russians view that expansion as a blatant violation of promises made by Western leaders at the end of the Cold War.  In March 2014, for instance, Vladimir Putin asserted pointedly that “they have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs…This has happened with NATO expansion to the East.”

Western countries, particularly the United States, have evinced little sensitivity to Russia’s concerns, however.  Politicians frequently protest that NATO expansion is not designed to counter Russia.  Many have also responded to Russian claims of betrayal by arguing that as the communist bloc was unraveling in 1990, Western leaders never explicitly pledged not to expand NATO eastward.  Regardless of the historical truth, however, what really matters is Russia’s perception of NATO enlargement.  Since that expansion has clearly antagonized Russia, it would therefore be wise to desist.

Proponents of NATO expansion argue against permitting Russia to exercise a veto over alliance decisions.  They are absolutely correct that NATO has the right to extend membership to whichever independent states it chooses.  But exercising that right in defiance of Russia’s insecurities is foolhardy.  NATO expansion should be based upon careful examination of both costs and benefits.