Skip to content

NATO Expansion

Tagswar justificationhistorical distortionimperial narrativedisinformation tactic

Also writtenNATO enlargementNATO encirclement

EquivalentsRUрасширение НАТО

Definition

Section titled “Definition”

“NATO expansion” (or “NATO enlargement”) is the Kremlin’s principal outward-facing justification for its war against Ukraine: the claim that the United States and its allies, having promised at the end of the Cold War not to move the alliance “one inch eastward,” broke that promise, encircled Russia with a hostile military bloc, and left Moscow no choice but to act in self-defence. In this framing the invasion is not a war of conquest but a forced, defensive response to Western provocation.

The argument is unusually portable: unlike narratives aimed only at domestic audiences, it is pitched directly at the West, where it resonates with strands of “realist” and anti-interventionist opinion and is often repeated by people who would never knowingly echo Moscow.

Origin and history

Section titled “Origin and history”

The factual kernel the narrative grows from is a real but narrow episode. In February 1990, during talks on German reunification, US Secretary of State James Baker floated to Mikhail Gorbachev the idea that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift “one inch eastward” — language concerning the territory of the former East Germany, in a Europe where the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact still existed. No binding, general commitment against future enlargement was ever signed, and historians working from the declassified record, most thoroughly Mary Sarotte, conclude that the verbal exchange was superseded within months and never became a treaty obligation.1 Gorbachev himself said in 2014 that the subject of NATO enlargement “was not discussed at all” in those years.2

Far from being imposed on a powerless Russia, the post-Cold War security order was negotiated with it. In the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, and again in the 2002 Rome Declaration, Moscow affirmed the principle that every state has the right to choose its own security arrangements; Russia joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace in 1994 and at times floated membership itself.3 The “broken promise” grievance hardened only later, crystallising in Vladimir Putin’s 2007 Munich speech and the 2008 Bucharest summit, and was then deployed retroactively to justify the 2008 war in Georgia, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the 2022 full-scale invasion.

Function in propaganda

Section titled “Function in propaganda”

The frame is used to:

  • recast aggression as self-defence, presenting an unprovoked invasion as a reluctant, reactive measure forced on Russia by an encroaching enemy;
  • shift moral responsibility onto the West, especially the United States and the Anglo-Saxons, so that the Collective West rather than the Kremlin is blamed for the war;
  • assert a sphere of influence, implying that Russia is entitled to a veto over its neighbours’ alliances and to deny their sovereignty (the imperial logic behind the Multipolar World claim);
  • supply a pseudo-historical grievance — the “broken promise” — that sounds concrete and legalistic while resting on a phrase that was never a binding pledge;
  • divert attention from the actual war aims stated elsewhere in Russian discourse, such as “denazification” and the denial that Ukraine is a real nation (see Denazification, Russian World).

The claim collapses on the facts. No binding promise against enlargement was made, and the agreements Russia did sign affirm each state’s right to choose its alliances.13 NATO is a defensive alliance built on Article 5 collective defence;4 it has never attacked Russia, whereas Russia attacked Georgia and Ukraine — neither of them NATO members — directly contradicting the idea that the war was a defensive reaction to the alliance. Enlargement was driven by the demand of Central and Eastern European states seeking protection from exactly the kind of coercion Russia later demonstrated, not by American arm-twisting. And the war has been self-defeating on its own stated terms: in response to the 2022 invasion, long-neutral Finland and Sweden joined NATO (in April 2023 and March 2024), more than doubling the alliance’s land border with Russia.5 If NATO were the genuine threat, the invasion produced far more of it. The “encirclement” image is likewise false: even after Finland’s accession, NATO borders only a small fraction of Russia’s vast frontier.

Key examples

Section titled “Key examples”

The Munich speech (2007). At the Munich Security Conference, Putin denounced NATO enlargement as a provocation that reduced mutual trust, marking the public turn toward treating the alliance as the central grievance.

The December 2021 ultimatum. Weeks before the invasion, Russia published draft “security guarantee” treaties demanding that NATO halt all enlargement and withdraw forces to its 1997 positions — non-negotiable terms whose rejection was used to frame the coming war as forced.

The February 2022 justifications. In the speeches launching the Special Military Operation, NATO featured alongside “denazification” and historical claims — but the operative war aims described were the disarmament and political transformation of Ukraine, not a negotiated security arrangement.

Retroactive use for Georgia (2008). The Bucharest summit’s statement that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members” of NATO was cited as provocation for the 2008 war, establishing the template later applied to Ukraine.

Why it matters

Section titled “Why it matters”

“NATO expansion” matters because it is the Kremlin’s most successful export. More than any other war narrative, it has divided opinion inside the very societies supporting Ukraine, lending an academic and “anti-imperialist” gloss to the claim that the West provoked the war. By locating the cause of the invasion in Washington’s decisions rather than Moscow’s, it shifts the debate away from Russian responsibility and toward Western restraint.

Its deeper effect is to erase the agency of Russia’s neighbours. The frame treats sovereign nations as bargaining chips in a deal between great powers, denying that Ukrainians, Poles, Balts, Finns, and others had any right to choose their own alliances out of well-founded fear of Russian domination. That denial of sovereignty — not any broken promise — is the narrative’s real content, and the reason it travels so comfortably alongside the Kremlin’s other claims about the “near abroad.”

See also

Section titled “See also”

Sources

Section titled “Sources”

Footnotes

Section titled “Footnotes”

  1. Sarotte, M. E. (2021). Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate. Yale University Press — on the February 1990 Baker–Gorbachev exchange and the conclusion, from declassified records, that no binding general pledge against NATO enlargement was made. ↩ ↩2

  2. Mikhail Gorbachev, interview with Kommersant (2014): the topic of NATO enlargement “was not discussed at all” in 1990. ↩

  3. Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation (1997), and the 2002 Rome Declaration: both reaffirm the right of states to choose their own security arrangements; see also NATO’s Partnership for Peace (1994). ↩ ↩2

  4. NATO, “NATO-Russia: setting the record straight” (fact sheet, updated 2022): on NATO as a defensive alliance and enlargement as the sovereign choice of applicant states. ↩

  5. House of Commons Library, “NATO enlargement: Sweden and Finland” (2024): Finland joined on 4 April 2023 and Sweden on 7 March 2024 in response to the invasion; Finland’s accession more than doubled NATO’s land border with Russia. ↩