NATO expansionism could seed instability

Sweden's entry into NATO, following Finland's membership, has further encircled Russia and extended NATO's presence along Russia's western borders.

With the decks cleared for Sweden to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as its 32nd member, the United States-led military alliance has crept up further east to encircle Russia in a vice-like grip. Sweden’s entry follows Finland’s membership in April 2023. Barring Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia, the entire spectrum of Russia’s western borders will henceforth have to contend with the military presence and force posturing of NATO.

Prior to the Ukraine war, Russia’s land border with NATO ran up to 754 miles. (REUTERS)

Prior to the Ukraine war, Russia’s land border with NATO ran up to 754 miles. Today, it stands at 1,584 miles and could stretch even longer if Ukraine is eventually admitted into the alliance. To say that Russian President Vladimir Putin scored a self-goal would not be an exaggeration. Annexing 17% to 18% of Ukrainian territory through a debilitating war can, at best, be considered a tactical gain that came at an enormous strategic cost. In its current weak condition, Russia will struggle to match NATO’s military spending along its land and maritime borders or sustain a regional balance of power in its favour.

Loud warnings from Moscow that Finland and Sweden would face “consequences” if they joined NATO failed to deter these countries. While Russia’s isolation and inability to mould the security architecture in Europe are clear for all to see, the latest round of NATO expansion does pose a long-term question as to whether military alliances truly advance security and stability in a region, or lay the groundwork for future wars and destabilisation.

Given Putin’s belligerence in Ukraine, practically every country in Europe is convinced that an expanded NATO is the only structural bulwark to shield the continent from additional Russian aggression. The immediacy and brutality of the war in Ukraine have led to a continent-wide shedding of the hitherto ambiguous outlook, where the belief was that the Russian threat could be managed through a mix of economic interdependence and dialogue. Now, the mood in Europe is that only hard deterrence and alliance-based military pushback can knock some sense into Putin.

Owing to the history of Russia’s empire in eastern Europe (at different points in time, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Moldova, Poland and Ukraine were under Moscow’s control), the fears in this region about Russian neo-colonialism run deep. Putin’s resurrection of Russkiy Mir (Russian world or sphere of influence) sounds sinister to weaker neighbours. It is understandable that these smaller countries perceive an existential threat from Putin’s Russia and place faith only in a robust NATO-led counteroffensive. Joining NATO – whose collective defence provision states that an attack on one is an attack against all – appears to be the ultimate guarantee for the survival of these neighbours.

Yet, there is some merit to the Russian concept of indivisible security, meaning that neighbouring countries cannot blindly pursue their own security without any consideration for Russia’s security. Joining NATO may give Russia’s neighbours assurance that Moscow will not frontally attack them, but it means that all bridges with Russia are being burnt. Barring some miraculous regime change in Russia that ushers into the Kremlin a pro-Western liberal ruler, Moscow will keep viewing its Western frontiers as a perpetual menace and a danger that must be confronted somehow or the other.

A Russia that is economically and militarily depleted and tied up in Ukraine cannot open new fronts to conquer land via military force. But Russia does have the demonstrated ability to destabilise neighbours through grey zone tactics such as cyber war, disinformation, influence operations, covert proxy missions and stoking resentments of Russian-speaking minorities. A region permanently on edge due to unsavoury incidents and locked into low-intensity conflict is not a comforting place to be in.

The continuing expansion of NATO has become a realpolitik-driven inevitability after the war in Ukraine. But it is a double-edged sword that may come back to haunt Russia’s neighbours by creating an eternal source of tension and contention, which could at some juncture inadvertently trigger no less than a world war. Instead of finding strategic stability, Europe is walking down a path of long-term instability.

Sreeram Chaulia is dean, Jindal School of International Affairs. The views expressed are personal