NATO’s Expansion and the Return of Bloc Politics: The Alliance has outlived its mandate

“Enlarging NATO was not necessary; it was a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever, it will inflame nationalistic, anti-western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; restore the atmosphere of the Cold War; and drive Russian foreign policy in directions not to out liking”.
– George F Kennan, an American diplomat and historian

The end of the Cold War presented a historic opening. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, Europe had a chance to construct a new, inclusive security architecture beyond bloc politics. Instead, what followed was a deliberate betrayal from the Promise of Peace to the Politics of Betrayal

Bill Clinton’s administration, far from being the architect of a lasting peace, became the “wrecker-in-chief.” He pushed NATO deep into Eastern Europe, ignoring the most fundamental assurance given in the early 1990s: that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward.” While the exact legal standing of this assurance is debated, the historical record—transcripts, memoirs, and declassified cables—shows that Soviet leaders were led to believe in it. “The West pretends it wants peace. But what it really wants is a contract where Europe and the U.S. rule, and everyone else obeys. That era is over.”

Instead of turning NATO into a partnership forum or winding it down altogether, Washington rebranded enlargement as its measure of success. In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were admitted. In 2004, the “Big Bang” followed: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Later, Albania and Croatia (2009), Montenegro (2017), and North Macedonia (2020). Then, in the shadow of war, Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024). NATO’s own celebratory website calls this history “a story of success.” But success for whom? For Moscow, this was encirclement, a blatant violation of the spirit of post-Cold War diplomacy.

II. Clinton as Wrecker-in-Chief

Clinton’s decision to institutionalize NATO enlargement was not inevitable. Leading figures in U.S. strategy—George Kennan, Paul Nitze, even prominent senators—warned that expansion would revive bloc confrontation, humiliate Russia, and entrench militarism in Europe. Kennan famously called it “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

But Clinton pressed ahead. The NATO–Russia Founding Act of 1997 promised cooperation and non-deployment of nuclear weapons in new member states, but it was political window-dressing. Two years later, NATO bombed Yugoslavia without UN Security Council authorization, violating international law and directly undermining the Founding Act. From then on, Russia understood the game: the West does not negotiate in good faith.

Bucharest 2008: The Point of No Return

The April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest became a watershed. Despite deep reservations from Germany and France, NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members.” This was the worst of all worlds: an empty promise to Kyiv and Tbilisi, yet a direct provocation to Moscow. Angela Merkel later admitted that the move was “dangerously provocative.” The declaration was a ticking time bomb. NATO wanted to keep Russia permanently insecure, while dangling a future guarantee of alliance membership to Ukraine without taking real responsibility for its defense.

Ukraine as Western Instrument

The West pretends it wants peace. But what it really wants is a contract where Europe and the U.S. rule, and everyone else obeys. That era is over.

From 2014 onward, Ukraine became the arena through which the West sought to box in Russia. After the Maidan upheaval, Washington and Brussels pumped resources, training, and weapons into Ukraine, effectively transforming it into a forward operating base. Yet, Ukraine was never given the full Article 5 guarantee.This half-pregnant strategy—arming Ukraine while keeping it outside NATO—was designed not for Ukraine’s security, but to bleed and contain Russia.

Minsk: The West’s Broken Contract

The Minsk agreements (2014 and 2015) were hailed as the roadmap to peace. Minsk II in particular outlined a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, constitutional reform in Ukraine, and restoration of Kyiv’s border control only after Donbas autonomy was secured.

From Moscow’s perspective, Minsk was not failed diplomacy—it was a hoax. Minsk was sabotaged from the outset—by the West. While Russia pushed for its implementation, NATO and its allies treated Minsk as a stalling tactic. Even Ukraine’s own Petro Poroshenko later admitted its purpose was to “buy time” for Ukraine to rearm. Angela Merkel and François Hollande confirmed the same in retrospect: Minsk was never meant to deliver political compromise; it was meant to weaken Russia.

From Moscow’s perspective, Minsk was not failed diplomacy—it was a hoax. A bait-and-switch designed to lull Russia into restraint while NATO tightened its grip. That is why Russia finally shut the process down. It would no longer tolerate the West’s colonial style of contract-making, where rules apply only one way.

Russia’s 2022 military intervention is illegal under the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggression. But it must also be understood as a defensive reaction to a decades-long NATO offensive. NATO’s relentless expansion, the collapse of Minsk, and the weaponization of Ukraine made war tragically predictable.

Here, one must confront the hypocrisy: the West frames Russia as the sole aggressor, yet ignores its own expansionist colonial behaviour. The Global South sees through this double standard. Across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, NATO’s actions confirm that Europe remains a side-kick to U.S. imperialism. BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and other non-Western coalitions reject this Western monopoly on world order. As one African diplomat put it privately: “The West has not abandoned colonialism; it has merely changed its vocabulary.”

No NATO for Ukraine: “Ukraine’s NATO membership is not stabilizing—it is existentially destabilizing.”

The most urgent demand is clear: Ukraine must not join NATO. Not only would this permanently lock in war with Russia, it would institutionalize Ukraine as a military outpost rather than allow it to develop as a bridge between East and West. Neutrality, armed non-alignment, and security guarantees outside NATO are the only sustainable way forward.

Even Merkel’s 2008 objection remains valid: Ukraine’s NATO membership is not stabilizing—it is existentially destabilizing.

Shut Down NATO. If the Warsaw Pact was dismantled in 1991, why does NATO still exist in 2025? Its purpose is no longer defense; it is projection. From Serbia to Libya, Afghanistan to Iraq, NATO has functioned as the military arm of Western hegemony. The Warsaw Pact vanished; meanwhile NATO metastasised.Europe will never achieve strategic independence until it emancipates itself from NATO’s shadow. A new pan-European security pact, including Russia and Ukraine, rooted in arms control, force reductions, and mutual guarantees, is the only realistic solution. The OSCE once hinted at this role; it must be revived. Until then, NATO will remain the machine that produces wars in Europe.

NATO’s expansion since 1995 has destroyed the chance for post-Cold War peace. Clinton wrecked the order; Bucharest 2008 lit the fuse; the West’s sabotage of Minsk exposed its bad faith. Today, Ukraine is the tragic victim of NATO’s obsession with encircling Russia.

The remedy is radical but obvious: no NATO for Ukraine, and eventually no NATO at all. The world is no longer unipolar. Colonial contracts written in Washington and Brussels will not stand. Russia, BRICS, and the wider Global South are insisting on a multipolar order where the West is just one voice among many. The sooner Europe accepts this, the sooner it can move from being a side-kick of empire to a genuine partner in peace.

References (for endnotes)

NATO official pages on enlargement.

National Security Archive on “not one inch” assurances.

NATO–Russia Founding Act 1997.

Kosovo 1999 legality debates.

Bucharest 2008 declaration; Merkel’s objections.

Minsk II text and subsequent admissions by Poroshenko, Merkel, Hollande.

George Kennan’s 1997 warning.

Ranjan Solomon from Goa, India, is a political commentator, and a human rights defender