The Complex Dynamics of NATO Expansion and Russia's Geopolitical Calculations
The question of why Russia tolerates a shared border with Norway and the Baltic states, which are all NATO members, but would not allow Ukraine to join NATO, has raised considerable debate. The crux of the issue lies not in NATO itself but in Russia's strategic interests, particularly in Ukraine.
Russia's primary objective is to safeguard its geopolitical position and maintain control over regions it considers critically important, such as Ukraine. The resources and strategic significance of Ukraine make it a focal point for Russia's strategic planning. Any attempt by Ukraine to align more closely with NATO, especially the prospect of Russia's territorial integrity being threatened, is seen as a direct challenge to this strategic calculus.
Smaller Baltic Armies vs. Ukraine's Potential Military Growth
The Baltic states, comprising Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, have significantly smaller armed forces. Combined, their active military personnel number no more than 30,000. In contrast, Ukraine’s armed forces, officially around 255,000 before the recent expansion, now claim a force size of over 400,000, including reservists and volunteers. This substantial increase in NATO-aligned troops on Russia's border is a cause for considerable concern. Even if we consider the lower figure, the prospect of an additional quarter of a million NATO troops presents an alarming scenario that Putin cannot ignore, and it indeed keeps him awake at night. This is one of the reasons why Russia seems to be acting unusually, potentially due to its altered sleep patterns.
Historical Context and Russian Geopolitical Temperament
The historical context of NATO expansion is crucial in understanding Russia's current stance. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, one of the gentlemen's agreements was that NATO and the EU would not expand westward. However, this agreement was soon breached as NATO's capabilities expanded, reaching Russia's doorstep. By the end of the decade, Russia faced NATO forces within a striking distance of St. Petersburg, and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia took place, leading to the carving of Serbia from Bosnia and Herzegovina under EU influence.
Following the tumultuous 1990s, Russia experienced a period of recovery with the US preoccupied in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the EU largely incapable of defending itself through conventional means. This newfound stability allowed Russia to project its influence more forcefully. The EU's expansion into Georgia was met with defiance as Russia supported separatist regions, an action that eventually led to a crushing defeat of the Georgian military.
When NATO sought to expand into Ukraine, Russia similarly opposed it, exploiting existing ethnic tensions and promoting unrest to weaken Ukraine's resolve. This pattern of action reveals Russia's clear stance against further NATO incursions into regions it views as strategic hubs. The subsequent NATO intervention in Ukraine led to a significant military buildup and a heightened state of conflict between the two powers.
Russia cannot realistically be expected to revisit past issues, but it can exert pressure on ongoing negotiations and stalled agreements. The Nord Stream pipeline, a contentious issue due to its strategic and economic importance to both Russia and the EU, remains one such point of contention. Russia’s ability to leverage this pipeline as leverage over Europe is a key aspect of its current diplomatic and geopolitical strategy.
In conclusion, the complex interplay of historical agreements, strategic interests, and current geopolitical tensions explains Russia's stance on NATO expansion. For Putin, the geopolitical landscape is intricately linked to Russia's national security, making Ukraine a critical battleground for asserting control over strategic resources and territories.