A quarter of a century ago, NATO's first eastward expansion since the Cold War took place.

The members of the alliance are the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, which were previously part of the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO).

It was initially assumed that the entry of Eastern European countries into the North Atlantic Alliance would take place at the end of April 1999 at a summit in Washington.

However, the NATO admission ceremony was postponed to an earlier date.

As the bloc’s headquarters explained then, the “recruits” themselves allegedly asked for this because of their desire to participate in resolving the Kosovo crisis.

The first expansion of the alliance turned out to be a great challenge for Russian security.

For the first time, the Western bloc expanded to the borders of our country.

The entry of new member countries did not contradict the Russia-NATO Founding Act of May 27, 1997.

However, it was a violation of repeatedly voiced commitments on the part of officials of the collective West.

For example, the head of the US State Department, James Baker, promised Moscow in 1990 that the bloc “would not move an inch to the east.”

The same verbal guarantees were provided to the USSR by the 41st US President George W. Bush.

"Substantiate your value"

As RISI expert Sergei Ermakov said in a conversation with RT, the first expansion of NATO marked the final victory of the unipolar world order built on the dictates of the United States.

Washington demonstratively rejected previous commitments and made it clear that it does not intend to take into account Russia’s national interests.

“Washington took advantage of the collapse of the bipolar system of international relations, and NATO became one of the instruments for promoting the goals of American policy.

We can say that NATO’s strategy of expansion to the east was a vital idea, since after the collapse of the USSR the bloc’s only real enemy disappeared.

The Americans needed to find a new justification for the practical value of the alliance - and they did it,” Ermakov said.

  • Consequences of the massive bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO aircraft, March 31, 1999

  • Legion-Media

  • © MARK H. MILSTEIN

The expert noted that NATO has taken on the role of creator of a new “security space” in Europe.

It provided for the expansion of the number of participants in Eastern Europe without taking into account the national interests of Russia and the fight against the “tyranny” of the Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic.

“It is symbolic that the first expansion occurred shortly before the aggression against Yugoslavia, which in the 1990s served as the new enemy of Western “democracy.”

During this period, it was important for the United States to emphasize its deep involvement in European affairs;

to single out “good” countries that join the alliance or seek cooperation with it, and “bad” ones, like Yugoslavia, which are running into trouble and must certainly be punished,” Ermakov added.

Let us recall that on March 24, 1999, under the pretext of protecting the population of Kosovo, the alliance launched the air operation “Allied Force” against Yugoslavia.

In total, alliance aircraft fired 3 thousand cruise missiles at the Balkan state and dropped about 80 thousand tons of bombs, including those with depleted uranium and cluster warheads.

About 2 thousand civilians became victims of the aggression.

After the surrender of Belgrade, a KFOR contingent of 16 thousand was stationed in Kosovo.  

Prior to this, NATO forces intervened in the Bosnian conflict.

In 1995, NATO conducted Operation Deliberate Force against local Serb forces and brought 60,000 troops into the country.

In a commentary to RT, the director of the Center for Military-Political Studies at MGIMO, Alexey Podberezkin, said that without provoking armed conflicts and constant expansion, NATO would have lost the meaning of its existence.

“The Alliance needed to somehow justify its practical value.

Yugoslavia became a convenient platform for this, followed by the deployment of troops in Afghanistan and aggression in Iraq and Libya.

At the same time, the alliance, forgetting about its obligations, constantly expanded, moved closer and became entrenched near our borders,” stated Podberezkin.

Let us recall that after the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary in 2004, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the organization, in 2009 - Albania and Croatia, in 2017 - Montenegro, in 2020 - North Macedonia, Finland in 2023, Sweden in 2024.

As Podberezkin believes, territorial expansion is necessary to increase the reconnaissance combat capabilities of the collective West.

It allows the expansion of military infrastructure and the deployment of a significant number of strike units near Russian borders.

  • Largest post-Cold War exercise Steadfast Defender 24

  • © Social networks

“New territories are new airfields, warehouses, logistics facilities, command posts.

For the Americans, this means more opportunities to transport troops to Europe.

We see this in the large-scale exercises that are regularly held on the so-called eastern flank.

From winter to May, for example, Steadfast Defender 24 takes place. About 90 thousand people take part in them.

These are the largest maneuvers since 1988.

All these actions are, without a doubt, directed against Russia,” Podberezkin said.

Another direction of NATO expansion, according to Podberezkin, is the involvement of countries in the Asia-Pacific region (APR) in the bloc’s aggressive plans.

“Recently, the so-called NATO Plus has been operating.

If you do not take Israel into account, this includes US allies in the Asia-Pacific region: Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea.

Now great efforts of the Americans are focused on involving India in this format.

Washington needs it to increase pressure on China and North Korea,” the expert noted.

After the first waves of expansion, NATO officials repeatedly denied the organization's expansionist, aggressive nature.

Thus, in 2008, at a public lecture, the director of the alliance’s political planning department, Jamie Shea, said that after the Cold War, the alliance only took on “new functions to maintain and strengthen peace.”

According to him, the collapse of Yugoslavia gave NATO the opportunity to show that “the machine built to confront the Soviet Union during the Cold War can be put to good use to solve new security problems.”

In December 2009, speaking at MGIMO, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the bloc does not pose any threat to Russia.

Moreover, the official saw a positive effect from the fact that the alliance began to border on Russia.

“I am convinced of the opposite.

When Russia's neighbors joined NATO in 1999 and 2004, a more stable western border benefited Russia.

And this stability, of course, together with EU membership has led to increased investor confidence, economic growth and prosperity,” Rasmussen said.

In January 2022, shortly before the SVO, in a conversation with journalists, the current Secretary General of the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, rejected accusations that the Western bloc threatens Russia and is expanding through expansion to the east.

“NATO is a defensive alliance.

We have never forced or coerced any country into joining our North Atlantic Alliance.

So the idea that, for example, NATO expansion is aggressive is completely untrue.

NATO enlargement has become the cornerstone of the spread of democracy and freedom throughout Europe,” Stoltenberg said.

  • A protocol member places the Swedish flag during preparations for the flag-raising ceremony to mark Sweden's entry into NATO headquarters in Brussels, Monday, March 11, 2024.

  • AP

  • © Geert Vanden Wijngaert

As the secretary general of the alliance stated, it is Russia that allegedly pursues an aggressive foreign policy.

First of all, this concerns Ukraine.

According to Stoltenberg, Moscow allegedly “annexed” Crimea and “destabilized” Donbass.

To contain the Russian Federation, NATO deployed combat units to the territory of its eastern members, began patrolling the airspace and intensified its naval presence near the border with the Russian Federation, the organization’s secretary general noted.

“This is not being done in order to provoke a conflict, but in order to maintain peace, to prevent conflict,” Stoltenberg added.

"Growing risk of escalation"

According to experts, it was the alliance’s refusal to stop its expansionist policy and Ukraine’s involvement in the bloc’s military infrastructure that served as the root cause of the special operation.

Analysts mainly associate the further development of relations with NATO with the outcome of the confrontation in Ukraine.

“I don’t think the United States was going to accept Ukraine into the alliance.

However, this game has been played since the 2000s.

NATO was not going to take responsibility for Ukraine, but at the same time it was consistently preparing it for a military confrontation with Russia.

This approach is fully consistent with the strategic goal of NATO and the United States.

It is to destabilize, split and subjugate Russia,” said Alexey Podberezkin.

According to the expert, the United States is not going to deviate from its anti-Russian principles and hegemonic approach.

In this regard, the escalation of tension in Europe and in the world as a whole will only increase.

Sergei Ermakov has a slightly different point of view.

According to the expert, at present, Realpolitik tools that are based on the principle of prioritizing national interests work most effectively.

For this reason, it will become increasingly difficult for NATO member countries to find compromises with each other.

“It is no coincidence that people in Europe are once again afraid of Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House.

Guided by the national interests of the United States, he can deprive allies of the previous level of support,” the expert noted.

According to Ermakov, the unpredictability of American politics is causing great concern in Europe.

It is precisely its consequence that can be considered statements by French President Emmanuel Macron about the possible deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine.

However, as the expert is sure, such an escalation is not beneficial to any member of the alliance.

“Of course, rational thinking may fail in Europeans.

And without the United States, they are unlikely to cross the red line.

In any case, the introduction of troops from Western countries will not save NATO from responsibility.

Moreover, there are now many discussions and publications in the Western media about the possibility of “reconciliation” negotiations with Russia.

This is a sign that the West is still aware of the growing risk of escalation and the need to establish normal relations with Moscow,” Ermakov concluded.