My buddy Matt Yglesias takes up Thomas Friedman's NYT column yesterday pointing out the role that NATO expansion played in creating the climate of tense relations between Washington and Moscow. Matt concludes "you can’t draw a straight line from the initial NATO enlargement decision to war in the summer of 2008."
Well, fine. It's true, you can't draw a straight line. But it certainly played a big role. Moreover, Matt's contention that the positive side of the NATO expansion ledger ("helping to consolidate democratic norms [especially in the field of civil-military relations] in a swathe of countries that’s now pretty big and prosperous and somewhat important") balances out the negative (setting the stage for the situation in which we find ourselves today vis-a-vis Russia) just doesn't hold up.
First, the perception that NATO is an engine of democratic enlargement has some fairly significant problems with it, as Dan Reiter pointed out in International Security in 2001 (.pdf). (Follow up debate in IS here.)
Moreover, while the Clinton administration was making this quasi-Wilsonian argument about spreading democracy out of one side of their mouths, out of the other side they were blustering as Strobe Talbott did in 1997 that "there is no more solemn commitment the United States can make," pointing out the implications of Article V--the part of the NATO charter that says an attack on one member shall be viewed as an attack on all. Talbott conceded further that the American nuclear arsenal would be used to back up those obligations, and that such commitments were "serious stuff." In the New York Review of Books, Talbott had taken to making outright machtpolitik-y statements like his idea that the first argument that should be presented to Russia about NATO expansion was
Enlargement is going to happen; fighting it with threats will only intensify the darkest suspicions about Russia's intentions and future.
So we're going to do it anyway, we don't care what you say, and you're weak and can't do anything about it, so you'd best shut up. Clear enough. Rest assured the Russians heard declarations like these in addition to the Wilsonian claptrap that the Clinton people rolled out to concerned domestic audiences. That, in part, is why Putin today says things like he did to NATO in Bucharest, that
Russia viewed “the appearance of a powerful military bloc” on its borders “as a direct threat” to its security. “The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice,” Mr. Putin said. “National security is not based on promises.”
Either NATO is a binding military alliance against Russia, or it's not. It could be other things at the same time, but we shouldn't be confused about what it was that made NATO membership so attractive to a country like, say, Poland. It was Article V.
It ought to go without saying that Putin is far from blameless in all this, and the emerging narrative--that he laid a trap for Saakashvili--seems to me to be right. But it ought not to be denied that the ill-advised bipartisan consensus on expanding NATO as much and as rapidly as possible helped set the backdrop for the ambiguous, fumbling, and dangerous American involvement in this conflict.
Also, even accepting the argument about promoting democratic norms as ironclad, is the status of civil-military relations in Hungary or Lithuania really worth this? NATO expansion and the outside-the-Security Council recognition of Kosovo have been sacred cows for liberals for a long time, but it's well past time for them to admit that they share some of the blame for the disastrous state of U.S.-Russia relations today.