NATO-Creation, Why not dissolved, Guarantees & Eastward Expansion

NATO-Creation

Why NATO Was Created:

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was created on April 4, 1949, in the aftermath of World War II. Its formation was driven by following factors:

1.?????? Containment of Soviet Expansion: During the early Cold War, tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union escalated. NATO was primarily established to counter the threat of Soviet expansion into Western Europe.

2.?????? Collective Security: The treaty was founded on the principle of collective defense (Article 5), meaning an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. This was designed to deter potential aggression, particularly from the Soviet Union.

3.?????? Reassurance to Western Europe: Many European countries were economically and militarily weak after World War II. NATO provided them with a security umbrella, backed by the military strength of the United States.

4.?????? Promotion of Unity and Cooperation: NATO aimed to foster political and military cooperation among Western democracies, ensuring collective stability and preventing future conflicts within Europe.

5.?????? U.S. Leadership in Global Affairs: The U.S. wanted to establish itself as a global leader post-WWII and ensure the security of Europe, which was critical to its own economic and strategic interests.

Why NATO Was Not Dissolved After the Collapse of the USSR:

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, effectively ending the Cold War. While the primary adversary of NATO ceased to exist, the organization persisted for several reasons:

1.?????? Uncertainty and Instability: The post-Cold War world was marked by uncertainty. Russia’s transition from a communist to a democratic state was unstable, and NATO provided a framework for maintaining security in Europe.

2.?????? Regional Conflicts: The 1990s saw conflicts in the Balkans (e.g., the Yugoslav Wars), where NATO played a significant role in peacekeeping and humanitarian interventions.

3.?????? Revised Mission: NATO redefined its role to address new security challenges, such as terrorism, cyber threats, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It expanded its focus beyond collective defense to include crisis management and cooperative security.

4.?????? Integration of Eastern Europe: Many former Eastern Bloc countries sought NATO membership to ensure their security against potential Russian aggression. NATO provided a path for these nations to integrate into Western political and military structures.

5.?????? Global Partnerships: NATO began to engage in operations outside its traditional area, such as in Afghanistan after 9/11, reflecting its evolution into a global security alliance.

6.?????? Institutional Momentum: By the time the Soviet Union dissolved, NATO had established deep institutional, political, and military ties among its member states. Dissolving such an organization would have created a significant security vacuum.

7.?????? Russian Resurgence: Even after the collapse of the USSR, Russia remained a significant military power. NATO’s continued existence served as a deterrent against any potential future aggression.

NATO transformed from a purely Cold War alliance into a broader mechanism for maintaining transatlantic security and addressing global challenges, ensuring its continued relevance even after the USSR's collapse.

EU Eastward Expansion resulting in NATO’s Expansion

Historical Context: The EU’s eastward expansion refers to the process of integrating former communist states from Central and Eastern Europe, as well as some post-Soviet states, into the European Union following the end of the Cold War. The USSR’s dissolution in 1991 opened the door for these countries to pivot toward Western institutions. The process began in earnest with the 1993 Copenhagen Criteria, which set conditions for EU membership (e.g., democracy, rule of law, market economy), and culminated in major waves of enlargement:

I.??????????? 2004: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, and Malta joined.

II.??????????? 2007: Bulgaria and Romania.

III.??????????? 2013: Croatia.

IV.??????????? Ongoing: Candidate countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Western Balkan states (e.g., Serbia, Montenegro) are in various stages of accession talks as of March 12, 2025.

This expansion aimed to unify Europe, promote stability, and extend the EU’s economic and political model eastward.

Arguments Supporting Legitimacy

1.?????? Voluntary Integration: Like NATO’s expansion, EU enlargement rested on the sovereign decisions of applicant states. Countries emerging from decades of Soviet domination or influence (e.g., Poland, the Baltics) saw EU membership as a way to secure independence, modernize economies, and align with democratic values. The EU’s treaties, such as the Treaty on European Union (Article 49), explicitly allow any European state meeting the criteria to apply, making this a consensual process.

2.?????? Stabilization and Prosperity: The EU framed eastward expansion as a peace project. By integrating post-communist states, it aimed to prevent instability, nationalism, or conflict in Europe’s eastern flank—echoing the EU’s founding mission after World War II. Economic data backs this: Poland’s GDP per capita, for instance, rose from about $5,000 in 1990 to over $18,000 by 2023 (adjusted for purchasing power), largely due to EU funds and market access.

3.?????? No Legal Violations: Unlike NATO’s expansion, where Russia claims broken promises, the EU’s eastward push didn’t hinge on Cold War-era assurances. The EU wasn’t a military alliance, so its enlargement didn’t directly threaten Russia’s security. Negotiations with Moscow (e.g., the 1994 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) focused on trade and cooperation, not restricting EU growth.

4.?????? Democratic Transformation: The Copenhagen Criteria required candidate countries to adopt democratic institutions, human rights, and anti-corruption measures. This “conditionality” arguably legitimized expansion by ensuring new members aligned with EU values, fostering a broader European identity. For example, Hungary and Poland, despite later backsliding, initially made significant reforms to qualify.

Arguments Questioning Legitimacy

1.?????? Economic Disparities and Overreach: Critics argue the EU expanded too quickly, integrating poorer states like Bulgaria and Romania before they were fully ready. This strained EU cohesion—e.g., Romania’s GDP per capita in 2007 was less than half the EU average, leading to migration waves and economic imbalances. Some Western European leaders, like France’s Jacques Chirac, worried about “widening” undermining “deepening” (closer integration).

2.?????? Russian Sensitivities: While less militaristic than NATO, EU expansion still encroached on Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, particularly in post-Soviet states. The 2004 inclusion of the Baltic States and later overtures to Ukraine and Moldova fueled Moscow’s narrative of Western encirclement. Russia saw the EU’s Eastern Partnership (launched 2009) as a geopolitical tool to peel away its neighbors, even if the EU framed it as economic outreach.

3.?????? Democratic Backsliding: The legitimacy of admitting certain states has been questioned as some, like Hungary under Viktor Orbán, drifted toward illiberalism after joining. This raised doubts about whether the EU’s vetting process was robust enough, undermining the moral case for expansion as a democratic triumph.

4.?????? Public Opposition in Core States: In older EU members (e.g., France, Germany), eastward expansion faced skepticism. The 2004 “Polish plumber” scare in France—fears of cheap Eastern labor flooding west—highlighted unease about integrating disparate economies, suggesting the process lacked full legitimacy among existing citizens.

5.?????? Why Russia was not considered for EU’s integration?

a)????? Geopolitical Identity and Ambitions

b)????? Size and Power Imbalance

c)?????? Democratic and Governance Mismatch

d)????? Economic Incompatibility

e)????? Historical and Cultural Barriers

f)?????? Moscow never sought EU membership and often viewed the EU’s eastward expansion as encroachment

Key Perspectives

1.?????? Eastern European States: For countries like Estonia or Slovakia, EU membership was a legitimate “return to Europe”—a reclaiming of their historical place after Soviet-imposed isolation. Access to the single market and EU funds (e.g., cohesion funds worth billions annually) transformed their infrastructure and living standards.

2.?????? Western EU Members: Core states like Germany saw expansion as a way to secure their eastern borders and create a larger market, though some (e.g., France) worried about diluting EU unity or shifting power eastward.

3.?????? Russia: Moscow viewed EU expansion with suspicion, especially as it overlapped with NATO’s moves. The 2014 Ukraine crisis—sparked by Kyiv’s pursuit of an EU Association Agreement—underscored Russia’s perception of the EU as a rival bloc, even if its tools were economic rather than military.

4.?????? United States: The U.S. supported EU enlargement as a complement to NATO, reinforcing a Western-oriented Europe, though it had less direct influence over the process.

Analysis and Conclusion

The EU’s eastward expansion was legally legitimate—rooted in treaty rights and voluntary applications—and achieved significant successes: it stabilized Eastern Europe, boosted economies, and extended democratic norms (at least initially). Unlike NATO, it didn’t directly challenge Russia’s military security, though it undeniably reduced Moscow’s political and economic sway over its “near abroad.” By March 12, 2025, the EU’s push into Ukraine and Moldova, accelerated by Russia’s 2022 invasion, highlights its ongoing geopolitical weight—Ukraine’s candidate status (granted in 2022) is as much a strategic rebuff to Putin as an economic lifeline.

However, legitimacy isn’t just legal—it’s perceptual. Rapid expansion strained EU institutions, fueled populist backlash (e.g., Brexit debates often cited “Eastern European migration”), and antagonized Russia, contributing to today’s tensions. The EU’s technocratic approach sometimes overlooked these risks, prioritizing growth over cohesion. Still, for the states that joined, the benefits—security, prosperity, identity—arguably outweigh the downsides, making it a legitimate endeavor from their perspective.

Eastward expansion of NATO

Controversy surrounding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion:

1.?????? Core of the Controversy:?The debate centers on whether there was an agreement, particularly an oral one, between Western powers and the Soviet Union (later Russia) regarding the non-expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe after the Revolutions of 1989.

2.?????? Russian Position:?Russian authorities maintain that such an agreement existed and that NATO's eastward expansion violated it. They view the potential NATO membership of countries like Ukraine as a direct threat.

3.?????? NATO's Position:?NATO leaders assert that no formal agreement on non-expansion was ever made. They argue that any decision to limit expansion would require changes to the alliance's fundamental documents. They also state that NATO support for Ukraine doesn't threaten Russia.

4.?????? Gorbachev's Stance:?Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet President during the relevant period, has given inconsistent statements regarding the existence of a "guarantee of non-expansion," sometimes confirming and sometimes refuting it.

5.?????? Historical Context: Genscher's Initiative:?The idea of limiting NATO expansion was initially proposed by German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in January 1990. He suggested that NATO should clearly state there would be no eastward expansion, regardless of events in Warsaw Pact countries.

6.?????? Baker's Assurances:?US Secretary of State James Baker, during negotiations with Soviet leaders in February 1990, linked the unification of Germany with assurances that NATO jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward. He even asked Gorbachev whether he would prefer a united Germany outside of NATO or one within NATO but with guarantees of no eastward expansion.

7.?????? Differing Interpretations:?While Baker and others made assurances, there's debate about whether these assurances were intended as firm commitments and whether they were later contradicted by other actions and statements.

8.?????? The "Special Status" Proposal:?The US proposed a "special military status" for the former East Germany, where it would be part of NATO's collective security but without stationed NATO military structures. This led to differing opinions on whether earlier assurances were still valid.

9.?????? Later Developments:?Despite earlier discussions, Gorbachev eventually supported the idea of a unified Germany within NATO. Western leaders "encouraged" the USSR with proposals for transforming NATO and strengthening the CSCE.

Strength and status of assurances?regarding NATO's non-expansion eastward:

I. Binding Nature of Assurances

1.?????? No Formal Agreement: NATO asserts no written guarantees were ever made, as expansion decisions require consensus and treaty amendments. Critics emphasize the absence of legal documents covering territories beyond Germany.

2.?????? Opponents' View:

a)????? 1990 assurances were?tactical diplomacy, not binding commitments.

b)????? Aimed to ease Soviet concerns during German reunification negotiations.

c)?????? Final Settlement Agreement (1990) focused solely on Germany, not broader Eastern Europe.

3.?????? Proponents' View:

a)????? Informal agreements?hold weight in international politics (e.g., Cold War-era U.S.-USSR understandings).

b)????? Repeated verbal assurances by U.S. and German officials implied a political commitment.

c)?????? Mikhail Gorbachev later cited NATO expansion as a betrayal of the "spirit" of 1990 discussions.

II. Scope of Guarantees

4.?????? East Germany vs. Eastern Europe:

a)????? Russian Claim: Assurances applied to all territories east of Germany (e.g., Warsaw Pact states).

b)????? NATO/U.S. Counter: Discussions focused only on East Germany’s status post-reunification.

5.?????? Key Evidence:

a)????? German FM Genscher clarified in 1990 that NATO’s "no expansion" included all Eastern Europe.

b)????? NATO Secretary General W?rner (1990) pledged no troop deployment beyond Germany, interpreted by Russia as a broader guarantee.

III. Guarantor Authority

6.?????? NATO’s Position:

a)????? Only?consensus among all member states?could formalize such assurances.

b)????? No single country (e.g., the U.S.) could unilaterally commit the alliance.

7.?????? Soviet Perception:

a)????? USSR trusted assurances from U.S. and German leaders due to their dominant NATO roles.

b)????? Gorbachev believed U.S./German pledges reflected NATO’s collective intent.

IV. Post-1990 Developments

8.?????? Yeltsin-Era Misunderstandings:

a)????? 1993: U.S. Secretary of State Christopher suggested NATO expansion was off the table, misleading Yeltsin.

b)????? NATO’s Partnership for Peace (1994) was seen as a non-membership pathway but later contradicted by expansion.

9.?????? NATO’s Legal Argument:

a)????? Expansion aligns with the?CSCE Helsinki Final Act (1975), affirming states’ right to choose alliances.

b)????? Restrictions would violate sovereignty principles upheld in post-Cold War agreements (e.g., 1990 Paris Charter).

V. Contextual Factors

10.?? Cold War Dynamics:

a)????? U.S./USSR informal agreements historically shaped security frameworks (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis).

b)????? Gorbachev assumed Western assurances would endure despite Warsaw Pact collapse.

11.?? Strategic Ambiguity:

a)????? Western leaders avoided explicit written promises to retain flexibility.

b)????? Russia interprets ambiguity as deliberate deception; NATO cites evolving geopolitical realities.

c)?????? This debate remains central to Russia-NATO tensions, particularly regarding Ukraine’s potential membership.

What was the legitimacy of Eastward expansion of NATO after dissolution of USSR?

The legitimacy of NATO's eastward expansion after the dissolution of the USSR is a complex and debated topic, rooted in international relations, geopolitics, and differing perspectives on security and sovereignty. Let’s break it down systematically, considering the historical context, arguments for and against its legitimacy, and the perspectives of key players involved.

Historical Context: The Soviet Union dissolved in December 1991, ending the Cold War and the bipolar structure of global power. NATO, originally formed in 1949 as a collective defense alliance against the Soviet threat, faced questions about its purpose in a post-Cold War world. Meanwhile, former Warsaw Pact countries and newly independent states in Eastern Europe, wary of Russian instability or potential revanchism, sought security guarantees. Starting in the mid-1990s, NATO began expanding eastward, admitting countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999, followed by the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and others in 2004, and continuing with later additions like Montenegro (2017) and North Macedonia (2020).

The legitimacy debate hinges on two key questions:

1.?????? Did NATO violate any agreements or understandings with Russia?

2.?????? Was the expansion a justified response to the security needs of Eastern European states?

Arguments Supporting Legitimacy

1.?????? Sovereign Choice of Nations: The cornerstone of NATO’s expansion is the principle of self-determination. Countries like Poland, the Baltic States, and others pursued NATO membership voluntarily, viewing it as a safeguard against historical domination by Russia. International law, including the UN Charter, upholds the right of states to enter alliances of their choosing. NATO’s “open door” policy (Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty) allows any European state to apply if it enhances collective security and meets democratic criteria.

2.?????? No Formal Agreement Broken: Proponents argue there was no legally binding commitment prohibiting NATO’s eastward expansion. During German reunification talks in 1990, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Western leaders discussed NATO’s role in a unified Germany. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously told Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” beyond East Germany, but this was in the context of Germany, not a broader pledge about Eastern Europe. No formal treaty or written agreement codified this, and Gorbachev himself later confirmed in 2014 that the topic of NATO expansion beyond Germany “was not discussed” in a binding way.

3.?????? Post-Cold War Security Vacuum: The collapse of the USSR left Eastern Europe in a precarious position—economically unstable and militarily vulnerable. NATO membership offered these states stability, integration into Western institutions, and deterrence against potential threats. For example, the Baltic States, occupied by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991, saw NATO as a bulwark against future aggression.

4.?????? Russia’s Early Acquiescence: In the 1990s, Russia under Boris Yeltsin did not strongly oppose initial NATO expansion. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act even established a framework for cooperation, suggesting Moscow accepted expansion as a reality, provided it didn’t include former Soviet republics like Ukraine (a line crossed later, escalating tensions).

Arguments Questioning Legitimacy

1.?????? The “Broken Promise” Narrative: Critics, including Russia, assert that NATO’s expansion violated the spirit, if not the letter, of informal assurances given during the 1990 negotiations. Declassified documents show Western leaders repeatedly assuring Soviet officials that NATO would not encroach further eastward after German reunification. Russian leaders, particularly Vladimir Putin, have since framed this as a betrayal, arguing it undermined trust and fueled a sense of encirclement.

2.?????? Provocation of Russia: Opponents argue that NATO’s expansion ignored Russia’s security concerns, needlessly antagonizing a weakened but still nuclear-armed state. By moving military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders (e.g., bases in Poland or the Baltics), NATO heightened tensions, contributing to a new Cold War dynamic. Critics like political scientist John Mearsheimer contend that this was a strategic blunder, pushing Russia toward hostility and revanchism (e.g., Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014).

3.?????? Cold War Mentality: Some question whether NATO’s expansion reflected an outdated adversarial mindset rather than a genuine post-Cold War partnership. Alternatives, like a pan-European security architecture including Russia, were proposed (e.g., by Gorbachev’s “Common European Home” concept) but sidelined in favor of NATO’s dominance, arguably missing a chance to reshape European security cooperatively.

4.?????? Undermining Russian Influence: From Moscow’s perspective, NATO’s expansion into its traditional sphere of influence (e.g., the Baltics, Ukraine’s aspirations) was less about defense and more about consolidating Western hegemony. This view sees the process as opportunistic, exploiting Russia’s post-Soviet weakness rather than respecting a balance of power.

Key Perspectives

1.?????? Eastern Europe: For countries like Poland or Lithuania, NATO expansion was a legitimate lifeline, securing their independence and integration into the West. Historical traumas (e.g., Soviet occupation, the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) made alignment with NATO a non-negotiable priority.

2.?????? United States/West: The U.S. saw expansion as a way to stabilize Europe, spread democracy, and lock in gains from the Cold War’s end. It also strengthened NATO’s strategic depth against future uncertainties, not necessarily Russia-specific at the time.

3.?????? Russia: Moscow views the expansion as illegitimate encroachment, a humiliation that disregarded its status as a great power. This grievance has been a cornerstone of Putin’s rhetoric, especially since the 2000s, framing NATO as an existential threat.

Analysis and Conclusion

The legitimacy of NATO’s eastward expansion lacks a clear-cut answer—it depends on the lens. Legally, it’s unassailable: no treaty barred it, and sovereign states chose it freely. Strategically, it bolstered security for new members and arguably deterred Russian aggression in some cases (e.g., the Baltics). However, politically and morally, it’s murkier—Western leaders’ informal assurances, however vague, fostered Russian perceptions of bad faith, and the expansion arguably prioritized short-term gains over long-term stability with Russia.

By March 12, 2025, the consequences are stark: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, partly justified by Putin as a response to NATO’s “encroachment,” has driven even neutral states like Finland and Sweden into NATO’s arms, accelerating expansion further. This suggests that while the initial post-USSR expansion may have been legitimate in intent, its execution and scope sowed seeds for today’s tensions. Whether that makes it “illegitimate” is a judgment call—security for some came at the cost of insecurity for others.

Why NATO (including USA & EU) is not considering China as key enemy instead of Russia?

The question of why NATO, including the United States and EU member states, continues to focus on Russia rather than shifting to China as the "key enemy" is a nuanced one, rooted in NATO’s mission, geopolitical priorities, historical context, and strategic realities. While China’s rise is increasingly a concern, Russia remains the primary focus for NATO.

1. NATO’s Core Mission and Geography: NATO was founded in 1949 as a collective defense alliance to counter the Soviet Union, with a focus on the North Atlantic and European theater. Its mandate, under Article 5, emphasizes mutual defense against threats to its members, most of whom are in Europe and North America. This geographic and historical lens shapes its priorities.

?? Russia’s Proximity: Russia shares a 4,000+ km border with NATO members (e.g., Norway, Poland, the Baltics) and has a history of direct aggression in Europe—Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014, 2022). Its military presence, including nuclear forces, is a tangible threat to NATO’s eastern flank.

?? China’s Distance: China, while a global power, is geographically distant from NATO’s core area. Its military reach into Europe is limited compared to Russia’s tanks, missiles, and troops near NATO borders. China’s influence is more economic and political in Europe, not a direct territorial threat triggering Article 5.

2. Russia’s Immediate Threat vs. China’s Long-Term Challenge: Russia poses a clear, present danger to NATO’s security architecture, while China represents a systemic, slower-burn challenge.

?? Russia’s Actions: Russia’s annexation of Crimea, invasion of Ukraine, and hybrid warfare (e.g., cyberattacks, election meddling) directly undermine European stability. By 2025, the Ukraine war has solidified Russia as NATO’s top concern, driving Finland and Sweden to join the alliance and boosting defense spending.

?? China’s Approach: China avoids overt military confrontation with NATO states. Its strategy—economic coercion (e.g., Belt and Road), technological dominance (e.g., Huawei), and influence operations—threatens Western interests but doesn’t match Russia’s kinetic aggression. The South China Sea and Taiwan are flashpoints, but they’re outside NATO’s purview.

3. U.S. Strategic Priorities and Division of Labor: The United States, NATO’s linchpin, views China as its primary global rival, as outlined in the 2022 National Defense Strategy, which labels China the “pacing challenge.” However, NATO’s role is distinct from broader U.S. strategy.

?? U.S. Focus on Asia-Pacific: The U.S. addresses China through Indo-Pacific frameworks like the Quad (U.S., Japan, India, Australia) and AUKUS, not NATO. The Pacific, not the Atlantic, is the theater for countering China’s navy and regional ambitions.

?? NATO’s European Lens: NATO remains Europe-centric, leaving Russia as its main adversary. The U.S. relies on NATO to handle European security, freeing resources for Asia. For example, U.S. troop deployments in Poland or the Baltics target Russia, not China.

4. EU’s Economic Ties with China: The European Union, while aligned with NATO, has distinct interests. Many EU states prioritize economic relations with China over viewing it as an enemy.

?? Trade Dependence: China is the EU’s second-largest trading partner (after the U.S.), with €700 billion in annual trade by 2023. Germany’s auto industry, for instance, relies heavily on Chinese markets. Russia, by contrast, is economically isolated post-sanctions, with trade ties severed.

?? Reluctance to Escalate: EU leaders like France’s Emmanuel Macron advocate “strategic autonomy” and resist fully aligning with U.S.-led anti-China policies. The 2020 EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), though stalled, reflects this ambivalence. Russia, meanwhile, is a pariah after Ukraine.

5. Historical and Ideological Continuity: Russia inherits the Soviet Union’s role as NATO’s foundational foe, giving the alliance a clear enemy to rally against. China, while authoritarian, lacks the same Cold War baggage.

?? Russia’s Legacy: Decades of NATO planning—bases, exercises, and doctrines—target Russia’s military model. Adapting to China would require a radical overhaul, which NATO began exploring only recently (e.g., the 2022 Strategic Concept mentions China).

?? China’s Ideology: China’s Communist Party challenges Western liberalism, but its global influence is less ideological than economic. Russia’s Putin, by contrast, actively exports anti-Western narratives and destabilizes democracies, aligning with NATO’s threat perception.

6. China’s growing—but secondary—NATO Role: NATO isn’t ignoring China entirely. The 2022 Strategic Concept identifies China as a “systemic challenge” due to its military buildup, cyber threats, and support for Russia (e.g., buying Russian oil post-2022). However, it stops short of labeling China an enemy.

?? Limited Scope: NATO’s China focus is on hybrid threats (e.g., tech espionage) and Arctic competition, not direct confrontation. Exercises like Defender Europe still prioritize Russia scenarios.

?? Alliance Dynamics: Some members (e.g., Hungary, Greece) resist a hard anti-China stance due to economic ties, diluting consensus. Russia, however, unites NATO politically.

7. Russia-China Alignment Complicates the Shift: Ironically, Russia’s partnership with China reinforces NATO’s focus on Moscow. Since 2014, and especially post-Ukraine, Russia and China have deepened ties—joint military drills, energy deals, and anti-Western rhetoric. NATO sees Russia as the nearer, more actionable part of this axis.

?? Proxy Threat: Russia’s aggression serves as a testing ground for hybrid tactics China might adopt. Defeating or deterring Russia indirectly weakens China’s position.

?? Resource Allocation: Fully pivoting to China risks emboldening Russia in Europe, a trade-off NATO and the U.S. aren’t ready to make.

Conclusion: NATO, the U.S., and the EU don’t consider China the “key enemy” over Russia because Russia is a direct, immediate threat to NATO’s territory and mission, while China’s challenge is global, economic, and less militarized in NATO’s backyard. The U.S. tackles China elsewhere (e.g., Pacific alliances), the EU hedges for economic reasons, and NATO sticks to its European roots. By March 12, 2025, Russia’s war in Ukraine keeps it front and center—China looms large, but it’s not the wolf at NATO’s door yet.