• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The NATO Expansion Hoax

A Response to Russian Aggression, Not the Cause of It

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Summarize Jan Krikke's essay "Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism" published in Asia Times.
• Evaluate this article and provide some possible counter arguments.
• Is the author of this article correct about Brzezinsky and Mackinder?
• The author seems to downplay the Russian threat as Russophobia.
• Trump seems to turn to authoritarian rule, and befriends dictators, contrary to Europeans.
• Can Europe survive outside of the umbrella of US military support?
• A weaker Europe would be less of a threat to Russia - or an easier prey?
• Russia invaded a souvereign country, caused thousands of deaths (both Ukrainians and Russians), billions in destruction and weapons, millions of refugees (again, both among Ukrainian and Russian citizens).
• All the countries that joined NATO, as Ukraine aspired to, did so out of fear for Russia (given their history), not to attack it. Big differece!
• Write an essay on this conversation topic.

Summarize Jan Krikke's essay, "Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism," published in Asia Times.

Jan Krikke's essay, "Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism," published in Asia Times, examines the geopolitical shifts resulting from recent developments in the Ukraine conflict.

Key Points:

US Policy Shift: The recent confrontation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump highlights a significant change in US policy, with Trump advocating for an end to the Ukraine war. This shift leaves Europe in a precarious position, having alienated China, severed economic ties with Russia, and now facing diminished US support.

Erosion of European Credibility: European leaders' public admissions that the Minsk negotiations were used to buy time for Ukraine's military buildup have undermined Europe's standing as a trustworthy mediator, leading to its increased isolation on the global stage.

Historical Context: Drawing on Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory and Zbigniew Brzezinski's subsequent analyses, Krikke suggests that Western hegemony has historically depended on a divided Eurasia. NATO's expansion eastward is viewed within this framework, aiming to maintain Western dominance by preventing a unified Eurasian power.

Ideological Role Reversal: Krikke observes a notable ideological shift in Europe, where traditional left-leaning parties, including the Greens, now support continued military engagement, while right-leaning parties advocate for peace. This reversal is exemplified by actions such as the display of a destroyed Russian tank in Amsterdam by the Green mayor, reflecting a departure from the pacifist roots of Europe's Green parties.

In summary, Krikke argues that Europe's alignment with US-led neoliberal and Atlanticist policies has led to strategic miscalculations, resulting in geopolitical isolation and internal ideological shifts. He suggests that, with the potential return of peace under Trump's initiatives, Europe should critically assess these developments to understand the factors contributing to the current crisis.

Evaluate this article and provide some possible counter arguments.

The article "Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism" presents an anti-Western perspective on the Ukraine war, arguing that Western policies have led to Europe's geopolitical isolation and the decline of Atlanticism. Here are 10 counter-arguments to this viewpoint:

NATO's Defensive Expansion: NATO's enlargement has been a response to the security aspirations of Eastern European countries seeking protection against potential aggression, rather than an offensive strategy against Russia.

Russia's Aggressive Actions: The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine demonstrate Russia's willingness to alter international borders by force, justifying NATO's presence in Eastern Europe.

Economic Sanctions' Impact: While not collapsing Russia's economy, Western sanctions have constrained its economic growth and signaled international disapproval of its actions, maintaining pressure for diplomatic resolutions.

Global Diplomatic Support: Many non-Western countries have condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine, indicating that opposition to Russia's aggression is not solely a Western stance.

European Unity and Resilience: The conflict has strengthened European solidarity, leading to increased defense cooperation and a reevaluation of energy dependencies, thereby enhancing long-term security and autonomy.

Misinterpretation of Historical Agreements: Claims that the Minsk agreements were solely to buy time for Ukraine overlook their role in attempting to establish a ceasefire and political framework, which Russia and its proxies frequently violated.

Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Ukraine's desire to align with Western institutions reflects its sovereign right to self-determination, challenging the notion that Western influence is the primary driver of the conflict.

Atlanticism's Adaptation: Rather than signaling its death, the challenges posed by the Ukraine war have prompted a reevaluation and strengthening of Atlanticist principles to address contemporary security threats.

Russia's Isolation: Russia's actions have led to its own geopolitical isolation, with increased reliance on a limited number of allies, contrasting with the West's broad coalition.

Promotion of Democratic Values: Western support for Ukraine underscores a commitment to defending democratic principles and international law against authoritarian aggression, reinforcing global norms.

These counter-arguments highlight the complexities of the Ukraine conflict and challenge the narrative that Western policies are solely responsible for Europe's geopolitical challenges.

Is the author of this article correct about Brzezinsky and Mackinder?

The article "Ukraine debacle signals the death of Atlanticism" references the geopolitical theories of Halford Mackinder and Zbigniew Brzezinski to contextualize the Ukraine conflict. Here's an analysis of these references:

Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory: Mackinder, a British geographer, proposed in the early 20th century that the nation controlling Eastern Europe would command the "Heartland" (central Eurasia), thereby holding sway over global dominance. This theory underscored the strategic importance of Eastern Europe in global geopolitics.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's Adaptation: In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski expanded upon Mackinder's ideas, emphasizing Eurasia's centrality in global power dynamics. He identified Ukraine as a pivotal state, asserting that its independence and alignment were crucial in preventing the resurgence of a Eurasian empire that could challenge Western interests.

Article's Interpretation: The article suggests that NATO's eastward expansion aligns with Brzezinski's strategy to maintain Western hegemony by influencing Ukraine's geopolitical stance. It implies that this expansion aimed to integrate Ukraine into Western institutions, thereby limiting Russian influence in the region.

Evaluation: The author's linkage of Mackinder's and Brzezinski's theories to the West's strategic interest in Ukraine is historically grounded. Both theorists highlighted the geopolitical significance of Eastern Europe, particularly Ukraine, in maintaining a balance of power favorable to the West. However, it's essential to recognize that while these theories provide a framework for understanding geopolitical strategies, they don't solely dictate policy decisions. Contemporary events are influenced by a multitude of factors, including economic interests, security concerns, and the agency of the nations involved.

In summary, the author's references to Mackinder and Brzezinski accurately reflect their theories' emphasis on Ukraine's strategic importance. However, attributing current events solely to these geopolitical strategies may oversimplify the complex dynamics at play.

The author seems to downplay the Russian threat as Russophobia.

Yes, the article appears to dismiss concerns about Russia's aggression as mere "Russophobia," which downplays the very real security threats Russia has posed to its neighbors. Here are some reasons why this framing is misleading:

Russia's History of Aggression – Russia has repeatedly used military force to alter borders, including in Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014), and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine (2022). Calling concerns about this "Russophobia" ignores these actions.

Ukraine's Sovereignty Violated – Ukraine is an independent nation that Russia has attempted to subjugate. The idea that opposing this aggression is irrational fear (Russophobia) dismisses Ukraine's right to self-determination.

Western Security Concerns Are Justified – NATO expansion was driven by Eastern European countries fearing Russian aggression, not Western imperialism. Countries like Poland and the Baltics sought NATO membership precisely because of Russian threats.

Russian Nuclear Blackmail – Russia has repeatedly issued nuclear threats, violating international norms. This aggressive posture is a legitimate concern, not an irrational fear.

Hybrid Warfare and Interference – Beyond conventional military actions, Russia engages in cyberattacks, election interference, and disinformation campaigns, making it a broader security threat.

Russia's Own Expansionist Doctrine – Russian leaders, including Putin, have openly lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union and pursued policies aimed at reasserting Russian control over former Soviet territories.

The "Russophobia" Argument is a Deflection – Labeling critics as "Russophobic" is a tactic to shut down discussions about Russia's actual actions rather than addressing legitimate concerns.

Russia's Repression of Domestic Dissent – Russia's aggressive posture abroad is mirrored by its authoritarian rule at home, where opposition figures are jailed or assassinated, media is controlled, and protests are violently suppressed.

Non-Western Countries Also See the Threat – While some non-Western countries take a neutral stance, many nations (including Japan, South Korea, and even traditionally neutral Finland and Sweden) recognize Russia's expansionism as a serious danger.

Putin's Own Words – Putin has framed the war as a battle against the West and denied Ukraine's legitimacy as a state, reinforcing that this conflict is not about Western provocation but about Russia's imperial ambitions.

Dismissing these realities as "Russophobia" is a way to avoid confronting Russia's own actions and the genuine security concerns they create.

Trump seems to turn to authoritarian rule, and befriends dictators, contrary to Europeans.

Yes, Trump's political style and foreign policy lean toward authoritarian tendencies in several ways:

Admiration for Dictators – Trump has openly praised leaders like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Xi Jinping, calling them "strong" leaders while criticizing democratic allies.

Attempts to Undermine Democracy – His efforts to overturn the 2020 election, pressuring officials to "find votes," and encouraging the January 6th insurrection show a disregard for democratic norms.

Attacks on Institutions – Trump consistently undermines the judiciary, the intelligence community, and the press, calling them "the enemy of the people" when they oppose him.

Use of Political Power for Personal Gain – His efforts to weaponize the Justice Department against opponents and protect allies resemble tactics used by authoritarian leaders.

Hostility Toward NATO and European Allies – Unlike traditional U.S. presidents, Trump has threatened to abandon NATO, which aligns more with authoritarian regimes that seek to weaken the alliance.

Support for Authoritarian Policies – He has expressed admiration for China's handling of dissent (Hong Kong protests), Duterte's drug war, and Hungary's illiberal democracy under Orbán.

Suppressing Dissent – His reaction to the George Floyd protests (calling for military intervention) and praise for strongman tactics reflect an authoritarian mindset.

Lack of Commitment to the Rule of Law – His pardoning of loyalists and suggestions of immunity for political allies show a disregard for legal accountability.

Erosion of Checks and Balances – He has attempted to consolidate power by purging officials who challenge him and appointing loyalists over qualified experts.

Potential for Escalation – If re-elected, Trump has already hinted at using the government to target opponents, a move characteristic of authoritarian regimes.

In contrast, European leaders tend to emphasize democratic governance, human rights, and multilateralism, putting them at odds with Trump's authoritarian tendencies. His affinity for strongmen aligns more with regimes that reject democratic constraints.

Can Europe survive outside of the umbrella of US military support?

Europe can survive outside of the U.S. military umbrella, but it would require significant restructuring of its defense policies, budgets, and strategic outlook. Here are some key considerations:

Challenges to European Military Independence

Defense Spending Gaps – Most European countries have underinvested in defense for decades, relying on U.S. protection through NATO. Building independent capabilities would require substantial financial commitment.

Nuclear Deterrence – The U.S. nuclear umbrella has been a key pillar of European security. Without it, Europe would need to rely on France and the UK's nuclear arsenals, which may not be sufficient to deter major threats.

Fragmented Military Structures – Unlike the U.S., which has a unified military command, Europe's defense forces are divided across national lines, making coordination difficult.

Russia as a Threat – Without U.S. backing, Europe would face a more aggressive Russia with fewer deterrents, especially in Eastern Europe.

Lack of Rapid Deployment Capabilities – The U.S. provides critical logistics, intelligence, and rapid-response forces that Europe currently lacks.

Opportunities for European Strategic Autonomy

Increased Defense Integration – The EU has been working on greater military cooperation, such as the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund, which could lead to a more independent European military.

French and UK Leadership – As nuclear powers with significant military capabilities, France and the UK could take on more leadership in European security.

Diversification of Alliances – Europe could strengthen defense ties with other partners like Japan, Australia, and Canada to reduce dependence on the U.S.

Stronger Domestic Defense Industries – Greater investment in European defense companies (Airbus, Rheinmetall, Dassault, etc.) could reduce reliance on U.S. military technology.

Reassessment of NATO Without the U.S. – A NATO-like alliance, led by Europeans, could still function if Germany, France, and others significantly increased their military commitments.

Conclusion

Europe can survive outside U.S. military support, but only if it makes major structural changes. The transition would be costly and require greater unity, particularly in defense spending and coordination. While a Europe-only defense framework is possible, it would be weaker than the current NATO arrangement and more vulnerable to external threats like Russia and China.

Would Europe be willing to make these sacrifices? That's the real question.

A weaker Europe would be less of a threat to Russia - or an easier prey?

A weaker Europe would be both less of a threat to Russia and an easier prey, depending on how Russia chooses to act.

Why a Weaker Europe Would Be Less of a Threat to Russia

Less Military Deterrence – Without U.S. military backing, Europe would struggle to maintain the same level of deterrence, reducing its ability to counter Russian aggression.

Reduced NATO Effectiveness – If the U.S. withdrew from NATO, the alliance would lose its strongest military power, making it less capable of countering Russian influence in Eastern Europe.

More Diplomatic Openings for Russia – A militarily weaker Europe might be more inclined to negotiate with Russia on Moscow's terms, leading to a shift in geopolitical power.

Less Western Influence in Post-Soviet States – If Europe lacks military strength, it may be less willing to support countries like Ukraine, Moldova, or Georgia, giving Russia more space to expand its influence.

Why a Weaker Europe Would Be an Easier Prey for Russia

Greater Risk of Hybrid Warfare – Russia could intensify cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and political interference in a militarily weaker Europe with fewer means to counter them.

Increased Pressure on Eastern Europe – Without strong European military backing, countries like the Baltic states and Poland could face more direct threats from Russia, including border provocations or internal destabilization.

Energy Dependence as a Weapon – A militarily weak Europe may become more dependent on Russian energy, giving Moscow leverage over European policies.

Possible Military Incursions – If Russia perceives Europe as incapable of defending itself, it might take bolder military actions, such as escalating conflicts in Ukraine or testing NATO's commitment to its members.

The Likely Outcome

A weaker Europe would embolden Russia to push its geopolitical ambitions further. While this doesn't necessarily mean full-scale invasions, it does increase the risk of hybrid warfare, political coercion, and limited military actions in areas where Russia sees strategic opportunities.

Ultimately, a strong Europe serves as a deterrent, whereas a weak Europe invites greater Russian influence and potential aggression.

Russia invaded a souvereign country, caused thousands of deaths (both Ukrainians and Russians), billions in destruction and weapons, millions of refugees (again, both among Ukrainian and Russian citizens).

Yes, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an undeniable act of aggression that has had catastrophic consequences:

Violation of Sovereignty – Russia violated international law by invading a sovereign country, disregarding Ukraine's right to self-determination.

Massive Human Casualties – Tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians have died, with the actual numbers likely much higher than official reports.

Widespread Destruction – Ukrainian cities and infrastructure have been devastated, with billions in damages that will take decades to rebuild.

Refugee Crisis – Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, both internally and externally, while thousands of Russians have fled their own country due to conscription or political repression.

Economic Costs – The war has drained resources, impacting global economies through energy crises, food shortages, and rising inflation.

War Crimes and Atrocities – Evidence of Russian war crimes, including attacks on civilians, forced deportations, and use of torture, has been documented by international bodies.

Destabilization of Global Security – Russia's aggression has triggered a new arms race, leading to increased military spending and nuclear tensions worldwide.

Alienation of Russia – The invasion has isolated Russia diplomatically and economically, forcing it into dependency on China and other non-Western allies.

Undermining Russia's Own Interests – Instead of weakening NATO, Russia's actions have strengthened Western unity, led to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, and deepened Russia's long-term strategic vulnerabilities.

A War of Choice, Not Necessity – Despite Kremlin narratives, Ukraine posed no real military threat to Russia. The war is driven by Putin's geopolitical ambitions, not security concerns.

Dismissing these realities as "Russophobia" or blaming the West ignores the fundamental fact that Russia initiated this war and bears responsibility for its consequences.

All the countries that joined NATO, as Ukraine aspired to, did so out of fear for Russia (given their history), not to attack it. Big differece!

Exactly! The distinction between defensive alliances and aggressive expansionism is critical.

Fear of Russian Aggression, Not Western Expansionism – Countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania joined NATO because of historical Russian/Soviet domination, not because they wanted to attack Russia.

Voluntary Membership – Unlike the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, NATO expansion happened because countries chose to join for security, not because they were coerced.

No NATO-Initiated Wars Against Russia – Despite Russian claims of NATO being a threat, the alliance has never attacked Russia or initiated military aggression against it.

Russia's Actions Validate NATO Fears – The 2008 war in Georgia, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine prove that former Soviet states had valid reasons to seek NATO protection.

Baltic States as a Case Study – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined NATO in 2004, fearing Russian revanchism. Today, they are independent and secure, whereas Ukraine, which was left outside NATO, became a target.

Russia's Narrative of NATO "Encirclement" Is Misleading – NATO has only expanded in response to the security concerns of its members. Russia's claim that NATO expansion was an offensive move ignores its own history of aggression.

Ukraine's Right to Choose – Ukraine aspired to NATO membership not to attack Russia, but to protect itself after years of Russian interference and territorial seizures.

NATO's Defensive Nature – NATO's Article 5 is a collective defense clause, meaning it only responds if a member is attacked. It does not authorize offensive wars.

Putin's Invasion Backfired – Instead of stopping NATO's growth, Russia's invasion pushed Finland and Sweden to join, proving that nations fear Russian aggression more than NATO's expansion.

The Real Threat Is Russian Imperialism – Russia's problem isn't NATO—it's that former Soviet and Eastern Bloc countries don't want to be under Moscow's influence anymore.

Russia presents NATO expansion as a threat, but in reality, it is a response to Russian aggression, not the cause of it.

Write an essay on this conversation topic.

NATO Expansion: A Response to Russian Aggression, Not the Cause of It

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has portrayed NATO's expansion as a deliberate strategy to encircle and threaten it. However, the historical record shows that the countries joining NATO did so out of fear of Russian aggression, not as a means to attack Russia. This distinction is crucial in understanding why NATO has grown and why Ukraine's aspiration to join the alliance was a direct response to security threats posed by Moscow.

Fear of Russian Expansionism Drove NATO Growth

NATO's expansion eastward was not the result of Western coercion but rather the voluntary decision of countries that had previously suffered under Soviet rule. Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and others saw NATO as their best defense against a resurgent Russia. Their decision was not based on a desire to attack Russia but on their historical experiences of occupation, repression, and forced integration into the Soviet sphere.

This fear was validated by Russia's actions. The 2008 war in Georgia, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 all proved that Moscow was willing to use military force to reassert control over former Soviet territories. NATO expansion was a response to these realities, not an unprovoked Western push toward Russia's borders.

NATO Is a Defensive Alliance, Not an Offensive Threat

Russia claims that NATO is a military threat, yet the alliance has never initiated aggression against Russia. Unlike the Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact, where member states had no real choice in their military alignment, NATO expansion happened because nations actively sought membership. Article 5 of the NATO treaty ensures that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, reinforcing that the alliance is based on collective defense rather than offensive operations.

Ukraine's desire to join NATO was not about threatening Russia but about ensuring its own security. After Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, it became clear that countries outside NATO's umbrella were vulnerable to Moscow's military aggression. This fact was further reinforced when Finland and Sweden—historically neutral nations—chose to join NATO after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

The Myth of NATO "Encirclement"

Russia's narrative that NATO expansion is an aggressive encirclement ignores the reality that most of Russia's vast borders remain NATO-free. The alliance has expanded only because nations on Russia's western flank sought protection, not because NATO had a pre-planned strategy to surround Russia. Even before NATO's eastern expansion, Russia had one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, ensuring its security against any hypothetical NATO aggression.

Furthermore, Russia's aggressive posture has only accelerated NATO's growth. By invading Ukraine, Russia inadvertently pushed Finland and Sweden into the alliance, demonstrating that nations are far more afraid of Russian militarism than of NATO itself.

Conclusion

The expansion of NATO was driven by a fundamental need for security among nations historically threatened by Russia. Rather than a tool of Western aggression, NATO has acted as a protective shield against Russian expansionism. The claim that NATO posed a threat to Russia is a misrepresentation of history—what actually happened was that countries, seeing the dangers of Russian militarism, sought protection under NATO's umbrella. Ukraine's desire to join NATO was part of this same pattern, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine only proved why such a move was necessary. Ultimately, Russia's real problem with NATO is not that it threatens Moscow but that it prevents the Kremlin from reasserting control over its former empire.