• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Judy Dempsey"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "blog": "Strategic Europe",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Eastern Europe",
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia",
    "Georgia",
    "Ukraine",
    "Western Europe",
    "Moldova",
    "Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "EU"
  ]
}
Strategic Europe logo

Source: Getty

Commentary
Strategic Europe

NATO Must Avoid New Cold War Borders

Vladimir Putin is drawing new borders between Russia’s neighborhood and the West. Yet that will not deter the peoples of Eastern Europe from aspiring to Western values.

Link Copied
By Judy Dempsey
Published on Apr 10, 2014
Strategic Europe

Blog

Strategic Europe

Strategic Europe offers insightful analysis, fresh commentary, and concrete policy recommendations from some of Europe’s keenest international affairs observers.

Learn More

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its amassing of thousands of troops on its border with Ukraine have given NATO a new sense of purpose.

The U.S.-led alliance’s Eastern members, led by Poland and the Baltic states, have asked the organization to beef up their defenses. For the first time since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Eastern Europeans can’t take their safety and security for granted.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has been quick to oblige. He has already called on the 28-member alliance to bolster the air defenses of the Baltic states and improve Romania’s defenses, too.

NATO’s decision to focus more on its Eastern borders is intended to show Russia how determined the alliance is to defend its members. But the price could be high for non-NATO countries on the organization’s borders, because NATO cannot agree on what to do with its Eastern neighbors.

Rasmussen himself has clear ideas about what should be done. Writing in the German newspaper Die Welt, he said that NATO was open to Ukraine. “The right of sovereign states to determine their own way forward is one of the foundations of modern Europe,” the former Danish prime minister wrote.

Rasmussen’s message was directed at a German public that still does not grasp the geostrategic importance of events in Ukraine and is hesitant about imposing tougher sanctions on the Kremlin.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was quick to rebuke Rasmussen. “NATO membership for Ukraine is not pending,” he said. Foreign policy, he added, was not supposed to become “militarized.” The expression he used is significant because it has a particular resonance with pacifists and those who advocate diplomacy and the minimum of soft power instruments to deal with crises.

So far, Steinmeier’s attempts to deescalate the crisis with Russia have failed. Indeed, the more Berlin pushes for diplomacy, the more it gives Russian President Vladimir Putin time to consolidate his grip over Eastern Europe.

In effect, what is happening in the region is that Russia is successfully imposing new demarcation lines between what it considers its own sphere of influence and the West. These lines could delineate the new post–Cold War borders.

These frontiers are entirely different from those that existed during the Cold War. Then, NATO was right up against the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union’s military alliance, with Germany the strategic focal point of both sides. There was no cordon sanitaire or buffer zone. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarus were satellites of the Soviet Union and closely controlled members of the Moscow-led pact.

Today, Germany is no longer on the front line. NATO and the EU have expanded to bring in Germany’s immediate Eastern neighbors. But farther east, several countries are alone and unable to withstand any Russian military pressure.

In effect, the region east of NATO could become Russia’s glacis, a playground for Moscow to make land grabs. That’s what Russia has done in Crimea as well as in the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia’s next step could be to consolidate its grip over Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria.

The EU will not be able to shore up these countries. The EU can sign economic, trade, and political accords and try to support the pro-democracy and civil-society movements that yearn for their countries to move closer to Europe. But only NATO can provide the security component that would keep Putin from exerting military and economic pressure on Ukraine and Moldova.

NATO’s big member states, such as Germany, Britain, France, and Italy, are highly reluctant to even consider offering Georgia—the most pro-NATO country in the region—NATO’s Membership Action Plan.

That plan puts any signatory on the path to joining the alliance, and once a country is a member, it benefits from the mutual security guarantee enshrined in the organization’s Article 5. In practice, that could mean NATO defending Georgia against Russia—something that neither the United States nor any other NATO country would be prepared to do today.

It would be an entirely different matter if Russia amassed its troops on the borders of Estonia or Latvia. NATO would have no option but to defend those countries, which are already members. Russia knows that.

Whatever Rasmussen says, NATO’s security guarantee will not be extended to countries beyond its current borders. That does make it seem as if countries like Ukraine, Moldova, or Georgia were—to use a cynical expression—up for grabs.

Yet no cheap replay of the Cold War will make the peoples of these countries give up their aspirations of democracy and freedom, prosperity and sovereignty, security and stability. Putin will soon realize that even without any further action by NATO, his attempts to regain a lost empire will be resisted.

Judy Dempsey
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Judy Dempsey
SecurityForeign PolicyEUEastern EuropeNorth AmericaUnited StatesCaucasusRussiaGeorgiaUkraineWestern EuropeMoldovaEurope

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Strategic Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Can the EU Attract Foreign Investment and Reduce Dependencies?

    EU member states clash over how to boost the union’s competitiveness: Some want to favor European industries in public procurement, while others worry this could deter foreign investment. So, can the EU simultaneously attract global capital and reduce dependencies?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    To Survive, the EU Must Split

    Leaning into a multispeed Europe that includes the UK is the way Europeans don’t get relegated to suffering what they must, while the mighty United States and China do what they want.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europolis, Where Europe Ends

    A prophetic Romanian novel about a town at the mouth of the Danube carries a warning: Europe decays when it stops looking outward. In a world of increasing insularity, the EU should heed its warning.

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Falls Behind in the South Caucasus Connectivity Race

    The EU lacks leadership and strategic planning in the South Caucasus, while the United States is leading the charge. To secure its geopolitical interests, Brussels must invest in new connectivity for the region.

      Zaur Shiriyev

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is It Time for Europe to Reengage With Belarus?

    In return for a trade deal and the release of political prisoners, the United States has lifted sanctions on Belarus, breaking the previous Western policy consensus. Should Europeans follow suit, using their leverage to extract concessions from Lukashenko, or continue to isolate a key Kremlin ally?

      Thomas de Waal, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.