EUvsDisinfo: A myth that refuses to die – that NATO is to blame for Russia's war (original title: The myth that won't die: blaming NATO for Russia's war)
In the grim landscape of disinformation, few narratives have proven as persistent as the claim that NATO expansion provoked Russia to invade Ukraine.
This myth, recycled and rebranded by Kremlin apologists, shifts the blame for Russian aggression onto the West – and it does not take into account either history or the facts. It is time to call this narrative by its real name: it is a convenient distortion of the facts, designed to justify a war for which there is no justification.
Myth 1: “Russia was provoked. NATO broke a promise“
One of the most common myths in pro-Kremlin rhetoric is that NATO promised not to expand “an inch eastward“ after the Cold War. However, there is no evidence of any formal agreement to do so. Many Western leaders and declassified documents confirm that while there were discussions about NATO's position in Germany during reunification, no binding or global commitment was made to freeze the alliance's borders indefinitely.
And here's an important point: if Russia really wanted such a guarantee, it knows very well how international diplomacy works. It would have insisted on a treaty, a formal agreement, or at least a publicly documented commitment. But that never happened - because no such promise was ever officially given or sought. Even Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time, confirmed that there was no agreement or promise not to enlarge NATO. In diplomacy, if there is no treaty, signed agreement, or public declaration, there is no binding promise. Russia understands this. This is not ignorance – it is deliberate revisionism on Putin’s part.
More importantly, the sovereign states of Eastern Europe asked to join NATO – not because NATO sought to encircle Russia, but because of the decades of Soviet occupation and invasions these countries had endured and their determination never to return to that subordinate position. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania – these countries are not pawns being played by Washington. They are democracies making strategic choices for their security. To say otherwise is to deny them their freedom of action and to deny their history and sovereignty.
Myth 2: “Ukraine was on the verge of joining NATO. Russia had no choice“
Despite many claims to the contrary, Ukraine was not on the verge of joining NATO in early 2022. Yes, Ukraine had long expressed interest in membership, but there was neither an official invitation nor an accelerated accession process. The idea that Ukraine's NATO membership was inevitable was more Kremlin fiction than fact. It was a distant possibility, not an ongoing policy.
Russia's ultimatum of December 2021 for guarantees that Ukraine would never join NATO was never a real diplomatic offer - this ultimatum was a pretext. The demand that NATO never admit Ukraine, or even withdraw its presence from all countries that joined after 1997, overturning decades of sovereign decisions by Eastern European countries, was not an element of negotiation - it was an impossible demand. Putin knew that NATO could never accept this demand without abandoning its fundamental principles and the security of its member states. The ultimatum was intended to be rejected. It was a staged act, not a diplomatic effort.
And what is perhaps the most unequivocal evidence that NATO was not the real reason for the invasion? The words of Putin himself. In his speech in February 2022, just before the invasion, he barely focused on NATO. Instead, he questioned Ukraine's very right to exist as an independent state - claiming that it was “created by Lenin“ and should be part of Russia. This rhetoric embodies not defense-related considerations, but imperial ambitions. If Russia truly had concerns about Ukraine joining NATO, launching a full-scale invasion was perhaps the surest way to ensure closer coordination and support from the West. The war did not stop NATO from moving closer to Ukraine – it accelerated the process. This is not fear, this is a gamble motivated by other goals.
Myth 3: “Russia feared NATO's presence on its borders“
The thesis that Russia invaded Ukraine out of fear of NATO contradicts Russia's own actions. If Moscow had indeed perceived NATO as an immediate threat and believed that NATO was planning to use Ukraine as a launching pad for war against Russia, it would have taken a more cautious approach, given NATO's military might.
In fact, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 demonstrated the opposite: a calculated confidence that NATO would not intervene directly and that NATO was not seeking war with Russia. And that calculation turned out to be correct. NATO, despite its military might, has repeatedly stressed that it will not send troops to Ukraine and engage in direct conflict with Russian forces. Putin knew this – and accordingly took a calculated risk.
If the Kremlin were truly afraid of NATO, it would not provoke a scenario that would further engage NATO's power and armament. But it did so – because the real motivation was not fear of NATO. The real motivation was Russia's desire to regain control of Ukraine and thwart its pro-Western aspirations.
Myth 4: “In 2014 "a coup orchestrated by the West was carried out in Ukraine"
This worn-out cliché suggests a disregard for the will of the Ukrainian people, who in 2013-2014 took to the streets demanding accountability, reform, and an end to the corrupt government supported by Russia. The Revolution of Dignity was not orchestrated by the CIA or NATO, but was sparked by President Yanukovych's abrupt rejection of the popular free trade and association agreement with the EU and his crackdown on protesters.
The Kremlin is casting this democratic uprising as a Western-led coup because it does not want to allow Russia's neighbors to choose a different path - one that does not revolve around Moscow. For authoritarian regimes, the power of free people is always the enemy.
What the myth misses
To truly understand this war, let’s look not at NATO’s decisions, but at the words of Vladimir Putin himself. In his infamous essay from July 2021 and speech from February 2022, Putin rejected Ukrainian sovereignty and presented the country as a historical part of Russia. His motives are not defensive – they are imperial. He carried out the invasion to regain control of a former Soviet republic, to crush a functioning democracy on Russia’s border, and to send a signal to other post-Soviet states that turning west would have dire consequences.
Putin is not afraid of NATO. He is afraid of democracy. He fears that Russia’s neighboring democracies, once occupied by Moscow, will serve as proof to Russians that they too can live freely – free from oligarchs and authoritarianism. This is the real threat to the Kremlin’s hold on power.
NATO is the excuse, not the cause
Blaming NATO for Russia’s war is a convenient but not a credible narrative. It exonerates the aggressor, refuses to acknowledge that smaller states can have influence, and distorts decades of post-Cold War history. This myth serves only one master: the Kremlin.
Let us not be fooled. Ukraine has not “provoked” Russia any more than a lock on a house door could provoke a burglar. This war is not the result of broken promises or misunderstood red lines. It is about power, control, and the refusal to allow other countries to live freely outside Moscow's orbit.
The sooner we bury this myth, the sooner we can start holding those responsible accountable – and standing up for the truth.
Other topics in this week's EUvsDisinfo roundup:
- Pro-Kremlin media outlets are once again pushing the baseless claim that the so-called “Deep State” is pulling the strings in Europe, supposedly forcing it to continue the war in Ukraine. At the heart of this narrative are long-debunked conspiracy theories that conveniently ignore the fact that the war was the result of an unprovoked, full-scale invasion by Russia. There is no evidence of shadowy elites dictating European policy – this is just another attempt to delegitimize Western democracies, portray the EU as a warmonger, and divert public attention from Russian aggression.
- We witnessed a deadly Russian missile attack on Sumy, which killed 35 civilians and injured over 100 during a religious event. Disinformation agents are distorting the event and suggesting that Ukrainians are blaming their own President Volodymyr Zelensky for what happened. These claims are not supported by credible sources and are based on biased or fabricated social media posts. In fact, authentic reports from the scene indicate that public outrage over the strike was directed at Russia, not the Ukrainian leadership. Russia's justification that it pursued a "military objective" is false. remains unproven, and the high number of civilian casualties speaks volumes.
- This week, the Kremlin's tactics have been enriched with a new element - the propaganda has accused the EU of encouraging censorship in Moldova. The suggestion is made in connection with the temporary 60-day suspension of the license of the channel “TVC21”. It is falsely said that the EU encouraged the suspension. In fact, the EU ambassador to Moldova called for clearer justification and transparency regarding the decision - not censorship. The EU has consistently advocated media freedom and pluralism and this manipulation is part of Moscow's broader message that European policies are authoritarian.
EUvsDisinfo/ translation: European Commission Representation in Bulgaria