What Actually Happened

In July 2016, NATO held its biennial summit in Warsaw, Poland, issuing a communiqué that cited “Russia’s aggressive actions, including provocative military activities in the periphery of NATO territory and its demonstrated willingness to attain political goals by the threat and use of force.” Members agreed to deploy four new battalions to Poland and the Baltic states on a “persistent rotational basis.” The communiqué also highlighted recent increases in military spending by allies but noted that “there is still much work to be done,” a reflection of frustration, especially in Washington, at unequal contributions to allied security. Another meeting of the NATO-Russia Council was held after the summit; it again failed to make significant progress. 

By the end of 2021, each country in the alliance had increased its defense spending from its 2014 level. Eight NATO members [PDF] including each of the Baltic states, had met the alliance-wide standard of allocating 2 percent of the GDP to defense.

The United States, for its part, has remained committed to NATO in the years since. Despite frequently criticizing NATO allies, the Donald Trump administration ultimately upheld its commitment to the alliance, and after taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden has stated that the U.S. commitment to the alliance remains “unshakeable.” Baltic leaders have joined in those expressions of solidarity. 

What Did the Decision Mean?

Tensions between NATO and Russia in the Baltic region remained high in the following years. NATO began conducting larger military exercises in the region to both train its forces and signal its resolve. Russia has responded in kind; in fall 2018, both NATO and Russia conducted their largest exercises since the early 1980s within months of each other. 

However, fears of a Baltic country coming under threat have remained and gained renewed prominence in February of 2022 after Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As the war continues, NATO members, especially in the Baltics, have voiced concern that the conflict could spill over or lead Putin to point his aggression toward them. 

As they did after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, NATO members quickly reaffirmed their commitment to the alliance after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. NATO doubled the number of battle groups positioned along the alliance’s eastern flank from four to eight. Although the alliance has, to date, avoided steps that would lead it into direct conflict with Russia, many NATO members have also contributed billions of dollars’ worth of military assistance toward Ukraine’s defense. Even as the war has become more limited in its scope, with Russian forces focusing their efforts on the east of the country, the prospect of conflict extending beyond Ukraine’s borders and into a NATO country remains a point of grave concern for alliance members.

Was it a Good Idea?

The role of NATO in shaping relations between Russia and the West is a hotly debated topic. The decision in 2016 to strengthen the alliance’s forward posture renewed conversation. Some experts argue that NATO’s expanding presence isolates Russia from the rest of Europe and contributes to rising tensions. Russia characterizes the alliance as a direct threat to its interests and has used NATO’s expanding presence to partially justify its aggressive foreign policies in the past. Increasing activity close to Russian borders, some argue, further validated Russia’s fears about NATO.

On the other hand, many policymakers, especially those in member countries bordering Russia, argue that a changing NATO posture is a necessary response to secure the alliance against Russian aggression, regardless of what policies Putin could justify with it. Many also contend that Putin’s adversarial foreign policy would unfold regardless of NATO’s actions. Often, those experts point to the fact that NATO members have made numerous attempts to diplomatically manage relations and ease Russian concerns over the alliance, with limited success. Moreover, many NATO members, especially the Baltic countries, point to Russia’s war in Ukraine as evidence of the need to take the threat of Russian aggression seriously.

Ultimately, policymakers cannot be certain about how NATO’s increasing presence in the Baltics shaped the course of events in the following years. Whether it was a necessary step to safeguard the alliance or a move that spurred greater Russian aggression will remain a fiercely debated topic for years to come.