> Russia's response to NATO's expansion is a contemporary example of this
So this is what you got backwards. Just consider latest members, Finland and Sweden. Neither had any immediate plans to join before the war, but the bitter truth is that no neighbour of Russia is safe without an alliance providing a decisive military superiority.
John Bolton, in 1994, said about the UN:
“There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along.'[1]
I think you could replace the UN with NATO and wouldn't lose much nuance. John Bolton, like Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, have been determining foreign policy in American administrations for the last thirty years, from the collapse of the USSR to its resurgence as Putin's revanchist state. The published attitudes of Nuland, Kagan, and Bolton (not including hot mic moments like Nuland's "fuck the EU" tape) towards the EU, the UN, and NATO are almost, if not categorically hostile when it comes at the expense of American hegemony. It's also why the ICC has no real power in the West.
As far as Sweden and Finland go, yes, their flight into NATO's arms was catalyzed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, yes, but this is also perfectly suited to the longterm geopolitical aims of the United States, whether it happened immediately, as it did, or if they were included in a future wave of NATO members. That's the nature of salami slicing tactics. You don't need to move fast, as your opponent doesn't have the capacity to ever stop you.
>Neither had any immediate plans to join before the war, but the bitter truth is that no neighbour of Russia is safe without an alliance providing a decisive military superiority.
I agree entirely! That bitter truth has been known to conservatives in the United States since 1945 and has been routinely mocked by unaligned Europeans and urbane liberals in the United States for decades, culminating in the peak irony in 2012 of Barack Obama making fun of Mitt Romney's claim that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to America's interest.[2]
It may sound like a minor difference, but that plays to the Russian narrative of US violating their sphere of influence. In this imperialistic worldview smaller countries have no agency and are just pawns of larger powers. This is at the core of the current war too -- Russia desperately trying to prevent Ukraine from following the path of westward alignment that it has independently chosen.
How would one differentiate between "Russian neighbours seeking an alliance" and "Russian neighbours seeking an alliance because they were promised something in return"?
And even in this case: why would Russia care about the reasons? From russian point of view there was a promise: NATO won't grow any further east. The promise was broken.
Had NATO refused adding new members to its ranks - there would be no problem.
For historical examples, you can look at Carthage under the Romans prior to the Third Punic War, the Saxons under the Normans after Hastings, or the Native Americans under the United States. There are others.
For contemporary examples, you can look at the Palestinians under the Israelis (or the Israelis not-quite-under the Arab world) or even the Ukrainians themselves under the Russians!
In each of these struggles, the dominant hegemon and its allies want a dominated rival that is "stable, economically entwined with limited influence on their neighbors beyond economic ties. No tendrils of malevolent influence or proxies." Which is to say, totally compliant with their controller and inert as a geopolitical force as they are salami sliced at will.
Russia's response to NATO's expansion is a contemporary example of this. Much like other weaker states in history facing incremental encroachment, Russia is blamed for destabilizing the region, while the more powerful actors continue policies that provoke and escalate the situation. The expectation that the weaker side alone should de-escalate or withdraw ignores the external pressures that limit their autonomy and drive their actions.
These narratives are almost always self-serving and oversimplify the situation by placing full responsibility on the weaker party, masking the larger power dynamics at play. Throughout history, dominant states have used this framing to justify the gradual weakening and containment of their adversaries, presenting their own expansionist or aggressive strategies as benign or defensive while shifting the blame onto those they are dismantling.
All I'm saying is these narratives of "I'm purely defensively containing you so I can eliminate you" are ubiquitous throughout history, but the best of those in the dominant position still understood that it was an ignoble lie even as they struggled against and were dragged along by them. The world would likely be healthier if we emulated them rather than those that always claim that their enemies are historically unlrecedented and uniquely Very Bad Persons[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strateg...
[2] https://dangerousintersection.org/2020/06/25/recognizing-and...
[3] https://youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4