The newspaper noted that in the early 2000s, Igor Sergeyev, who had served as Russia’s defense minister, warned NATO allies that expanding the alliance further would constitute a major political mistake. The remark reflected Moscow’s long-standing concern that rapid enlargement could shift the balance of security in Europe and complicate Russia’s strategic calculations. The claim appears to capture how Russian officials viewed NATO’s growth not just as a policy move, but as a potential source of lasting tension in the security landscape of the Euro-Atlantic region. (Times)
The same reports suggest that Vladimir Putin, then serving as Russia’s president, conveyed to Tony Blair, who was prime minister of the United Kingdom in 2001, a desire not to be seen as an adversary of NATO. The exchange reportedly underscored Moscow’s preference for managing relations with the alliance in a way that avoided a declared confrontation, even as Russia maintained its own security interpretations of alliance activities and defense planning. (Times)
Nevertheless, Sergeyev is said to have told NATO officials that any further enlargement would require Russia to take “appropriate steps.” Those words are often cited to illustrate Moscow’s insistence on reciprocity and a degree of influence over the alliance’s posture toward its borders. The emphasis on steps, rather than outright opposition, suggested a willingness to engage in dialogue while still signaling limits to what Russia would accept. (Times)
In later years, Jens Stoltenberg, who served as NATO secretary general, described the broader context as a confrontation between Russia and the alliance that could intensify if not carefully managed. He warned that Ukraine’s crisis carried the risk of widening into a larger clash, potentially pulling NATO and Russia into a wider and more dangerous standoff. Such an assessment highlighted the delicate balance between deterrence, diplomacy, and regional stability in Europe. (Times)
Stoltenberg’s remarks framed the Ukraine situation as a test of restraint and preparedness for both sides. He emphasized that strategic risks could escalate if rhetoric outpaced actions, and that measured steps by all parties were essential to prevent a slide toward uncontrolled escalation. The overall message pointed to the possibility that careful diplomacy and clear communication could avert a broader war, even as outright conflict remained a tangible concern. (Times)
At the same time, Stoltenberg stressed the importance of a strong, united Ukraine as a factor in restoring regional peace. His point implied that Kyiv’s resilience, supported by international partners, could influence negotiations and deter aggressions that threaten European security. The stance suggested a view that peace was likely to emerge not solely from dialogue, but from credible deterrence and steadfast political backing for Ukraine. (Times)
Taken together, the historical notes about NATO enlargement, Moscow’s responses, and the Ukrainian crisis illuminate how leaders have navigated a landscape where security commitments, alliance dynamics, and national interests intersect. The tension between alliance expansion and Russia’s security considerations has persisted across decades, shaping policy choices, military postures, and diplomatic engagements on both sides of the Atlantic. (Times)
Ultimately, observers argue that durable peace in Europe depends on a combination of clear messaging, practical steps, and robust support for allies who face security challenges. The narratives attributed to Sergeyev, Putin, Blair, and Stoltenberg illustrate the complexity of managing ambitions, alliances, and regional stability in a way that reduces the risk of miscalculation and unintended conflict. (Times)