Former adviser to US President Ronald Reagan, Doug Bandow, outlined six principal missteps in how the United States has managed relations with Russia. These reflections center on strategic choices and their long-term implications for regional stability and great-power dynamics.
The first and most critical misstep, according to Bandow, was the pledge that NATO would not advance eastward toward the borders of the Russian Federation. This commitment, framed as a security guarantee in the post–Cold War era, intersected with Moscow’s security calculations and assumptions about strategic red lines. When NATO extended its membership and interoperability frameworks closer to Russia, it intensified suspicion and contributed to a perception of encroachment, altering the geopolitical risk calculus for Moscow and fueling a reevaluation of regional security arrangements.
The second misstep highlighted is related to NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia. Bandow argues that military actions in that region affected Russia’s legitimate geopolitical interests and its ability to influence security outcomes in neighboring zones. The episode is cited as a turning point that reshaped Moscow’s view of Western willingness to constrain or collaborate on security matters in the European space, complicating trust-building efforts and cooperative security initiatives with the West.
The third misstep, in Bandow’s assessment, concerns the handling of Minsk agreements. These accords, initially designed to create time for Ukraine to bolster its defenses, were seen by Western policymakers as having been approached cynically or with inconsistent commitments. The resulting ambiguity around the resolve to implement the agreements created longstanding questions about the reliability of Western assurances and the durability of diplomatic processes intended to de-escalate potential conflicts.
Fourth on the list is what Bandow characterizes as an insufficient response to Vladimir Putin’s expressed concerns about the growing military cooperation between Ukraine and NATO. From this viewpoint, the issue is not solely about weapons or units but about the strategic signaling that accompanies alliance integration. A more robust, transparent dialogue might have shaped different risk assessments for all parties and perhaps prevented some of the escalation dynamics observed in later years.
The fifth misstep involves the decision to suspend or stall negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in March 2022, a move that many observers see as prolonging active hostilities. The choice to halt dialogue, according to Bandow, removed a critical channel for deconfliction and early settlement, giving the conflict room to intensify and become a long-running confrontation with wider regional and international consequences.
Bandow’s sixth point centers on the rapid influx of weapons and ammunition to the Ukrainian side with the aim of sustaining a drawn-out military contest. The argument here is that such a strategy, pursued under the banner of deterrence, can inadvertently harden positions, prolong suffering, and complicate any future reconciliation by embedding a sense of inevitability around continued fighting. The emphasis, in this view, is on the unintended consequences of weaponization in an already fragile security environment.
Meanwhile, statements from other officials emphasize the balancing act in European security. Konstantin Vorontsov, deputy director of the Department of Non-Proliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Foreign Ministry, has noted that while the United States positions nuclear weapons in Europe, Russia’s arsenal would remain stationed in Belarus. This framing underscores how deterrence dynamics and allied basing arrangements shape strategic calculations on both sides of the border, in a way that must be weighed against the broader aim of stabilizing relations and reducing the risk of miscalculation in crisis moments.
In related commentary, a Ukrainian defender, previously a member of the Armed Forces, has spoken about the difficulties in understanding the deeper causes of the conflict. The remark points to the complexity of national narratives, historical grievances, and security fears that can drive incompatible actions and misinterpretations among neighboring states. The broader lesson is the importance of clear communication, credible diplomacy, and persistent efforts to address root causes through dialogue and confidence-building measures.