Putin, NATO, and the Mearsheimer Problem [PART I: THE MURMUR OF STEEL]

Where saber-rattling becomes a language of its own

When Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned NATO’s latest military movements as “dangerously provocative,” the world heard more than rhetoric.

Putin frames NATO's expansion as a struggle for survival. (Photo: 82nd Air Assault Brigade, Defense of Ukraine X)

He was speaking in a dialect familiar to great powers — a language where troop deployments, missile tests, and strategic bombers become verbs, adjectives, punctuation marks. In Eastern Europe, saber-rattling is simply diplomacy conducted at the edge of a blade.

To Moscow, NATO’s expansion is not a policy misstep but an existential encroachment. Putin frames it as a struggle for survival: a fortress Russia, bruised by history, unable to trust an alliance creeping toward its doorstep.

And in Washington and Brussels, the counterargument echoes with equal fervor: deterrence, not domination; collective security, not coercion.

Somewhere between these narratives sits the haunting question that realist scholar John Mearsheimer has been asking for decades:

What happens when a great power feels cornered?

But the real stakes only emerge when we confront an uncomfortable possibility —

What if both sides believe they are acting defensively, yet the world reads it as preparation for war?

Tomorrow, we follow the thread into the scenario strategists whisper about but do not publish: a world where miscalculation becomes ignition. When deterrence becomes indistinguishable from provocation, who fires the first signal flare?

--

ABOUT AUTHOR