Perhaps that was the case in Hungary, but in Poland it was at the core of the public, official case for NATO membership. Not that the elites had to work to convince the population since there was overwhelming support for NATO membership in Poland.
But the dual motivations of getting free of Russian influence and joining the strongest kid on the block did play a role for the elites.
It's not simply the 'strongest kid on the block' - it's that this particular strong kid didn't have a long history of bullying them, unlike Russia and Germany. Plus he happens to be far away, making him less threatening.
As Migeru mentioned, another factor was wanting European integration, and seeing NATO membership as a good advertisement and first step for later EU membership.
In Poland NATO membership was far popular than EU membership. The only organized opposition to the former was among the extreme right who in Poland historically favor an alliance with Russia. EU membership caused a lot of worries, ranging from fears of Germany to loss of sovereignty since the EU is a far more intrusive presence than NATO and practical economic concerns.
(Our countries weren't pressedto join the NATO, e.g. economic blackmail. Bush I's and Clinton's people weren't as buffoonish as Bush II's, they were much more clever imperialists.)
More exactly Bush I and Clinton were pressed to expand NATO through a strong coordinated lobbying effort on the part of the countries in question and their ethnic lobby's in the US. The Bush I admin leaned against NATO expansion. The Clinton admin was divided on the issue. Christopher and Talbott leaned against while Albright, Holbrooke, and IIRC Lake were for it. But they were told that there would be a strong effort to swing the Polish American vote to the Repubs if the administration didn't expand NATO.
I will just ask about one thing right at the beginning, and add to others:
...in Poland it was at the core of the public, official case for NATO membership.
I understand that the Russia factor was much stronger in Poland (another pointer to Richard that it wasn't just the last 60 years but [differing] regional histories that led to the wish to join NATO), but how much truly official was it? Did accession-time President Kwaśniewski and earlier the Pawlak government (that joined NATO's Partnership for Peace) use the Russia argument in public?
I ask because I recall joint declarations by the then candidate countries that officially denied the Russia factor when protesting Russia's protests against NATO accession. (E.g. stuff like "this move is not directed against Russia, this is about our security and our sovereignity, Russia should neither try to meddle in our affairs nor believe this is about them").
there was overwhelming support for NATO membership in Poland
There as in most countries. The referendum I mentioned passed with 85.33% approval.
More exactly Bush I and Clinton were pressed to expand NATO through a strong coordinated lobbying effort on the part of the countries in question and their ethnic lobby's in the US.
It was more complex than that. There was probably incoherence in the policymaking of the Bush I admin and later, maybe at top level like in the Clinton admin, or just at lowel levels, for locally stationed diplomats and say Radio Free Europe did encourage a Westward turn in every aspect when they groomed the dissident movements. (A parallel could be 1956, when Radio Free Europe kept suggesting a Western intervention 'in case' before, and 'soon' during the fighting, but there were never such plans.) So the new political elites were 'well prepared' for pushing the next US admin on the issue. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
