16

During the recent 2022 conflict in Ukraine and the diplomatic talks preceding it, the Russian government kept saying that there were promises made by the US and the west that NATO would not expand eastward, although it was never written down.

Even this recent video at 3:58 mentions memos and meeting minutes from US archives that say that such an agreement did occur.

So is there any written proof from these archives which can be linked here (other than simply quotes from government officials from the time)?

Glorfindel
  • 3,212
  • 3
  • 24
  • 42
Schwarz Kugelblitz
  • 4,411
  • 16
  • 46
  • 2
    It's a bit complicated. There's a two part series on https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early ; https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard Most Western diplomats/sources say the Russians overinterpreted those assurances. – the gods from engineering Mar 09 '22 at 01:41
  • This is answered on History SE. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/43781/did-nato-promise-gorbachev-not-to-accept-membership-applications-from-former-war I'm going to vote to close since it's already answered there. – Allure Mar 09 '22 at 02:14
  • More documents were declassified last fall but they don't change the picture much https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994 – the gods from engineering Mar 09 '22 at 02:14
  • 3
    I’m voting to close this question because this is a History question and is answered on History.se: https://history.stackexchange.com/q/43781/29495 – divibisan Mar 09 '22 at 02:24
  • Question seems ontopic to me. Promises that might or might not have been made officially are part of politics, aren't they? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 09 '22 at 09:11
  • 1
    "it was never written down" "is there any written proof" I'm a bit confused. How do the two statements come together. If it never was written down, how can there be written proof? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 09 '22 at 09:14
  • Whether there was any formal understanding about NATO not enlarging eastward or not, it does seem to me to have been a catastrophic diplomatic blunder to have made Russia (still the world's second largest nuclear power, which had moved a very long way in the right direction since the Cold War) feel militarily hemmed in to the point that it brought forth a rogue like Putin. It seems to me to have been analagous to the Versailles blunder of 1919, when the western powers so humiliated Germany, that the Weimar Republic was destined to fail, and the ground was laid for Hitler's arrival. – WS2 Aug 31 '22 at 21:02
  • 1
    TBH I think I'm going to VTC this again. Because it's ultimately not clear what difference you see between "memos and meeting minutes" but that would be "other than simply quotes from government officials". Meeting minutes are by def a recording of the latter. Given how sensitive this topic is (to others here who DV answers, less so to me personally), a clear Q is needed before answers. – the gods from engineering Aug 31 '22 at 21:33
  • @Trilarion I think 'written down' refers to a written agreement signed by both parties. 'Written proof' can be any writing that supports the claim, for example, minutes kept by either side, private notes kept by officials, etc. When officials agree to some policy without an official treaty it still makes sense that there is some paper trail because government involves many people and bureaucracy (as opposed to just a few people agreeing on something verbally). – JJJ Sep 01 '22 at 02:20
  • 1
    I'm going to VTC. The question ultimately answers itself. There was no written and signed agreement. NATO contends that as there was no such agreement, it is not obligated to confirm to verbally expressed comments or promises. – MishaP Sep 01 '22 at 13:04
  • @MishaP questions can never answer themselves. Just post your comment as answer (after adding a few more details like how you found out that there wasn't anything written and why verbal statements aren't obligating). That would make a good answer to a commonly asked question. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Sep 02 '22 at 05:23
  • @Trilarion It is perhaps a trifle unrealistic to believe that questions like this - as is the case with many on this site - can be "answered". "Debated" - yes, but "answered" - unlikely, I'd say. – WS2 Sep 05 '22 at 18:10
  • @WS2 What is the problem with this question here? It's a simple google that for me question. So anyone wanting to answer it and wanting to earn a few unicorn points, could simply google it and then answer it. Of course being a historian and knowing where to look helps. But either there is public evidence and it can be shown here or there isn't, then a description of an extensive search will go a long way of convincing people that there isn't. Other question like "Why ...." or "What is X gaining by Y" - they are not objectively answerable. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Sep 05 '22 at 19:27
  • @Trilarion You may be right. But it seemed to me that it being such a contentious issue meant that there was conflicting evidence. – WS2 Sep 05 '22 at 20:37

3 Answers3

13

This is highly controversial. You will find retired officials on both sides in support of both the 'yes' and 'no' positions.

  • Germany acknowledges a promise not to allow NATO allies into the eastern German states, which they haven't. At the time this promise was made, the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact still existed.
  • Russia claims that an informal promise was made at the same time that should countries leave the WP and should the Soviet Union break up, there would be no expansion, either.
  • Afterwards, Russia signed agreements which accepted the expansion.
  • NATO and Russia agreed that there would be no major combat formations based permanently in the East. For this reason, the Enhanced Forward Presence rotates every few months.
o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • 3
    So there is no obvious proof like something written or officially declared? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 09 '22 at 07:03
  • 1
    @Trilarion, There were written assurances regarding East Germany which became a treaty and oral statements during the negotiations which didn't make it into the final declarations. An unwritten clarification, as Russia says, or a proposal which didn't make it into the text? Imagine negotiations between the EU and US which say 'Texas shall never join the EU.' That could almost be seen as an implicit recognition of Texan independence, don't you think? So Washington would never sign that. – o.m. Mar 09 '22 at 11:21
  • "NATO and Russia agreed" in which exactly written agreement? "Informal promises" are likely not binding, and I cannot believe Russia was not sure that the promises must be printed on paper and signed to be the promises. Ribbentrop and Molotov did better in 1939. – Stančikas Aug 27 '22 at 18:29
  • @Stančikas, in 1997. Link added. – o.m. Aug 28 '22 at 04:33
  • 1
    Writes "The Act has no impact on NATO enlargement". But anyway I remove the downvote, who wants can just read that document now – Stančikas Aug 28 '22 at 07:29
  • 1
    @Stančikas, it was a written promise towards Russia, and those things tend to get mixed by people who make a point. My bullet points are related, NATO did make promises regarding troops in the East, but that should not be conflated with the breakup of the WP and Soviet Union. Just consider how absurd it would sound today if the US wrote into some international treaty that Texas may not join the belt and road initiative. – o.m. Aug 28 '22 at 08:56
  • 1
    What would a written document do? Countries have backed out of signed agreements many times when no longer suited. Signed or not this deal is not beneficial to US/EU and could be discarded for whatever reason deemed good enough. – anm767 Sep 01 '22 at 00:04
  • 1
    @anm767, failure to keep a written promise can be used for diplomatic or propaganda purposes. Hence it matters if NATO never promised not to expand or if it did. – o.m. Sep 01 '22 at 05:04
  • 2
    @o.m. failure to adhere to written promises is more than just reputation loss. Insurance contracts can be drawn based on promises in treaties. If the treaties are not followed, this can result in legally-enforceable insurance claims, or similar enforcement of derivative contractual obligations. No such contracts can be derived from voiced opinions (which do not covenant anything). – wrod Sep 01 '22 at 22:26
3

At least acording to a document that was shortly published in german "Der Spiegel" such promis to not extend NATO was made. It can be read in this article. The document shows US, UK, French, and German officials discussing a pledge made to Moscow that NATO would not expand to Poland and beyond.

The picture of that document:

enter image description here

Some quotes of important statements which were made during that miting:

"We made it clear to the Soviet Union - in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other negotiations - that we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe," the document quotes US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada Raymond Seitz.

"NATO should not expand to the east, either officially or unofficially," Seitz added.

A British representative also mentions the existence of a "general agreement" that membership of NATO for eastern European countries is "unacceptable."

"We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe [sic]," said West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog. "We could not therefore offer Poland and others membership in NATO."

Also this article mentions some important facts.

convert
  • 1
  • 24
  • 115
  • 186
  • @Fizz OK going to fix this. Will the picture of that document be useful? – convert Aug 30 '22 at 15:37
  • 4
    That does not show that a promise was made, just that it was discussed in a meeting. Not to mention that meeting was with the Soviet Union and not Russia. It should also be noted that Russia agreed as party of a treaty they singed for turning over nuclear weapons and it is clear that they broke that agreement. – Joe W Aug 30 '22 at 18:02
  • 4
    Interesting how these useful reporters publish these documents just days before their feeder prepares to invade another country. – Vladimir F Героям слава Aug 30 '22 at 18:31
  • 2
    @Vladimir F Can you give any evidence that "Der Spiegel" is controled by Russia? – convert Aug 30 '22 at 18:41
  • @VladimirFГероямслава: well, Benji Norton may well fall in that category (He also wrote for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone). But the original piece that convert didn't link to was published (in German) in 2019. And Shifrinson wrote about it at around the same time. – the gods from engineering Aug 30 '22 at 21:48
  • @VladimirFГероямслава: actually the Spiegel [article] is also from Feb 2022. The Norton piece claims only Shifrinson wrote about it in 2019. Shifrinson was long committed to the betrayal theory https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/1990-us-pledge-soviet-union-nato-expansion-conversation-joshua-shifrinson – the gods from engineering Aug 30 '22 at 22:02
  • 4
    @JoeW ""We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe [sic]," said West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog. <--- you don't consider this a promise? – Allure Aug 31 '22 at 01:51
  • 4
    @Allure Not really when it is a small bit of text from a single source that doesn't include any details of what took place in those talks. Just because you say something during talks doesn't mean you are making a promise of doing anything. – Joe W Aug 31 '22 at 02:18
  • @Fizz The original sorce is paiwalled, that´s why I didn´t link to it. – convert Aug 31 '22 at 20:56
  • 3
    @Joe W for some people a handshake is a deal. Some need signed papers. And some hire lawyers to get out of signed deals. All comes down to what kind of person you are. – anm767 Sep 01 '22 at 00:08
  • @anm767 And for others it isn't, my point is nothing that I read in that answer indicates an actual promise was made and it is just a snippet of information lacking a lot of details. – Joe W Sep 01 '22 at 00:14
  • @Joe W "Russia agreed as party of a treaty they singed for turning over nuclear weapons" Which treaty? – convert Feb 02 '23 at 13:15
  • "We would not extend" in English does not mean something that is definitely decided to happen. "If you disagree, it would be a war" Also, as from the article, "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity". We just believe ... this is not a promise of any kind, leave alone "should". – Stančikas Feb 02 '23 at 13:16
  • 1
    @convert The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1] – Joe W Feb 02 '23 at 13:23
  • @Stančikas But I am specially refering to Document 01, where the possibility of NATO expansion, as well as Central and Eastern European membership in NATO was denied. – convert Feb 02 '23 at 13:24
  • @Joe W but Budapest Memorandum says nothing about Russia turning over nuclear weapons. – convert Feb 02 '23 at 13:26
  • @convert what are you talking about? I never said that Russia was turning over nuclear weapons. It was Ukraine who agreed to turn over nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees as well as other things. Ukraine agreed to turn over the weapons to Russia. – Joe W Feb 02 '23 at 13:32
  • In "for turning over" he's saying the turning over of nukes was the consideration. If Bob agrees with Alice to do X for Y, it's a quid pro qo of Bob promising X in exchange for Alice promising Y. – bharring Feb 02 '23 at 18:45
  • @bharring Are you saing that promis to not extend NATO is conected in any way with Budapest Memorandum. – convert Feb 02 '23 at 18:58
  • No, I'm saying that "Russia agreed as party of a treaty they singed for turning over nuclear weapons" was a statement about Russia's commitment to honor Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine giving their nuclear weapons to Russia. – bharring Feb 02 '23 at 19:22
  • 1
    @bharring But how is this related to the question and my answer specially? – convert Feb 02 '23 at 19:25
  • @convert Joe W brought it up to impeach either the credibility of Russia diplomatically, or impeach the good-faith of Russia in respecting treaties of which major parts of NATO were party to. Either arguing that Russia is untrustworthy, or their betrayal of Ukraine, US, UK, and others changes things. – bharring Feb 02 '23 at 19:33
  • @bharring But that sounds like whataboutism. Russia broke it promise, so it gives NATO to do the same, but even if we stay in this paradigm NATO broke its promise first. – convert Feb 02 '23 at 19:36
0

From the article NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard that is also cited in another answer looks like M.Gorbachev have heard some phrases that might be interpreted as having an option to agree on not expanding NATO, but were not such promises by itself. These are the phrases like:

  • NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’
  • The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.
  • well it is important to have guarantees
  • We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured
  • Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’
  • NATO expansion is unacceptable (not a promise, still)
  • would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?

and, from the screenshot of another answer:

  • We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe

Here there is more to say. In 1991 Germany signed the agreement not to allow foreign military bases and nuclear weapons into the former Eastern Germany. This agreement is followed but it does not apply to Nato expansion outside this territory, and does not disallow dislocation of the own German military forces there or also further into the East. There is a known fake that it does, going as far as Germany would not be allowed to have the own army at all, but the agreement only restricts the size of the army that is currently well below that limit. Looks like some additional agreement with more restrictions have been discussed but even the originators of the fake admit, not signed.

These English constructs do not mean that the promise is being given. They say that something needs to happen or would happen under some circumstances that may or may not come true. They do not say this "something" has happened already in the past.

It should have been at least professional English translators, leave alone lawyers on the Russian side to understand that no promise is being given with such a sentences. They should have asked for the clearly worded and signed document. If such was refused, the should have thought about, why. Hence I am sure Russia has been fully aware they have no promise. Selling the used bicycle can be solved with handshake but not the fate of multiple nations, consisting of millions of people.

This also does not need to be not a honest behavior. It may be that the requirement to for an agreement not to extend NATO has been dropped because of Russia receiving something else in exchange like multi billion gas purchases, for instance, or elimination of some nuclear weapons on American side. It may be many items on the table of the negotiations, some just return back to the portfolio where they were pulled from without making into signed agreements.

Stančikas
  • 21,514
  • 1
  • 52
  • 113
  • 1
    Russia also agreed to support Ukrainian security as part of a deal to turn over nuclear weapons but we see how well that worked out. With all the opposition to Ukraine joining NATO it wasn't going to happen anytime soon. Now that it has been invaded it is much more likely once the invasion is over. – Joe W Feb 02 '23 at 13:53