Quote of the Day
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
National Security Archive
December 12, 2017
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive
If you have been following the comments here you will already know the context for this, but I include some snippets for those not reading the comments:
Words were given and hands shaken that NATO would not move one inch east if the soviets collapsed.
…
all that in exchange for NATO not moving one inch east.
You could find many other such claims on the Internet that the U.S. and/or NATO agreed to no expansion of NATO toward Russia. The problem is, if you read the available documents (I have now spent several hours trying to figure out what happened) I cannot find anything than refutes the summations given by Copilot and Grok:
There was no formal, written treaty or agreement committing NATO to halt expansion eastward. The phrase “not one inch eastward” comes from verbal assurances given by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 during talks on German reunification. These were informal diplomatic assurances, not binding agreements.
🧾 What actually happened
- James Baker’s assurance (Feb 9, 1990): In a meeting with Gorbachev, Baker said NATO would move “not one inch eastward” if Germany remained in NATO. This was part of broader discussions about Soviet security concerns during German reunification.
- Other Western leaders: German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, British Prime Minister John Major, and others also gave similar verbal assurances about NATO’s jurisdiction not expanding eastward.
- No treaty signed: Despite these assurances, no written agreement or binding treaty was ever concluded. NATO’s official position is that enlargement decisions are made collectively and were never legally restricted.
- Russian perspective: Russian officials have long argued that these verbal promises were broken when NATO later admitted Eastern European countries. Gorbachev himself gave conflicting accounts—sometimes confirming he received assurances, other times saying no formal promise was made.
No, there was no legally binding commitment – neither written nor oral – by the United States, NATO, or any Western leader that NATO would never expand eastward beyond Germany in exchange for Russia’s consent to German reunification or anything else.
What actually happened in 1990 (the relevant negotiations)
During the “Two-Plus-Four” talks (1990) on German reunification, several Western leaders (especially U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and others) used informal, oral phrasing with Mikhail Gorbachev such as:
- “NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position” (Baker to Gorbachev, 9 February 1990).
- Similar wording from Kohl, Manfred Wörner (NATO Secretary General), and others.
These statements were explicitly about the territory of East Germany – i.e., NATO military structures (troops, bases, nuclear weapons) would not be extended into the former GDR after reunification. Gorbachev himself later confirmed in interviews (e.g., 2014) that the discussions were only about East Germany, not Poland, Hungary, or any other country.
No treaty, protocol, or written document from 1990 contains any promise about NATO’s future enlargement beyond Germany.
Aside, from the lack of a written agreement, it seems to me that a few representatives of NATO would not be in a position bind all of NATO, even temporarily, to not expand the organization. Baker could not bind the U.S. to such an agreement without the backing of at least an executive order, and, more likely, ratification by the Senate. And a similar thing would apply to all the other politicians from other countries.
I do not dispute that no expansion of NATO is in the interests of Russia. That they failed to get these assurances into a written agreement is on them. Not the U.S. of today or all of NATO. It is as if you were given assurances by a used car salesman of a never-ending warranty, paid for the car without getting it in writing, and then two years later complained when you find out you don’t have an infinite warranty on the car. If you were to take your compliant to a judge you would be laughed out of the court.
And I think laughter directed at Russia for claiming they had an agreement would be appropriate. They know better. They are just using that as propaganda to justify the violation of their written agreements.
We all know that Putin doesn’t care at all about agreements he makes, so why he would argue about alleged agreements made by others is a mystery.
Another observation is that any supposed agreement would have been with the USSR, a country that no longer exists.
So, lying is OK as long as there is no written proof of the lie.
Is there a formal process wherein governmental representatives have their honesty and integrity removed? A pox on them all.
What makes you think it was a lie?They didn’t have the authority to make that commitment for all nations for eternity.
Also, politicians lie (almost by definition), Santa Claus is not real, and the Easter Bunny is not real.
NATO requires unanimity for expansion so yes, individual countries could make that commitment. See Article 10 of the charter. This is especially true of the US since NATO actually means Needs Americans To Operate. Greece vetoed Macedonia for years because they didn’t like the name.
Lying? Not at all. There are no UN troops stationed in the territories of former East Germany. We are following the agreement even if we don’t need to.
I believe the statements were made in the faith that the USSR / Russia would not attack its neighbors. Russia has always faced attacks coming from the west is rather paranoid about it happening again.
IMHO if the border countries remained neutral and acted as middlemen for Russian -Western Europe commerce, it would have been the optimum outcome. Too much late 20th century history in countries like Poland and Romania made NATO alliance imperative in their minds.
No matter the reason, when Russia drove tanks across Ukraine’s borders on two occasions, it pretty well made any previous declarations null and void. Even countries that would have prefered staying neutral had to fish or cut bait.
Putin is his own worst enemy.
The war didn’t start then. It started when the US overthrew the elected government of Ukraine replacing it with an anti-Russian regime (including the Russians within the borders of Ukraine). This led to the Russian annexation of Crimea and aid to separatists in the Donbas.
NATO attacked Serbia and annexed part of it.
Georgia murdered hundreds of ethnic minorities.
Georgia requested NATO membership.
–> Russia attacked Georgia and annexed part of it. (“Tit for tat” and “Not on my doorstep”)
The US committed “regime change” in Ukraine.
Ukraine passed a law of genocide against ethnic Russians.
Ukraine murdered tens of thousands of Russians.
Ukraine requested NATO membership.
–> Russia invaded Ukraine.
NATO was created to stop the Communist Soviet Union from doing to continental Western Europe, what they did so effectively throughout Eastern Europe. Once the Soviets collapsed NATO lost its only good reason to exist. In 1995 they should have held an enormous “victory” parade in Brussels and disbanded NATO. Instead it continues on providing a military and economic crutch to mostly lazy, greedy European nations who spend only a fraction of the cost of building and maintaining a real military.
On a closely related subject, although no treaty was ever signed between NATO and the Soviets regarding eastward expansion of NATO a treaty was definitely signed by the UK (Tony Blair) USA (Clinton administration) Russia (Yeltsin administration) & Ukraine stating that the UK and USA agreed to protect Ukraine if they agreed to give all Soviet nuclear weapons in their territory to Russia. Ukraine fulfilled their part. Rather naively as it turns out. The world is owed an explanation by Obama regarding why we did not honor our treaty agreement when Russia seized Crimea during his tenure.
Thanks Joe!
But especially for comparing politicians to used car salesmen. Because when it comes to written agreements or just handshakes.
The nature of power in politics is one does what one can get away with. Pure and simple.
From what I’ve seen in 70 years? The world runs on the guarantees of used car salesmen.
And if we are going to get upset and waste blood and treasure over broken promises criminal politicians have made. We’re going to have a very sad time in this world.
And we better pick our fights carefully.
As for Ukraine/Russia?
Where were we when China invaded Tibet? We didn’t drop a 150 billion on that one did we? Fact it didn’t really even make the news cycle.
We invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, when Suadi Arabia was where our attackers came from.
And were still in Syria. And bombing the hell out of Somalia. And about to go into Venezuela.
And if we want to wipe out the communist threat, why not go after Cuba instead of Vietnam?
And so much for “fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here”.
As were being invaded by all those countries and more with the blessing and support of our political traitors in violation of 100 laws and agreements. Both national and international.
You going to live your life on ink put down by the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama?
We may have to, but I wouldn’t trust it any more than the paper airplane I could make it out of would fly.
Russia at the collapse of the soviet union wasn’t in a position to demand anything from the west. Or force us to make anything more than handshake agreements.
And Ukraine gave their Russian nukes back to Russia because it was in their best interest to. They were already rotting and only pointed at the USA.
In exchange for a thousand mini-Chernobyl’s, they got half of their nat-gas bill wiped out. And the reprocessed nukes would be used for power generation in both Ukraine and Russia.
Win-Win for everyone.
And instead of keeping that going. We get used car salesmen.
Stealing, cheating, and lying for the fun and profit of the big BS murdering game.
And Ukraine is just some more elitest BS same-same. Just ask Joe and Hunter Biden.
I compliment Grok for correctly using “oral” vs. “verbal”. Quite rare to see that these days, when (I assume) any use of “oral” is avoided, due to the now de-riguer association with sex.
The withdrawal from East Germany which was given to the USSR in documents signed at Potsdam was negotiated in order to facilitate the withdrawal of the Red Army in a peaceful and harmless fashion. Without some sort of agreement there was no mechanism to kick the Red Army out of the Zone of Occupation it held by force of arms and Allied agreement.
A united Germany with many Soviet military bases and army units still embedded in the east would be an odd sight, kind of like Kaliningrad today.
What stands out here is how many of those early assurances weren’t just offhand remarks but documented conversations across multiple governments. It really underscores why later Russian leaders framed NATO expansion as a breach of expectations, even if no formal treaty was violated. Whether one agrees with that interpretation or not, it’s hard to ignore how much these early signals shaped the mistrust we’re still dealing with today.
… not one inch eastward….
Strictly speaking, then, two or more inches eastward is okay. As long as it’s not one.
Just sayin’.
It’s easy to look back and see how the decisions on both sides being made by people with very little insight and no foresight have caused us to end up back at war for things that weren’t in anyone’s interest. Ukraine didn’t have eyes on expanding into Russia. On paper, neither the EU nor NATO should have any interest into expanding into countries not already in the pact. Then they did it anyway. Usually for some money reason by some politician so they could make a profit. It’s the nature of man to want more and damn the consequences. It would be nice to think that people playing at the nation state level would be more circumspect than the masses fighting over Nintendo Switch purchases. That is not the case.
Russia has a bad habit of invading and seizing sections of territory from it’s neighbors when it wants for economic reasons. In Ukraine they want a warm water port, with the long term intent of a pipeline to the port and the ability to more easily bring their oil ang gas to the world market. Ukraine was safe as long as the goverment there was in bed with Russia.
Russia taking over Ukraine and Europe, is like us taking over Mexico.
Who needs the mess. And maybe that’s why Putin hasn’t just rolled over them like we did in Iraq?
But if we collapse and Mexico runs San Diego for a while. And claims it as Mexican, we going to let the Chinese run it?
Stage troops and nuke tipped missiles there? Start killing the Americans that are left there?
Ya, I trow not.
Putin is not a good guy. But he ain’t out to cut the dicks off of little boys either.
We ain’t the good guys here by a long shot.
Just look at who is destroying the west. Which the 60’s version of is what Putin is trying to lead his people too.
I don’t blame him at all. Were a greedy mess. Why do you think the 3rd. world likes it here? Feels like home, only with food.