Declassified Docs: U.S. Gave Russia a "No NATO Expansion" pledge in 1990

So the USA lied to the USSR and we're wondering why Russia is pushing back?

Drawing on declassified U.S. documents, Joshua Shifrinson concludes in the Spring issue of International Security that the U.S. did, indeed, make a pledge not to seek NATO expansion, a pledge it subsequently broke. What’s more, Shifrinson notes, Robert Gates (then Deputy National Security Adviser) even carried to Moscow a promise from Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would never move forces into the area of the soon-to-be former East Germany.

www.politicsprecis.com...

a reply to: BigBen22

oh yeah and note that Gates' fingerprints are all over it, too

a reply to: BigBen22

Learn some history. The USSR collapsed in 1991. All deals with that government were trashed at that point.

I recall we also told Saddam we wouldn't care about his actions when he invaded Kuwait.
It's called a set up.
WE don't play fair with our enemies,we have to win.

To quote the eloquent orator georgie bush jr

a reply to: thesungod

Learn some law. Russia is recognized both by the U.S. and UN as "designated successor state" to the USSR. It inherited all of the Soviet Union's rights and obligations to deals, compacts, treaties, and agreements.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

And then you wonder why the whole world hates you.
Soviet Russia was never your enemy. It was the enemy of capitalism.

This just shows why people should never trust a word coming from the west.

We need more people standing up to the evil known as NATO.

a reply to: Nikola014

Not really,but as I say constantly, WE weren't asked, told ,nor knew,and sorry , now that we DO we are attempting to stop it.
THAT'S why they go nuts classifing everything because if ALL Americans knew...and believed...what was really going on they would be shot.
As far as hitting back,YOUR call. The cold war sucked for all of us but worse for you,you're lucky WE won.

a reply to: BigBen22

You guys are misreading the article by belfore. What was promised when the wall came down in Germany was the UN would not build a base in eastern germany. They still haven't to this day and has nothing to do with NATO expansion beyond that. I guess people forget when Germany reunified the Soviet Union still existed the rest of eastern Europe was still under there control. In fact at the time they gad no idea the Soviet Union would collapse completely it was assumed eastern Europe would stay under there control.

a reply to: BigBen22

A- From OPs own source...

U.S. leaders saw these terms as being raised “speculatively” as part of an
ongoing negotiation and far from a ªnal deal. The United States was thus free
to revise the offer and, by late February, was already moving to sidestep talk of
limiting NATO’s future presence by extending NATO’s jurisdiction over the
former East Germany (i.e., the German Democratic Republic, or GDR).47 Still,
Soviet ofªcials may have seen the early February talks as offering a ªrm guar-
antee against NATO expansion: used to operating in a world where a leader’s
word was his or her bond, they could have believed that they had reached an
agreement in which, once the Soviet Union took steps on reuniªcation, NATO
would not move into Eastern Europe.48 This school of thought thus identiªes
a particular moment in the 1990 negotiations that generated a misunder-
standing whereby Soviet/Russian ofªcials focused on what was verbally pre-
sented to them in early February. In contrast, U.S. ofªcials emphasized the
narrower terms advanced in later conversations and eventually codiªed as
part of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.49 No deal
was reached against NATO expansion, but Russian charges are therefore not
so much misleading as they are a misinterpretation of events.50

Page 16 of source document.

OPs source document.

Again, if the US Congress didn't accept it, it wasn't an official deal.

B- You are citing INTERNATIONAL law, not US law. Just like Russia ignores it for their sake, so do we.

C- Welcome to ATS

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: BigBen22

You guys are misreading the article by belfore. What was promised when the wall came down in Germany was the UN would not build a base in eastern germany.

LOL what are you talking about? Who is "Belfore"? The UN doesn't build bases - do you mean NATO?

lmao

a reply to: BigBen22

to quote your source :

the U.S. did, indeed, make a pledge not to seek NATO expansion,

please cite the alledged occurences when the US :

" saught NATO expansion "

because all the countries that have joined post 1990 - have had to REQUEST to join - not been recruited

so - citations ?

It is odd the Gorbachav has said no such deal was made. And That Russia joined NATO's PfP, the NATO Russian Council, the G8, that the idea Russia would join NATO was discussed on several occasions and that Russia joined NATO exercises in fomer Warsaw Pact no NATO nations. That sure does not sound like a nation that has a problem with NATO expansion.

It was not until much later when states that stayed with Russia like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc. began to look at the states that had joined NATO and the EU. They were richer, more free, more peaceful, and free from lopsided trade deals or other economic or military demands like they had from Russia. And when they began to look West Russia acted militarily. And that just drove more of them away. Now only Russian threats of military action keeps them from running west.

Their is a reason Putin and Russia have negative global opinion and Obama and the US have a positive one (outside of the mid east).

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: BigBen22

to quote your source :

the U.S. did, indeed, make a pledge not to seek NATO expansion,

please cite the alledged occurences when the US :

" saught NATO expansion "

First, I would never compose a very simple word like "sought" using Hillbilly spelling. So don't put quotes around things I didn't write.

Second, learn a little about NATO's Partnership for Peace program. And by "learn" I don't mean spend the next 4 minutes googling it and then coming back and saying "PfP means durbidy durbidy derp ur wrong!" - I mean actually try to acquire a discrete and holistic level of knowledge about how it works. Until you do that, it would be a waste of my energy to answer you because I'd be spending my valuable time to try to elevate you to a 101-level of understanding as a precondition of conversation. I don't mean to be rude but it's just not a good use of limited resources by me. Sorry.

Third, because Article V would bind every NATO state to go to war if a member is attacked, the Atlantic Charter - logically - requires unanimous concurrence of member states on conditions of entry. In other words, the United States can block any state it wants from joining (as can Luxembourg, as can Italy, etc.). If the U.S. promises it won't support NATO expansion and then votes "yes" to expand NATO, it has broken its promise. It is a liar. Full stop. It is a filthy liar. A disgusting, filthy liar. A slimy, disgusting, filthy, liar.

Hope that helps, Cletus!

a reply to: ignorant_ape

They were discussing a deal when the USSR collapsed. The deal was never struck.

More Russian propaganda here.

a reply to: thesungod

Of course you can keep repeating that until you're blue in the fact but, as was described in the OP, that's not true. But keep yelling it until you drown everyone else out, if you like. You know, whatev!

a reply to: BigBen22

Then address my post about your own source saying this is untrue and reaching then?

There was no deal. There was a negotiation. It went in the trash when the USSR collapsed.

US never fully exploited the fall of the USSR, imo

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: BigBen22

Learn some history. The USSR collapsed in 1991. All deals with that government were trashed at that point.

Which they knew it would and therefore could make any obscene promises they wanted to... but as it goes, you can use policy in any means of defense, but the person or people who receives the promise will always remember.

a reply to: flice

No doubt there. I could totally see us saying "Hey, we'll give you the moon (but you'll collapse tomorrow so it'll still be ours *snicker*)."