There Was No Promise to Russia of “No NATO at Its Borders.” This is what really happened.

The narrative that NATO expansion violated a promise made to Russia at the end of the Cold War is one of the most persistent myths in modern geopolitics. Many claim, in justification for Russia to invade Ukraine, that Western leaders pledged not to expand NATO eastward in exchange for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s acceptance of German reunification in 1990.

However, this isn’t how it went down.

No Formal NATO Expansion Pledge

The belief that NATO broke a promise originates largely from a single phrase in diplomatic discussions between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990. Baker famously stated that NATO would move "not one inch eastward" in reference to the stationing of NATO forces in East Germany following reunification. This was not a binding agreement but rather a preliminary discussion point regarding the status of Germany within NATO.

Subsequent negotiations made it clear that Baker’s comment referred specifically to the presence of NATO forces in the former East Germany, not to the future expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. By the time the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (commonly known as the Two Plus Four Agreement) was signed later that year, no legally binding commitment regarding NATO’s non-expansion beyond Germany was included. In fact, Gorbachev himself admitted in later interviews that NATO expansion beyond Germany was never discussed in a formal sense.

Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

The Soviet Union Itself Accepted NATO’s Role in a Reunified Germany

The actual agreement made in 1990 revolved around the conditions for Germany’s reunification. The deal ensured that while Germany would remain a NATO member, no foreign NATO troops or nuclear weapons would be stationed in the former East Germany. This was a significant concession to the Soviet Union, as it prevented an immediate military buildup in a region that had once been a Warsaw Pact stronghold.

Furthermore, Gorbachev and Soviet officials at the time accepted that NATO’s role in Europe was not static. There was no expectation—much less a formal agreement—that former Warsaw Pact countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary would be permanently excluded from NATO in the future. Instead, the diplomatic focus in 1990 was entirely on German reunification and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe.

Eastern European Nations Acted on Their Own Agency

Another major flaw in the "NATO betrayal" narrative is that it ignores the agency of Eastern European nations that sought NATO membership after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania were not coerced into joining NATO; rather, they actively pursued membership due to concerns over Russian influence and security threats. As sovereign nations, they had the right to choose their own security arrangements without interference from Moscow.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, many former Warsaw Pact countries sought integration into Western institutions to ensure their sovereignty and security. NATO’s enlargement was not a forced expansion but a response to the requests of these nations. Russia’s later actions, including the 2008 war in Georgia and the 2014 annexation of Crimea, reinforced the fears of Eastern European nations and further justified their decision to join NATO.

Russia’s Own Recognition of NATO Expansion

It is important to note that Russia itself initially did not strongly oppose NATO enlargement. In 1997, Russia and NATO signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which established a cooperative framework between the two sides. At the time, Russian President Boris Yeltsin did not claim that NATO’s eastward expansion violated any past agreements. It was only later, under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, that Russia began framing NATO enlargement as a betrayal and a security threat.

U.S. Security Assurances and Nuclear Disarmament

An often-overlooked aspect of NATO expansion is the security guarantees provided by the United States to former Soviet states that gave up their nuclear arsenals. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus agreed to relinquish their inherited Soviet nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances from the U.S., U.K., and Russia that their sovereignty and territorial integrity would be respected.

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and ongoing aggression in Ukraine directly violated these assurances, further underscoring the importance of NATO’s role in safeguarding the security of Eastern European nations.

The Real Reason for Russia’s Opposition to NATO Expansion

The primary reason Russia now opposes NATO enlargement is not because of a broken promise but because it sees NATO as an obstacle to its ability to exert influence over its neighbors. Countries that join NATO gain security guarantees under Article 5, which limits Russia’s ability to pressure or intimidate them. From Moscow’s perspective, a NATO presence in Eastern Europe restricts its strategic maneuverability, particularly in regions like Ukraine and the Baltics.

The claim that NATO broke a promise by expanding eastward after 1990 is based on a misinterpretation of historical events. No formal agreement ever prohibited NATO enlargement beyond Germany, and Eastern European countries sought NATO membership of their own volition.

Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion is driven more by strategic concerns than by any legitimate grievance over past diplomatic agreements. As sovereign nations, Eastern European states have the right to choose their own security arrangements, and NATO provides a crucial counterbalance to Russian aggression.

Moreover, Ukraine has shared varying miles of border with NATO member states, a fact that debunks the claim of NATO's aggressive expansion as a primary cause of conflict. Before Russia’s invasion in 2022, NATO already had a significant presence along Ukraine’s borders through Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. However, following Finland’s accession and Sweden’s pending membership, the alliance’s footprint has grown substantially—making the idea that NATO was suddenly encroaching on Russia’s sphere of influence even more unfounded.

Now, with thousands more miles of NATO territory bordering Russia and its occupied territories, the myth of NATO’s creeping expansion as a justification for war appears increasingly absurd.

Understanding this reality is crucial in countering misinformation and ensuring a fact-based discussion on European security. And let’s not forget that NATO has bordered Russia since 1949, and following Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, that border expanded multiple times over with the accession of Sweden and Finland into NATO. If reducing the risk of NATO at Russia's border was the goal, its invasion of Ukraine produced the exact opposite effect.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

For speaking queries please contact meta@metaspeakers.org

For ghostwriting, personalized mentoring or other writing/work-related queries please contact hollie@holliemckay.com

Follow me on Instagram and Twitter for more updates

Click to Purchase All Books Here