Did any Western leaders make specific verbal promises to Gorbachev about NATO expansion in 1990?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Western leaders did make verbal assurances to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO forces or jurisdiction would not move into the territory of the former East Germany — notably James Baker’s “not one inch eastward” phrasing on 9 February 1990 — and German and other Western officials echoed similar assurances in meetings that year [1] [2]. Scholars and declassified documents show these were informal, oral assurances focused on Germany’s territory and troop deployments; major analysts and institutions conclude there was no legally binding promise that NATO would never enlarge beyond Germany [3] [4] [5].
1. What was actually said in 1990 — specific verbal assurances to Gorbachev
In meetings surrounding German reunification, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet leaders that NATO’s “jurisdiction” or forces would not move “one inch eastward” if Germany united inside NATO — a phrase recorded in U.S. memoranda of the February 9, 1990 conversations and repeated in later retellings [2] [1]. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and others conveyed reassurances to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand into the territory of the former German Democratic Republic and that non‑German NATO forces would not be deployed on former East German soil [6] [7].
2. Narrow scope: assurances focused on Germany, not all of Eastern Europe
Contemporary documents and later scholarship stress the limited subject matter: the diplomacy dealt with the status of East Germany, restrictions on NATO troops and nuclear weapons in that territory, and arrangements for Soviet troop withdrawal — not a pledge about every future NATO membership decision across Eastern Europe [3] [8] [9]. The 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany codified limits on foreign troops and nuclear deployments in the former GDR, but it did not address NATO enlargement beyond Germany [9] [3].
3. Why the wording and format matter: informal, oral assurances versus legal commitments
The assurances were primarily verbal and diplomatic in form; they were not written into a treaty that constrained NATO’s future membership choices. Multiple analysts and archival publications emphasize that what Gorbachev “heard” were assurances meant to smooth German reunification negotiations, not legally binding, alliance‑wide non‑expansion guarantees [1] [4] [10]. Because they were not codified, scholars argue they carried political weight but no formal legal force [10].
4. Historians and participants disagree — competing interpretations
Some former officials and scholars — including those sympathetic to the view that Moscow was misled — point to repeated oral reassurances and contemporaneous memos as evidence that Western leaders gave Moscow an expectation that NATO would not move eastward [1] [10]. Other scholars, Western governments and some participants (including later statements by Gorbachev himself) argue there was no promise to forgo enlargement beyond Germany; they stress the “Helsinki principle” that states choose their own alliances and note that NATO enlargement was not even on the table in 1990 [5] [4] [8].
5. How sources complicate a single headline narrative
Declassified documents compiled by the National Security Archive show repeated assurances to Soviet officials from U.S., German and other Western leaders, which produced expectations in Moscow [1]. Yet major research centers and policy analysts conclude the assurances were limited, informal, and concerned with Germany’s territory rather than a Europe‑wide freeze on membership — so both “promises were made” and “no legal promise existed” are defensible claims depending on how one reads the record [1] [4] [3].
6. Why this debate still matters politically
The disagreement over whether specific verbal promises were made in 1990 underpins Russian narratives of Western betrayal and continues to be invoked by Moscow to justify policies toward NATO neighbors; Western analysts warn that conflating limited, context‑specific assurances with a blanket ban on enlargement misreads the historical record [7] [4]. Both interpretations have political uses: oral assurances can be presented domestically as betrayal, while Western states point to lack of written commitments to defend their post‑1991 policy choices [10] [4].
Limitations: available sources document the key meetings, memos and later scholarly debate but do not settle every disputed line or private intent; contemporaneous participants and later recollections sometimes conflict, and the record is interpreted differently by different experts [1] [8].