Thread by @ProfPaulPoast

Did the USA promise Russia that it would not expand NATO?

Yes, but.

[THREAD]

To be clear, A crisis between Ukraine and Russia was likely with or without the prospect of NATO expansion.

As I detailed in 👇🧵, scholars long saw Ukraine as THE potential post-Cold War flashpoint

But the issue of NATO expansion, specifically whether the USA promised Russia that it would never happen, IS part of the current crisis.

npr.org/2022/01/29/107…

Indeed, the issue has regularly flared up whenever new members are about to enter NATO. See, for example, this 1997 @nytimes article

nytimes.com/1997/05/25/wee…

So was there a promise? Just a misunderstanding? Perhaps misdirection?

Before giving my take, keep in mind two things.

First, you can (and should) read for yourself. Check out the declassified documents on the topic provided by the @NSArchive. They cover both what Gorbachev heard from US officials...

nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/…

...and what Yeltsin heard.

nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/…

Second, you should check out what scholars have said about the issue.

There are those, like Mark Kramer, who clearly and consistently say "No, there wasn't a pledge to never expand NATO Eastward"

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

There are those, like @shifrinson, who clearly and consistently say "Yes, yes there was a pledge"

belfercenter.org/publication/de…

There are those more in the middle, like @JimGoldgeier, who emphasize that the problem isn't so much the existence of a "promise", but USA failure to account for Russia's sense of insecurity (and that expansion could feed into that insecurity)

warontherocks.com/2019/11/promis…

There are those, like @e_sarotte, who cover all the angles. As she wrote in this 2010 @SHAFRDH piece, both sides, the USA and Russia, are right "to some extent" and "that is the heart of the problem."

academic.oup.com/dh/article-abs…

@e_sarotte fleshes out the argument in her new book...

amazon.com/dp/B09KVLG4ST/…

...and in a series of outstanding 🧵s, like this one...

...and this one.

So what is my take on the issue?

There was a pledge, but with three caveats.

First, some of the debate is over the "formalness" of the pledge. There was no written, signed, and ratified agreement explicitly stating that that NATO would never expand.

Does that matter?

Some say yes...

...others say no.

My take is that, written or unwritten, if a leader understands that a promise is (repeatedly) made and that promise is not followed through, they are going to be ticked. It's a breaking of "trust" (which is hard to build in the first place).

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

This points to the value of having it "written down". There is, after all, a reason that treaty writing is done and that the language matters.

cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Second, it seems that a key source of the debate is related to the fact that NATO has two sides: a political side (see the gleaming building in Brussels)...

...and a military side (see austere S.H.A.P.E. compound in Casteau).

In other words, the sides seemed to have different conceptions of "NATO expansion" when deliberating.

Specifically, did "NATO expansion" mean "NATO membership" (i.e. who could be IN the alliance) or "NATO presence" (i.e. where NATO assets could be located)?

Moreover, these conceptions where not consistently held by either side. This internal inconsistency is likely due to changes in leadership and personnel...

...the fact that one of the parties completely changed as a political unit...

...and perhaps even due to one of the leaders having a drinking problem.

Throw in a program like Partnership-for-Peace, and the waters become even more muddy.

Is PfP a substitute for NATO or a path to NATO? The answer seems to be "yes" 🤔

Third, what's the time-frame? Even if "Not one Inch" was understood by both sides as not moving NATO membership or forces Eastward in 1990, is that pledge supposed to hold indefinitely? As @dmedelstein would ask, "what's the time horizon?"

amazon.com/dp/B0764JVSCP/…

I mean, even most signed treaties have "sunset" and "renegotiation" clauses
cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Including, coincidentally, the North Atlantic Treaty itself (see Article 13).
nato.int/cps/en/natoliv…

In sum, there were pledges and promises made by the United States towards Russia regarding NATO expansion.

But the sides held very different understandings (at different times) of what those promises meant, to whom they applied, and how long they had to be kept.

[END]