Is it true that the recently discovered document records the promise of Western countries not to expand NATO east?

At the end of February 2022, information appeared in the media about the recently discovered document, which allegedly contains guarantees not to include the country of Eastern Europe in the North Atlantic Alliance. We checked whether this is really so.

For the first time about this allegedly unknown document wrote Der Spiegel. Expanders from the material of the German publication were published by many Russian media, in particular "Russian newspaper", "Newspaper.ru " And RBC. Some news resources even clarified that the document was discovered directly by Der Spiegel reporters. In a number of Russian -speaking materials, it emphasizes that the information that opened allegedly refutes the words of the current Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, who previously declaredthat NATO never promised to expand east.

"Checked" already It wrote About the discussion around promises not to accept Eastern Europe in NATO, given by representatives of the USA and Germany Mikhail Gorbachev. This issue arose during negotiations on the unification of Germany, but was not officially recorded. In an agreement known by the unofficial name "Agreement 2 + 4" (according to the number of countries - participants in negotiations: Germany, GDR, USA, USSR, Great Britain and France), speech It goes On the non -use of foreign troops in the territory of the former GDR. For these reasons, we can only talk about the interpretation of facts gleaned from the negotiation protocols, the statements of officials and the opinions of participants in the negotiation process.

The document that came into the view of the journalist Der Spiegel, and then attracted the attention of Russian publications, was discovered back in 2019. It was found in the British National Archive Researcher Joshua Shifrinson, a specialist in the history of diplomacy and international security, as well as the author of a number of works on this topic (for example, Articles In the International Security, a leading American magazine in this industry stably high citation index). Specialists Markthat this document has been known to him for several years and for several years Placed Openly public. The search for archival documents, as well as their interpretation and introduction into scientific circulation, is an integral part of the routine work of researchers, and some really sensational discoveries are actually quite rare.

Some media also separately notedthat earlier on this document there was a note “secret”, freely or involuntarily creating a halo of mystery. Cleaning documents is also part of the routine work of various state departments in many countries of the world. For example, in Russia, the procedure for classifying and declassifying archives regulated the law "On state secret." Besides, exists A special interdepartmental commission, which prepares proposals for the publication of certain information. By words Professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, the former director of the State Archive of the Russian Federation, Sergei Mironenko, all documents of 30 years ago, not containing state secrets, should be declassified, but this does not always happen.

In the UK, where the document of interest to us was found, earlier also acted "Rule 30 years", however, according to the adopted in 2010 act, the deadline after which the documents must be declassified is reduced to 20 years. Sometimes documents can be declassified partially. As an example of such a partial declassification, one can cite report US National Security Agency about Ship USS Liberty, about the erroneously fired by Israeli aviation in 1967 (the report text reported in 2003 contains bills).

The document found by Shifrinson contains a protocol of a four -way meeting of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany, held in Bonn on March 6, 1991. This meeting occurred almost six months after the signing of the “Agreement 2 + 4” and shortly before its entry into force. Since March 31 of the same year planned To abolish the "military bodies and structures" of the organization of the Warsaw Treaty (ATS), the main topic of the meeting was a new structure of European security. In particular, the issue of relations between the states of the Eastern Blok and NATO was discussed.

The representative of the German Foreign Ministry, Jurgen Khobog, announced the observance of earlier agreements: “During the negotiations in the 2 + 4 format, we made it clear that we would not expand NATO beyond the Elbe. Therefore, we cannot offer membership in NATO Poland and other countries. ” In this, he was supported by Raymond Zeitz responsible on the part of the United States: "NATO should not expand east both formally and informally." It is these remarks that quote the Russian media. At the same time, Khbog further emphasizes the need for a declaration of NATO interests in these countries, and also speaks of continuing to work with former ATS members through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and bilateral agreements. About this, in turn, many publications are often silent.

In a similar way, the British representative John Veston spoke: “We cannot offer the countries of Eastern Europe the status of a member or a associated NATO member, as well as formal or informal security guarantees. They should not have relations with NATO as a block, and NATO cannot perform the functions of a peacekeeper in the region. ” At the same time, Veston declared the need to answer the requests of former satellites of the USSR, concerned about possible “revenge moods in the Soviet Union or in Russia”, as well as hypothetical conflicts between Eastern European states. Zeitz, in turn, warned of the danger of the growth of anti -Western sentiments in the USSR if the NATO countries use the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe, but at the same time spoke about the need for closer cooperation between both individual states of Western and Eastern Europe, and strengthening NATO connections with the countries of the former Eastern Bloc.

As can be seen from the content of the document, the meeting participants spoke out against the adoption of Eastern European countries in NATO (in particular, the specific formulation of “not to offer membership” sounded), but at the same time advocated the expansion of relations between the alliance and former satellites of the USSR. Note that the meeting participants did not have the authority to make the relevant decisions, and did not plan to make them. This was evidenced by the last phrase of the protocol: "It was consented that the discussions in NATO should go around this line."

Like other meetings protocols, which addressed the issue of a possible expansion of NATO to the east, the document of interest to us leaves the scope for interpretations. On the one hand, it recorded the disapproving statements of the participants about the formal or informal expansion. On the other hand, the meeting participants indicate the need to establish closer relations with the countries of Eastern Europe, holding round tables, seminars and courses of both civil and military topics, and even about the prospect of selling weapons (which in general can be interpreted as informal expansion). Finally, the meeting participants are aware that the decisions should be made collegially by NATO members, and their immediate task is only to approximately set the trend of the future discussion.

It is in this vein that this document should be evaluated: it confirms the presence of discussions about the potential expansion of NATO to the east among members of the Alliance and members of the 2 + 4 group in 1990-1991. However, neither this nor other minutes of meetings of high-ranking persons contain and cannot contain any official guarantees and obligations that later interpreters can “count” them.

It was the “Treaty 2 + 4” was the starting point of discussions about pan -European security, including new members of the North Atlantic Alliance. This can be seen, in particular, according to the discussions of Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton, the issue of expanding NATO in the first half of the 1990s. Expressing his indignation with plans for the adoption of the states of Eastern Europe in NATO, Yeltsin appeal Just to the "Agreement 2 + 4" and indicates that the expansion of the alliance contradicts the spirit of this agreement (such a wording Found In the statements of Mikhail Gorbachev and Russian officials). One way or another, the official status has precisely the agreement on the unification of Germany, and other documents (like a protocol discovered by the cipherson) may only indicate the progress of the discussion, but not the presence of any agreements, assurances or guarantees. This document, of course, increases the amount of our knowledge about the organization of the European Security System after the dissolution of the ATS, but should not be perceived as a legal confirmation of intentions about NATO non -division.

Correction of March 29, 2022: In order to avoid a twofold interpretation of the verdict, we corrected the heading of the material with “Is it true that we recently discovered a document in which the promise of Western countries was noted not to expand NATO east?” On "Is it true that the recently discovered document records the promise of Western countries not to expand NATO east?" The text of the analysis before making corrections is available by link.

Most of the untruth

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. A document on the meeting of representatives of the foreign policy leadership of the United States, Germany, France and Great Britain (Bonn, March 6, 1991)
2. Is it true that the United States promised Gorbachev not to expand NATO east?
3. Is it true that NATO cannot enter the country having territorial disputes?