RUSSIA BEYOND THE HEADLINES, 16 Sep 2014 Mikhail Gorbachev: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all (in the James Baker conversation), and it wasn’t brought up in those years I say this with full responsibility Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact was terminated in 1991 Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification Baker’s statement was made in that context, mentioned in our question Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done And fulfilled The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there It has been obeyed all these years So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose Russia did not object at the beginning Putin: U.S attitude to Russia “antagonistic” The decision for the U.S and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993 I called this a big mistake from the very beginning It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990 With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are obeyed IRA LOUIS STRAUS Atlantic Community.org It is widely believed that NATO cannot station forces permanently in Eastern Europe without violating a pledge it gave to Russia in 1997, in the NATO-Russia Founding Act The belief is accepted even in articles that favor stationing troops in Eastern Europe Yet, as we shall see, a simple cursory examination of the 1997 document reveals that it is not the case NATO's pledge to Russia was conditional, not unconditional It was that, as long as there was no security threat to Eastern Europe, there would be no permanent NATO troops stationed there On these terms, the NATO-Russia Founding Act was agreed to, signed, and ratified: “NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe”