Partridge on the truth about NATO

Roger Partridge writes:

Central to Sachs’s worldview is the claim that NATO’s eastward expansion forced Russia’s hand. According to this narrative, the West broke solemn promises made in 1990 not to expand “one inch eastward” after German reunification. The West’s subsequent enlargement encircled Russia with hostile forces and left Putin no choice but to invade.

That narrative collapses under scrutiny.

First, Putin himself has contradicted this rationale. In a June 2022 speechmarking Peter the Great’s 350th birthday, Putin explicitly compared his actions in Ukraine to the Tsar “reclaiming” Russian lands, suggesting territorial ambitions rather than defensive concerns. This was not about NATO – it was about empire.

Second, there is no historical basis for the claim that NATO broke a promise not to expand eastward. No formal treaty or written agreement containing such a sweeping commitment exists. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time, explicitly refuted this narrative. In an October 2014 interview with Russia Beyond, he stated plainly: “The topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all.”

According to diplomatic historian Mary Sarotte, declassified records show that discussions concerned NATO forces in former East Germany specifically – not a permanent ban on sovereign nations joining the alliance. Sachs’s claim rests entirely on selective interpretations of informal discussions during German reunification. This is hardly the basis for a binding international commitment that would permanently deny sovereign nations their right to choose alliances.

The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act further undermines this “broken promise” narrative. In this formal agreement, Russia acknowledged NATO’s plans for expansion while receiving assurances about military deployments. If a binding “no expansion” pledge had existed in 1990, this later document would have been unnecessary.

Third, NATO’s actual approach toward Ukraine disproves claims of aggressive expansion. Despite growing security concerns, NATO repeatedly delayed Ukraine’s membership prospects. Even after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the alliance still declined to offer Ukraine a Membership Action Plan. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine remained years away from possible NATO membership. This directly contradicts Putin’s claim that NATO posed an imminent threat.

Very useful dispelling of this myth.

Ironically the greatest asset NATO has is Putin. His relentless attacks on neighbouring countries is what pushed Sweden and Finland to join NATO.

In 1994, Ukraine possessed the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal – a Soviet inheritance that included approximately 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads. Ukraine voluntarily surrendered this entire arsenal under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, receiving security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom in exchange. All signatories pledged to respect Ukraine’s borders and to “refrain from the threat or use of force” against Ukraine.

This agreement represented a remarkable act of good faith by Ukraine. It eliminated a massive nuclear arsenal that could have served as the ultimate security guarantee against future aggression. Ukraine fulfilled its obligations completely, transferring all nuclear weapons to Russia for dismantling by 1996.

Russia’s invasion in 2014 and again in 2022 represents a clear violation of these commitments. 

Ukraine was betrayed by Russia.