Fact Check: Nato made agreement with Russia not to move further east

Fact Check: Nato made agreement with Russia not to move further east

Published March 11, 2025Updated June 18, 2025
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: "NATO Made Agreement with Russia Not to Move Further East" ## What We Know The claim that NATO made an agreement with Russia not to exp...

Fact Check: "NATO Made Agreement with Russia Not to Move Further East"

What We Know

The claim that NATO made an agreement with Russia not to expand eastward primarily stems from discussions between Western leaders and Soviet officials during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Notably, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move "one inch eastward" during a meeting on February 9, 1990, as part of a broader dialogue surrounding German reunification (NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard). This assurance was echoed by other Western leaders, including West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who emphasized that NATO's expansion should not threaten Soviet security interests (NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard).

However, these assurances were informal and not codified in any formal treaty or agreement. The formal treaty regarding Germany's unification did not include any stipulations about NATO's future expansion (There was no promise not to enlarge NATO). Furthermore, Robert Zoellick, a participant in the negotiations, has stated that Gorbachev himself acknowledged there was no promise made regarding NATO enlargement (There was no promise not to enlarge NATO).

The broader context indicates that while there were discussions and assurances made to Gorbachev, they did not constitute a legally binding agreement. NATO's official stance has been that it respects the right of nations to choose their own alliances, which has been a point of contention in Russian narratives (NATO - De-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO).

Analysis

The evidence surrounding the claim reveals a complex interplay of diplomatic assurances and interpretations. On one hand, the declassified documents and statements from Western leaders suggest that there was a clear understanding that NATO's expansion would not occur at the expense of Soviet security interests. This is supported by multiple high-level discussions where assurances were made (NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard).

On the other hand, the lack of a formal agreement means that these assurances were more about political goodwill than legal commitments. As noted by Zoellick, Gorbachev did not perceive these discussions as binding promises, and the absence of written agreements further complicates the narrative (There was no promise not to enlarge NATO).

Moreover, various analyses have pointed out that NATO's expansion was driven by the desire of Eastern European countries to join the alliance for their own security, a choice that NATO respects (NATO - De-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO). This perspective is crucial in understanding the motivations behind NATO's actions post-Cold War, which were framed as responses to the aspirations of former Soviet states rather than violations of any agreements.

In summary, while there were assurances made to Gorbachev regarding NATO's expansion, the lack of formal agreements and the context of those discussions suggest that the claim of a binding agreement is misleading.

Conclusion

The claim that NATO made a formal agreement with Russia not to move further east is Partially True. While there were indeed assurances made by Western leaders to Gorbachev regarding NATO's expansion, these were not formalized in any treaty or binding agreement. The discussions reflected a political context rather than a legal commitment, and the subsequent actions of NATO were influenced by the desires of Eastern European nations to join the alliance. Thus, the narrative surrounding this claim is nuanced and requires careful consideration of the historical context and the nature of diplomatic communications.

Sources

  1. NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
  2. There was no promise not to enlarge NATO
  3. PDF against alliance expanding eastward Fact-checking claims that NATO, US ...
  4. Controversy regarding NATO's eastward expansion - Wikipedia
  5. Did NATO 'betray' Russia by expanding to the East? - France 24
  6. NATO - Homepage
  7. Op-Ed: Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise
  8. NATO - De-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: NATO countries pledged to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: NATO countries pledged to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: NATO countries pledged to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035.

Jul 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: NATO nations must spend 5% of their GDP on defense by 2035.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: NATO nations must spend 5% of their GDP on defense by 2035.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: NATO nations must spend 5% of their GDP on defense by 2035.

Jul 8, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: 📉 WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ISN’T WORKING—BECAUSE TRUMP FIRED EVERYONE
Sections 90004–90006 (Schedule F): Guts civil service protections and allows mass firings.
➡️ Experienced public health experts, FEMA coordinators, and environmental scientists—replaced by political loyalists who will say “yes” to anything.
➡️ It’s not about draining the swamp—it’s about drowning it in sycophancy.
Partially True

Fact Check: 📉 WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ISN’T WORKING—BECAUSE TRUMP FIRED EVERYONE Sections 90004–90006 (Schedule F): Guts civil service protections and allows mass firings. ➡️ Experienced public health experts, FEMA coordinators, and environmental scientists—replaced by political loyalists who will say “yes” to anything. ➡️ It’s not about draining the swamp—it’s about drowning it in sycophancy.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: 📉 WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ISN’T WORKING—BECAUSE TRUMP FIRED EVERYONE Sections 90004–90006 (Schedule F): Guts civil service protections and allows mass firings. ➡️ Experienced public health experts, FEMA coordinators, and environmental scientists—replaced by political loyalists who will say “yes” to anything. ➡️ It’s not about draining the swamp—it’s about drowning it in sycophancy.

Jul 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Trump achieved NATO commitments no other American president could in decades.
Partially True

Fact Check: Trump achieved NATO commitments no other American president could in decades.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Trump achieved NATO commitments no other American president could in decades.

Jul 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Is Turkey the most unreliable member of NATO?
Partially True

Fact Check: Is Turkey the most unreliable member of NATO?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is Turkey the most unreliable member of NATO?

Jul 6, 2025
Read more →