How America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed the West


Eric Zuesse, originally posted at

The conditionality of the Soviet Union’s agreement to allow East Germany to be taken by West Germany and for the Cold War to end, was that NATO would not expand “one inch to the east.” This was the agreement that was approved by the Russian President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, a great man and a subsequent hero to democrats around the world. He agreed then to end the Soviet Union and abandon communism and thus to end the entire Cold War; he agreed to this because he had been promised that NATO would expand not “one inch to the east,” or “one inch eastward,” depending upon how the promise was translated and understood — but it has the same meaning, no matter how it was translated. He trusted American President George Herbert Walker Bush, whose friend and Secretary of State James Baker made this promise to Gorbachev. With this promise, Gorbachev agreed to end the Soviet Union; end the communist mutual-defense pact which was their own equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact; and he believed that the remaining nation that he would then be leading, which was Russia, would be accepted as being a Western democracy. He was even promised by the United States that “we were going to make them a member [of NATO], we were–observer first and then a member.” In other words: the U.S. promised that NATO would not extend up to the borders of Russia and so become a mortal threat to the national security of the Russian people — now isolated and separated from its former military allies. Instead, Gorbachev was told, Russia would itself become welcomed into the Western Alliance, and ultimately become a NATO member. That was the deal, ending the 46-year Cold War.

Russia kept its part of the bargain. The United States did not; the U.S. instead lied through its teeth and so has since expanded NATO to absorb former member-nations of the Warsaw Pact into NATO as being, now, an anti-Russian military alliance — exactly what the U.S. had promised would never happen. U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush in private told West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (who had wanted to go along with what James Baker had arranged): “To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn’t.” He didn’t want peace with Russia; he wanted to conquer it; he wanted to rub Russians’ noses in their inferiority to Americans.

Russia’s continued (and continuing) desire to join NATO has simply been spurned. This is war by NATO in intent; it is the exact opposite of what the U.S. had promised to Russia, on the basis of which the Warsaw Pact ended. How can the Russian people then trust such a country as the United States? They would need to be fools to do so.

But this deceit, this double-cross, isn’t merely  America’s shame; it has also become the shame by the entirety of the nations that joined in that Western promise at the time. Because all of them accepted America’s leadership in this double-crossing war against Russia, America’s war to conquer Russia. They accept this merely by remaining as members of the now-nefarious military gang, which NATO has thus become. Worse yet, some of the other member-nations of NATO at the time were (like West Germany’s Kohl, who was the model for his protégé Angela Merkel, who now continues the crime) themselves key participants in the making, and now breaking, of that promise to Russia.

Here is the evidence regarding this massive and ongoing historical international crime — the crime that’s now the source of so much misery and even death in not only Russia but the rest of Europe, and of millions of refugees fleeing from Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other former Russian-allied nations — the chaos that’s being led by America:


“I was there when we told the Russians that we were going to make them a member, we were–observer first and then a member”: Lawrence Wilkerson, 3 October 2014, on The Real News Network, at 18:54 in the interview.

“When I spoke with Baker, he agreed that he told Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union allowed German reunification and membership in NATO, the West would not expand NATO “one inch to the east”: Bill Bradley, 22 August 2009, in Foreign Policy.

“Mr. Kohl chose to echo Mr. Baker, not Mr. Bush. The chancellor assured Mr. Gorbachev, as Mr. Baker had done, that ‘naturally NATO could not expand its territory’ into East Germany” … Crucially, the Gorbachev-Kohl meeting ended with a deal, as opposed to the Gorbachev-Baker session the previous day. … Mr. Kohl and his aides publicized this major concession immediately at a press conference. Then they returned home to begin merging the two Germanys under one currency and economic system: Mary Elise Sarotte, New York Times, 29 November 2009.

“According to records from Kohl’s office, the chancellor chose to echo Baker, not Bush, since Baker’s softer line was more likely to produce the results that Kohl wanted: permission from Moscow to start reunifying Germany. Kohl thus assured Gorbachev that ‘naturally NATO could not expand its territory to the current territory of [East Germany].’ In parallel talks, Genscher delivered the same message to his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, saying, ‘for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.’ … But Kohl’s phrasing would quickly become heresy among the key Western decision-makers. Once Baker got back to Washington, in mid-February 1990, he fell in line with the National Security Council’s view and adopted its position. From then on, members of Bush’s foreign policy team exercised strict message discipline, making no further remarks about NATO holding at the 1989 line. Kohl, too, brought his rhetoric in line with Bush’s, as both U.S. and West German transcripts from the two leaders’ February 24–25 summit at Camp David show. Bush made his feelings about compromising with Moscow clear to Kohl: ‘To hell with that!’ he said. ‘We prevailed, they didn’t.’ … In April, Bush spelled out this thinking in a confidential telegram to French President François Mitterrand. … Bush was making it clear to Mitterrand that the dominant security organization in a post–Cold War Europe had to remain NATO — not any kind of pan-European alliance. As it happened, the next month, Gorbachev proposed just such a pan-European arrangement, one in which a united Germany would join both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, thus creating one massive security institution. Gorbachev even raised the idea of having the Soviet Union join NATO. ‘You say that NATO is not directed against us, that it is simply a security structure that is adapting to new realities,’ Gorbachev told Baker in May, according to Soviet records. ‘Therefore, we propose to join NATO.’ Baker refused to consider such a notion, replying dismissively, Pan-European security is a dream.’ … By the time of the Camp David summit, … all members of Bush’s team, along with Kohl, had united behind an offer in which Gorbachev would receive financial assistance from West Germany — and little else — in exchange for allowing Germany to reunify and for allowing a united Germany to be part of NATO”: Mary Elise Sarotte, Foreign Affairs, October 2014.

“A failure to appreciate how the Cold War ended has had a profound impact on Russian and Western attitudes — and helps explain what we are seeing now. The common assumption that the West forced the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus won the Cold War is wrong. The fact is that the Cold War ended by negotiation to the advantage of both sides. At the December 1989 Malta summit, Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush confirmed that the ideological basis for the war was gone, stating that the two nations no longer regarded each other as enemies. Over the next two years, we worked more closely with the Soviets than with even some of our allies. … ‘By the grace of God, America won the Cold War,’ Bush said during his 1992 State of the Union address. That rhetoric would not have been particularly damaging on its own. But it was reinforced by actions taken under the next three presidents. President Bill Clinton supported NATO’s bombing of Serbia without U.N. Security Council approval and the expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact countries. Those moves seemed to violate the understanding that the United States would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe. The effect on Russians’ trust in the United States was devastating”: Jack Matlock, Washington Post, 14 March 2014.

“Sir Rodric Braithwaite GCMG, former British Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Russia, informed us that assurances were given in 1990 by the US (James Baker, US Secretary of State) and Germany (Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor), and in 1991 on behalf of the UK (by the then Prime Minister, John Major, and the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd) and France (by French President Francois Mitterrand). Sir Rodric Braithwaite said that this ‘factual record has not been successfully challenged in the West’”: The EU and Russia: before and beyond the crisis in Ukraine, 20 February 2015, British House of Lords, paragraph 107.


Gorbachev’s failure to demand these assurances in writing has been widely criticized, but handshake agreements in international affairs are common, and no treaty was to be signed at the end of the Cold War because it hadn’t been a hot war: there were no claims, no restitution or reparations to be paid by either side to the other. Gorbachev thought that the U.S. was honest and could be trusted — that understandings reached in private and witnessed by numerous participants would be honored by the West, as they would be by Russia.

Sadly, he was trusting mega-crooks who were led by a super-gangster, G.H.W. Bush, and the entire world is suffering from those crooks today, and every day. Instead of the West apologizing, and stopping, it insults Russia constantly. It’s digging in deeper, into G.H.W. Bush’s original sin, the West’s mega-crime, which produces increasing global chaos and bloodshed, in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere, and now a resulting refugee crisis throughout Europe.

For example, Defense News, the trade journal for U.S. military contractors, headlined on 4 September 2015, “Ukraine’s New Military Doctrine Identifies Russia As Aggressor, Eyes Naval Acquisitions,” and reported that:

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk [whom Victoria Nuland of the U.S. State Department had appointed on 4 February 2014, 18 days before the coup] said that the country’s new draft military doctrine is the first in Ukraine’s history to clearly identify Russia as an enemy and an aggressor. The announcement was made Sept. 1 during the prime minister’s visit to Odessa. … Yatsenyuk said that … the Ukrainian President “will sign the corresponding decree.” … Vice Admiral James Foggo, commander of the US 6th Fleet, and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt [who took instructions from Nuland and ran the coup for her] took part in the ceremony. … “We feel as one force with our partners, NATO [member] states, with our American partners. Therefore, the American ships have entered and will [defeat the Russians in Crimea and expell from the naval base there the Russian navy which has been headquartered there since 1783, and so] enter the Ukrainian territorial waters in the future. We will continue our joint exercise,” Yatsenyuk said.

It’s a criminal gang. Worse: it’s a self-righteous criminal gang, which accuses its victims.


James Baker, at the start of 1990, tells Gorbachev that NATO will move “not one inch to the east.” Mitterrand & Kohl second that.

Then, in secret: 24 February 1990, GHW Bush tells Baker and Mitterrand and Kohl, “To hell with that. We prevailed, they didn’t”

Then, Gorbachev, from whom that statement by Bush was hidden, proposes that Russia become admitted into NATO.


Address by Secretary General, Manfred Wörner to the Bremer Tabaks Collegium, Brussels, 17 May 1990, which includes this:

Our strategy and our Alliance are exclusively defensive. They threaten no-one, neither today nor tomorrow. We will never be the first to use our weapons. We are prepared for radical disarmament, right down to the minimum level that we must retain to guarantee our security.

This will also be true of a united Germany in NATO. The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees. Moreover we could conceive of a transitional period during which a reduced number of Soviet forces could remain stationed in the present-day GDR. This will meet Soviet concerns about not changing the overall East-West strategic balance. Soviet politicians are wrong to claim that German membership of NATO will lead to instability. The opposite is true. Europe including the Soviet Union would gain stability. It would also gain a genuine partner in the West ready to cooperate.

We have left behind us the old friend/foe mind-set and the confrontational outlook. We do not need enemies nor threat perceptions. We do not look upon the Soviet Union as the enemy. We want that nation to become our partner in ensuring security. On the other hand, we expect the Soviet Union not to see us as a military pact directed against it or even threatening it. Instead we wish the Soviet Union to see our Alliance as an open and cooperative instrument of stability in an over-arching European security system. We are not proposing something to the Soviet Union which is against its interests. What we have to offer can only be to its advantage. I am confident that this insight will gradually gain ground in Moscow, especially as the other Warsaw Pact countries see things the same way as we do.

The promise to Gorbachev continued, and was presented there in public, even after Bush had already privately told his agents that it would be a lie. The lie continued, until Gorbachev had acted upon its assurances to such an extent that the break-up of the USSR and end of the Warsaw Pact were irreversible.

And that is how we got to where we are today.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Bruce

    No WONDER Poppy Bush Shadow Barry-0 is a protege, serial Lying RENEGER!

  • Jack Bluebird

    gorbachev is a traitor and dumbest person ever to walk this planet. The only thing that is unbelievable is the fact that everyone are buying into “american dishonesty” story when it is purely visible and understood that no one with a fraction of a brain would ever allow something of this magnitude to happen.( allowing Germany the country that wanted to obliterate Russia and USSR not even 50 years ago at that point ) to reunite based on verbal agreement. He should have been shot in the head the moment he landed back in the USSR for giving such approval without consultaing in detail Soviet Army generals and KGB directors.

    People stop drinking KoolAid and open your eyes. gorbachev sold the whole USSR for few private “foundations”.

    May he rot in Hell forever.

    • larm007

      You’re wrong. Not only is what is written above true, Gorbachev also tried to negotiate a nuclear arms ban with Reagan but Reagan wouldn’t go along with it because it included refraining him (Reagan) from his plans to militarize space. Russia DID give up East Germany to be reunited with West Germany…and the agreement included that no NATO forces would expand to the east. Since 1776 there have been only 21 years that the US has not been engaged in a military conflict somewhere. That’s 93% of the time since we’ve been around. And who lost the most in WWII? Russia over 20,000,000, including civilians, and us, under 406,000, but no civilians on our soil. Russia did far more than we in defeating Germany, and yet we took credit for ending the war by bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima even knowing that Japan wanted to surrender. All Japan wanted was that we not kill their Emperor. Truman would not agree as US terms were ‘unconditional surrender’………so we bomb them…..and let their Emperor live after all. Gorbachev was not a traitor. He was a man of his word. It is we who do not stand on moral ground. And I have no idea what your private ‘foundations’ refer to.

      • Jack Bluebird

        You know nothing. First of all there was no written “agreement” for NATO not to expand eastwards. Its was only in words. Now tell me who older than a 6 year old does not put something like that in writingwith plenty of safety clauses in case of breach???????????????????? Russia allowed FOR ITS FORMER EXTERMINATOR WHO KILLED 25 000 000 OF SOVIETS TO UNITED?!!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? and in return they get nothing!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? MInd You this is Soviet Union the country with most chess champions in history so it is not some dumb nation.

        Of course gorbachev sold out Soviet Union. You are just to dumb to notice it or you a re working for western interests.

        Second of all I am talking about gorbachev foundation and a green cross foundation both of which are a way for western governments to funnel money to gorbachev and his daughter.

        No go on play in the dirt little boy.

        • Emperor

          Gorbachev sold the soviet? yeah because your Bush said ”we” prevailed, unless you are those ”we”(neo-nazi) you will be just fine with world peace with no arms race.

          • Jack Bluebird

            Are you stupid? Apparently you are. Who said I am American you moron?

          • 2too

            You are the stupid one Jack.
            Emperor may not be using “your” as the possessive case of you,
            but instead be using it informally to indicate all members, as in:
            “not YOUR average nice summers day”.
            Not likely, but it is possible.
            Get it, moron?

            Now take you shitty attitude and ef off.

        • jojo

          Now tell me, who older than a six yr old would expect words on paper to hold back a criminal empire. Naive. Gorby knew the game but had a weak hand, so he played the best he could.

        • cascadian12

          The word of an honorable man is enough. The written promise of a dishonorable man is worthless.

          • Jack Bluebird

            You are delusional and not very smart apparently.

    • 2too

      You mean like the piece of paper Neville Chamberlain was waving around when he came back from Germany?
      Or like the more than 500 treaties with native Indians the US has broken?
      The United States has violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and many more.
      Then they decided to get out of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, lest they get punished.
      What difference is a piece of paper going to make to politicians who can’t be trusted?
      What Gorbachev did wrong, was to trust US politicians.

      • Eric Zuesse

        Yes, that’s true. He couldn’t imagine how evil the U.S. aristocracy are. They refused to give it to him in writing, but, in prior history, handshake deals between the leaders of major powers were routinely honored. The gang that controlled the U.S. between at least 1980 and 2016 are the worst criminals in the history of the world, with the possible exception of Hitler’s gang.

        • Jack Bluebird

          Handshake deals of equal magnitude of LETTING ENEMY ADOPT HALF A CONTINENT INTO MILITARY ALLIANCE WHICH IS DIRECTLY THREATENING YOUR NATION??????????????????? Please name one.

      • Jack Bluebird

        Ha ha ha comparing USSR to native Indians with bows and arrows. Nice analogy. Not.

        Unfortunately gorbachev did nothing “wrong”. He did everything he was supposed to. He was an agent and saboteur and did his job. Otherwise he would have sent arrested his belazheva boys the moment he knew what they were up to. But of course he did not since they were really one gang.

        The difference whether something is written on a “piece of paper” or not is enormous. Witnesses can alter their story when given enough incentive ( blackmail or account on Seyshelly ) while everything that is written signed and stamped can have serious repercussions in the form of negating your own obligations and favors which you have done to them.

        The fact that people like you think that US politicians “played” gorbachev for a fiddle as if he was not a head of a nation which had by far the most champions in chess in the world is the proof that their plan worked very well.