NATO – Eastward, Ho!

Editor's Note :

This article by Col Yeshwant Umralkar was penned down by him on request to bring some clarity to some of the complex and critical issues surrounding the ongoing Russia- Ukraine War .Hopefully ,it should clear some of the doubts raised about this war by some senior military veterans .Some of the doubts raised were :

1. What is the official recorded version of the agreement between Russia and NATO regarding - 'No Eastward expansion of NATO ? '

2. ⁠I am given to believe that a large number of nations have joined NATO despite that agreement. Can we cite details? And each time Russia has objected.

3. ⁠Has Russia ever issued any threats to any European nation ?

4. ⁠I know of only Georgia, where the Russians definitely put down a protest about joining the EU. And they are still influencing that. I visited Georgia for 14 days and was witness to the most recent elections and Pro EU protests.

5. ⁠What is the basis of the West’s threat perception? Is it just ( like the Paki Army) the 'raison de etre' for the continuance of NATO? And hence the continued well being of the US arms and ammunition vendors?

6. ⁠Doesn’t a large country and a big power have the right to ensure the proximity- based integrity of its neighbouring countries? Like the US- Cuba. Like the Chinese- Korea, Vietnam. Like India - Nepal, Srilanka, Bhutan, Bangladesh.

The Trigger that produced this article was the message below that requested for clarity on above six points .

Text of Message :

" I feel this topic deserves some research and thought.

Like I said, I have not been able to find answers.

Can MVI answer some of these ?

I do hope MVI finds it interesting enough to dig into. We are getting too many knee jerk reactions based on TRP desires.

The online info net is so biased and fed by the West on that agreement between Russia and NATO.

Another thing to add is that the Ukrainians were deliberately creating demographic changes in the East Donbas region- they were physically targeting Russians left over from the Soviet Union days."

Hopefully, this piece by Col Umralkar clarifies atleast the first five points ?

The 6th point will require separate article/s .

Readers / Respondents / Authors may respond with their views, opinions and also send links or pdfs of earlier published articles to bring more clarity to the issues highlighted .

Col Vinay B Dalvi

Editor , MVI

---

By Lt Col Yeshwant Umralkar

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been considerable discussion on the desirability of NATO continuing to exist. By common logic, it was expected that  Mikhail Gorbachev, the CPSU General Secretary, when negotiating the reunification of GDR and FRG, would insist that in return for dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the West likewise liquidate NATO, since the raison d’etre of NATO which was Warsaw Pact, would have ceased to exist.  However, Gorbachev was unable to push for dissolution of NATO, primarily because he spoke from a position of weakness. Soviet Union’s economy had been badly weakened by the war in Afghanistan in which  75000 Soviet soldiers were killed and material losses were humongous, and the people were in no mood for any more wars. The failed coup attempt against Gorbachev by Marshal Yazov, his Defence Minister, signalled the direction in which the country wanted to move. Having lost control over East Europe, Gorbachev also could not stop the break up of Soviet Union, initially the Baltic states leaving the Union followed by the remaining 11 republics. Having secured the liberation of East Germany and seeing the weak leadership in Moscow, the hawks among the Western alliance, namely the USA and the UK became more aggressive against USSR. And the advance of NATO Eastward got under way. During all this, there is much ambiguity whether there was, in fact, any formal agreement between the West and Soviet Union under which NATO was to not extend Eastwards.

NATO assurance not to expand Eastwards

There is no concrete document in public domain showing that an agreement was reached between NATO and the Soviet Union about non-expansion of NATO to the East.

But there is substantial corroborative evidence that points to such an assurance having been given to the Soviet Union.

Der Spiegel (German weekly newsmagazine) has found documentary evidence of the promises of non-expansion of NATO to the East. The publication refers to archival documents discovered by Joshua Shifrinson, an American political scientist and associate professor at Boston University. Experts in Germany believe that they are authentic. Joshua Shifrinson said that initially the document was allegedly classified as "Secret". It refers to a meeting of representatives of the Foreign Ministries of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany, held in Bonn on March 6, 1991. "During the negotiations in the 2+4 format [negotiations involving the GDR, Germany, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States on the settlement of Germany], we made it clear that we would not expand NATO beyond the [river] Elbe (the text further clarifies that it is not about the Elbe, but about the Oder River. Therefore, we cannot offer Poland and other [countries] membership in NATO," Jurgen Hrobog, representing Germany, said, according to the document.

Security guarantees. On December 17, 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry published draft agreements on security guarantees between Russia and the United States and NATO. In particular, both documents stipulate a commitment to rule out NATO's further advance to the East and to abandon the deployment of weapons systems threatening Russia outside the countries where they were in 1997 (before the signing of the Russia—NATO act prohibiting the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of new NATO members).

Nations which have joined NATO

At the time of the collapse of the USSR in 1991, 16 states were members of NATO. 12 countries that signed the North Atlantic Treaty on the creation of the bloc in 1949 — Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United States and France. Four more countries joined the alliance in the 1950s and 1980s - Greece and Turkey (in 1952), Germany (in 1955) and Spain (in 1982). With the unification of Germany in 1990, the territory of the alliance expanded to the lands of the former GDR. During the negotiations on unification, an agreement was reached that foreign (non-German) troops would not be deployed on the territory of the former GDR, and, presumably, an oral agreement on the non-expansion of NATO to the East. The existence of such an agreement (and its subsequent violation by NATO) has been reiterated by the Russian leadership, but rejected by the NATO alliance.

In July 1997, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited to participate in the alliance, followed by other states of the former socialist camp. Since the late 90s, 14 countries have joined NATO: Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic in 1999; Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020. Thus, NATO now has 30 member countries.

In April 2008, at a meeting in Bucharest, the leaders of the alliance stated that "eventually Ukraine and Georgia will be able to join the alliance." Russia has repeatedly spoken out against the expansion of NATO to the East, believing that this process has led to increased tensions in Europe.

⁠Has Russia ever issued any threats to any European nation?

Russia threatening European countries is a ploy used by Anglo-Saxons i.e. USA and UK to keep European countries in their camp.

A report appearing in Roseau International, an online publication, reproduced below illustrates this very well Russia's special military operation in Ukraine is nothing more than Moscow's counter-offensive against the Atlanticist world under the helmsmanship of the United States. The result of this "proxy war between the United States and the Russian Federation may be the collapse and disappearance of not only Ukraine, but also a number of European states."  Four European countries may be sacrificed on the altar of US interests. European countries that may disappear. “Let's be honest, the United States will never decide to enter into a direct war with Russia after the defeat of Ukraine. This means that they will use other intermediaries to continue the conflict. There is no shortage of candidates, but Poland, Lithuania, Romania and Finland are names that strike as the most likely. Of course, it all depends on the Russians..." the article says.

Poland. Warsaw demonstrates in every possible way that it is very excited about the idea of war with Russia. Of course, its leaders aren't crazy enough to go into battle alone. But the idea of a Western coalition (as it has happened before) against Russia is very tempting for its leaders. And if the United States puts forward such an idea, Poland will be happy to "fit in." But, with a high degree of probability, it will be fighting a lone war, while the United States will profit from the supply of weapons to it. Russia will not invade the country, but will take the belligerent country back to the nineteenth century, destroying all its modern infrastructure. This will be followed by a serious economic crisis and a mass exodus of Poles to the EU and the USA. Thus, Poland would suffer the same fate as Ukraine, a desolate land devoid of its own population, on which no country could possibly be able to rebuild itself.

Lithuania Unlike Poland, which may be tempted to enter into a military confrontation with Russia, Lithuania will never decide on an armed conflict. But Vilnius is inclined to make provocative decisions that could eventually force Moscow to crush this former possession of the Russian Empire. The fact that Lithuania exists at all is the result of Russia's benevolent agreement to acquire it from the Swedes. If it continues to bark, this time the Russian bear will get very angry and crush this small and insignificant state with one paw.

Romania Another small country that the United States plans to use as a battering ram against Russia. As a member of NATO, it poses several dangers: For the Russian Federation, it can be used as a base for the NATO armies that will enter Ukraine and deploy in Odessa to prevent the Russians from liberating the city or Transnistria, which the United States could push into a war with Moldova, in which a Russian garrison of less than 2,000 men would have no chance. In any of these scenarios, Russia will use the same demilitarization format in retaliation, with the destruction of all infrastructure and a return to the Middle Ages.

Finland Like Ukraine, it is one of the countries that cannot exist without Russia's approval. This country with a border length of more than 1,300 km is an integral part of the US strategy to encircle Russia. The latter may be forced to do the same as in Ukraine. The recognition of the existence of this country depends on its neutral position.: In 1948, Finland and the USSR signed an agreement in which the former saw its sovereignty, and the latter its security. It is this agreement that Finland is going to violate, calling into question its existence. Depending on the development of events (deployment of bases, missile launchers) Russia reserves the right to react until the dissolution of this northern state. The call will be Russia’s.

All of these hypothetical scenarios depend on Russia and the level of threat it will see from these states. In every scenario, Russia already recognizes that it is at war with NATO. Thus, she will no longer impose any restrictions on herself.

Briefly, Russia has never threatened a European country. An exception that comes to mind is when Putin launched the Special Military Operation in Ukraine, there was considerable anger in the West, and talk of military action by NATO countries. Putin has gone public on two occasions with a stern warning to third countries to not interfere in the situation in Ukraine. To underline the threat, Russia placed its weapons on heightened alert, tested and deployed new nuclear capabilities. That chilling threat was taken seriously in the West, and no NATO countries put their boots on ground in Ukraine.    

Georgia, where the Russians interfered militarily

To understand Russia’s relations with Georgia, one has to go back to the days when after the Republic got its independence after the USSR collapsed, Eduard Shevardnadze, the former Foreign Minister of USSR, became its President. He continued to rule in Soviet style. There was much misrule and a lot of corruption. He was unseated (he refused to demit office and had to be physically removed from his office) in the Rose Revolution headed by an America educated young man called Mikhail Saakashvili.  Saakashvili with the oral backing of the US Vice President John McCain started challenging the hegemony of Russia. In 2004, while President Putin and PM Medvedev were attending the Beijing Olympics, Saakashvili stealthily attacked the breakaway republic of South Ossetia and now a Russian protectorate. Within days, Russia attacked Georgia with full force, liberated South Ossetia and overran the whole of Georgia. They completely demolished Georgia’s war machine and military equipment supplied by USA. Saakashvili who was egged on by US to pick up a fight with Russia was hoping that USA would send its military jets to his aid, but nothing of the kind happened and he was left alone to face the wrath of Russia’s armed might. All he got from McCain, his Godfather was a statement “Today we are all Georgians”. After a few years, Saakashvili himself was thrown out, but he had lost all prospects of regaining South Ossetia which is now an independent country.  He went into exile in Ukraine where he was made a Governor of Odessa, a post which he soon lost and was imprisoned. Georgia has become a candidate for EU membership, but not NATO. Considering Georgia’s distance from the existing NATO territory and its close proximity to Russia, its membership might not carry any strategic value in case of a conflict. So, it is unlikely to be admitted to NATO. Interestingly, Russia has gained an upper hand in Georgia’s politics as a pro-Russian party has been winning the parliamentary elections. So, it is anybody’s guess what will happen of Georgia’s application to join NATO or even EU.

Whither NATO?

Since his arrival on the international scene in his second tenure as President of United States, Donald Trump has made no bones about wanting to reform the way NATO functions. He believes that European countries are not spending enough on their own defence, while Unites States ends up picking up most of the bills. Trump has set into motion a churning among NATO member states. There is talk of “Europeanising” NATO, which can only be achieved if they spend more on defence in order to “own” NATO. There are divisions. East European countries do not appear to be on board. Trump has also ruffled feathers by siding with Russia on the conflict in Ukraine while rapping Ukraine’s  Zelensky on the knuckles and declared that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO. As a result, public opinion in Europe is veering towards a view that the United States will not join the European countries in a war with Russia. Despite all these shenanigans on both sides of the Atlantic,  NATO remains the best guarantee for the security of European member countries.

Sources:

* Roseau International, an online publication

* Der Spiegel, German news weekly

* Gazeta.ru

---

About the author

Lt Col Yeshwant Umralkar served in the Army Ordnance Corps. While in service, qualified as an interpreter in Russian, Spanish, French and Arabic languages. Post retirement, he worked with an Indian vaccine major, looking after the business of the company in Russia and CIS countries. Has traveled extensively across the CIS, was based in Moscow for over a decade. Takes a keen interest in geopolitics with particular reference to Russian Federation.