“Not One Inch” – No, the West didn’t provoke the war in Ukraine
“Not One Inch” – No, the West didn’t provoke the war in Ukraine
It is a persistent story that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was provoked by ourselves, by the West. You read it in newspapers, books, on social media and time and again you come across someone who claims it. This is especially relevant now that Trump so openly sides with Putin. How can a war started by Russia be the West’s fault? Well, they answer, this is because NATO has expanded aggressively, against agreements with Russia. So Putin had to strike back. But is this true? No. An official agreement has not been made. And more important: countries may choose their own allies, regardless of what their powerful neighbour thinks. Witness: Mikhail Gorbachev. Second witness: Boris Yeltsin.
Since the late 1990s, both NATO and the EU have expanded to include Eastern European countries, up to the borders of Russia. This is often presented as an insult to Russia. “Expansion drive” as it is mentioned. This would have pushed Russia onto the defensive. But what the advocates of this premise forget: NATO has never threatened Russia, Eastern European countries have never threatened Russia. There is no reason at all for Putin to “strike back”. Putin, on the other hand, threatens constantly, tries to disrupt other countries in all kinds of ways and openly says he wants the lost Soviet republics back in his empire. He has been stirring up unrest in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova for years and nowadays even threatens with nuclear weapons. The aggression comes from him, not the other way round. If Russia had continued to work together as Gorbachev and Yeltsin did, this whole history would have turned out differently.
That the EU has an “expansion drive” is also an empty slogan. It was the Eastern European countries that wanted to join the EU and the EU wanted that too. This happened democratically. Turkey also wants membership, if it is up to them. Even Serbia, a Russian ally, has applied for membership. The EU poses no threat to Russia. A competitor yes, but that’s something different. A sovereign country may decide for itself with whom it concludes treaties and alliances.
NATO expansion
Let’s talk about NATO expansion: that too has grown historically. Eastern European countries themselves have asked for membership – democratically elected governments. That’s how democracy works. If you think this is wrong then you are still thinking according to imperialistic and autocratic principles. Then you apparently agree that a powerful country should be allowed to determine with whom its less powerful neighbours may conclude treaties. Why should Russia be allowed to decide that?
It is often said that Putin has drawn “a red line” and the West has crossed it. But… so what? Why should Putin have anything to say about what his neighbours are allowed or not allowed to do? I thought the era of colonialism and imperialism is over. Democratic countries choose their own friends. And in this case there is even more to that: the Eastern European countries were oppressed for decades by Russia (then Soviet Union) complete with puppet governments, censorship, prison camps and torture. Is it strange that they would rather choose the West as ally than their old oppressor?
Vaclav Havel, former dissident and later president of the Czech Republic, said in 2002 that NATO expansion marks the end of the era in which large countries determine, over the heads and against the will of the population, what small countries can do and in which sphere of influence they belong. That era is over!
“If the past centuries witnessed various great powers dividing the smaller European countries among themselves without asking the latter’s opinion, … the present enlargement of NATO carries an unequivocal message that the era of such divisions is over, once and for all. Europe is no longer, and must never again be, divided over the heads of its people and against their will into any spheres of interest or influence.” (Vaclav Havel)
Appeasement
But, you might object, there are also politicians and analysts who do see Putin as a danger, but still believe that we should not have offended him. That’s true. This is what we call “appeasement”. You give something to a dictator in the hope that he will moderate his plans. It rarely if ever works. The recognition of Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 is infamous, with Chamberlain seeing it as a peace deal (“Peace for our time”). In the mind of a dictator it simply doesn’t work that way. A dictator sees every concession as a victory for himself and a defeat for the other. It will only strengthen him in his endeavour to get more.
“Not One Inch”
It is repeated again and again that James Baker, US Secretary of State, promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the NATO would expand “not one inch” to the east. This story is only partially true. Let’s look back to the time of Perestroika and the end of the Cold War, when the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell and Eastern European countries regained their freedom. During that time (1989-1990) there were many conversations and negotiations, as the future lay open. Questions about NATO and whether or not to expand were certainly discussed. When you read the conversations you get the strong impression that Western leaders were not primarely interested in expanding NATO, and so they told Gorbachev. They were interested in how to shape a new era. There also was a shared interest in not making things too difficult for Gorbachev. Everyone was happy with him for the great liberation he had initiated. And everyone knew that the new collaboration stood or fell with him. At the same time, in his own country his position was under pressure, so he had to come home with a positive result.
During those years the spirit of renewal and peace permeated the conversations. You can read that in all the witness reports. Everyone consulted with everyone: Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Bush, Baker, Kohl, Genscher, Thatcher, Mitterand. The latter even suggested the idea of abolishing military alliances altogether, gradually moving towards much greater international peace and cooperation. It was a time of hope and optimism.
One item had been discussed particularly and that was the unification of Germany, a great wish of Chancellor Helmut Kohl. But in Eastern Germany the Soviet Union still had troops. Should Gorbachev have to withdraw them? That was a tough question. Should a united Germany leave NATO completely? Or stay within NATO, but with the promise that it would not expand further? In that context, James Baker had mentioned “Not one inch eastward” as a possibility. When Helmut Kohl heard that Gorbachev did not object to German unity, he was so excited that he couldn’t sleep at all. He was wandering around the Kremlin and the Red Square at night.
Kohl and his Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher were prepared to go very far. But the American President George Bush (senior) did not agree with such an exchange. You should never impose restrictions on NATO because you don’t know what the future looks like. So in the end that option was not persued. It was ultimately agreed that Russian troops would leave East Germany, on the condition that no NATO troops or nuclear weapons would be stationed there. That was in 1990.
Gorbachev
The most important witness is of course Mikhail Gorbachev himself. What did he say? In a 2014 interview he said the whole “Not One Inch” issue has been taken out of context. It was merely about whether or not NATO troops would be in the former East Germany after the Russians withdrew. It was also about cooperation and common security. Ultimately a good treaty was concluded on the German issue, according to Gorbachev. And he added that NATO has adhered to it. “Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
This doesn’t meant that Gorbachev was happy with NATO expansion. Certainly not. For him it went against the spirit of the 1990 talks. He had hoped that peace would come “from Vancouver to Vladivostok”, and that a defense alliance would no longer be necessary. But he did endorse the right of every country to choose its allies. Yes, this is what Gorbachev said, the then president of the Soviet Union and key player in this whole issue.
Yeltsin
After Gorbachev came Boris Yeltsin. The Soviet Union was dissolved, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, the NATO remained. The stormy developments continued and so did the conversations. Under Yeltsin, Russia had friendly relations with the West. His chemistry with Bill Clinton was well known. Yeltsin did not protest against NATO expansion at first, but he did when the Baltic states, former Soviet republics, joined. He had to watch reluctantly how Clinton streamlined the expansion with other Western and Eastern European leaders. Ultimately he agreed. That was with the NATO Russia Founding Act in 1997. Yeltsin would have preferred to see also Russia join in: one large alliance of cooperating countries.
Putin
The trope that the West promised not to expand is therefore not true. It was certainly discussed, but that is a different thing. Putin uses it as propaganda, but nowhere is it written in the final agreements. And even if it had been promised to Gorbachev, the subsequent NATO-Russia Founding Act would be binding. If Yeltsin agreed, it will be that way from that moment on.
In addition, NATO has never threatened or attacked Russia. Ukraine also never threatened Russia. There has been discrimination against some Russian Ukrainians, although it has affected both sides. But that does not justify a war of extermination like the one currently underway, nor does it justify a quick takeover of power as Putin had hoped for in 2022.
The fact that Putin does not want NATO countries to border Russia is an empty demand, given that Norway has bordered Russia since the founding of NATO, and so do Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who joined later. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Finland has also joined, with a border of 1,340 kilometers. None of them have ever threatened Russia. The threat comes from Putin. Just ask the residents of Finland or the Baltic states how nice it is to have Russia as a neighbour.
Something else is playing in the background. In addition to the paranoia common to many dictators – Putin constantly feels threatened and is afraid that almost everyone is against him – there is also the fact that Russians have never seen Ukrainians as a separate people. Their premisse is that they belong to Russia. When George Bush (junior) proposed in 2008 to eventually admit Ukraine to NATO, Putin replied: “You know, George, that Ukraine is not even a state?” It had already been an independent state for 17 years; 91% of the population had chosen this in 1991.
And perhaps most important, Ukraine voluntarily transferred it’s nuclear weapons to Russia in 1994, in the so-called Budapest Memorandum, with the explicit condition that Russia respect the country’s borders and sovereignty. Solemnly signed by Yeltsin. So who is violating agreements here?
Imagine. You are Ukrainian, you voluntarily give your nuclear arsenal to your large neighbour, you receive security guarantees, and years later that same neighbour attacks you with brute force. A greater violation of agreements cannot be imagined. Why do all those Putin adepts, conspiracy theorists and peace doves never talk about that? If you mind the West stepping on a dictator’s sensitive toes, you should mind this too.
Has the West done nothing wrong?
One can of course ask that question. Does the West also have responsibility here? It is often said, including by Putin, that the West is hypocritical and uses different standards. Unfortunately this is true. See the unconditional support for Israel and therefore co-responsibility for bloodshed and structural human rights violations. But that has little to do with this. It in no way justifies Putin’s aggression and widespread bloodshed.
In the 1990s, the Yeltsin years, NATO countries entered the war in the former Yugoslavia. The Serbs had successively attacked Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, committing mass murders, ethnic cleansing and rape. After years of wrangling, NATO countries intervened, much to the anger of the Russians and Yeltsin, who were pro-Serb. Putin defenders now say: “You see, NATO can intervene in other countries, why not Russia?” But we must bear in mind that there was an international outcry for help, to put an end to the atrocities, not least from the victim countries Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. Ultimately, Clinton managed to form a coalition and push back Serbia, despite a veto from Russia and China. A sore point for Russia who see it as the West simply doing what it wants. But the Dayton Peace Agreement is still considered very balanced and solid and the war and bloodshed have not returned. Moreover, the Russians were invited to participate in negotiations. So one cannot see this as a mistake on the part of the West, even though the Russians were angry about it.
For Eastern European countries, the Balkan War and Russia’s attitude to it was a reason to join NATO and the EU more quickly. In addition, Yeltsin invaded the renegade republic of Chechnya in 1994, which gave Eastern Europeans even more reason to be terrified. By the mid-90s the atmosphere of hope and optimism had vanished.
In the early 21st century, when the Bush (junior) Administration ruled in America, the US and the West became more aggressive and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. For the newly inaugurated President Putin, these were all signs of Western dominance and a skewed world order. A little more tact on the Western side, a little more listening to other countries, such as those united in the United Nations, would arguably have been better. But still no reason to invade Ukraine and threaten with nuclear weapons.
Economically, Western countries have played a questionable role. Neoliberalism, the “New Economy” as it was then called, was at its height and Western countries imposed it on Eastern European countries and Russia. The condition for loans was free investment by Western companies and a minimum of government intervention. Eastern countries had to accept this system immediately, even before they could reform properly and develop their own. Entire sectors of the economy were taken over by Western companies. Many Eastern Europeans still experience this as a painful humiliation. In Russia things were even worse: free capitalism led to an enormous capital flight and the rise of the oligarchs. The behaviour of Western countries certainly does not deserve a beauty prize here, but this is also no justification for anyone to conquer neighbouring countries.
So let’s recap. All the people who claim that NATO should never have expanded haven’t considered how democracy works and that a souvereign country is free to choose it’s allies . They apparently think it’s normal that a dictator may decide that. They also did not study the history, otherwise they would have discovered that Putin in particular violated the promise to Ukraine. Then they would also have found out that Putin openly speculates about expanding his empire and is stirring up unrest in several countries to do so. In the meantime there is little left of Ukraine. And Trump is willing to give Putin everything he wants. Ukraine has to make all the concessions, Russia none. Let’s just see the situation for what it is.
Counter arguments
Since I posted this piece online, some counterarguments have been put forward. It strikes me that so many people defend the Russian position. Of course conspiracy theorists and Putin supporters, but also people who pretend to be neutral (“I don’t want to defend Putin, but…”) and then repeat exactly what the Kremlin says. A boom of pro-Russian views is sweeping the world. Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube are full of it.
Even some politicians and analysts defend the Kremlin position. The far right ofcourse, but also Jeffrey Sachs, whose speech to the European Parliament is widely shared. In his speech, Sachs mentions all of Putin’s anti-Western arguments, but doesn’t mention that Ukraine voluntarily transferred its nuclear arsenal to Russia, or the NATO-Russia Founding Act, two key moments in this entire history. He completely ignores the actions of Putin himself – not one word! He further advises European countries to give up their “Russophobia” and conform to Russian wishes.
But residents from Russia’s neighbouring countries ask us to stop downplaying Putin’s aggression. They know what it is to live next to Russia. The same is asked by Russian dissidents and refugees: stop defending Putin! See him as the aggressor that he is, as the dictator who oppresses his people, as the war criminal who bombs schools and has Ukrainian children kidnapped and entire towns and villages destroyed, and who doesn’t care that he has already killed almost a million of his own men, Russian soldiers.
In the past it was self-evident for us Western Europeans and also for Americans that we supported the dissidents. We followed Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, we supported Solidarność and Charta 77. I did so too. I smuggled books and more into Poland at the time, in collaboration with Solidarność. Of course we chose for the dissidents and against the dictatorship! But in recent years there are more and more people who prefer to support the dictator. I find this quite shocking.
Below I would like to answer two frequently mentioned pro-Russian arguments.
Has the West prevented peace?
There could have been peace if NATO countries had not stopped it. At least that is how it is said: “Putin was open to peace.” In this narrative, Joe Biden and Boris Johnson in particular are to blame, because they allegedly put pressure on Zelensky not to accept an agreement. This is also what Putin himself claims in interviews. What happened?
Indeed, peace talks took place immediately after the invasion. There was hotline traffic from Biden, Macron, Johnson, Erdogan, and of course Putin and Zelensky. None of the discussions yielded anything. The closest Erdogan came to an agreement was in March 2022, but Zelensky, in consultation with Johnson and Biden, ultimately did not agree. “You see!” say the Putin defenders. But look further. These were Putin’s demands:
Ukraine should remain permanently neutral and be demilitarized. Only a small army of a maximum of 80,000 troops was acceptable to Putin (this is so small that Putin could conquer the country in a few days). Ukraine could not receive aid from NATO countries, was not allowed no have foreign troops on its territory, nor should it be allowed to purchase weapons. It should also not receive security guarantees from NATO countries, as already follows from the foregoing. According to Putin, security guarantees should only come from the UN Security Council. But beware: Russia has veto power in this! So Zelensky rightly saw this as a scam. Finally, Crimea would remain Russian and what should happen to the Donbas remained undecided because negotiators could not reach an agreement.
With such demands no peace is possible. Not at all. These are simply Putin’s war goals. Ukraine had to give in to everything. This is no peace but surrender. Whould Zelensky kindly sign at the cross. It is not surprising that he did not and that Western leaders advised him against it. You can only call this a “failed opportunity for peace” if you believe that war is the fault of the defender. The whole story that Zelensky and NATO thwarted peace is a distortion of how things really unfolded.
As I said, with such demands no negotiations can deliver lasting peace. At most a local ceasefire or a prisoner exchange. And that is what we see when we look at previous agreements, such as those of Minsk from 2014 and 2015. These are repeatedly put forward by Putin’s defenders, but they amounted to little: temporary and local ceasefires and the local removal of heavy weapons. The Russians and separatists did not adhere to it from the beginning, nor did the Ukrainians afterwards.
Has the West interfered too much in Ukraine?
A last argument that is ofetn heard is that the West has interfered in the politics of Russia’s neighbours and thus “provoked” the war. The first is true, the second is not. Indeed, Western governments and non-government organizations support democratic movements in Eastern European countries. That is well known and no secret. It is a remnant from the time of the Soviet dictatorship, when dissidents were supported from the West. After the end of the Cold War, Western governments and organizations continued to do so.
According to Putin and his defenders, this is unauthorized interference. But you can only mean that if you believe that Russia’s neighbours should be obedient to Russia. So this is again the old imperialist thinking in spheres of influence and vassal states. But those neighbouring countries are no longer vassal states. The dissidents I knew in the Cold War years all wanted to become democratic and belong to the West. When the Wall fell they wanted to get out of the Russian sphere of influence as quickly as possible.
Moreover, the argument that the West is wrongly interfering in the politics of Russia’s neighbours is a double standard. Putin himself interferes much more in his neighbouring countries and much more aggressively. He has been trying for twenty years to destabilize countries, turn population groups against each other, arm pro-Russian separatists, spread disinformation, intervene in elections and, if all that is not enough, violently invade countries, as in Georgia in 2008 and later in Ukraine. If you think it’s wrong that the West supports democratic movements, you should think this is wrong too.
That so many people defend pro-Russian positions is striking and disturbing. Let us rather listen to Russian dissidents themselves. One of them is Vladimir Kara-Murza, who protested against the war and was, after being nearly poisoned twice, sentenced to 24 years in prison. At the end of his trial he said this:
“I know that the day will come when the darkness over our country will be gone. When the war [in Ukraine] will be called a war, and the usurper [in the Kremlin] will be called a usurper; when those who have ignited this war will be called criminals instead of those who tried to stop it… And then our people will open their eyes and shudder at the sight of the horrific crimes committed in their names.”
(Kara-Murza was released in a prisoner exchange and now lives in the United States).
Sources:
What James Baker Said
Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.”
Did Nato promise not to enlarge? Gorbachev says No
Gorbachev: “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.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.’
What Gorbachev Heard
Detailed documents on the talks of Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner. National Security Archive/Slavic Studies Panel.
Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances
Not one inch eastward – en andere onware Navo cliché’s – NRC
Brak de Navo een belofte aan Rusland? Historisch Nieuwsblad
Politicoloog Eugene Finkel: ‘Oorlog in Oekraïne is in wezen identitair conflict’ – MO*
Hoe foute inschattingen leidden tot de bloedige patstelling in Oekraïne
Sympathy With the Devil: The Lie of NATO Expansion
Cepa, Maciej Bukowski
Did Boris Johnson Prevent an Early End to the War in Ukraine?
H-Diplo/RJISSSF
Václav Havel, The Transformation of NATO
World Report 2025: Ukraine | Human Rights Watch
War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) – Wikipedia
Active Measures 2018 1080p WEB DL DD+5 1 H 264
Putins hack into the West (video Shooting Films)