NATO’s eastward expansion, which includes a possible Ukrainian NATO membership, is a constant matter of concern and irritation among Russian citizens and their leadership alike. According to a survey conducted in April 2009 by the Russian opinion polling institute VCIOM, 58 percent of the respondents have negative feelings towards NATO and 31 percent believe that it is NATO’s primary mission to carry out military actions against non-NATO states.

Skepticism in Russia is on the rise, especially when it comes to discussions about a possible Ukrainian NATO membership. On several occasions, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and also Dmitry Medvedev have made it clear that these countries are within the sphere of Russia’s special interest. Russian leaders feel that NATO and especially the US did not keep their word, which Russia claims was given during the German unification negotiations in 1990.

Russia continues to claim that in return for Germany’s unification and membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO promised that there would be no eastward expansion beyond its existing borders. Western pro-expansion activists, on the other hand, state that no written contract sealing such an agreement exists. Thus NATO is not in breach of any contract.

Recent and very thorough research published in the German weekly magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ sheds some light on this matter. Indeed, there is not a single official document which constitutes such an agreement. However, in 1990 then-German Foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher verbally confirmed on various occasions that there would be no NATO eastward expansion if German unification is permitted.

Granted, he was not an official NATO spokesman, but he certainly was a very reputable foreign minister whose words one knew could be trusted. There was no reason for the Soviet negotiation partners to doubt Genscher’s words. The Soviet Union assumed that he had carefully weighed and discussed his promise with NATO partners beforehand, if not with the U.S. authorities themselves. And in fact the U.S. also agreed with this position.

Documents and witnesses confirm that the then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker as well as his British counterpart Douglas Hurt supported this point of view. It is an additional proven fact that on February 9th, 1990 Baker declared in the Kremlin that NATO will not expand a ‘single inch’ towards the east and Mikhail Gorbatchev agreed that an eastward expansion of NATO would not be acceptable to the Soviet Union. However, a contract determining this agreement was not signed. Why this never took place remains a mystery.

Whatever the reason was the current viewpoint of NATO and the U.S. is that renouncing an eastward expansion has been discussed, but no treaty has been signed. Thus no agreement exists and an expansion towards the east is legal. This is, however, a very simplistic point of view. Relations are built upon trust. Raising impressions of certain concessions to achieve a goal in negotiations and then to bluntly state, ‘Yes, perhaps we have said it, but it is not in the contract,’ is anything but untrustworthy. In the business world this would be considered a legal case of ‘fraudulent representation’. Not only written contracts but also words spoken and impressions evoked are part of an agreement.

On the other hand, as NATO is closing in on Russia’s borders, it is the treaty’s responsibility to carefully address this misconception. Only then a Ukrainian NATO membership if at all would be responsible.

Talking about a possible Ukrainian NATO membership two very important aspects need to be taken into account. The first is the opinion of the Ukrainian people. According to an IFAK survey which was conducted at beginning of this year 51 percent of the Western Ukrainian people approved a NATO membership but only 13 percent of those living in Eastern Ukraine.However, a NATO membership does only make sense if a majority of all Ukrainians approve such a step.

The second aspect is, that NATO must carefully regard the values it was built upon, those of trust, integrity and protecting democracy and freedom. If Russia’s perception is that NATO is not acting trustworthy, but instead betraying Russia, then this is a serious issue. Simply pointing out what has been signed and what has not is a purely technical approach, which completely misses the actual point. Before it talks about new membership states, NATO must seriously deal with Russia’s perception that NATO gave a concession of not expanding its borders to the east.

NATO must do everything it can to rebuild the trust that it had in a reliable partner that keeps its word. Without NATO regaining its integrity, Russia will never trust any promise made by NATO in the future, and will consider any further expansion a hostile action. It is beyond question that now more than ever NATO needs to build a partnership of trust with Russia and not of suspicion.

Kishor Sridhar is head of the German WPA Institute for Political and Economical Analysis in Eastern Europe.