Germany and the 2+4 Treaty: Sovereignty Still at Stake with Russia

Germany and the 2+4 Treaty: The Sovereignty Still in Question

What right does Russia have to interfere in the treaty that made Germany sovereign? In theory, none. In practice, it claims rights from an uncomfortable legal legacy. The 2+4 Treaty was signed in 1990 by West Germany, East Germany, France, the US, the UK, and the Soviet Union. The USSR dissolved over three decades ago; Russia claims to be its legal successor, a status recognized by the UN. This is the root of the dispute, and the unanswerable question: what remains of that agreement and who decides when it has expired.

Is Germany a sovereign country or an occupied territory?
The prevailing view is that Germany regained full sovereignty through the 2+4 Treaty. Objections arise differently: Germany was defeated in 1945 and occupied by the victors, including the Soviet Union. This is the starting point for those arguing Germany remains occupied, with the US, UK, and Russia (as USSR's successor) retaining victor rights. Russia withdrew its troops between 1990 and 1994; Americans never left. The asymmetry is the key fact, not the adjective. The debate on whether this limits German sovereignty is, largely, the entire debate.

The Unwritten Promise Not to Expand NATO
This is the core issue. During 2+4 negotiations, the widely repeated version states the German representative made clear NATO would not expand beyond the Elbe, excluding Poland and others. The US allegedly told the Soviet Union it would not benefit from Soviet troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe. Nothing appears in the signed text. This creates a clash of interpretations: some see a verifiable political commitment in transcripts; others, an unwritten promise is no promise.

The USSR's Legal Successor: What Russia Can Claim
The opposing legal argument is simple: international treaties do not expire until replaced. The repeated example is the Treaty of Utrecht, by which the UK occupies Gibraltar, never declared obsolete. Under this logic, rights signed by the USSR as WWII victors remain valid for its successor. The counter-objection is equally simple: a treaty granting sovereignty to Germany cannot later become a tool to condition it. And a crucial detail often overlooked: Russia is smaller than the USSR that signed those papers.

Budapest, Ukraine, and Another Broken Treaty
The Ukrainian case enters via the Budapest Memorandum: Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees. The quick reply: that arsenal was not fully Ukrainian, as launch codes were not under its control. With this piece, the terrain shifts from law to capability. A similar dynamic applies to the NATO expansion debate: while some point to it as the conflict's origin, others argue it attempts to revive an argument "dead and buried since 1999." Two narratives, one fact: European security was built on commitments interpreted differently by each side.

The Precedent Uncomfortable to Both Sides
A common thread runs through all: if a given word is not kept, others feel legitimized to break theirs. This includes Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and any intervention justified by international frameworks that ended without them. The practical consequence is that no one can invoke rights without having the mirror held up. For Germany, the bill is already economic: the idle Nord Stream 2 and a declining economy, with Berlin unable to complain loudly. For Russia, the position defended by some is that of a country demanding respect for treaties it considers valid.

Meanwhile, the only undisputed figure is the number of US troops still on German soil since 1945. There is no exit date. No statement hinting at one. Some locate the true problem of German sovereignty here, not in Moscow. The treaty remains valid until someone replaces it. Like Gibraltar.