AHC: Have Russia be more pro-west, pro-EU

sirjackalot

OTL it is very obvious how anti-west and anti-EU Russia is under Putin and the United Russia party Government

Your challenge, from a POD of 1981(10 years before USSR falls) is to have a modern day Russia that is more friendly with the west and pro-EU
 

Peg Leg Pom

When the Soviet Union collapses the Peoples Republic of China starts making loud noises about reclaiming the "Lost North" stolen by Russian Imperialists in the 18th and 19th centuries. "Ancient" maps (with the ink still wet) are found "proving" Chinese claims to Eastern Siberia. Demands are made in the UN for the "Stolen Lands" to be returned. While it would be very foolish for China to do this, and very unlikely it's just an extension of how they are pushing very dubious claims in the South China and Yellow Seas.

With a threat to the east Russia should be more friendly to its European nieghbours to the west.
 
Last edited:
Pyramus

Pyramus

Peg Leg Pom said:
When the Soviet Union collapses the Peoples Republic of China starts making loud noises about reclaiming the "Lost North" stolen by Russian Imperialists in the 18th and 19th centuries. "Ancient" maps (with the ink still wet) are found "proving" Chinese claims to Eastern Siberia. Demands are made in the UN for the "Stolen Lands" to be returned.
Click to expand...
And for this belligerent PRC to exist, you need Deng Xiaoping and the pro-west reformists to stay away from the Chinese levers of power. Threatening WWIII isn’t exactly great for attracting foreign capital after all. To do that, you need a crazy Maoist like Lin Biao at the helm. No Nixon going to China here!
 

Zheng He

Don't expand NATO in the 1990s and 2000s, don't intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s (Russia's traditional sphere of influence), don't establish permanent military bases in Central Asia (Russia's other traditional sphere of influence). Just a few things off the top of my head.
 
Pyramus

Pyramus

Also the proposed “Marshall Plan for Communism” actually happens, and Russia doesn’t endure shock therapy and “privatization” (selling the country’s resources off to oligarchs) in the 90s. Let’s also say Yeltsin gets hit by a bus and someone who’s not a corrupt mob boss takes power.

The Russian economy would still probably be lackluster in the first post-Soviet decade, but a genuine effort on the part of the west to make Russia free and prosperous would go a long way, and a vibrant Russian economy would reduce revanchist feelings.
 
Last edited:
History Learner

History Learner

Banned
GeographyDude said:
Or . . . we simply don’t expand NATO countries to the point where we’re knocking against the Russian border.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, you'd need some serious changes in Western thinking to avoid the extension or the Balkan interventions of the 1990s. Likewise, keeping American political influence out of Russia is another thing that needs to be done but seems unlikely.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
History Learner said:
. . or the Balkan interventions of the 1990s. .
Click to expand...
When Serbia is using killing for the sake of ethnic cleansing, yeah, I want to do something.

So, the hand I’d like to replay — we intervene even earlier and more effectively, and we get Russia on board as a major player and partner, maybe even the lead partner. But we’re involved, too, and so the transparency’s enough to kind of box them in where they kind of have to do the right thing.

But we don’t box them in with NATO countries themselves.
 

Minchandre

Before Vladimir Putin mysteriously rose to power, Boris Nemstov was widely thought to be Yeltsin's likely successor (in fact, Yeltsin personally informed Bill Clinton that he intended Nemstov to succeed him).

While he was mayor if Nizhny Novgorod (the 5th largest city in Russia, and a major industrial hub in 1991), he was one of the most effective implementers of free markets and liberal economics, and all this while reducing corruption, a tendency he would take with him to his position as Deputy Prime Minister. He rooted out corruption in the banking system, somewhat successfully broke up monopolies in energy and mining, and reformed public housing and social services. In general, he was pretty effective at reducing corruption and increasing efficiency, usually by way of privatization, where he was basically the only man in Russia who managed to accomplish it without just selling everything to oligarchs (though he did some of that, too). He was openly and unabashedly liberal, and had a squeaky-clean reputation. He was arguably the most trusted, and possibly most popular, politician in Russia when Yeltsin resigned.

It's unclear how, but he was effectively sidelined from government shortly before Yeltsin resigned (this coincided with Putin's rise). Let's not get into that, but we can discuss afterwards, when he vocally opposed what he perceived as Putin's rolling back of democracy and reinstitutionalization of cronyism. He started a very short-lived party before semi-retiring from politics, though he continued to be loud EDIT until his murder/probable assassination in 2015.

Nemtsov was on great terms with Western leaders, and had he been elected would probably have strengthened ties with them. His fights against corruption would earn plaudits (and possibly support) from the West, and he'd likely be much more willing to pursue economic integration, since he wouldn't be protecting corrupt domestic companies and institutions. With luck, continued support from the US and EU would help him push through more reforms, and together with economic development, Russia would be joining the West.

Now, let's not get carried away - Russia isn't going to be joining the OECD any time soon (well, they might be allowed to as a symbol, but you get the point). Still, they could be more like Czechia than Romania. Though, I mean, if we're very optimistic, Russia has huge natural resource supplies, and if some of that money made its way into the hands of the people or public services (via taxes) rather than into the pockets of oligarchs, and it was handled wisely, Russia could end up a pretty big economic success surprisingly quickly.
 
Last edited:
History Learner

History Learner

Banned
GeographyDude said:
When Serbia is using killing for the sake of ethnic cleansing, yeah, I want to do something.

So, the hand I’d like to replay — we intervene even earlier and more effectively, and we get Russia on board as a major player and partner, maybe even the lead partner. But we’re involved, too, and so the transparency’s enough to kind of box them in where they kind of have to do the right thing.

But we don’t box them in with NATO countries themselves.
Click to expand...

They have no reason to get involved against Serbia at all.
 

Bakenellan

You'll need some very different people in charge of Russia as well. A bit more competent, a bit less corrupt and self-serving. Otherwise any level of goodwill from the West would be wasted.
The other problem that almost all immediate neighbours of Russia would be either wary or outright hostile to the idea of significant integration of Russia with EU or NATO so soon. That's not an insurmountable obstacle, but Russia would need to really prove that no return to previous habits is possible. Like become non-nuclear state or taking some serious obligations. Otherwise the progress will be very slow. Both ways Russians will be unhappy unless some immediate and clear benefits are present.
 

A Piece of History

Before he became President, Putin got into some serious hot water while he was working as the Committee of External Relations of the Mayor's Office in St Petersburg, where his job was to promote international relations and foreign investments. In 1992, he was investigated by a commission of the city legislative council and was found to have understated prices and permitted the export of metals valued at $93 million for food aid that never arrived. The commission wanted him fired, but Putin kept his job until 1996, during which time he held other important government posts.

If Putin was fired from his position in 1992, that could've possibly ruined his political career. This was when Putin was a relative newcomer to the political scene. He wouldn't achieve the connections that make him who he is today until 1996 when he was called to Moscow. Without Putin, there is a chance that Russia could've had a better relationship with the West.
 

Darrenb209

GeographyDude said:
Or, maybe good trade deals with Russia.

Trading partners seldom make more. Yes, a generalization, but a pretty good generalization.
Click to expand...

Considering Crimea and the whole "South Ossetia" thing, I have severe doubts that the Russians would choose trade over annexations and "publicly supported rejoining" without first significantly changing the way Russia is lead.
 

lukedalton

History Learner said:
They have no reason to get involved against Serbia at all.
Click to expand...

Sure, we can let them clean of different people the zone they want...but no thanks, i prefer how we have deal with that in OTL, not perfect sure but beat look the other way by a lot

Regarding no eastern european nations in NATO...it was them begging to enter the alliance because, call them stupid but they thought that having just escaped the warm embrace of mother russia they can wait a century or more to get it again and enter NATO and the EU was the best method to safeguard their independence.

Basically this thread devolve in: if we give the Russia everything they want and throw everyone else to the wolfs, they will be friendly and nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top