AHC - NATO does not expand east after collapse of Soviet bloc

This AHC can be plausibly met?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 50.0%
  • No because US would push in to any vacuum & former WP states would pull US in

    Votes: 28 50.0%

  • Total voters
    56

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
the AHC is as stated in the title

The ground rules:

1) the Soviet bloc must collapse by 2018, it can collapse any time after 1950

2) there cannot be an all out nuclear war

3) the PoD must be in 1950 or later, no divergences earlier are allowed.

Go...
 
I think the AHC could be met if HW Bush were reelected and a different Democrat were elected in 1996. It was Bush Sr's administration which made the promise that NATO would not move "one inch to the East." So keep Bush in power and elect a Democrat who largely continues his foreign policy, although this is more difficult since we don't know what Cuomo, Brown, etc would have done in terms of foreign policy.

That said, Cold War architect George Kennan criticized Clinton's expansion of NATO and called it a serious mistake. He might have had a fair point since Putin was able to use this as an excuse to stomp on Georgia and put his grubby paws on Crimea. And there are Russians who do geuiniely feel that the expansion of NATO was meant as an aggressive move meant to "encircle" Russia. However that doesn't mean Putin is in anyway right to oppress his neighbors and the NATO expansion was justified in retrospect since it serves as a greater defense against Russian aggression. I personally think NATO's borders are fine where they are now since any further expansion would destabilize what is a very tense global situation and encourage Putin to expand his own borders, but that opinion is better suited for chat so I'll leave it there.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think the AHC could be met if HW Bush were reelected and a different Democrat were elected in 1996. It was Bush Sr's administration which made the promise that NATO would not move "one inch to the East." So keep Bush in power and elect a Democrat who largely continues his foreign policy, although this is more difficult since we don't know what Cuomo, Brown, etc would have done in terms of foreign policy.

What is your theory of why Clinton did it?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The theory behind it was to anchor the new democracies firmly to the West and bring them closer to the EU. Much of the impetus for this came from the former Warsaw Pact states themselves.

What is your theory, Amadeus, as to why George H.W. Bush, and Vice President Cheney will not come around to the same end result as Clinton on expansion?
 
If NATO does not expand, would the former WP countries form a military block of their own, being afraid of Russian resurgence? Thinking of a big non-aligned (but pro-Western, see Finland) based around the OTL V4, but likely including the Baltics. Maybe even Bulgaria and Romania. Yugoslavia is a hot mess, so that could go a lot of ways. If Croatia breaks away I assume they would join as well.
 
What is your theory, Amadeus, as to why George H.W. Bush, and Vice President Cheney will not come around to the same end result as Clinton on expansion?

Cheney was Defense Secretary, not Vice President.

One open question would be whether post-Yugoslav states could join NATO. Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, and Macedonia would all want to join NATO TTL like they did OTL.


Odds are the Visegrad group would become their own military bloc should they not join NATO. Additionally, not joining NATO =/= not joining the EU.

Plus, it was Poland and Sweden who OTL pushed for the European Eastern partnership in 2008. These countries no matter what are going to push for expanding "the west" east. Odds are if the US opts to not integrate the post-soviet states into NATO, these countries will organize themselves anyways to resist Russia independent of NATO.
 
IMHO NATO will fade away and become little more than a club without this

The new democracies will be fast-tracked into the EU and the idea of an EU Army will gain swift traction

Poland and the Baltics especially do not want to be isolated in the face of a one-day revanchist Russia
 
If NATO does not expand, would the former WP countries form a military block of their own, being afraid of Russian resurgence? Thinking of a big non-aligned (but pro-Western, see Finland) based around the OTL V4, but likely including the Baltics. Maybe even Bulgaria and Romania. Yugoslavia is a hot mess, so that could go a lot of ways. If Croatia breaks away I assume they would join as well.
What would be the point? They wouldn't possess the military capability to deter Russia. Without the ability to rely on a nuclear backstop of their own there'd be a big disincentive for any member of this military block to come to the aid of another in the event of Russian aggression because it would invite Russian aggression against themselves. There is some advantage in political solidarity, but it would be a paper alliance that would ultimately be reliant on hoping that NATO would intervene.
 
They wouldn't possess the military capability to deter Russia.
Not so sure, the Russian military was a huge sorry mess post-breakup. And nuclear weapons are off the table, the Russians know if they use nukes in Europe, NATO would step in. Russia never really wanted to exert much influence over the former Eastern Block anyway(except for Ukraine and Belarus) even before they joined NATO. As you said, this would be more of a political solidarity, and an economic one.
 
What is your theory, Amadeus, as to why George H.W. Bush, and Vice President Cheney will not come around to the same end result as Clinton on expansion?

I'm wondering how Cheney became VP earlier in this TL, are you referring to when he was SecDef under 41? Anyway, I've read Bush's 1998 book "A World Transformed," which he authored with his National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft (famous for publically denouncing the Iraq War under Dubya). Bush 41 prioritized stability and order in foreign policy, and this was the basis for his major decisions including invading Panama and not toppling Hussein. His two most important actions came in 1989 and 1990. First he agreed with Gorbachev to announce an end to the Cold War at Malta after the Berlin Wall fell. A few months later he made a compromise with the Russians: agree to reunite Germany as a capitalist NATO member and we won't expand NATO further eastward. Gorbachev agreed and Germany was reunited. That was the basis of my original post about Bush and NATO. Does that mean 41 wouldn't change his mind later? No, however it would be out of character for Bush to suddenly reverse course after establishing a pretty successful policy vis-a-vis Europe in his first term. Also a former career diplomat and Cold War veteran like Bush would be more likely to agree with those such as George Kennan who were opposed NATO expansion. However, NATO will probably be expanded somewhere down the line for the same reasons that other users mentioned, but it would plausibly be delayed had Bush won in 1992.
 
The Poles and the Baltic states are going to most definitely want something to be a hedge against resumption of Russian influence or worse. A Finland/Poland/Baltics/Czechoslovakia (no divorce) alliance using a mix of western and local products could make a decent conventional military bloc. I could see them as a bloc having some joint exercises with NATO but being separate. NATO is not going to allow WMD blackmail, even though this bloc is not officially aligned with them and they present enough strength so that the Russians could not walk in, especaially if there is an independent neutral Ukraine in the way.
 
agree to reunite Germany as a capitalist NATO member and we won't expand NATO further eastward.
Could a POD be as easy as getting 'no expansion' actually written into a treaty?
That would also mean any President changing their mind would have to go through Congress.
 
it has always been my understanding that the former Soviet bloc countries specifically requested to join NATO. Can't hurt their feelings and diplomatic relations, of course.
 
Top