AHC: Russo-American Warming of Relations

Is there any way that, during the Cold War or immediately after the collapse of the USSR, the US and Russia could become genuinely allied? To the extent that they cooperate on international missions (with, say, American and Russian troops running joint interventions in global hot-spots), support the UN as a united front, and perhaps even include Russia in NATO or some other version of a military alliance that might emerge?
 
Considering that the US and the UK were willing to support the freakin' Khmer Rouge just to poke the eye of a Soviet client state(and this right at the end of the Cold War), I'd say that the superpower animosity was running pretty deep. Hard to see what sort of common ground could have been found.

Not sure how you'd do this, but maybe an earlier ascenscion of radical Islam, directed against both sides of the Cold War. Say, the Iranians go more whole hog against the Soviets, as well as the US, and somehow manage to pose an existential threat to both. Even then, you'd probably just have both superpowers trying to convince the Iranians to hate them slightly less than they hate the other guy, rather than forming a Great Power alliance.

And a nuclear-armed Maoist China, hostile to both the Soviets AND the Yanks(ie. no Nixon rapprochment), would do the trick as well.
 
Last edited:
Actually, what I wrote about China might be a little questionable. The Chinese would probably need to extend their imperial reach considerably more than they did(or indeed, have done) in OTL, in order to be viewed as a serious threat. The Soviets and the Americans each controlled a half of Europe. The Chinese were lucky to get Pol Pot installed in Pnomh Penh for a few years.
 
Interesting. Radical Islam is a clever idea, actually - I wonder if it could be accomplished via a Soviet 'takeover' of Iran. Maybe Iran gets nukes somehow and then extremists perform a coup and take over the government, now nuclear armed. MAD of course means neither the Soviets or West want to wage a war, but both recognise the new IS of Iran is more likely to actually use their nuclear detterent and so form something of a united front against them.
 
Considering that the US and the UK were willing to support the freakin' Khmer Rouge just to poke the eye of a Soviet client state(and this right at the end of the Cold War), . . .
Pitiful and pathetic, but not quite as bad as it sounds, for we supported the Khmer Rouge post-genocide. At least I hope it was post-genocide.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in Dec. '78 because Khmer Rouge military units were crossing over attacking Vietnamese villages and killing Vietnamese citizens. Vietnam had every right to defend itself, but we didn't act like Vietnam had every right to defend itself.

So, basically Vietnam and the Soviet Union was viewed as one "side" of the communist world and Cambodia and China as another side, and we picked a side and the hell with everything else.
 
Yeah, as far as I'm aware, western support for the Khmer Rouge was only in the post-ouster period. I don't think they were seriously trying to bring back Democratic Kampuchea in all its glory.

Still, the fact that the US and Company were supporting pretty much the worst example of Communism, at the same time that they were preaching about the evils of Communism, shows how deep the divide between the west and the Soviets had gotten.

And yeah, those Cambodian attacks on Vietnam are an oft-neglected prelude to the invasion. I looked into that once, and relative to population, Vietnam lost more people in those attacks than the US lost on 9/11.
 
You'll need a bit different USSR as well, I think. No Afghanistan invasion, different approach in early 1980-s Poland, maybe reforms starting earlier. Then Cold War ends in late 1980-s on more equal terms, but with equal enthusiasm on both sides... Well, I am not sure how it was taken in the West, but Soviet people were very positive on "friendship with US" thing OTL. USSR should remain strong enough for US to be genuinely interested in cooperation but not pose a serious threat. Maybe simultaneously Tiananmen turned to China return to hardcore Maoist would help.
As things stand, a harmless Russia is not very interesting to cooperate with - no more than any other non-power country. Powerful Russia almost assuredly would appear threatening and possibly be that.
 
Gerald R. Ford, Douglas Brinkley (Tulane University professor, not the reporter guy), Times Books, 2007, pages 95-96:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6...States had a moral and humanitarian "&f=false

' . . . [April 17, 1975] Kissinger cabled Ambassador Martin [South Vietnam]: " . . . The sentiment of our military, DOD and CIA colleagues was to get out fast and now." But the declassified record also shows that the commander in chief insisted that the United States had a moral and humanitarian obligation to airlift out as many South Vietnamese as possible and bring them to America. At Fords' behest, Kissinger cabled Martin on April 24. "We are amazed at the small number of Vietnamese being evacuated, considering the substantial amount of aircraft available," he wrote. "I know you feel, as we do, a heavy moral obligation to evacuate as many deserving Vietnamese as possible, and I urge you to redouble your efforts in that regard. The President expects these instructions to be carried out fully and within the time schedule he has set out. For his part, he plans to call the NSC together this afternoon to lay down the law." . . . '
So, Ford was a stand up guy.

And the part with the DOD and the CIA wanting to get out fast and now, it could be an example of how sorry U.S. foreign policy is, just like pretty much any empire. Or it could be an example of how strong groupthink is, including and perhaps especially for smart, successful people who are very quick on the uptake.

Ford and Brezhnev did meet in Vladivostok, USSR on Nov. 23-24, 1974.

POD 1: In a twist, maybe if their expectations had been more modest, realizing that each has their left and right wings. They still become the occasional pen pals.

POD 2: Summer of '75 (?) as the reports come in about Cambodia and how it looks increasingly grim, Brezhnev gets on the phone with Ford and says, 'I know exactly what you're doing. You're trying to drag the name of communism through the mud, and I am pissed!" Ford thinks about it for about a day and decides the Secretary General is more right than wrong. The U.S. and USSR agree to joint buffer troops in Cambodia, generally in different areas. Both leaders skillfully undersell this to their citizens, this is just a single example of cooperation in one emergency situation. We both have very different systems.

POD 3: And the Cambodian genocide is significantly less bad, and why the hell not!
 
You'll need a bit different USSR as well, I think. No Afghanistan invasion, different approach in early 1980-s . . .
Maybe we can roll back to the early to mid-70s. To some extent, Nixon's triangulation with China bears fruit. Plus, Brezhnev perhaps sees a military-heavy economy is not allowing for growth in the civilian economy where the average Soviet citizen feels hopeful about the future and the material trappings of the West beckon too much.

And thirdly, in OTL the Soviet Union did reach approximate nuclear parity with the United Stated sometime in the 70s. Maybe the wily Secretary General sees that approaching parity may not be such a bad time to negotiate some pretty good deals, still skillfully underplaying his hand of course.
 
Top