Why is it unlikely?
Personally, I can only see a few (somewhat forced) flashpoints for Western Europe: no GFA for the UK, Muslim immigration and culture (i.e. veiling) becoming an earlier issue in France, revitalized ETA in Spain (possible Muslim tension spillover from France?), etc. Beyond that, it seems like any drastic worsening of Western Europe's position would have to come from something terrible going down on the other side of the former Iron Curtain.
It's not such an unstable area comparing to the Eastern counterpart.
Any possibility of destabilizing the German Reunification? A hamstrung Germany would throw a LOT of wrenches into the European economy, to say nothing of its effects on the EEC/EU.
Maybe a counter coup by revanchist elements in GDR ? Otherwise maybe the 2+4 treaty fails and full reunification between GDR and FRG dies not Happen. No Maastricht treaty in 1992 which means no EU and full open borders. Maybe even a worse Neo Nazi developement in East Germany post reunification.How would that happen?
Maybe a counter coup by revanchist elements in GDR ? Otherwise maybe the 2+4 treaty fails and full reunification between GDR and FRG dies not Happen. No Maastricht treaty in 1992 which means no EU and full open borders. Maybe even a worse Neo Nazi developement in East Germany post reunification.
Maybe a counter coup by revanchist elements in GDR ? Otherwise maybe the 2+4 treaty fails and full reunification between GDR and FRG dies not Happen. No Maastricht treaty in 1992 which means no EU and full open borders. Maybe even a worse Neo Nazi developement in East Germany post reunification.
Revanchists/Neo-Nazis sounds a wee bit over the top, unless I'm missing something about the political situation in the two Germanies at the time. Something going wrong with the 2+4 Treaty seems much more likely. Maybe the signing of the treaty is delayed a year or so and the August Coup results in hardliners regaining control and trying to hold on to the GDR? In fact, last-minute Russian sabotage of reunification--that doesn't stick--might actually be the worst possible outcome. It's not just a return to status quo; it's an affirmation that the status quo is unworkable and cannot continue, but also a rejection of the alternative. Thereby blowing the whole situation wide open....
A re-ignited Northern Irish conflict could spill over. Lets say in 1991 in Londonderry there is another bloody Sunday where several civilians die. This causes a suspension and eventual collapse of discussions between the British and Irish governments. The IRA develop a tactic of bombings without warnings in the Mainland UK causing hundreds of deaths and a British crack-down in Northern Ireland.
The British security forces find a group who support the IRA within the Celtic Football Club. To stop its activities it shuts Celtic FC down. This causes the politicisation of the Scottish Catholic population especially in Glasgow. They launch their own guerrilla war for independence, which results in crack downs in Glasgow, turning more Scots against London.
This escalates with bombings across the UK killing hundreds and loyalist paramilitaries responding against the Catholic / pro-independence population. Violence between the paramilitaries and security forces plague all of Northern Ireland and Scotland.
How about a NATO ground imvasion of Yuhoslavia during Operation Allied Force?
A resurgent Russia annexing a fairly willing Belarus but fighting a bloody geurilla war in the Baltics or Ukraine?
Earlier War on Terror with attacks more common in Europe?
Failuire to achieve peace in Northern Ireland?
Wars between some of the former Warsaw Pact states?
A combination of all?
So basically a more recalcitrant fascist Spain raises hell.
About Yugoslavia, how else? IMO outside of an Albanian invasion of Kosovo I don’t see how else it could’ve gotten worse barring NATO intervention.
Could an invasion of Yugoslavia cause a knock-on effect in Greece and accelerate the rise of the Golden Dawn? If those maniacs thought they had a chance to nibble parts of Macedonia, they would. Especially if Bulgaria's economy was melting down from a more disastrous fall of the Warsaw Pact.
There had been plans of a ground invasion with tenthousands of troops. Also there had been this Pristina incident involving a later famous musican.
The NATO didn't risk it in the end. They hoped that the aiMaybe if they want North Eprius?
Why did they not invade?
It had been offen discussed but in the end NATO didn't risk it. Their strategy was to target Yugoslav/Serbian Army, infrastructure and Milosevic himself to stop the war in Kosovo.Maybe if they want North Eprius?
Why did they not invade?
The NATO didn't risk it in the end. They hoped that the ai
It had been offen discussed but in the end NATO didn't risk it. Their strategy was to target Yugoslav/Serbian Army, infrastructure and Milosevic himself to stop the war in Kosovo.