They didn't. None of the NATO member states annexed one square foot of Russian territory. They only extended a hand to what until 1991 was the worlds last colonial Empire. Why don't you go tell the Indians how evil they were for launching an imperialist war of agression during Portugals hour of weakness in 1961?
How would you realistically prevent NATO expansion into Eastern Europe after the Cold War
- Thread starter West234
- Start date
AT0N
Kicked
Actually, during WW2 Stalin didn't mov to his bunker here (only some embassays were relocated from Moscow here), so technically only once, via KOMUCH.
See, board Russophobia doesn't extend to you personally AT0N, or to your fellow Kuibyshevites
If NATO had ceased to exist in 1991, Western/Russian relations could have been more friendly.
If NATO had ceased to exist in 1991, Poland would be a nuclear-armed country by the 2000s at the latest. I'm curious as to how friendly that country's relations with any of its neighbors would be.
Probably no Budapest Memorandum ITTL either--so Ukraine is also one, and possibly Belarus and Kazakhstan too.
I wonder whether the Balts could get under someone else's nuclear umbrella before Moscow regains its strength enough to pull some Transnistria-like antics in Latvia or Estonia.
What if the nations that now make up the Visegrád Group tried to do their own third way thing. A non-aligned Intermarium.
That's what Walesa's "NATO-Bis" proposal ultimately amounted to.
Poland tried to sell its neighbors--the Balts and Ukraine, primarily--on this idea. But they preferred to deal directly with the West than to accept Poland having a leading role in such an arrangement.
If NATO is explicitly dissolved or rules out expansion into the former Warsaw Pact, the calculus is different. After Grozny burns in 1994, I think NATO-bis by some name (never called Intermarium; no one but Poland would stand for that) will happen. Perhaps expanding to former Yugoslav nations, if Serbia's genocidal tendencies are uncontained ITTL, and Moscow openly props its old friend up.
I meant conceptually it’d be like the proposed geography of the Intermarium - maybe they could reach out to the Finns as well? Though ideologically I was wondering if there was any chance they could all share some sort of political configuration to have them band together rather than seek Western support.
I also had the idea of East Germany not uniting but I suppose the eastern nations would want that even less than Polish leadership.
I also had the idea of East Germany not uniting but I suppose the eastern nations would want that even less than Polish leadership.
Pondering the early post Cold War Baltic state situation a bit more… (and in particular thinking about the non recognition of their incorporation into the USSR by the US and their subsequent NATO membership.)
I suspect they could have gotten something from the US and perhaps other Western nations once the Cold War ended vis a vis security.
I could see the US being willing to at least entertain having basing rights in the Baltic with perhaps periodic visits by US warships and perhaps some form of air policing arrangements and maybe some token ground forces (perhaps in concert with some other western powers (maybe the UK and Canada to start ?)
I recall there was some low key discussion within Canada about keeping some form of military presence in Europe post Cold War. Deploying a modest (maybe a third of what they deployed in West Germany ?) force in the Baltics would seem within the relm of the possible for the Canadians in the 1990’s if the political will was there and the US was involved.
What countries among long established nuclear powers (Britain or France) or possible new nuclear powers (Germany or Poland or Sweden or Finland) or possible nuclear inheritors (Ukraine or Belarus) would have either the "generosity" or expansive definition of their own "national" "self-defense requirements" to expand the guarantees of their national nuclear deterrent force to cover one or more Baltic States from nuclear threats by the Russian Federation, in addition to guaranteeing the possessor's own national territory?
I suppose it depends on the perspectives of the nations involved. Hypothetically nations that feared a conflict with an alternative Russia in an alternate time line might see some value in moving the likely conflict point Eastwards and perhaps being able to apply pressure to the Russians in Kalingrad (sp ?) (perhaps in concert with Poland ?)
One can speculate endlessly I suppose about what might or might not happen in a fictional alternative time line
Keep in mind that there was a period where most of Europe was looking at the US at being the more 'aggressive' and 'worrisome' state that was being eyed with suspicion and distrust. That being the early-to-mid 2000's where the US "War on Terror" and looking to have expansionist interests in the Middle East was very much worrying to other NATO members (who felt the alliance was being abused) and a lot of the old Easter Bloc who saw Russia as the "lesser Evil".
Randy
Randy
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Fair enough but the then 1991 NATO countries would not fear them and so would not extend the invitation like they have OTL
A. 1994 North Korea initiates a very bloody Second Korean War out of starvation/desperation and ultimately kills millions *before* launching a trio of nukes against Japan. They don't work but scare the living crap out of a West that decides on a much less aggressive posture. Clinton leads the US to a true Korean Unification with China's blessing/cooperation and Russia is shocked at the potential for a nee generation of nuclear violence. START IV reduces global nuclear stockpiles to less than 5000 for the US and USSR while encouraging international cooperation against weaponized nuclear technology. Rogue nuclear statea are dealt with swiftly while Russia is brought into the Capitalist world on near-equal footing. Yelstin hands power off peacefully to a more moderate Premier while Putin languishes and flounders. By 2020 the Doomsday Clock is at eighteen minutes to midnight...and receeding.
B. Russia fractures further. Russia falls into an extreme recession triggering a multi-way civil qar resulting in half a dozen statelets ranging from the Far Eastern Alliance to the Siberian Confederation to the Empire of Moskva. There were eight but two decided to loose nuclear weapons and found themselves isolated and sanctioned so severely that they made Iran look popular and open. Europe no longer fears divided Russia but is savvy to the nuclear threat, with several statelets eventually gaining nuclear technology for themselves.
C. China invades Russia. China, sensing weakness and an opportunity to expand against a former rival, launches an all-out invasion against Russia, which finds itself begging for help from NATO lest Beijing emerge a superpower (ahead of schedule). Five years later there are a few billion dead people and a political geography that looks like China was a glass table dropped from the top of a dam onto a large boulder. No one wants war any more (even in the middle east people pause and go daaaaayum) and peace prevails for two generations.
B. Russia fractures further. Russia falls into an extreme recession triggering a multi-way civil qar resulting in half a dozen statelets ranging from the Far Eastern Alliance to the Siberian Confederation to the Empire of Moskva. There were eight but two decided to loose nuclear weapons and found themselves isolated and sanctioned so severely that they made Iran look popular and open. Europe no longer fears divided Russia but is savvy to the nuclear threat, with several statelets eventually gaining nuclear technology for themselves.
C. China invades Russia. China, sensing weakness and an opportunity to expand against a former rival, launches an all-out invasion against Russia, which finds itself begging for help from NATO lest Beijing emerge a superpower (ahead of schedule). Five years later there are a few billion dead people and a political geography that looks like China was a glass table dropped from the top of a dam onto a large boulder. No one wants war any more (even in the middle east people pause and go daaaaayum) and peace prevails for two generations.
Instead of handing over its nukes in exchange for promises of territorial integrity, Ukraine decides to use its arsenal to set up a "Second Warsaw Pact" that includes the Baltics.
In Yugoslavia, a Ukraine-led coalition intervenes quickly to peacefully resolve the independence of the balkan republics, providing stability to the region and proving no need for NATO expansion.
Over time, as Eastern Europe integrates with the EU, the Second Warsaw Pact merges with the west to form the basis of an EU security treaty that replaces NATO, coinciding with the US withdrawal from Europe to Pivot to China-Pacific while developments in Russia means Putin is not in power and Russian imperialism is not a factor to counteract American isolationism.
In Yugoslavia, a Ukraine-led coalition intervenes quickly to peacefully resolve the independence of the balkan republics, providing stability to the region and proving no need for NATO expansion.
Over time, as Eastern Europe integrates with the EU, the Second Warsaw Pact merges with the west to form the basis of an EU security treaty that replaces NATO, coinciding with the US withdrawal from Europe to Pivot to China-Pacific while developments in Russia means Putin is not in power and Russian imperialism is not a factor to counteract American isolationism.
This sounds like a mighty ambitious agenda for the new, economically free-falling, Ukrainian state of Leonid Kravchuk. Intervention in the Balkans? ….wow…that’s left-field from Ukrainian national concerns.
Did NATO invite them, or did the eastern european countries apply for membership? I think it's the latter.
It may seem like minor difference, but it's quite different. The former is asking "hey, do you want to join our club?", the latter "can I join your club?" When the latter is asked, it forces the members to take stance.