NATO Dissolved After USSR Collapses

What if NATO is dissolved in the aftermath of the end of the USSR?

After all, the alliance was created to deter Soviet aggression and the USSR no longer exists.
 

Caspian

Banned
Would a successor alliance between the former NATO countries and Russia (with former communist states) be a good possibility?
 
Without NATO the US might not intervene in Kosovo, in which case Kosovo today would be majority Serb, and still part of Serbia. The absence of NATO might have some significant effect on the earlier Serbia vs.Croatia and Bosnia conflicts as well.
 
What if NATO is dissolved in the aftermath of the end of the USSR?
Off the top of my head, it would deprive USA of mighty tool to affect European affairs and saying that USA is not interested in what's happening there is a delusion.

Would a successor alliance between the former NATO countries and Russia (with former communist states) be a good possibility?
Nope, because Russia would dominate any such alliance. Look, before EU becomes a real state (and they're not exactly at this level even today, forget about 15 years ago), USA is the only country which would be able to balance Russia in any hypothetical alliance.

Without NATO the US might not intervene in Kosovo, in which case Kosovo today would be majority Serb, and still part of Serbia.
Ethnic cleansings started AFTER bombs fell. I still remember stunned reports of CNN about refugee columns showing up at the border. Nobody was expecting it.

The absence of NATO might have some significant effect on the earlier Serbia vs.Croatia
Serbia vs. Croatia was primarily German show, as far as Western intervention is concerned. No need for NATO here.

Bosnia conflict
Likely.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Warmer relations between the West and Russia.

What remains of the West. Today, 'the West' encircles European Russia, in TTL, the West would stop where it once did, at the hem of the Iron Curtain.

An alliance against what though?

And that would not be looked on warmly anyways......

The days of alliances against things are over! At the break of this new dawn of peace between East and West let there be a new alliance, an alliance for something. An alliance for freedom, democracy, and world peace! You know, something ninetiesy and optimistic. A Russo-American Alliance for World Peace would probably fly pretty well in both Washington and Moscow.

Although in this scenario, some European states might feel a bit squeezed. Basically, my opinion of post-'91 East-West relations is that the USA has been too antagonistic towards Russia, and the EU hasn't been antagonistic enough. The entire European project depends on a weak Russia, so its in our best interests to keep the Bear down, but the USA doesn't depend on a weakened Russia, indeed, antagonising them runs the risk for them of reigniting the Cold War. Obviously I'm grateful that I live in a TL where the USA did support the EU's Drive to the East, but if I were in charge of American strategy since 1991 I wouldn't have done the same, I'd've disbanded NATO and replaced it with a new Russo-American Alliance for World Peace; I'd echo Moscow's scepticism about EU expansion and support the integration of the CIS.
 
Off the top of my head, it would deprive USA of mighty tool to affect European affairs and saying that USA is not interested in what's happening there is a delusion.

The US is interested there, but NATO is not necessary for the US to exercise its influence.

The US also has a large debt and deficit--junking NATO could be part of the "peace dividend" along with all the other military cuts that accompanied the end of the Cold War.
 
The US is interested there, but NATO is not necessary for the US to exercise its influence.
It isn't necessary but it is the mightiest tool USA wields as far as European affairs are concerned. You see, Europe isn't an IMF or WB debtor, so financial pressure is difficult. NATO gives to the USA a lot of control over European militaries (more than EU has over armies of member states) and, although any tool can be replaced, it would be pretty costly.
 
NATO gives to the USA a lot of control over European militaries (more than EU has over armies of member states) and, although any tool can be replaced, it would be pretty costly.

WTF are you talking about? Any country that resents US "control" can opt out of NATO. Given the fact that no country ever has, it's fair to say that the European members don't want to do away with the alliance and would have felt screwed had the United States "set them free". Christ, the Americans couldn't stop de Gaulle from pulling France out of the NATO military command, couldn't get the Europeans to deal with Yugoslavia on their own and are currently unable to obtain the military assistance they want in Afghanistan. Some control.

The unpleasant fact here (for you) is that of the 2 Cold War alliances one was dissolved as soon as its smaller members became democratic. But you'd rather go into conspiracy theories then deal with history.

Oh, and the EU has no control over the armies of its member states, so you're not exactly making an impressive comparisson.
 
Ethnic cleansings started AFTER bombs fell. I still remember stunned reports of CNN about refugee columns showing up at the border. Nobody was expecting it.

Lie detector went off. The first ethnic cleasings in the former Yugoslavia started in 1992-93. Long before NATO got involved, which started about 1995-96.

As for other stuff, the USA has NO control over European militaries. NATO assumes that all members will stick together. Tough challenge, but a possible one.
 
You mean none except for the small fact that all regional and higher military commands are and have always been filled by US officers?

What are you talking about? The Supreme Commander is always American, but his deputy and the Sec Gen are both European as are some of the regional commanders.
 
Lie detector went off. The first ethnic cleasings in the former Yugoslavia started in 1992-93. Long before NATO got involved, which started about 1995-96.
You should really try to read what you're responding to before starting to hurl insults around (not that I really hope you will). The paragraph you were responding to clearly talks about Kosovo (and more precisely, Kosovo in 1999), not whole Yugoslavia.
 
Top