Did this actually happen?

If you choose to define central European Slavs as non-Slavic, sure, that makes sense.

It would be ideal from this perspective, then, if these Soviet successor states followed the trajectories of Poland. The problem with this idea is that Poland had incentives--an identification with western Europe, for instance, and an official rejection of the previous Communist past--that made its rapid and reasonably successful integration with the West possible. Is there any prospect of a similar renunciation of Communism and its methods in Russia? Was there?


For the most part the former soviet sphere was ignored, except in notable cases of arms control and Chernobyl and the space industry.
Basic western policy was to not interfere but not help in ways that would strengthen Russia.
I don't include the Baltics or Poland as they were never "RUSSIFIED" the Baltics didn't want to be a part of the Soviet Union and bailed every chance they got.

Moscow, Minsk, Kyiv would have to do lots of work and compromise as would the west to integrate and make things work. Even today old animosities keep the sides oceans apart. Bridging that gap would start with good will and showing the people ( not just the governments, but the people a clear open path to "better lives" ( TM (C) bullshit mumbo jumbo department )

Clearly putting down the gun and effectively aiding and helping in the transition with advisors, helping to promote and maintain rule of law, collecting revenue, slowly transitioning the economy and protecting the older workers, bailing water from the sinking ship would go an awful long way.

one does not build a relationship overnight when both parties spent 67 years as crazy rivals.

but we can see today that the approach taken OTL has not born a lot of fruit on the productive tree of mutual understanding and "democracy" ( again ( TM (C) bullshit mumbo jumbo department ) on both sides


fairly certain these states wanted to follow that path, however with the economic implosion and resulting depression were horrific for the average Russian. and whilst Putin takes credit, it was the reformers pre putin who actually made the ship right again as the economy was recovering pre Putin election and trended up through his term.

Speed up the process, Lessen the depression, lessen the pain and someone like putin might not attain office, or if he does he serves his terms and exits. Achieve constitutional rule of law, limit the ability for corruption, create transparency so the treasury and nation can not be plundered.


while the west didn't help, the Russian government did the rest of the damage to themselves struggling to understand western capitalism in a trial and error vodka induced learning curve.
 
Last edited:
There was a British General who disturbingly described NATO once. "To keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out." Paraphrase because I don't remember the exact words. As it goes though I don't see the High Lords of Europe allowing Russia to join the EU even if they fulfilled every single quota requirement for membership and was a shining example of human and political rights due to the fact they've been The Enemy ever since the Tsars got chucked out.
 
There was a British General who disturbingly described NATO once. "To keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out." Paraphrase because I don't remember the exact words. As it goes though I don't see the High Lords of Europe allowing Russia to join the EU even if they fulfilled every single quota requirement for membership and was a shining example of human and political rights due to the fact they've been The Enemy ever since the Tsars got chucked out.
they weren't exactly wanted before either.. Russia has traditionally been the other Europe.

but yeah, there was a tad of animosity after 1918

bit that's what would need to be overcome realizing that russians love their children too
 
Back in the 1990s there were appeals to the west by second tier Russian leaders for starting inclusion. A brief item by a Russian admiral published in the Naval Institute Proceedings has a air of desperation about it.

One of the arguments from these Russians was that if the west did not draw Russia in quickly revanchists would rebuild a actively hostile state.
 
Moscow, Minsk, Kyiv would have to do lots of work and compromise as would the west to integrate and make things work. Even today old animosities keep the sides oceans apart. Bridging that gap would start with good will and showing the people ( not just the governments, but the people a clear open path to "better lives" ( TM (C) bullshit mumbo jumbo department )

Clearly putting down the gun and effectively aiding and helping in the transition with advisors, helping to promote and maintain rule of law, collecting revenue, slowly transitioning the economy and protecting the older workers, bailing water from the sinking ship would go an awful long way.

This cannot happen unless the states in question want it to happen. There is absolutely no prospect of anyone in the West invading to enforce these norms, certainly not against the will of the locals.

I am reminded of the situation in Ukraine. Westerners would have wanted Ukraine to follow Poland and Romania on the route to rapid Westernization, and Ukrainians might well have wanted this. Any progress was stymied by an oligarchic structure that was stable enough to persist despite general social decay. What, exactly, should the West have done about that?

Back in the 1990s there were appeals to the west by second tier Russian leaders for starting inclusion. A brief item by a Russian admiral published in the Naval Institute Proceedings has a air of desperation about it.

One of the arguments from these Russians was that if the west did not draw Russia in quickly revanchists would rebuild a actively hostile state.

Did they want inclusion without accompanying reforms, or did they want inclusion with accompanying reforms? If there had been a clear invitation, that's one thing. If there hadn't been, just a simple desire to be part of the club without making the needed reforms, that's another.
 
I'm saying to make a concerted public effort to achieve those things, it's a tough measure to get this achieved
 
In current borders - no way.
This cannot happen unless the states in question want it to happen. There is absolutely no prospect of anyone in the West invading to enforce these norms, certainly not against the will of the locals.

I am reminded of the situation in Ukraine. Westerners would have wanted Ukraine to follow Poland and Romania on the route to rapid Westernization, and Ukrainians might well have wanted this. Any progress was stymied by an oligarchic structure that was stable enough to persist despite general social decay. What, exactly, should the West have done about that?



Did they want inclusion without accompanying reforms, or did they want inclusion with accompanying reforms? If there had been a clear invitation, that's one thing. If there hadn't been, just a simple desire to be part of the club without making the needed reforms, that's another.

There is an article by Jeffrey Sachs, who was an advisor in early post-Soviet Russia. I found it to be quite illuminating whenever the topic of integrating Russia arises.
The post-Soviet population had no idea what inclusion and reforms would mean but for a few years, 1989-1993 I'd think they were very enthusiastic to the idea and viewed West in a very positive light. After disillusionment came, the chances toward any integration disappeared (though they were successfully revived recently in Ukraine with new generation). Actually, for a certain period of relative prosperity after 2006, even Russians were hoping to be a part of the club again. Doubt that any reforms which will jeopardize their fragile prosperity would be welcome though.
 
....
Did they want inclusion without accompanying reforms, or did they want inclusion with accompanying reforms? If there had been a clear invitation, that's one thing. If there hadn't been, just a simple desire to be part of the club without making the needed reforms, that's another.

I'd have to go back and find those twenty year old articles to say for certain. This
One of the arguments from these Russians was that if the west did not draw Russia in quickly revanchists would rebuild a actively hostile state.
...from my memory implies the writers were expecting/hoping for further liberalization of Russia.
 
I'd have to go back and find those twenty year old articles to say for certain. This ...from my memory implies the writers were expecting/hoping for further liberalization of Russia.

To the extent that eastward expansion has worked, it has been because these new additions to the various Western and European communities have accepted integration on Western terms. They had to adopt political and economic systems directly from their Western models, with little-to-no adaptation allowed. This institutions have been weakened in some countries, Hungary being the most noteworthy example, but this wholesale assimilation was a minimal requirement.

Was this ever a possibility anywhere in the heart of the former Soviet Union? If it was, then, sure, Russia in NATO and even the EU might be imaginable. If not, then this scenario is not.
 
defending from whom? no one is attacking Russia.
no internal issues are another matter, and those belong to the nation with the issue.

as to another posters comment. Nato may have been the enemy but at the same time they had a deep respect for one another.
There is no reason to think that a gradual process wouldn't work. put a 10 year plan on the table. the biggest issue would be that Nato would have to change its name and mission plan as its sole reason for existence just ended. So instead of Nato we have the beginings of a European Defense Force.

If this includes Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Caucuses, you might see less corruption and more cooperation making recovery all the more speedy for these nations.

how to get it done? that's another matter all together. Politicians and Military leaders seldom see the long game and what is good for humanity vs what is good for job security.

Yeltsin isn't a drunk robbing the nation blind, some in the Russian military were interested in such an idea, squash the Mafia and control the transition better. Its not impossible, but the west needs to be highly sincere in its offer to help, Marshal Plan 2.0 would be the starter point with a lot of advisors on the ground and high level contact.

Soviet/American forces and armaments would be like a wet dream


How could the new Marshall plan in Russia and the rest of the countries of the former Soviet Union?
Where would the West find money for such a grand plan?
 
How could the new Marshall plan in Russia and the rest of the countries of the former Soviet Union?
Where would the West find money for such a grand plan?
Same place we always find it.
Investments, print it, supplies, trade agreements, material aid. Lots of ways to do things. The real trick is to make sure that the aid is used to do more than fatten oligarchs. But it's doeable . If your spending time bringing your former enemy into the fold and building a new world, maybe your not spending so much on the military.

Also I would assume others would help. West Germany is taking care of east Germany, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and England can help, the Nordic nations can help. It shouldn't be a USA only thing.
 
Top